Agenda item - BH2018/01441-Overdown Rise/Mile Oak Road, Portslade - Reserved Matters

Reserved Matters application pursuant to outline approval BH2017/02410 for the erection of up to 125 dwellings with associated access.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO APPROVE

Ward Affected: North Portslade

              Reserved Matters application pursuant to outline approval BH2017/02410 for the erection of up to 125 dwellings with associated access from Overdown Rise, landscaping and informal open space and approval of reserved matter for access only. Reserved matters to be determined include appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

            Officer Presentation

(1)       The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation in respect of the proposed scheme by reference to site plans and elevational drawings. Reference was also made to the information set out in the Late/Additional Representations List. It was noted that the principle of development of this urban fringe site for up to 125 dwellings, together with access from Overdown Rise, had already been established through approval of the earlier application BH2017/02410 and therefore did not form part of the consideration of this current application. Samples of materials provided were also displayed for the benefit of members.

(2)          It was noted that the proposed layout would retain prominent hedging and dense scrub along the southern and western boundaries also providing screening to/from the nearest site neighbours in Graham Avenue to the south. The alignment of the layout reflected that prevailing in the area. Some concerns had been raised by objectors, to potential loss of privacy from houses proposed along the southern site boundary. However many of the rear gardens of these existing houses were currently open to view as they could be clearly seen when using the current open space. Moreover, the layout showed the separating distance between existing and proposed houses would be little different to that prevailing in the area. There are no apparent reasons why the proposed layout should result in material nuisance or loss of amenity to existing properties and a condition removing permitted development rights was also recommended to ensure that future alterations to the dwellings did not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining and future residents. Overall, the scheme was considered to be acceptable and approval was therefore recommended.

            Public Speakers

(3)          Councillor Atkinson spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objections to the scheme. Whilst recognising that the scheme had been agreed in principle he considered that it was very important to be aware that neighbouring residents had significant concerns about the proposals and those had not gone away. The scheme was considered to be unneighbourly in the context of volume of traffic it would generate, its height, bulk and the overshadowing and overlooking which would result.

(4)          Mr McAllister spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application and explaining that they had worked closely with officers in order to seek to provide development which respected the locality and addressed concerns in respect air quality due to any additional traffic movements and any perceived potential for flooding.

(5)          Councillor Mac Cafferty sought clarification from Mr McAllister regarding consultation which had been carried out and investigations undertaken to ensure that robust measures were in place to provide sustainable development and to ensure that the appropriate contributions would be in place to support the local highway network. Also, in order to support biodiversity and landscape management and to address the concerns of Councillor Atkinson and local residents. It was explained that in addition to the measures it had been agreed would be put into place further fine-tuning would be effected in response to on-going dialogue with officers. Provision of green roofs had been identified as a means of protecting biodiversity.

(6)          Councillor Shanks enquired regarding access across the site particularly at the top end which was currently used by dog walkers. It was confirmed that those access arrangements would remain in place and that access would be retained/improved although not by means of made up pathways.

(7)          Councillor Littman asked whether solar and photovoltaic panels would be used and it was confirmed that they would.

            Questions of Officers

(8)          Councillor Theobald sought further clarification in order to address any potential flooding issues and to ensure that appropriate drainage measures were in place. Councillor Theobald also asked if children’s play facilities were to be provided and it was confirmed that there would be no formal arrangement.

(9)          Councillor Mac Cafferty sought clarification regarding the s106 arrangements to be put into place to protect the SNCI.

(10)       Officers responded that all of these issues had been addressed as part of the outline application as had issues in relation to the topography of the site and on-site archaeology.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)       Councillor Littman was pleased to note that treatment proposed for the northern end of the site had been improved.

(12)       Councillor Miller stated that he had considered the original outline scheme to be acceptable and supported the proposals submitted.

(13)       A vote was taken and Members voted unanimously that they were Minded to approve this reserved matters application.

6.3         RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves that it is MINDED TO APPROVE reserved matters subject to a Deed of Variation to the s106 agreement dated 10th October 2017 and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report.

MINOR APPLICATIONS