Agenda item - BH2022/01049 - 67 Saltdean Drive, Saltdean - Householder Planning Consent

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

          Speakers

2.       Councillor Fishleigh spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the scheme and those of neighbouring objectors who considered that the proposed form of development represented overdevelopment. It would generate additional traffic and noise and would have a negative impact on neighbouring residential amenity. This was a piecemeal development by someone seeking to expand their healthcare business which had grown rapidly. A number of separate applications had been lodged and Councillor Fishleigh wanted the application either to be refused or its consideration deferred in order for all of the applications to be considered together.

3.       Mr Grey, the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application and was accompanied by Ms Peazold, Operations Manager for the applicant. They explained that in their view the objector in relation to parking and waste management were factually incorrect. Records were kept by the provider in relation to management of the site and this scheme had been put forward following consultation with planning officers. The facilities provided for disabled young people would answer a local need as the local authority would have nomination rights. The design of the proposed extension was considered to be in keeping with the character of the neighbouring street scene.

          Answer to Committee Member Questions

4.       In answer to queries, the Planning Manager explained that any future that future use of the site was not a planning consideration, the Committee were being asked to determine whether they considered the proposed extensions to a dwelling were acceptable. This was a residential property for which a residential extension was being sought.

5.       In answer to questions of Councillor Shanks it was confirmed that this application needed to be considered on its individual merits.

          Debate

6.       Councillor Shanks stated that she considered the design of the proposed scheme to be acceptable. It was important for those with disabilities to live in their local communities.

7.       Councillor Yates considered the development was acceptable in planning terms and would provide for an identified local need by creating a space in which people of all abilities could live.

8.       Councillor Janio was in agreement that the proposed extensions were acceptable.

9.       Councillor Appich expressed concern that the objections received related to who lived/ would be living at the property rather than germane planning issues such as its proportions and design.

10.      Councillor Theobald stated that effectively this scheme should be in a more central location.

11.      Councillor, Littman, the Chair stated that he considered the proposed scheme was appropriate and of an acceptable design, who would reside there was not a planning consideration.

          Vote

12.      A vote was taken and on a vote of 9 to 1 the Committee agreed to grant planning permission.

13.      RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report.