Agenda item - BH2016/05099 - 25 Stonery Close, Portslade - Full Planning

Erection of 1no detached two bedroom house (C3) to rear of existing house with associated car parking.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: North Portslade

Erection of 1no detached two bedroom house (C3) to rear of existing house with associated car parking.

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

Officer Presentation

2)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. He explained that there was a condition restricting the proposed dwelling to two bedrooms to secure the future residents amenity.

3)               The main considerations for the Committee to consider were: the principle of development, the design and visual impact, the standard of accommodation, and the neighbouring amenity.

Questions for Officers

4)               In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that the works to highways would be organised by the applicant rather than being subject to a contribution paid to the Highway Authority and this was the standard approach with minor developments. It was also explained to Councillor Russell-Moyle that a small car would not have a problem with the gradient of the turning point and it would not be appropriate to request for the area to be improved as it was not public highway and would not be used often.

5)               In response to Councillor Gilbey it was noted that the site plan showed the access route to the site. It was also clarified that the Housing department were placing marked bays on the access route but the area located at the front of the garages would remain clear to ensure access could be gained to the site. It was added that the mini bus at the site visit accessed the site; therefore, there would not be a problem for cars.

6)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was clarified that the emergency services would make all the necessary measures to access the buildings. It was added that sprinklers were to be installed in the dwellings.

Debate and Decision Making Process

7)               Councillor C. Theobald noted that she did not like the development and would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

8)               The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be granted was carried by 8 votes in support and 2 against.

138.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and resolves to GRANT permission for the reasons set out in the report.

Note: Councillor Bennett was not present for the consideration and vote.