Agenda item - BH2014/02018-31 Ainsworth Avenue, Brighton-Full Planning

Erection of 1no detached two bedroom dwelling with formation of access from Dower Close.

Ward: Rottingdean Coastal

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Erection of 1no detached two bedroom dwelling with formation of access from Dower Close.

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

(2)          The Senior Planning Officer (Jonathan Puplett) gave a presentation detailing the constituent elements if the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs showing the site. It was noted that the application related to the rear garden area of a property which contained a detached bungalow which fronted onto Ainsworth Avenue. The rear boundary of the site faced onto Dower Close. Planning permission was being sought to divide the application site into two separate residential plots, and to erect a two storey dwelling in the rear-most plot. The existing dwelling would retain a plot of reduced size.

(3)          The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the proposed development in the proposed location, the standard of accommodation which the proposed dwelling would provide, accessibility, the impact on neighbouring amenity, transport/highways, sustainability and landscaping/nature conservation.

              Public Speakers

(4)          Mr Cook and Mrs Anns spoke on behalf of neighbouring residents setting out their objections to the proposed scheme. Mr Cook stated that neighbouring residents had particular concerns in respect of additional traffic, noise and potential obstruction of the highway which could occur during the construction period and in the longer term the additional on-street parking which could arise from the development. Objectors’ major concerns however related to the impact that the development would have on the existing hedgerows and trees on site. It was considered that the proposed works were likely to be detrimental to the existing planting, which if removed would have a very negative impact as the new dwelling house would be clearly visible from neighbouring properties.

(5)          Mr Smith, the applicant, spoke in support of his application explaining that following concerns expressed in respect of an earlier application he had worked hard to address those concerns and to bring forward a scheme which provided the accommodation needed whilst respecting the amenity of neighbouring residents. The property would not overlook its neighbours as it would be set down into the site. Measures would be put into place to ensure that the Sycamore tree to the verge behind the site which could be threatened by the works was fully protected. There were no plans to remove any of the remaining hedging which would provide screening for both properties on site. Measures would be undertaken to ensure that any disruption resulting from the building works would be minimised.

Questions of Officers

(6)          Councillor Jones enquired whether the existing hedges were privet, also their positioning and depth of the surrounding soil. Depending on the depth of their root system, they would be more or less likely to be compromised by the construction works, it could take some time for replacement planting to establish itself.

(7)          Councillor Hyde sought clarification whether the existing dwelling was visible from any of the neighbouring properties, it was confirmed that it was not. Mr Smith, the applicant, confirmed that he had no intention of removing the existing boundary planting as this which protected the privacy and amenity of the existing dwelling and would have the same benefit for the proposed new dwelling.

(8)          Councillor K Norman also enquired regarding the degree of protection envisaged and the form that any contingency measures would take. He concurred with Councillors Jones and Hyde that measures to protect the on-site planting were critical as if they were compromised overlooking and loss of amenity would undoubtedly occur to the detriment both of the buildings on site and the neighbouring residential properties. The depth of topsoil over the underlying chalk could also be factor.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)          The Senior Planning Officer (Jonathan Puplett) confirmed that access arrangements to the site had been considered by the Transport Team and were considered to be acceptable. Although the development would be visible from neighbouring dwellings and gardens it would be set down within the site. The first floor element which would be the most prominent, was set at the corner of the site to give spacing from the dwellings and gardens of Ainsworth Avenue and it  was considered that in consequence the would not be overbearing or overly prominent in its appearance. Conditions were also required to ensure protection of the existing levels of planting on site, these also included a requirement to enhance the nature conservation interest of the site.

(10)       In answer to further questions by Councillor K Norman it was confirmed that whilst the planting on site could not be protected in perpetuity, the conditions proposed would ensure that this was protected over during the building works and over the initial period following its completion. Councillor Norman re-iterated that he considered the protection of the hedges bounding the site to be of  critical importance as they would  also protect local wildlife. Hawk moths tended to live and breed in privet hedges, a species which was becoming increasingly rare.

(11)       In answer to questions regarding delivery of materials to and removal of waste from the site whilst it was acknowledged there could be some disruption during the construction period, it was noted that should difficulties occur in terms of noise or other nuisance there was recourse to action under the Environmental Health regime. During the course of the site visit building materials had been observed which were not associated with the proposed scheme.

(12)       Councillor Bowden indicated that he considered the proposed scheme was acceptable.

(13)       Councillors Cox and Robins concurred stating that the applicant had it clear that measures would be taken to protect neighbouring amenity and to avoid and detriment to neighbouring amenity and they therefore considered the proposed form of development to be acceptable.

(14)       Councillor Carden referred to developments in Mile Oak where hedges had been retained. Should this be the case he did not envisage that any problems would arise from the scheme.

(15)       Councillor Jones was pleased to note that detailed consideration appeared to have been given to the arrangements needed to support the planting on-site and to ensure that it continued to provide adequate screening and to protect wildlife associated with it.

(16)       The Chair, Councillor Mac Cafferty, stated that whilst noting objectors concerns regarding potential detriment arising from the development he was re-assured by the conditions which were proposed to seek to ensure that this did not occur.

(17)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 11 with 1 abstention planning permission was granted in the terms set out below.

91.2       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 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to receipt of satisfactory side elevation drawings and to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in section 11 of the report.

              Note: Councillor Hyde abstained from voting in respect of the above application.