University of Brighton Masters Level Assessment School of Architecture and Design Submission and Feedback FormMSc Town Planning

Student Name: Alexander Deangelis Module tutor: Frank Rallings

Course: MSc Town Planning

Module Code: AIM 28 Module Title: Planning Policy and Implementation

Assignment Number

1 Assignment Title: Assessment One

Date Submitted 08/12/2016 Semester 1

Declaration: By submitting this assignment I am declaring that it is entirely my own work

Criteria being assessed:Knowledge/understanding

Level of knowledge/understanding; evidence of independent study/originality; integration of module materials

Structure/ Conclusions

Organisation and structure of assignment; level of analysis; relevance of conclusions

Transferrable skills Development of clear, concise argument and its communicationGeneral assessment including presentation

Adherence to assessment task; standard of English; absence of grammatical and typographical errors and overall presentation. Accuracy of citation, referencing and bibliography

Grades: D+: Distinction (>80%) D: Distinction (70-80%) M: Merit (60-69%) P:Pass(50-59%) F: (<50%)

Feedback: Strengths

Suggested areas for improvement

% Grade

i

Assessor’s signature………………………………………………

ii

Table of Contents

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................5

1.1 Site visit.....................................................................................................................................5

1.2 Aims...........................................................................................................................................7

1.3 Objectives..................................................................................................................................7

2. Report..............................................................................................................................................8

2.1 The material planning issues and the quality of the planning officers report...................8

2.1.1 Issues.................................................................................................................................8

2.1.2 Report quality.....................................................................................................................9

2.2 The role and positions of the Planning Committee Chair, and Councillors....................10

2.3 The submissions of petitioners who spoke in favour or against the proposal................11

2.3.1 Speakers against............................................................................................................11

2.3.2 Speakers in favour..........................................................................................................11

2.4 The attitude of the public and press in attendance............................................................11

3. Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................12

3.1 Recommendations.................................................................................................................13

Appendices........................................................................................................................................14

Appendix A Site map....................................................................................................................14

Appendix B Planning committee report copy............................................................................15

iii

Figure 1: Glawood House..................................................................................................................5Figure 2: Glawood House car park...................................................................................................6Figure 3: Glawood House car park...................................................................................................6Figure 4: Glawood House Fire Escape............................................................................................7

iv

Planning Committee Report

1. Introduction

The application is Glawood House, Sompting Road, Worthing, West Sussex, consisting of a proposed second floor of nine additional residential units and ground-floor alterations providing one additional residential unit and managers office, (Worthing Borough Council,2016, p. 7). The applicant is Glawood Ltd, the Ward is Broadwater, the case officer is Gary Peck and the Worthing Planning Committee was at 19/10/2016.

1.1 Site visitPrior to the meeting the site was visited to analyse the locality and to understand the material planning issues.

Figure 1: Glawood House (Worthing Borough Council, 2016)

The subject property is very close to different houses on different roads and is of similar height.

5

Figure 2: Glawood House car park (Worthing Borough Council, 2016)

The car park of the subject building is very close to a number of houses, with windows overlooking the subject property.

Figure 3: Glawood House car park (Worthing Borough Council, 2016)

The subject building already has windows directly facing the houses shown in Figure 2, and is very close to more houses at the rear.

6

Figure 4: Glawood House Fire Escape (Worthing Borough Council, 2016)

This shows the proximity of the subject building to adjacent houses, including its windows and fire escape.

1.2 Aims

The aim of this report is to critically analyse the Glawood House application, including the officers report and planning committee decision. As there are a total of ten dwellings this can be classed as a small scale major application, and with the amount of local opposition can also be classed as controversial.

1.3 Objectives

The aim of this report will be achieved by meeting the following objectives:

7

Analysing the material planning issues application and the quality of the planning officers report

Analysing the role and positions of the Planning Committee Chair and Councillors Analysing the submissions of petitioners who spoke in favour or against the

proposal Analysing the attitude of the public in attendance Analysing the debate and outcome of the committee

2. Report

After attending the planning committee meeting, the roles of the different stakeholders have been observed and documented. This report will now critically assess the way in which the application was considered.

2.1 The material planning issues and the quality of the planning officers report

2.1.1 Issues

No information was provided regarding additional parking, indicating it may not be required, (Worthing Borough Council, 2016, p. 8). The building will increase in height by three meters, with the building already imposing at two storeys and visible from the surrounding properties, (Worthing Borough Council, 2016, p. 8).

To the north of the site is Kingland Road with terraced houses. Numbers 88-96 are brick and flint construction five meters away from the application site. To the west are terraced houses on Wigmore Road at thirteen meters away with the garden boundary three meters away. The houses to the south along Southfield road, are at thirty meters from the site and separated by the existing car park serving Glawood house. With the lack of information regarding increased parking capacity and the development of ten new premises, the increased traffic cannot be good for the health or privacy of the residents and could cause noise pollution.

