Page 454 - All files for Planning Inspectorate update

landscaping and an open space that is well-positioned at the front of the site where it is well-
overlooked by building frontages. In addition the parking is less dominant, and the elevations
have been much improved with better detailing and facing materials, and the incorporation of
integrated balconies that also address amenity concerns.

The backdrop of trees on the boundary also helps to soften the height and massing of this
comparatively dense development, and offset the hard surfacing required to serve the large
number of parking spaces necessary for this scale of development.

Nevertheless the buildings look too "block-like" and commercial, that risks giving the
development an impersonal character (although this may be partly to do with the way they
had been presented). This would be helped by more variety between the buildings, both in
terms of their massing and the introduction of softer materials such as timber cladding. It
was also felt that there needed to be more contrast between the zinc cladding and brickwork
on the blocks south of the open space.

The proximity of the existing building (referred to as the "Barn") on the eastern boundary to
the proposed block (plots 7-12) was a concern, and a section is needed to show this
relationship.

There was a discussion about how the hard surfacing / parking could be further softened,
and it would be helpful if the spine road could be defined by an avenue of trees. However it
was accepted there was little scope for more planting because of the space limitations at this
density. It was nevertheless agreed that sufficient space should be found to accommodate
planting along all the boundaries, especially at the dead ends of parking areas. The spur-
end of the spine road could also be reduced and/or finished in a different material (such as
grasscrete).

Overall Assessment

The panel support the scheme subject to changes that address the above issues.

Conservation Officer

It is considered that the visual impact of the proposal from Lewes Road will be minimal, and
as such it is not considered to have an impact on the existing edge-of-town character of the
setting of Camden Cottage. The proposal therefore meets the requirements of Local Plan
Policy DP34 and the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF.

Housing Officer

The applicant is proposing a development of 54 dwellings which gives rise to an onsite
affordable housing requirement of 30%. In accordance with our Affordable Housing SPD,
any part number is to be rounded up which equates to the provision of 17 units of affordable
housing. The applicant is of the view that the development cannot viably deliver any onsite
affordable housing or pay any contribution in lieu and has provided a Viability Appraisal
setting out his position. An independent valuer has been appointed to undertake an
assessment of the information submitted and although it would appear that the scheme as
currently presented would not enable 17 Affordable Housing units to be viably provided, a
scheme of 6 units for affordable rent and 3 units for shared ownership appears to be viable.
As a result, at this stage, on the grounds of viability we will only be requiring the 9 affordable
housing units to be provided. The viability position will however be reviewed at a later date in
the project in accordance with our Development Viability SPD when more accurate
information about costs and values will be able to be provided. This review will be