Agenda item - BH2023/00424 - 7 Saxon Close, Saltdean - Full Planning

1.         The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee. The case officer stated that one more representation had been received, however, all the matters raised have been covered in the report.

Speakers

2.         A speech from Lisa Lintott an objecting resident was read out by the Democratic Services officer: The resident spoke on behalf of 6 properties in Saxon Close and they were concerned about the want of profit against the community need, public safety and living standards. The residents strongly object to the proposals as an overdevelopment of the plot against Local Plan policies QD1, QD2, QD3, HO4, QD27 and HO5. It is considered that the Saxon burial ground will be disturbed. The residents are in the same position as ten years ago when planning permission was applied for to develop 71 Lustrells Crescent, which was rejected by the planning committee, however, permission was granted at appeal. The property at 9 Saxon Close has been built to a poor standard and current owner has had problems and is not able to sell. It is considered that there is limited local market demand for property. The current owners of 7 Saxon Close have subdivide the plot to allow the development, leaving the house without a garden or garage. The development would reduce available parking in the cul-de-sac and increase the need for trucks to reverse out of the road. Residents are concerned about the construction works on this site at the top of the hill.

3.         Ward Councillor Fishleigh addressed the committee and requested that a site visit be made to understand the site. The property was previously a single-family home, which has been subdivided and this application is for more, which will be detrimental to the community. The proposals are an overdevelopment of the site leading to a harmful impact on the neighbouring properties.

4.         The Planning Officer noted that Members are able to make site visits without being accompanied by officers. Any profits made from the subdivision of the site are not a planning matter. The polices quoted from the 2005 Local Plan have been replaced.

5.         Julia Mitchell addressed the committee as the agent and stated that approval would be welcomed. The scale of the development was equal to the adjoining property and the building would not project beyond the existing footprint. The proposals were in keeping with the area. The proposed height of the development would be 50cm above the boundary fence line with 20 Tumulus Road. The committee were requested to approve the application.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.         6. Councillor Shanks was informed that an archaeological survey would be carried out by condition and no details of a design covenant had been received. The Planning Manager noted that covenants were not a planning issue.

7.         Councillor Theobald was informed that the species of the tree to be removed was not known. A landscaping scheme was required by condition and the Highways team considered the development acceptable. The Planning Manager confirmed that the tree did not have a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and the property was not a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO).

8.         Councillor Earthey was informed that there no concerns regarding the previous subdivision of the site.

Debate

9.         Councillor Hamilton considered that similar applications had been approved in the past and the material considerations seemed acceptable. The councillor supported the application.

10.      Councillor Shanks considered the infill a good idea as land needed to be used. The councillor supported the application.

11.      Councillor Earthey considered the population density to be above usual in the area and the proposals to be an overdevelopment of the plot.

12.      Councillor Sheard considered the report acceptable along with the density, noting that the scheme accorded with the Nationally Described Space Standards.

13.      Councillor Theobald stated they were not keen on the infill and the development would be close to the boundary. It was considered that 7 Saxon Close needed a decent garden, similar to the surrounding properties. The proposals are considered an overdevelopment of the plot. The councillor was against the application.

14.      Councillor Loughran considered the ecology and landscaping was positive. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

15.      A vote was taken, and by 6 to 2 against the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

16.      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 in the report.