Agenda item - BH2021/01394 - 1 Withyham Avenue, Saltdean, Brighton - Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2021/01394 - 1 Withyham Avenue, Saltdean, Brighton - Full Planning

Minutes:

1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application to the Committee by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. A presentation was given setting out the rationale for the officer report recommendation. Reference was also made to one additional objection which had been received which was set out on the late list. In view of amendments made to address concerns regarding design and form the scheme was considered acceptable and that there would be a public benefit in terms of a contribution towards five-year land supply.

 

2.       It was explained that the recommendations set out in the report required amendment to include reference that the S106 agreement was required to secure an affordable housing commuted sum of £159,000 and that should the S106 agreement not be successfully completed within 12 weeks  of the date of planning permission the Head of Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 10 of the report.

 

          Questions

 

3.       Councillor Theobald sought clarification of the outcomes of previous applications in respect of the site and it was explained that pre-application discussions had taken place in relation to various different designs, but that none had been submitted as formal applications. It was confirmed that no trees were to be removed and the Arboriculturist had not submitted any objections to the proposed scheme.

 

4.       Councillor Fishleigh referred to the side road which bounded the site asking whether conditions could be applied which would ensure that this would be satisfactorily maintained as it was understood that it would be used by refuse/recycling vehicles, currently it was in a poor condition and it would be preferable for it to be tarmacked and maintained It was explained that this would not be possible as the as this was unadopted highway and it fell outside the boundaries of the site.

 

5.       Councillor Theobald considered that it was unfortunate that there would be two points of access to the site, also enquiring regarding the car parking and cycle parking arrangements to the site.

 

6.       Councillor Yates enquired whether cycle parking arrangements would take the form of standard Sheffield cycle racks. When it was confirmed that they would he requested that the wording of the condition applied if permission were to be granted could be amended to ensure that reasonable adjustments could be made to provide alternative provision as/if appropriate. Councillor Yates cited wording used in relation to a recent application approved by Committee, requesting that similar wording be adopted in this instance. This was formally proposed by Councillor Yates and seconded by Councillor Shanks.

 

          Debate

 

7.       Councillor Fishleigh considered that the proposal which would result in the loss of a good family home was out of keeping with the prevailing street scene which was characterised by art deco style and white rendered buildings including Saltdean Lido itself which was close by. Councillor Fishleigh did not consider that the proposed form of development was acceptable and that it should be refused.

 

8.       Councillor Theobald was in agreement considering that the loss of this family home would change the character of the area by introducing flatted development; she did not support the scheme.

 

9.       Councillor Barnett considered that the proposed building was hideous considering that more family homes were needed rather than flats.

 

10.      Councillor Moonan expressed concern that there was a lack of outdoor space and that the scheme could have been better designed and less bulky.

 

11.      Councillor Yates whilst having some sympathy for Councillor Fishleigh’s view regarding the design and appearance of the scheme considered that overall it was acceptable and was consistent with similar designs in the vicinity which had been agreed recently.

 

12.      Councillor Janio was in agreement that the design was acceptable and responded to a housing need as did Councillor Ebel.

 

13.      Councillor Shanks was of the view that a better design solution could have been used but it was acceptable.

 

14.      Councillor Littman, the Chair, stated that it had been useful to conduct a site visit as it had enabled the site to be seen in the context of neighbouring development which did also include some flatted development. On balance he considered the scheme to be acceptable.

 

          Vote

 

15       A vote was taken and on a vote of 6 to 3 planning permission was granted, to include the additional conditions set out below to include the wording in request of cycle parking arrangements suggested by Councillor Yates:

 

26.2    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolved MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement  to secure an affordable housing commuted sum of £159,000 and to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report and to the additional condition/amended conditions set out below. Should the S106 agreement not be successfully completed within 12 weeks of the date of the  permission the Head of Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 10 of the report:

 

          Condition 19:

 

          Notwithstanding the approved plans and prior to the occupation of the development, a revised third floor plan limiting access between the terrace at the front and the rear.  No access between the front and the rear terraces are permitted.  The scheme shall be carried out and screens provided in full in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of the development and the privacy screens shall thereafter be retained at all times.

Reason:  To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining property and to comply with policies policies DM20 of the City Plan Part Two, and QD14 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

Amend condition 11:

 

          Notwithstanding the approved plans, the development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until revised cycle parking facilities have been submitted and approved in writing to include different types of cycle storage.  The facilities shall be implemented in strict accordance with the agreed details prior to occupation.  The cycle parking facilities shall thereafter be retained for use by the occupants of, and visitors to, the development at all times.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory facilities for the parking of cycles are provided and to encourage travel by means other than private motor vehicles and to comply with policy TR14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Supporting documents:

 


Bookmark this page using:

Find out more about social bookmarking

These sites allow you to store, tag and share links across the internet. You can share these links both with friends and people with similar interests. You can also access your links from any computer you happen to be using.

If you come across a page on our site that you find interesting and want to save for future reference or share it with other people, simply click on one of these links to add to your list.

All of these sites are free to use but do require you to register. Once you have registered you can begin bookmarking.

Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints