Agenda item - BH2015/02127, Rear of 15 Welesmere Road, Brighton -

Erection of detached four bedroom dwelling with associated landscaping and access.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

Erection of detached four bedroom dwelling with associated

landscaping and access.

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

(2)          The Planning Manager, Major Applications, Paul Vidler introduced the report by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. Permission was sought for the erection of a two-storey detached four-bed dwelling house on land to the rear of 15 Welesmere Road which would be accessed via a driveway between nos. 13 and 15 Welesmere Road. The building would incorporate an L-shaped footprint with a hipped roof; materials would comprise a stock brick with plain clay tiles. The proposal included new hedging to the north-west of the proposed dwelling to create formal separation with no. 15. The gradient of the land fell away steeply to the south and east and as a result the dwelling would be set into the slope with a retaining wall built up to the rear of the building. There would be an integral garage to the front elevation and a terraced area at first floor level to the south west facing side elevation. Off street parking was proposed to the front of the property with garden to the south and west of the dwelling.

(3)          The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the plot’s sub-division and the subsequent impact on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, including the adjoining South Downs National Park. The standard of accommodation and impact on neighbouring amenity and transport were also material considerations. It was considered that the proposal would not detract significantly from the appearance or character of the site, the surrounding area or the adjoining South Downs National Park or result in significant harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and was appropriate in terms of highway safety and sustainability; approval was therefore recommended.

              Questions for Officers

(4)          Councillor Barradell sought confirmation regarding the height and

pitch of the roof slope of the proposed dwelling and also the distance between it and distances from the neighbouring dwellings. It was proposed, that permitted development rights would be removed by condition for roof extensions and alterations and for fenestration within the north west elevation to protect neighbouring amenity from overlooking or visual intrusion.

(5)          Councillor Bennett requested confirmation as to whether it was proposed that any of the upper windows would be obscure glazed/fixed shut. It was confirmed that this was not considered necessary in view of the distance(s) and configuration of the site. Also, regarding measures to protect the boundary with the national park

(6)          Councillor Mac Cafferty sought clarification regarding proposed boundary treatment(s) and level of existing trees and planting to be retained and whether any of the trees were the subject of TPO’s. It was confirmed that none were. However, the separation distances and existing boundary screening would be protected by condition.

(7)          Councillor Brown requested details of the proposed boundary treatment and sought assurances that this would not be reduced. She was concerned that if the current level of planting was not retained it could impact detrimentally either on the adjoining national park or neighbouring dwellings.

(8)          Councillor C Theobald requested details of the arrangements to be put into place for refuse collection, also, the area of the site. It was explained that refuse collection would take place from the access way. It was confirmed in response that the roof would be of clay tile material.

(9)          Councillor Simson sought clarification of the distances between the proposed property and nos 45 and 47, considering that the greatest impact was likely to be on no 45. Photographs were displayed showing the relationship between the site and existing buildings and the proposed development.

(10)       Councillor Morris sought details regarding proposed access arrangements to the site and measures which would be undertaken to ensure that this did not impact on the existing adjacent property and also details about, the point at which the new access would join the existing driveway, its length and extent. It was confirmed that screening would be provided between the adjoining properties at nos 13 and 15.

(11)       Councillor Littman also enquired whether it was envisaged that safety issues could arise in consequence of the screening proposals, either for pedestrian or vehicular movements. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager, Steven Shaw explained that as the new access way would result in a limited number of pedestrian and vehicular movements it was not envisaged this would create a safety hazard.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(12)       Councillor Gilbey explained that having attended the site visit the previous day, which had been valuable as a tool in appreciating its configuration, she considered that given the steep changes in levels across the site and the separation distances involved that there would not be a detrimental impact on either the neighbouring dwellings or the setting of the national park.

(13)       Clarification was also given that although the adjoining properties located in Gorham Avenue were considerably lower than the application site it was considered that the depth of the rear gardens would prevent any harm to amenity through loss of light or outlook.

(14)       Councillor Barradell stated that having had the benefit of Councillor Gilbey’s input and having viewed photographs taken from various locations across/adjoining the site she was satisfied that the scheme was acceptable.

(15)       Councillor Littman stated that whilst he considered the design uninspiring and whilst also having some sympathy with the objections put forward he considered it was acceptable and supported the officer recommendation.

(16)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner concurred in that view.

(17)       Councillor C Theobald stated that notwithstanding that this represented a back land development, which she tended not to favour, in this instance given the distances involved and configuration of the site she considered the application was acceptable.

(18)       A vote was taken and members voted unanimously that planning permission be granted.

82.2       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 the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11. with Condition 9 to be amended as set out below:

Condition be 9 to be amended to read:

9)      Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, a scheme for landscaping shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the following:

a.  details of all hard surfacing;

b.  details of all boundary treatments;

c.  details of all existing vegetation to be retained and proposed planting, including numbers and species of plant, and details of size and planting method of any trees.

All hard landscaping and means of enclosure shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme prior to first occupation of the development and retained as such thereafter.  All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved scheme of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of the building or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenities of the area and to comply with policies QD1 and QD15 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.