Agenda item - BH2022/01606 - 25 Chailey Avenue, Rottingdean - Householder Planning Consent

C1.     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 and those of local objectors. The photographs and drawings submitted were out of date, officers had not visited the site and in fact this application differed very little from the previously refused scheme. The scheme was an overdevelopment of the site and did not take account of the proposed parking scheme and the restrictions which that would impose or its close proximity to an air quality management area. This scheme would result in overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of sunlight. It would have a huge negative impact on the quality of life of existing neighbouring residents.

3.       Mr Pocock and the other immediate neighbour spoke as neighbouring objectors, sharing the available speaking time between them. They had concerns regarding the quality of the submitted plans, which in their view reflect the height and dimensions of the proposed additional storey. This scheme was not significantly different from that previously refused. The proposed full width windows would look directly into their respective properties and would result in overlooking and overshadowing.

          Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.       Councillor Theobald asked for clarification of the differences between this scheme and the previous refusal and this was done with reference to elevational drawings and the materials and fenestration to be used.

5.       Councillor Yates sought further clarification on this matter and it was explained that the changes to height, scale, materials and design were considered to be such that the previous reasons for refusal had been overcome. Details of the proposed porch to the front of the property and the rear elevations were shown.

6.       Councillor Robins asked for clarification regarding the Controlled Parking Zone scheme referred to stating that in his view the application could not be refused on the basis of a possible future parking scheme which may or may not come to fruition. The impact of such a scheme, negative or positive could not be determined, it was an unknown. This was confirmed to be the case.

7.       Councillor Appich sought clarification regarding the height of existing front and rear elevations in the immediate vicinity. Whilst it was confirmed that these were of varying heights the proposed scheme was not higher than that of other developments nearby. Iin relation to neighbouring dwellings at no 23 and number 25. It was confirmed that these were of a similar height and appearance.

          Debate

8.       No further issues were raised in debate as points of concern or clarification by members had been responded to.

          Vote

9.       A vote was taken and the Committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.

10.      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.