Agenda item - BH2023/01799 - Garages to the Rear of 10 Bavant Road, Brighton - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.         Jethro Carr addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that they represented ten families. The design will be impactful, contrary to Policies DM18 and DM26. The small bungalows are in an elevated position and are not well positioned adjoining the boundaries with the neighbours. The buildings will overshadow neighbours and are not subservient to them. The scheme is an overdevelopment which does harm to the local amenities. The committee were requested to defer and carry out a site visit to see the impact of the proposals. The applicant has not contacted the neighbours. The applicant is trying a twin track method alongside the appeal, trying to rush the council.

3.         Ward Councillor Pickett addressed the committee and stated they considered the development was lacking as reflected by the huge number of objections. The development should fit in with the area and not have a negative impact. The height has been reduced; however, it is still considered to be overbearing. The development is close to the boundaries of neighbours against Planning Policy DM20. The development is considered too substantial for the site. The garden areas proposed are not in keeping with the area and will have a negative impact on the occupiers, one house would be better. The committee were requested to refuse the application if the relevant policies are not met.

4.         Sarah Sheath addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the previous application had been refused by the case officer under delegated powers, as the scale of the development was considered out of keeping with an overbearing impact on neighbours. The pair of chalet style dwellings have been reduced and are subservient to existing buildings. There are limited views of the proposals, following the reduction of the eaves height. This is a built-up area where development is encouraged. The committee were asked to agree the application as there were no planning reasons to refuse the proposals.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.         Councillor Theobald was informed by the agent that the existing garages were rented out to persons who were not locals, therefore, no extra parking would be created on local roads.

6.         Councillor Nann was informed that the previous application was refused under delegated powers.

7.         Councillor Cattell was informed that the new occupiers would be able to apply for parking permits.

8.         Councillor Loughran was informed by the agent that the development was in an elevated position, and that the obscured glazed skylights allowed light into the dwellings but prevented overlooking the neighbouring properties. Obscure glazing and louvres were proposed for the first-floor windows and clear windows on the ground floor.

9.         Councillor Robinson was informed by the case officer that the gardens would be different from others in the area and access to the south elevation would be from the rear garden.

Debate

10.      Councillor Shanks considered the development a good use of the land. The councillor supported the application.

11.      Councillor Cattell stated they knew the area and noted other back land buildings were well designed, however the proposals were not. They were a poor solution to the site, a modern design would be better, and only one dwelling.

12.      Councillor Nann considered the development impacted on the amenities of neighbours.

13.      Councillor Loughran considered the site to be very constrained and the development too close to neighbours, contrary to Planning policy DM26.

Vote

14.      A vote was taken, and by 1 to 9 the committee did not approve the officer recommendation.

15.      Councillor Nann proposed, and Councillor Robinson seconded a proposal that the application be refused for the same reasons given for the previous application as well as the impact on the conservation area.

Vote

16.      The following councillors voted for the proposal to refuse the application: Allen, Cattell, Fishleigh, Hamilton, Nann, Robinson, Theobald, Winder and Loughran. Councillor Shanks voted against the refusal.

17.      RESOLVED: The committee refused the application. The Planning Manager to agree the reasons for refusal with the proposer and seconder.