Agenda item - BH2013/00848 - The Hyde, 95 Rowan Avenue, Hove- Full Planning Permission

Construction of 5no. four bedroom houses and access road off Rowan Avenue with associated works including car parking.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Construction of 5no.four bedroom houses and access road off Rowan Avenue with associated works including car parking.

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

(2)                   The Case Officer, Christopher Wright, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The proposals related to a plot of land to the rear of no.57 to  81 Rowan Avenue, and the plot was accessible from an extended roadway. Historically the land had belonged to the nearby sports and social club; this had been demolished leaving behind a former playing field and the surface car park. The properties proposed on the site would be of a traditional form with pitched roofs; the fenestration would be aluminium, coloured grey and there would be painted render walls. Each of the properties would have refuse and cycle storage at the back which could be accessed by a gate, and none of the properties would have side windows to mitigate any overlooking. There would also be tall boundary planting between the site and the rear gardens that abutted it. The majority of the site was greenfield and the applicant had offered a Code Level 5 for sustainability. It was the view of the Officers that the applicant had made a satisfactory case for residential development on the site, and the form and scale of the proposals was appropriate given the location. It was also considered that there would be no significant adverse impact on neighbouring amenity, and the impact of the transport was acceptable. The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Questions for Officers

(3)                   Councillor Davey asked for more information in relation to the boundary between the site and the existing residential properties behind, and it was explained that the application proposed additional planting on the western boundary, and there was a condition that the landscaping be submitted and approved.

(4)                   Councillor Jones asked for more information on how the developer proposed to meet Code Level 5 for sustainability, and in response it was explained that it was a policy requirement on this kind of site; the site plan also showed that the north to south orientation of all the houses allowed for effective use of photovoltaic panels.

(5)                   Councillor Hyde asked specific questions about the amount of parking on the site, and it was explained that the amount of parking set out in SPG 4 was a maximum requirement, and as what was proposed here was less than the maximum it was deemed acceptable.

(6)                   Councillor Gilbey asked more information about the access way and footway for the site. In response it was explained that the report recommended this be widened to 1.3 metres. Councillor Hyde had further queries, and it was explained that some of the carriageway was currently not in an adoptable condition, and the report addressed this matter through condition.

(7)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Carol Theobald that there would be sufficient space on the site to allow cars to enter and exit in forward gear.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)                   Councillor Hyde expressed concerns about the potential overflow of parking from the site, but went on to state that the development was appropriate; would provide family homes; there would be no overlooking and she would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

(9)                   Councillor Jones noted that the site was ‘awkward’ but he welcomed this kind of development where there was minimal impact on wildlife, and it was a good use of the land.

(10)               Councillor Carol Theobald noted that the proposal was ‘neat’ and would be an improvement on what was currently there.

(11)               A vote was taken and planning permission was unanimously granted.

18.2       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 in section 7 of the report and resolves it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the section 106 Obligation, Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 of the report.

              Note: Councillors Littman and Wakefield were not present at the meeting.