No relevant planning history documented but consultations revealed the following issues:

Technical services: Proposed site unaffected by surface flooding but the area around the site has flooded previously, the roof will be raised and so surface water runoff will be unchanged. An objection was raised as sustainable drainage for surface water was stated as being used but no details were provided, (Worthing Borough Council, 2016, p. 9).

West Sussex county council highways: No information supplied regarding parking and access to accommodate the new dwellings, and so clarification is required to be reported at the meeting, (Worthing Borough Council, 2016, p. 9).

Twenty-three objection letters were sent from residents, with twenty-one from residents in the immediate surrounding houses, (Worthing Borough Council, 2016). The following issues were stated.

The additional storey would be above existing building heights in the area The proposal would be out of keeping with the character of the area No parking is proposed and existing parking is insufficient

8

Overlooking and loss of privacy Existing lighting at the property has an adverse impact and would be

worsened if extra lighting were needed to serve the new properties Loss of view of the sky Loss of trees

The report highlights the current local plans in Worthing and references Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), that the application may be granted unconditionally, conditionally or refused, and that local planning policies should be regarded also stated by Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, (WorthingBorough Council, 2016, p. 10).

The main issues in determining the application are: whether the application is acceptable in principle, the affect upon neighbouring properties and character, and if transport issues are addressed, (Worthing Borough Council, 2016, p. 10). The core strategy designated the area as built up but in a sustainable location, with bus stops immediately outside and Worthing and East Worthing stations 0.75 miles away, so there is no objection in principle, (WorthingBorough Council, 2016, p. 11).

Information supplied by the applicant highlights the Core Strategy as out of date, of the need for housing in Worthing, that balanced applications should not be refused with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, (Worthing Borough Council, 2016, p. 11). The officers feel the building is overbearing compared to 88-94 Kingsland road properties and as the flat roof was designed to avoid further adversity, the proposed three meters of height would be refused, (Worthing Borough Council, 2016, p. 11).

The proposed fire escape is considered as being unacceptably intrusive for the western Wigmore Road properties. The distance from the subject site to the properties on Southfield road is seventeen meters, and so a refusal would be hard to justify on the grounds these properties would be affected, (Worthing Borough Council, 2016, p. 12).

The applicant provided no details regarding impact on neighbouring properties, such as a light study, and as their application rests solely on the lack of housing the application is not balanced, (Worthing Borough Council, 2016, p. 13).

Although there is a housing need, this shouldn’t be at the expense of neighbour amenity or area character, as this development will adversely affect both, (Worthing Borough Council,2016). The recommendation was to refuse planning permission as the developments siting, design and height near neighbouring residential properties would adversely affect the properties in Kingsland Road, Wigmore Road, and the visual character of the surrounding area, (Worthing Borough Council, 2016). The officers consider refusal to be justified, particularly as at the time of writing the question of parking provision at the site has not been adequately addressed.

2.1.2 Report quality

The site plan from the report is in Appendix A. It is detailed showing the redevelopment site, providing detailed measurements regarding the proximity to the surrounding properties in each road. It made clear that the already overbearing building would have an adverse impact if increased in height.

9

The report considers the character and construction of the houses in each street, and that the development of Glawood house would be further out of character than it already is. The language is not biased and mentions ways approval could be granted, highlighting the applicants view that the local plan is out of date and there is a housing need.

2.2 The role and positions of the Planning Committee Chair, and Councillors

The chair began the meeting followed by the vice chair. Item one was discussed regarding councillors before focussing upon item four planning.

Regarding the applicants lack of parking information, a google earth image was shown, highlighting the small amount of parking and the proximity of neighbouring properties.

An accurate block plan was displayed, again showing the proximity of the surrounding properties. Elevations were shown and the two-story flat roof was mentioned as an issue but necessary to prevent overbearing height. These elevations included the development proposed by the applicant with an external staircase. The height would increase across the whole of the existing building, including those parts closest to existing residential property.

Photographs were shown from inside the existing surrounding houses looking out towards the subject building to show the views that would be lost if the development went ahead, including downstairs living room views.

An objection was made about parking, as no additional information was received regarding the need for additional parking. Stated that unless clarified, the application would be refused.

It was then put to the other councillors that, regarding the 25-degree rule concerning height in the houses along Kingland Road, the view would be ruined and the application could indeed be refused on these grounds.

The councillors discussed the issue that parking is not sufficient and it was unusual that this information was not provided. Page nine of the report was mentioned, regarding technical service experts, that the applicant may have meant they would be using the original sustainable drainage system even though the size of the property would be increasing.

Councillor Guest debated with the Chair asking is this really stated as a clear-cut refusal, to which the answer was yes. The Chair stated Worthing applications aren’t clear cut due to housing provision issues but they are not in a desperate position of having to accept anything anywhere. Councillor mentions parking as no details were submitted, which the Chair stated as important as the highway authority can't comment otherwise.

Councillor Thorpe states although family housing needed, the design is overbearing and ugly, with no information on flat size. Voted to refuse.

Councillor Westover, stated they were disappointed with the applicant who disregarded local members regarding the lack of parking, and that the application was poor. Voted to refuse.

