Agenda item - BH2019/01577- 20 Rowan Close, Portslade - Full Planning

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 5no dwellings (C3) comprising 2no pairs of semi-detached three bedroom houses and 1no detached four bedroom house, including solar and water harvesting systems.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: North Portslade

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 5no dwellings

(1)          It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

              Officer Presentation

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer Liz Arnold, introduced the application and gave a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to plans, site plans, photographs elevational drawings and aerial views showing the site and its boundaries. It was explained that the main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of the development, the character and appearance of the development, impact on neighbouring amenity, the standard of accommodation proposed and highways and sustainability issues. The proposed development would result in 4 semi-detached three-bedroom houses and 1 detached four bedroom house. A condition removing permitted development rights was recommended as was any on-site parking as it was considered that intensified use of the vehicle access would cause unacceptable levels of harm due to the number of vehicular movements and associated noise disturbance in close proximity to residential gardens. It was deemed most appropriate for the site to be pedestrian access only. With that proviso approval was recommended.

              Public Speakers

(3)          Councillor Atkinson spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objections to the application. He stated that the amended scheme which sought to provide no on-site parking would result in a cramped form of development exacerbating the parking in the immediate vicinity, there would also be issues relating to access which would be detrimental to neighbouring dwellings. Councillor Atkinson considered that these issues could be addressed in part by provision of traffic lights and that consideration should be given to this.

(4)          Mr Deller, the applicant spoke in support of his application. He explained that a number of pre-application meetings had taken place with officers and parking had been removed from the scheme as a result of those discussions. Access to the site was narrow and it was considered that it would therefore be more appropriate for that to be retained as pedestrian use only. It was also important to note that the site was well served by public transport, with bus stops located very close by.

              Questions of Officers

(5)          Councillor Theobald referred to the trees on site and sought confirmation whether any of them were to be retained. Although not subject to a TPO one was a fine specimen and she hoped it could be retained. It was confirmed that whilst a number trees would need to be removed a number would be retained (these were shown) and details of the landscaping treatment proposed had also been submitted. Councillor Theobald also enquired regarding arrangements for refuse collection from the site and it was confirmed that bins would need to be brought to the bottom of the access way for collection. Councillor Theobald considered that this would be onerous but was informed that was the case in respect of a number of developments across the city.

(6)          Councillor Miller enquired whether a mechanical bollard would be provided which would prevent vehicles from using the access way and it was confirmed that there would.

(7)          Councillor Yates referred to proposed Condition 9 querying whether the provision of the proposed bollards was necessary. It was confirmed that the access way was too narrow to permit two way access and a turning head but could be moved to provide access for emergency vehicles. In answer to questions of the Chair, it was explained that if members were minded to do so, that element of Condition 9 could be removed.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)          Councillor Theobald stated that she did not support the proposed  form of development as she regarded the access arrangements as inadequate, considering that fewer dwellings should have been sought and parking provided on site; greater measures should also have been taken in order to protect the existing trees.

(9)          Councillor Littman considered that that the proposed scheme and access arrangements were acceptable in view of the size and configuration of the site.

(10)       Councillor Miller stated that whilst he considered the scheme to be acceptable overall, it would have been preferable if some on-site parking had been provided.

(11)       Councillor Yates considered the scheme to be acceptable but was not convinced of the need for bollards to be provided.

(12)       A vote was taken and the 9 Members present when the vote was taken voted by 8 to 1- planning permission be granted.

35.4       RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.

              Note: Councillor Simson was not present at the meeting during consideration of the above application.