Agenda item - BH2016/01931- The Hyde,95 Rowan Avenue, Hove - Full Planning

Erection of 4no four bedroom houses and access road leading to Rowan Avenue.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Hangleton & Knoll

              Erection of 4no four bedroom houses and access road leading to Rowan Avenue.

(1)          It was noted that this application was subject to a site visit prior to the meeting. Letters received in support of the scheme signed jointly by all three Local Ward Councillors had been circulated to the Members of the Committee for their information.

(2)          The Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, gave a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs detailing the proposals and showing the adjacent dwelling houses which were nearing completion. The application related to part of the area of grassed land to the rear of Nos. 17-21 Maytree Walk and to the east of the five new dwellings currently under construction to the rear of Nos. 57-81 Rowan Avenue. To the north of the application site was a two/three storey block of flats (Lions Gate), and to the east, beyond the remaining area of grassed land were the dwellings in Elm Drive; the overall character of the area was residential.

(3)          The application site was rectangular in shape and measured approximately 15 metres in width and 76 metres in length. The land was generally flat although it did have a gentle north to south slope. The application proposed the erection of four new dwellings laid out as two pairs of semi-detached dwellings, facing each other and separated by a central access road. This application was a resubmission following the recent refusal of an identical proposal (BH2016/00361). The main considerations in the determining this application related to the loss of the open space, the impact of the development upon the amenity of neighbours and the character and appearance of the area. The issue of housing supply had also been addressed.

(4)          The application site was currently part of a larger area of grassed land which had previously been playing fields belonging to a private members club which had occupied the site. As part of the agreement to develop the Lions Gate flats, this land had been leased to the Council for use as “an open space for leisure and recreation purposes with ancillary changing facilities”. An agreement had been reached subsequently between the landowners and the Council to vary the terms of the agreement so that all of this land could be used for allotments or other informal open recreational use excluding formal football pitches but including tennis courts. The land leased to the Council specifically excluded the area which had been developed for 5 houses. This site had obtained a lawful development certificate as a builders yard in 2010 and had eventually been granted planning permission for residential redevelopment in 2015.

(5)          The application would result in the loss of land which had been identified in the City Plan as being for open space use. Policy CP16 sought to prevent the loss of open space. The applicants had indicated that in their view the site had little value, would not prejudice the delivery of the allotments and therefore notwithstanding Policy CP16 should be seen as an exception to the wider objectives of retaining the open space. Pursuant to the varied legal agreement, the site had been leased to the Council for allotment or informal recreational uses and as there was no indication that the Council did not wish to use all the land for these purposes little weight could be attached to the applicant’s contentions. It was therefore considered that the development of this land for residential purposes would result in the loss of open space and was contrary to City Plan Policy CP16. The smaller curtilages of the proposed houses would mean that that the elevation to elevation distances would rely on the size of the neighbour’s amenity space rather than there being more equal distribution and separation. It was considered that this would have a knock on effect on the amenity enjoyed by existing residents and would diminish their sense of privacy and amenity, would not respect the character of the area and would harm amenity.

(6)          Whilst it was acknowledged that the development would make a positive contribution towards the city’s housing supply figures the loss of the open space and the impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents needed to be weighed against this. It was considered that in assessing the severity of these factors, the adverse impacts of the development would outweigh the provision of four houses. On that basis the application was recommended for refusal.

(7)          Reason for Refusal 2 had been amended to better accord with the report which accepted the form and density of the development:

“The proposal by virtue of its proximity to, and overlooking of, neighbours in Lions Gate and Maytree Walk, represents an unacceptable development which would cause a loss of amenity to these adjacent residents. In addition, the proximity of the proposed dwellings to the open space would prejudice the level of amenity future adjoining occupiers should reasonably expect to enjoy. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.”

              Public Speakers

(8)          Councillor Barnett spoke in support of the application in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor and on behalf of her fellow ward councillors who also supported the scheme. Councillor Barnett explained that the situation in respect of the parcel of land in question which remained as unused scrubland had dragged on for some time; they as Ward Councillors and local residents wanted it resolved. There was a demand for family homes in the city and these proposals would provide four houses which were in keeping with those nearing completion on the adjacent parcel of land.

(9)          Mr Coomber spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application. He stated that the history of the site had been complex and lengthy in terms of the legal agreements which had been varied and the laying down of the allotment spaces. This piece of land was scrub which could be built on without detriment to the neighbouring allotment space or existing development, these proposals were modest and were in keeping with the site as a whole. In the absence of concrete proposals this space would remain as under developed scrub.

              Questions of Officers

(10)       Councillor Bennett enquired regarding the parking spaces and access to the allotment area and it was confirmed that this was considered to be sufficient.