Councillor Crouch called the proposed development a monstrosity that demonstrated the worst of the planning process and voted to refuse.

10

Councillor Murphy stated that adding people to the existing drainage system without increasing capacity would cause issues. Voted to refuse and called on others to refuse.

Councillor Atkins supported this call to refuse, citing the over bearing height and loss of light.

Chair closed by stating the development doesn't add value to the area or existing property, and isn’t in line with the core strategy.

The role and positions of the Local Planning Authority Officers and any other officers in attendance could not be commented upon as they were not in attendance.

2.3 The submissions of petitioners who spoke in favour or against the proposal

There were two petitioners who spoke out against the development and one agent who spoke on behalf of the applicant in favour. Each speaker was given three minutes to speak.

2.3.1 Speakers against

The first speaker was a resident of Wigmore Road in a house that would be affected by the development. He states the report lacked details on the loss of sunlight, loss of garden view, and the new Glawood House flats would have views into his private family home. Also, the development would add more unnatural light and the design is out of character.

Ward Councillor Baker spoke on behalf of other residents, citing an unacceptable degree of closeness that would affect day to day living and that there was already an extension to this building. Councillor Baker Again, highlighted the distance from the subject build to the residential properties was five meters at closest point, with the officers saying this is unacceptable.

2.3.2 Speakers in favour

Mark Best spoke for the development team, stating the sea and South Downs make housing complicated but parking supply isn’t an issue as residents would use public transport. Stated they were happy to work on the 25-degree angle rule and suggested deferring and changing the application to be more acceptable.

Stated they are aware of addressing parking and view issues raised in pre-application, however was criticised for still not providing details on parking and loss of light. He then disagreed with this criticism but will amend to committee’s requirement. Stated the development is balanced and meets the social aspect of providing housing in a sustainable location, adding Worthing has no easily available greenfield sites.

2.4 The attitude of the public and press in attendance

11

The atmosphere at the meeting could be described as hostile towards to the development. Personal issues were considered in the report and from speakers which, although are important, may not be material planning considerations, such as views. The language used by speakers, members of the public, and councillors was an example of this. Councillor Thorpe saying the development was “overbearing and ugly”, Councillor Crouch calling the development “a monstrosity that demonstrated the worst of the planning process”, and councillor Murphy calling on others to refuse before they voted. This type of language is certainly not present in the report itself and could certainly give people present, and other councillors, a one-sided view of the development when such strong words were not used to describe the potential benefits, such as increasing housing. No press was present at the meeting.

2.6 The debate and its outcome

Regarding highways, the report stated “any further information and responses will be reported verbally at the meeting” showing the meeting would be a useful vehicle to listen to and debate vital information, (Worthing Borough Council, 2016).

The debate was of a high quality, the councillors could express their own opinions regarding the application, the report, and the evidence provided by speakers for and against the application.

The debate highlighted sustainable development, and it was debated whether the application was balanced enough to be granted approval, weighing the argument for housing provision against neighbours’ complaints.

The outcome of the meeting was to refuse the application and so was in line with the original report. This was based upon the developer not providing further evidence that was originally lacking, highlighting views from residents providing new evidence not included in report, and proving the application was not balanced sustainable.

3. Conclusion

This report has achieved its aim of critically analysing the application at Glawood House. This was achieved by meeting the following objectives:

The material issues relating to the planning application and the quality of the report of the Planning Officer: No parking, light study, or drainage information was submitted by the applicant. Twenty-three objection letters were received from residents and the application rested solely on the need for housing so isn’t balanced.

The role and positions of the Planning Committee Chair, and Councillors: Photographs from neighbouring houses showed the loss of views. Parking information would be essential for approval as currently expert opinion couldn’t be sought. Unanimous refusal from all councillors, with strong views for refusal.

12

The submissions of petitioners who spoke in favour or against the proposal: Speakers against included a local resident and a Ward Councillor who relayed the issues of the residents who sent in complaints, concluding the application would provide housing but isn’t balanced. The development team representative was criticised for still not providing parking information.

The attitude of the public in attendance: The atmosphere felt hostile, as the negative comments from the councillors suggested bias, while also considering immaterial planning considerations such as views.

The debate and outcome of the committee: The debate did not influence the original decision to refuse from the report, although the developer had the opportunity to do so but didn’t provide enough information.

3.1 Recommendations

It should be recommended to Worthing borough council in the future to continue to look at the balance of applications, consider the three sustainability factors, and hear views from all sides

Councillors should not call on colleagues to agree with them before they vote themselves, to not influence the decision.

The developer solely argued in favour of the social aspect of housing provision, without mentioning adding value through developing. This could be achieved by adding more parking for residents and would be recommended for future applications.

Development contributions were also not mentioned, such as section 106 agreements or community infrastructure levies, which would be recommended in future to allow the development and fund extra parking or drainage as required.  

13

Appendices

Appendix A Site map

14

Appendix B Planning committee report copy

Attached overleaf.

15