Agenda item - BH2022/01281 - 22 The Cliff Brighton - Full Planning

1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee. The case officer updated the committee stating that condition 17 had been removed.

Speakers

2.       Luke Carter addressed the committee as an objector’s representative and stated that the development was considered to be over development, out of character and to have overlooking issues. Over development: the four storey would be next to two storey homes, the taller buildings in the road are not nearby. Overlooking: the development will be next to adjacent gardens, with second floors overlooking. It is considered that the planting between the two proposed dwellings is better than that to the existing neighbours, the development will be seen from far reaching views of the site and there

will be a loss of light to the side windows at 24a. It is considered that the boundary is not correct on the application. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

3.       Luke Torres, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant addressed the committee and stated that the existing dwelling was poor and awkward. The proposal is for two 5 bed dwellings with the top storey set back reflecting the change of levels to the rear. The set back is considered to lessen the impact on the street scene. The scheme has been amended following consultation with the case officer with developments stepping away from side boundaries to mitigate the impact on the neighbouring properties and privacy screens on rear terraces. The Cliff has various styles, and the Art Deco style is considered to be in keeping. Parking and Ecology standards have been met, as well as the planting to environmental bio-diversity standards. Heat pump sources are to be included in the development. The committee were requested to support the application and grant planning permission.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.       Councillor Theobald was informed by the agent that each plot would be 6 meters wide, which the councillor considered narrow.

5.       Councillor Moonan was informed by the case officer that the first floor side windows would have obscured glazing, with the second floor terraces having obscured privacy screens. The officer confirmed there was a condition covering the boundary treatments and the rear patio would be the same as the existing.

6.       Councillor Hills was informed by the case officer that all the existing boundaries were correct on the application and there was a boundary condition which would allow the boundaries to be looked at a later stage.

Debate

7.       Councillor Theobald stated they did not like the design as it appeared out of character, the development was overbearing and out of keeping with the area, dwarfing other houses. The councillor considered the development to be a ‘blot on the landscape’.

8.       Councillor Ebel liked the Art Deco design and supported the application.

9.       Councillor Moonan liked the design and considered that two homes were better than one and they were proportionate to the street, with long gardens. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

10.      A vote was taken, and by 5 to 2 the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

11.      RESOVLED: 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 in the report.