Agenda item - BH2013/01296 - Land to Rear of 141 Stanmer Park Road, Brighton - Full Planning Permission- Erection of 1no two bedroom detached dwelling.

Erection of 1no two bedroom detached dwelling. 

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

(1)       The Area Planning Manager gave a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to site pans, block plans and an aerial view of the site. Except for a slight extension on the south-eastern side, the footprint of the dwelling now proposed was the same as the previously approved ground floor level and would accommodate the provision of two bedrooms, a living room/dining room, a kitchen and bathroom across one floor level.

(2)       The application related to land to the rear of properties on Stanmer Park Road and Stanmer Villas. The site adjoined the rear garden areas of 141 Stanmer Park Road and 109, 117, 119 and 121 Stanmer Villas. Access to the site was gained via a pathway/driveway located between 141 Stanmer Park Road and 109 Stanmer Villas formerly linked to 117 Stanmer Villas Road. This small plot of land lay behind properties in the northern section of the site and comprised a steep slope, which was located adjacent to Hollingbury Rise West, as a result of the topology of the area.

(3)       It was considered that the development would make efficient and effective use of the site and that its height, design and bulk would relate well to that of the other properties within the vicinity of the site and would not have a significant adverse effect on the amenities of neighbouring properties, approval was therefore recommended.

            Public Speakers and Questions

(4)       Ms Stephens spoke as an objector. Ms Stephens referred to the weight of local opposition to the application and to number of neighbouring residents who would be affected. In her view a number of neighbouring residents had been misinformed regarding their right of access to the right of way, details of the width of the access way were also incorrect. She explained that she had sold access to the site to the applicant in order for them to use it as storage for a boat, not as building land. Rights of way to the land were clearly set out in deeds relating to the site and were not ambiguous as had been indicated by the applicant. The loss of trees would also have a detrimental impact as they would remove screening and privacy from neighbouring dwellings.

(5)       Councillor Lepper spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the proposed scheme. She stated that this small plot of land lay behind properties in Stammer Park and Stanmer Villas. The development would have a detrimental impact and would give rise to overshadowing and loss of privacy. Councillor Lepper was also concerned that a number of trees which had a tree preservation order were to be felled, as the land was on an incline with a steep road at the back. This would have a detrimental impact on properties in Hollingbury Rise West and could also have a detrimental impact on the bank itself.

(6)       Mr Carter spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application. He stated that the application represented an improvement on the extant scheme which had been granted in 2010 and which could still be built. The scheme had been well designed and would offer a high standard of accommodation which would respect the neighbouring properties. Trees to be removed from the site were poor specimens which had been the subject of a full arboriculturist’s report.

            Questions for Officers and Debate

(7)       Councillor Phillips sought confirmation regarding the number and variety of species of trees on site and was informed that there were currently 30 Sycamore/Ash trees, 2 Beech Trees and 1 oak tree.

(8)       Councillor Shanks referred to the access/right of way issues referred to by the objector. The Legal Adviser to the Committee confirmed however that these were separate from consideration of the planning application before the Committee and were not a relevant planning consideration.

(9)       Councillor C Theobald expressed concern regarding access arrangements to the site by emergency vehicles given the configuration and steep nature of the site.

(10)     Councillor Robins referred to the steep incline of the neighbouring bank asking whether there was a danger that these works could undermine the bank which had been referred to.

(11)     Councillor Hyde that she considered that the site was an awkward one and that it would be beneficial to carry out a site visit prior to determining the application. A vote was taken and Members concurred in that view.

(12)     Members concurred with Councillor Hyde’s suggestion that it would be beneficial to carry out a site visit prior to determining the application and consideration of the application was therefore deferred.

(13)     The Chair confirmed for the record that as the decision to carry out a site visit had been taken after each of the public speakers had the opportunity to speak that there would be no further public speaking in respect of this application.

43.6    RESOLVED - That determination of the above application be deferred pending a site visit.