Agenda item - BH2017/00750 -Land to the Rear 2-8 Rowan Close, Portslade -Full Planning

Erection of a single storey building comprising 2no two bedroom and 1no one bedroom apartments (C3), associated landscaping and parking.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: North Portslade

              Erection of a single storey building comprising 2no two bedroom and 1 no one bedroom apartments (C3), associated landscaping and 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, Stewart Glasser, introduced the application by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. It was noted that a number of schemes had been put forward for redevelopment of the site, which had considered that residential development would be acceptable in principle on the site. However the schemes put forward had not been considered acceptable in regard to over-development of the site and design issues which in turn would have had an adverse impact upon the existing neighbours and future occupiers of the proposed building. This application followed a previously refused application and whilst the footprint of this development was larger than that covered by the previous application, given the single storey nature of the proposal it was not considered that this would result in harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties.

(3)          The windows proposed to the north and west elevations would be obscure glazed and would not therefore result in loss of privacy and a condition to secure that was recommended. The proposed boundary treatments to the patio areas were intended to be low level planting and a condition would be added to any permission granted requiring details of this in order to safeguard the privacy of occupiers of the development and of Rowan Close. Overall the proposed accommodation was considered to be of an acceptable size and approval was recommended.

            Public Speakers

(4)          Mr Peters spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors to the scheme stating that it would be located far too close to neighbouring dwellings, looking directly into the fences separating them, would completely overlook them and result in loss of privacy both for the existing properties and those occupying the proposed units. The boundaries indicated were incorrect and the resulting accommodation would be of a very poor standard. Objectors also had significant concerns regarding potential damage which could be caused during the building works based on their experience of other recent developments locally.

(5)          Councillor Atkinson spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor reiterating the concerns of local objectors. The development proposed on this very cramped site would have a serious impact on nearby residents. The site was very narrow and would impact severely on residents both in Rowan Close and Hillcourt Mews and would represent serious overdevelopment. This was having a negative impact on the mental health of residents living on either side of the site.

Questions for Officers

(6)          Councillor Littman sought clarification of the height of the dividing fence and Councillor Wealls sought confirmation of the location of the site boundaries as this appeared to be a matter of contention and also the potential impact on Hillcourt Mews.

(7)          Councillor Morris asked for confirmation of the status of the vacant adjacent plot and the distances between the various elements of the proposed scheme and neighbouring dwellings. Councillor Gilbey also sought confirmation on these matters.

(8)          Councillor Miller asked for details of the previously refused scheme in relation to that currently proposed.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)          Councillor Miller stated that notwithstanding amenity concerns, on balance he considered the scheme to be acceptable in that it made good use of the site.

(10)       Councillor Moonan considered that although finely balanced the scheme was acceptable.

(11)       Councillor Gilbey stated that she considered the application sought to cram too much onto a small site and represented overdevelopment and could not support it.

(12)       Councillor C Theobald stated that in her view the level of development proposed was inappropriate.

(13)       Councillor Littman stated that he was concerned regarding the close proximity to neighbouring properties and loss of screening, it did not appear that this could be replaced in view of the constraints of the site.

(14)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, stated the application represented an innovative use of the site. As the previous grounds for refusal had been addressed she did not consider that there were valid grounds for refusal.

(15)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 8 to 3 the 11 Members who were present when the vote was taken voted that planning permission be granted.

33.5       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendations set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.