Agenda item - BH2016/02329 - 308 Dyke Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of three bedroom residential dwelling with associated parking and landscaping to replace existing garages.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Withdean

              Erection of three bedroom residential dwelling with associated parking and landscaping to replace existing garages.

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

(2)          The Planning Manager, Major Applications, Paul Vidler gave a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, floor plans, elevational drawings and photographs detailing the proposed scheme. It was explained that the site currently comprised a row of 5 garages which were accessed via a driveway off Dyke Road between 306 & 308 Dyke Road. The proposals were also shown in the context of the boundary wall and vegetation between the application site and the neighbouring plots, visuals indicating sight lines to/from the application site were also shown. 308 Dyke Road which adjoined the site was a detached two-storey building comprising 5 flats, including accommodation located in the roof slope. One of the flats included an outside terrace area over a rear extension. Dyke Road predominately comprised large detached buildings set in substantial grounds. The main considerations in determining the application related to whether the scheme was appropriate in terms of its design and impact on the amenity of adjacent properties, highway considerations, sustainability and the standard of accommodation which would be provided. Differences between the current and previously refused scheme were shown.

(3)          It was considered that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the locality, and on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposed dwelling would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers and approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers

(4)          Councillor Taylor spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objections to the proposed scheme and those of his fellow ward councillors, Councillor A and K Norman and the neighbouring objector. Councillor Taylor stated that objectors including himself and his fellow Ward Councillors were very concerned that if built this development would be detrimental to the amenity of existing residents in Dyke Road and Maldon Road and lead to a serious sense of enclosure. The proposed property would be very close to the boundary of both existing properties and could therefore potentially overshadow the gardens of those residents. Objectors were also concerned that the design which was not in keeping with the existing street scene would be clearly visible from neighbouring properties. Councillor Russell-Moyle sought clarification from Councillor Taylor regarding the loss of amenity envisaged by objectors.

(5)          Mr Stern, the applicant spoke in support of his application. He explained that the current application had been carefully designed and simplified following consultation with the Council’s planning officers in order both to overcome the reasons for refusal of an earlier application and to respect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings.

              Questions of Officers

(6)          Councillor Morris sought clarification regarding the density of the proposed form of development.

(7)          In answer to questions, it was explained that the proposed form of development would be approximately 25% smaller than the previous scheme, would have a larger garden area and would be located further from the boundaries with neighbouring development. The potential for overlooking had been carefully considered and windows would be at differing levels from that of neighbouring properties in order to address that issue.

(8)          Councillor Mac Cafferty enquired whether the earlier approval (March 2015), had been given by the Committee and it was confirmed that it had. Councillor Littman sought confirmation that, if they so wished, the applicant could build that larger development in line with the extant permission and it was confirmed that they could.

(9)          Councillors Moonan and Russell-Moyle sought further clarification in relation to the boundary treatments to be used, also whether any additional screening was proposed. It was explained that in addition to the existing boundary walls and vegetation some additional fenced screening would be provided.

(10)       Councillor Hyde asked for confirmation of the distance between the proposed development and the boundary with the neighbouring plots at its closest point, stating that she had some concerns in relation to the distance between this back land site and 308 Dyke Road itself. In answer to further questions it was explained that this scheme had a different footprint and would be located further away than originally proposed.

(11)       Councillor C Theobald enquired regarding the level of on-site parking proposed and the available vehicle turning arrangements. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager, Steven Shaw, explained that this remained unchanged from the previously approved scheme and met the requirements of the Highway Code and did not therefore represent a traffic safety risk.

(12)       Councillor Gilbey referred to the access arrangements to the site and it was confirmed that these remained unaltered from previous applications. Councillor Janio queried whether this arrangement could be hazardous, particularly at night. It was confirmed however that it was considered to be of sufficient width and to meet safety requirements.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(13)       Councillor C Theobald stated that she considered the proposed development would be cramped and unneighbourly and also had concerns regarding access/egress arrangements.

(14)       Councillor Gilbey stated that she had not felt able to support the earlier application, but considered that the current one was better designed and was acceptable.

(15)       Councillor Littman stated that whilst the current scheme did not in his view have a significantly smaller footprint than that for which there was extant approval, it was an improvement on that and on balance he considered it to be acceptable.

(16)       Councillor Hyde stated that whilst she considered the proposed scheme acceptable she was mindful of need for a suitable render to be used, citing examples where through render had been used on other developments and had deteriorated very quickly. Councillor Hyde considered that a wet render surface would be appropriate, the applicant indicated their willingness to use that treatment. On that basis Councillor Hyde requested that an additional condition to that effect be added to any permission granted. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, explained that this would not be appropriate, but that an informative to that effect could be added if Members were minded to do so. Councillor Mac Cafferty indicated his willingness to support Councillor Hyde’s proposal and it was therefore voted on as part on the substantive recommendations.

(17)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell stated that in in her view this scheme represented innovative use of a modest space.

(18)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 11 to 1 Members voted that planning permission be granted to include the addition of an informative requesting that a wet rather than through render finish be used.

144.4    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 and to the additions and amendments set out below.

              Additional Condition 12

              No development above ground floor slab level of any part of the development hereby permitted shall take place until details of the boundary treatments have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The boundary treatments shall be implemented as agreed and thereafter retained as such.

              Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to comply with policy CP15 of the City Plan Part One.

              Amendments Attached to Conditions:

              Condition 4:

              Reason: to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to comply with policy CP15 of the City Plan Part One;

              Condition 6:

              Reason:

              To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy to comply with policy CP8 of the City Plan Part One;

              Condition 7:

              Reason:

              To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of water to comply with policy CP8 of the City Plan Part One;

              Additional Informative:

              The Local Planning Authority would prefer the use of wet render rather than a through coloured render.