Agenda item - BH2023/00839 - 9 The Ridgway, Brighton - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.         Ward Councillor Allen addressed the committee and stated that there were strong objections to the application, which is considered overdevelopment of the site. The ridgeway was a 1920s development with generous plots. The development is close to the neighbour’s boundary and includes a roofscape out of character for the area. The development will lead to an increase in traffic at this busy section of the road, which is reduced to one lane by cars parking on both sides. The development will be a burden on parking and drivers. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

3.         Councillor Fishleigh was informed by the Planning Manager that it was not possible to refuse application on the basis that the Committee found the drawings submitted with the application difficult to read.

Debate

4.         Councillor Robinson considered the proposals to be out of keeping with the area.

5.         Councillor Loughran considered the design of the proposals to be out of keeping appearing to be a chalet building divided down the middle, with small windows and a large roof.

6.         Councillor Cattell considered there were many different styles in the area with a lot of back land development. The design was not considered to be bad.

7.         Councillor Robinson was concerned about the design as the site was too small for two dwellings, and they were not in keeping with the area.

Vote

8.         A vote was taken, and by 2 to 4, and 1 abstention, the committee voted against the officer recommendation. (Councillors Shanks, Theobald and Allen took no part in the vote or decision-making process).

9.         Councillor Robinson proposed, and Councillor Loughran seconded a proposal to refuse the application on the grounds that the proposals would have a detrimental effect on streetscene by virtue of the proportions of the building and its roofscape resulting in an incongruous feature with a negative impact on the character of the area.

Vote

10.      A recorded vote was held, and the following councillors voted for the proposal to refuse the application: Nann, Robinson, Winder, Loughran. Against the refusal were councillors: Hamilton and Cattell. Councillor Fishleigh abstained. (Councillors Allen, Shanks and Theobald took no part in the vote or decision-making process).

11.      RESOVED: The application should be refused and the wording to be agreed by the Planning Manager with the proposer and seconder.