Agenda item - BH2021/03117, 10 Roedean Crescent, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.    David Wilson addressed the committee as an objector. “We don’t oppose the design or street scene, but we believe the increase in footprint and the increase in height at the rear of the property are unreasonable.

The current building follows the curve of the road and lie of the land. Previous developments on this side of the road have followed this principle whereas this one ignores this principle completely by building fully across the plot.

As the planning dept have already pointed out, land levels fall significantly from north to south (front to rear). The block plan on page 13 of your planning committee addendum indicates that the 8.5 x 15m rear terrace is above a basement. It is in fact an above ground floor construction that including the parapet rises to 4m above the level of our garden with a terrace above.

This will have an extremely negative impact on our daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy and I’m not sure how anyone could conclude to the contrary.

Planning have stated that prior to first use a privacy screen shall be installed at least 2m high across the depth of the terrace – is this 2m above the level of the parapet in the drawings or within it?

The combination of the extension, the parapet and the privacy screen takes the overall height of the construct up to between 5m and 6m above our garden.

Can I please ask you to picture your own gardens and imagine what your life would be like with a 5m wall looming over you – dark and prison like springs to mind. In fact most MoJ approved prison fencing is 5.2m high.

Turning to the drawings, item D full planning document/relevant history states that following discussions between the LPA and the agent the height of the new dwelling has been reduced by 510mm by reducing storey heights and by lowering the entire building.

The rear/south view original and revised drawings show that the roof lines has reduced but the rear ground floor levels have not been lowered noticeably. Either the statement is not true, or the drawings are incorrect.

When looking at the side/west elevation the ridge reduction looks to be around 300mm. This is irrelevant to us but demonstrates further uncertainties within the drawings.

Referring to the revised rear/south elevation a new boundary fence/wall 2.7m above ground level has been added (a new tree has also been added partially obscuring this addition). This fence is not shown on any side elevation. Please can you tell me how long this fence extends and what height it will be at the point it is level with the rear part of the ground floor. If it’s purpose, as we suspect, is to add privacy to the terrace and the garden then it would have to be in excess of 5m high at the southern end.

In light of the anomalies within the drawings, the lack of detail regarding the scale of new boundary walls and the consequences of the rear terrace and screening, we would ask you to reconsider your recommendation to grant planning permission until these issues have been resolved and planning officers have visited 12 Roedean Crescent to fully assess the impact on our wellbeing.

3.    The Chair invited the case officer to answer the speaker’s question.

4.    The case officer confirmed that the development would be approximately 5m above the neighbour’s garden with obscured glazed screens.

5.    The agent acting on behalf of the applicant addressed the committee and thanked officers for their reporting stating that they had worked with officers and the scheme included both modern and traditional elements in this area of mixed of old and new designs. The agent and applicant have listened to neighbours regarding the proposals and note that the neighbour at number 12 has planning permission for a similar scheme of similar height and mass. The proposals for number 10 are comparable to other schemes as the road rises some elevations appear higher. The neighbour on the other side has a large rear balcony, which this scheme has removed to protect the neighbour’s amenities. The client is returning to his home town. The proposals are for a modern home for a local family.

6.    Councillor Fishleigh, speaking as an objector, expressed concerns at the height of the proposed boundary wall and requested that the application be deferred, and a site visit organised to the neighbour at number 12.

7.    Councillor Moonan considered that site visit requests should have been made at the beginning of the meeting.

8.    Councillor Barnett considered the request acceptable as they had only just seen the neighbour’s photographs of the site from the neighbouring property.

9.    Councillor Childs was informed that the neighbour at number 12 was also building a replacement dwelling.

10. Councillor Yates proposed a deferral, and the Chair invited the committee to vote on a deferment.

11. A vote was taken, and the committee agreed by 6 to defer the application so that a Member site visit could take place.