Agenda item - BH2015/00195, 132 Longhill Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of 1no two bedroom detached dwelling with detached garage and 1no three bedroom detached dwelling with revised access from Wanderdown Road, Brighton with associated landscaping and works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

              Erection of 1no two bedroom detached dwelling with detached garage and 1 no three bedroom detached dwelling with revised access from Wanderdown Road, Brighton with associated landscaping and works.

(1)           The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. It was explained the application site comprised a vacant plot of land located on the south side of Wanderdown Road, which had formerly comprised a bungalow and garage however both buildings had now been demolished. The site immediately to the rear at 128 Longhill Road had recently been redeveloped with four houses (no.128, 128a, 130 & 130a) set in two rows of two. Further backland developments at 118a, 122 & 136 Longhill Road sat adjacent to the north and south of the site. Access to the site was via a driveway from Longhill Road that ran alongside 134 Longhill Road and also served the four new dwellings at 128 Longhill Road.

(2)          It was explained that the recent refusal which had been dismissed at appeal was relevant, plans, and elevational drawings highlighting the differences between the refused scheme and the current application were displayed.

(3)          The main considerations in determining the application related to the design and appearance of the proposed development and its impact on the street scene, impact on the amenities of adjacent occupiers, the standard of accommodation to be provided and sustainability and transport issues. It was considered that the proposed development was of a suitable layout, scale and design that would complement the character of the surrounding area and would have an acceptable impact on the amenities of adjacent properties, in accordance with development plan policies, approval was therefore recommended.

Public Speakers and Questions

(4)          Mr Moore spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors. He stated that this represented the seventh attempt by the applicant to obtain planning permission, 5 had been refused including being dismissed on appeal and two had been withdrawn. Objectors did not agree that the previous reasons for refusal had been overcome and remained of the view that if permitted the resulting scheme represented overdevelopment of the site, was of a density not compatible with the surrounding area and was detrimental to the neighbouring amenity and the locality. Furthermore, access arrangements to the site by emergency services should the need arise would be problematic, also, most of the access road was not in the ownership of the applicant.

(5)          Mr Walder, the applicant spoke in support of his application he explained that it was intended that it was intended that m.embers of his family would continue to occupy the properties as family homes and that they had sought to address the previous reasons for refusal and to ensure that the development was not unneighbourly.

Questions for Officers

(5)          Councillor Barradell referred to comments made by the objector in relation to access arrangements to the site. It was confirmed that this was separate legal issue and was not germane to consideration of the planning application.

(6)          Councillor Morris sought clarification as to whether the current application included provision of a bathroom/shower room, as it appeared to him that the previous, refused scheme had not included these facilities.

(7)          Councillor Miller stated that he considered that it would be beneficial to defer further consideration of the application pending a site visit. As both speakers had been given the opportunity to address the Committee the Chair put this suggestion to the Committee.

33.4       RESOLVED – That consideration of the application be deferred in order to enable a site visit to take place.

Note 1: It was noted that as the decision to conduct a site visit prior to determination of the application had been made after the objector and applicant’s agent had spoken that no further public speaking would be permitted in respect of this application.