(11)       Councillor Miller sought clarification of the situation in respect of the allotments, responsibility for their maintenance and the status of any proposals in respect of the application site. The Legal Adviser to the Committee confirmed that the applicants had been required to lay out the area as allotments which were leased to the Council as a requirement of the Section 106 Agreement. This remaining area was designated as recreation space which would be retained as a buffer between the allotments and the housing development. It was understood that its use as a community orchard in conjunction with a local food partnership was under consideration.

(12)       Councillor Moonan asked for confirmation of the arrangements in respect of the responsibility for the proposed community orchard and clarification as to whether the existing legal agreements would require further variation in the event of that option being pursued. Also, what would happen to that area of land should the orchard or another recreational use not materialise. She presumed it would then remain as a piece of unkempt scrubland.

(13)       Councillor Mac Cafferty requested further clarification regarding how the situation had arisen whereby this “lozenge” of land for which no one appeared to have direct responsibility had occurred. This, notwithstanding the various legal agreements which had been entered into.

(14)       Councillor Theobald expressed surprise that it had taken so long for the allotments to be laid out, asking whether that use had been agreed following consultation with local residents and whether that constituted recreational use.

(15)       Councillors Gilbey and Hyde asked at what point the suggestion had been put forward that this “buffer” area be used as an orchard.

(16)       Councillor Hamilton queried why a greater number of allotments had not been laid out in order to use the allocated space in totality, or failing that larger plots had not been designated to the same end.

(17)       The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward advised that following consultation it had been agreed that the developer would provide 28 allotment plots . Responsibility for setting them out lay with the developer. This parcel of land remained once the plots had been delineated and remained set aside for recreational purposes. One purpose suggested for its use was as a community orchard . Arrangements for that use and responsibilities for it had yet to be determined.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(18)       Councillor Miller stated that he was somewhat perplexed by the recommendations that the application be refused. He considered that as all that it had been agreed needed to be provided (28 allotment spaces) had been, that it would be difficult to sustain grounds for refusal. Given that there was extensive screening between the site and Maytree Walk he did not agree that there would be overlooking, likewise in respect of the distances between the houses nearing completion and the proposed scheme.

(19)       Councillor Hyde agreed stating that the suggestion in relation to the orchard use seemed to be of very recent date. In the absence of worked up proposals there was a probability it would not materialise. She did not consider that overlooking would result from the proposed development which would provide a continuation of the existing development and would provide a modest number of family homes, for which there was an identified need.

(20)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he did not consider the proposals would be out of keeping or overly dominant. He did not consider that the proposed reasons for refusal were sustainable. In the absence of concrete proposals the existing scrub could remain indefinitely.

(21)       Councillor Littman concurred stating that whilst recreational use of the whole area was desirable, there was no certainty that would happen and he did consider that the proposed development could be provided without detriment to the neighbouring dwellings.

(22)       Having heard all that had been said, Councillor Morris stated that he was also of the view that the application should be granted and regrettably did not feel able to support the officer recommendation.

(23)       Councillor Moonan agreed stating that by providing housing this “difficult” lozenge of land would be put to good use without detriment to the neighbouring developments. Future community use seemed at best distant/uncertain and on that basis she supported the proposed use for housing.

(24)       Councillor Gilbey stated that she had been “torn” in terms of the recommendation to refuse but did not ultimately consider that the proposed development would result in loss of outlook and amenity.

(25)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair stated that having read the papers thoroughly and having heard all that had been said, regrettably she did not feel able to support the officer recommendation on this occasion, considering that it would be very difficult to defend the reasons for refusal at appeal and against the backdrop of a suggested orchard which might not materialise.

(26)       Note 1: A vote was taken and of the eleven members present when the vote was taken on a vote of 9 with 2 abstentions planning permission was granted for the reasons set out below.

              Note 2: Councillor Hyde proposed that planning permission be granted. Councillor Miller seconded the proposal. A recorded vote was then taken. Councillors Cattell, (the Chair) Gilbey, Hyde, Littman, Mac Cafferty, Miller, Moonan, Morris and C Theobald voted that planning permission be granted. Councillors Bennett and Hamilton abstained. Councillor Inkpin-Leissner was not present at the meeting during the debate or decision making process in respect of this application.

30.9       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendations set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 but resolves to MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a S106 Obligation to be agreed by the Planning Manager.

Reason for granting:

The proposed development is not detrimental to the amenity of neighbours and is of an acceptable density. The benefits of four additional residential units go some way to assist reaching the City’s targets for new homes. Conditions and Informatives to be approved by the Planning Manager.