Agenda item - BH2021/04379 - Sussex County Cricket Ground, Eaton Road, Hove - Removal or Variation of Condition

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

Speakers

2.       Ward Councillor Allcock addressed the committee: I am objecting to this application on behalf of a significant number of residents in my ward who are going to be adversely impacted by it. The developers have previously ensured that they were aware of the concerns of the residents affected by their development. They demonstrated an extremely thorough and positive approach to consultation with the immediate community prior to their major application and this paid dividends in enabling the substantial high-rise development of luxury apartments plans to progress relatively smoothly. So, I am very surprised to see this variation coming forward.Loss of privacy to neighbours close to the new development was mitigated in the original planning application due to the inclusion of opaque glass on the balconies, as a concession to help secure planning permission.The implication of the provision of drawings for each floor is that only the apartments on the same level will be impacted, however removal of privacy screens will result in occupiers of the Tate development being able to see directly down into the lower flats (bedrooms and lounges) in surrounding residencies. As one neighbour who is objecting stated in their comments: ‘The right to privacy works both ways. I have no desire to see other people on their balconies, nor would I assume that future Tate residents would wish to have a clear unobstructed line of sight to their balconies and into their lounges and bedrooms either’.The distances quoted in the application are misleading as they are taken to the nearest bedroom window and would be closer if they were taken to the nearest balcony.It is also subjective to state that trees on the western border of the Tate property will provide suitable screening. These trees have been significantly pruned and provide less cover. The trees will require time to regrow and leaf cover obviously varies according to the time of year. If granted, this variation will significantly reduce privacy and amenity to those neighbours in the existing homes who will be overlooked as well as for those in the new the new development.These efforts to gain a possible better view for the future owners of the Tate apartments (presumably in return for increasing market value for the new development) would be to the direct detriment of the privacy of residents in the existing surrounding buildings and for those the future occupiers of the Tate apartments, So, for these reasons I would respectfully ask the committee to not grant the application to vary condition 43.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

3.       Councillor Theobald was informed that there was 26 metres between the blocks of flats.

4.       Councillor Shanks was informed that the application to remove the condition was submitted as there were concerns relating to the amount of light into the primary living space of each unit.

5.       Councillor Littman was informed the applicant has looked at the details of the scheme and then considered submitting the application to remove the condition.

6.       Councillor Yates was informed that the distance between buildings was approximately the same as a two lane highway. It was noted that there were no daylight studies accompanying the application. The closest trees to the development would be 13-15 metres away and would not be likely to shade the development.

7.       Councillor Moonan was informed that the condition in the original planning permission may have related to negotiations during the pre-application stage.

8.       Ward Councillor Allcock noted it was in the original discussions that the condition was placed on the development following talks with Members.

9.       Councillor Ebel was informed that the application should be judged on its merits and the officer found it acceptable.

10.      Councillor Littman was informed that the closest separation would be 19.4 metres where a higher balustrade was positioned.

Debate

11.      Councillor Fishleigh stated they were against the application on the grounds of loss of privacy and overlooking.

12.      Councillor Yates stated they could not support the application and did not consider the conditions needed changing with no evidence to do so.

13.      Councillor Theobald noted the application was for 6 flats only and considered the screens on balconies are no more that 4ft high and therefore acceptable. The councillor was against the application.

14.      Councillor Littman considered that the condition may have been discussed at the original time and they were worried if it was reasonable to go contrary to the officer’s recommendation to grant.

Vote

15.      A vote was taken, and by 2 to 6 the committee did not agree with the officer’s recommendation.

16.      Councillor Fishleigh proposed a refusal on the grounds of overlooking and loss of privacy. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Yates.

Vote

17.      A recorded vote was taken, and the following Members voted for the proposal to refuse the application: Fishleigh, Moonan, Shanks, Theobald, Yates, Littman. Councillor Meadows against the proposal. Councillor Ebel abstained from the vote.

18.      RESOLVED: That the application be refused for reasons of overlooking and loss of privacy.