Agenda item - BH2018/02558 -106, 108 & 110 Downs Valley Road, Woodingdean, Brighton- Full Planning

Construction of four detached family houses (C3) together with associated parking, cycle parking and landscaping

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Woodingdean

              Construction of four detached family houses (C3) together with associated parking, cycle parking and landscaping.

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

              Officer Presentation

(2)          The Planning Officer, Laura Hamlyn, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to site plans, floor plans, elevational drawings in relation to the proposed scheme. It was noted that the main considerations which were material to this application were the principle of development of the site, the impact of the proposed dwellings on the character and appearance of the street, the impact on the amenities of adjacent occupiers, the standard of accommodation to be provided and sustainability and traffic issues. This application was a resubmission of previously refused application BH2018/00336 and had been amended in order to seek to overcome the previous reasons for refusal. Additional information not contained in the Late/Additional representations List had been provided by the Transport Team stating that having revisited the scheme, they were of the view that the proposed access way would be too narrow and wished to raise objections on those grounds. In order for vehicles to have safe access/egress to/from the site there needed to be a sufficient turning space; this was not possible with the scheme as designed.

(3)          It was noted that the proposed dwellings would be sited in residential gardens to the rear of three existing bungalows. The proposed dwellings excluding the access road would be uncharacteristically small and whilst this scheme had been amended to increase the gaps between the proposed dwellings this had been at the expense of the gaps to the neighbouring boundaries. Whilst this and other amendments had been made to this scheme it not was considered that they had adequately addressed the previous reasons for refusal. The current proposal, by reason of the limited plot size, the width, height, form, detailing, and proximity of the houses, would represent a cramped form of development representative of overdevelopment of the site. The proposed access would result in a much greater level of activity, including vehicle activity, with resultant comings and goings adjacent to nos. 108 and 110 Downs Valley Road. It is considered that this represented significant harm for occupiers of these properties in terms of noise and disturbance. The proposed development, by reason of its height, and positioning of windows, would enable harmful overlooking of the rear gardens to 106, 108 and 110 Downs Valley Road. It was considered that this represented significant harm for occupiers of these properties and whilst the proposed development would provide an additional 4 dwellings with a good standard of accommodation, it was not considered that this would outweigh the identified harms and refusal was therefore recommended.

            Public Speakers

(4)          Mr Burgess attended on behalf of the applicants and spoke in support of their application. He explained that it was very distressing to be notified at this late stage that there were objections in relation the proposed access arrangements when the applicants had been advised previously that these were considered to be acceptable. The existing plot on which new dwelling was to be built was substantial and could support the form of development proposed. The information provided by the officer was contested as the applicants were not aware that the officer had had access to the site in order to verify the information set out in their report. The applicants also contended that the proposed scheme would not generate any increase in noise levels.

              Questions of Officers

(5)          Councillor Hyde enquired regarding the level overlooking of neighbouring properties which would occur as a result of the proposed scheme. Having attended the site visit the previous day it had appeared that the site was well screened.

(6)          Councillor Miller sought clarification regarding which windows facing out from the site would provide secondary lighting and asked for clarification in respect of additional noise generated in close proximity to neighbouring dwellings considering that this would not be significantly different to that experienced currently.

(7)          Councillor Wealls sought details regarding the window treatment proposed and it was explained that sliding windows would be provided behind a hit and miss brickwork frontage.

(8)          Councillor O’Quinn, having attended the site visit referred to the existing annex which could be viewed when entering the site asking for clarification regarding the relationship between that and the proposed development.

(9)          Councillor Hyde requested to see a photograph of the plot as having visited the site she considered that it was larger than she had anticipated. It was explained that the available photograph was not helpful in that it did not show all of the buildings on site clearly nor the shrubs and planting which bounded it.

(10)       Councillor Miller sought clarification regarding the width of the access way when taking account of the need for vehicular movements and vehicular and pedestrian access. It was explained that the width of 4.7m referred to in the report did not take account of the overhang of the eaves of building nor the gaps between buildings. Councillor Miller asked whether in real terms that equated to a distance of 2.5 metres which would be tight. The applicant’ architect queried that stating he was of the view that would be at least 3m.

(11)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell, asked for clarification of the length of the access way and also arrangements for collection of refuse. Councillor Cattell seeking to ascertain what these arrangements would be, as, if it was not possible for vehicles to access the site arrangements would need to be made for it conveyed the length of the access way in order for and alternative collection point to be used. The issue of access for emergency vehicles was also raised.

(12)       In an attempt to clarify these matters the site was located on google earth, but neither that imagine nor the width of the access way to the proposed new dwelling were able to be determined as the available figures seemed to be at variance with each other.

(13)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell, stated that there appeared to be confusion/lack of clarity in relation to key elements of the site and on that basis she did not consider that members had sufficient information to determine the application and she proposed therefore that consideration be given to deferring it in order to receive clear photographs of the site, showing existing boundary treatments, precise details in respect of the access way, its width, length and access and egress arrangements and size of any turning space which could be provided. Also refuse storage and collection arrangements and arrangements for access to the site by emergency vehicles should such need arise.

(14)       A vote was taken on the proposal that further consideration and determination of the application be deferred pending clarification of information requested and on a vote of 8 to 3 it was agreed that consideration of the application be deferred.

89.2       RESOLVED – That consideration of the above application be deferred pending clarification on the matters referred to above.