Agenda item - BH2013/00139 -Land to Rear of 67-81 Princes Road, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

6no. three storey, 2no bedroom terraced houses with pitched roofs & solar panels. Provision of private and communal gardens, waste & refuse facilities & cycle store with associated on street car parking. Erection of a street level lift gate house.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: St Peter’s & North Laine

              Construction of 6no. three storey, 2no bedroom terraced houses with pitched roofs and solar panels. Provision of private and communal gardens, waste and refuse facilities and cycle store with associated on street car parking. Erection of a street level lift and gatehouse.

              Introduction by Officers

(1)          The Senior Planning Officer, Mr Puplett gave a presentation detailing the application by reference to site plans, aerial views of the site and block plans and floor plans setting out the constituent elements of the development. He referred to the additional representations and corrections set out in the “Late representations List. In total 156 letters of objection had been received. It was noted that a number of planning applications had been made in respect of the site over recent years and that the current application sought to address the previous reasons for refusal. Since consideration of the previous application the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) had been extended into the area where the site was located, and as this did not of itself resolve issues of localised parking pressures it was considered essential that a planning condition be applied to secure the development car-free.

(2)          The Senior Planning Officer also drew the Committees’ attention that since the previous application had been submitted some trees had been felled along the boundary of the site. It was recommended therefore that replacement tree planting be secured by planning condition as part of a landscaping scheme. Overall it was considered that the scheme was of an acceptable design which would not harm the character and appearance of the conservation area as it included ecological and landscape enhancements, nor would it cause demonstrable harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings. Previous concerns  relating to travel demands were considered to have been satisfactorily addressed and had been covered by an appropriately worded condition, minded to grant  approval was therefore recommended subject to completion of a Section 106 Obligation and the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

              Questions of Officers

(3)          Councillor Davey sought details regarding the trees which had been removed. The Senior Planning Officer explained that it had not been established who had removed the trees, however stringent measures would be put into place to secure protection of the remaining on-site trees during the construction process, and full details of the proposed landscaping scheme were also required to be submitted to the Council for approval.

(4)          Councillor Gilbey sought clarification of the arrangements which would be put into place in respect of the collection of refuse and recycling from the site and it was confirmed that this would have to be taken up to neighbouring street level in order for kerb side collection to take place on the appropriate collection day. Councillor Gilbey also referred to the objections which had been raised in relation to access arrangements to the site by emergency services and to the need for a sprinkler system would be required. The Senior Planning Officer explained that this was not a planning consideration but would need to be met at the Building Regulations Stage.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(5)          Councillor Davey stated that he had voted that the application be refused on previous occasions and remained of the view that the proposed development was inappropriate. He did not consider that the Inspector’s grounds for upholding the earlier refusal had been overcome in terms of addressing the traffic demands it created, nor did he consider that it represented an acceptable form of development bearing in mind its close proximity to the railway line and Waste Transfer Station, both of which gave rise to noise and odour and would provide a poor standard of amenity for any future residents, he would therefore be voting against the application.

(6)          Councillor Hyde stated that she hoped it would be possible to stipulate that some of the trees to be provided would be fruit trees and also requested that an informative be added to seek to protect birds and other wildlife on the site.

(7)          A vote was taken and of the 10 Members present when the vote was taken minded to grant planning permission was given on a vote of 8 with 1 vote against and 1 abstention.

204.6    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance set out in section 7 of the report and resolves that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 of the report and to the additional informative set out below:

              Additional Informative:

              The applicant is advised that under Part1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, disturbance of nesting birds must not occur and they must accord with the requirements of the Habitat Regulations with regard to bats, which are protected under both from disturbance, damage or destroying a bat roost.

              Note: Councillor Mac Cafferty was absent when the debate and decision making took place.