Agenda item - BH2018/01336,Land at Rear of 1-45 Wanderdown Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of 3no residential dwellings comprising of 2no four bedroom dwellings and 1no three bedroom dwelling incorporating parking, landscaping and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

              Erection of 3no residential dwellings comprising of 2no four bedroom dwellings and 1no three bedroom dwelling incorporating parking, landscaping and associated works.

(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 Glassar, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings detailing the scheme. It was explained that the application related to an area of land referred to as ‘Long Hill’, between Wanderdown Road to the west and The Vale to the east. To the north of the site was Ovingdean Road with the land beyond forming part of the South Downs National Park. To the west of the site was the Ovingdean conservation Area. In distant views from the west, north and east the site appeared as an undeveloped ridge and a break between the houses to either side of the hill. Adjacent to the site to the east were two detached dwellings; ‘Monterey’ and ‘Badgers Walk’. Badgers Walk had an access to the rear of its garden through to the site and two stable buildings were situated in this area along with a manege (an enclosed area in which horses and riders are trained), set on raised land. Whilst the manege did not have planning permission it may have been in situ for more than four years. The site was designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and there were live badger setts within the site; there were also two Tree Preservation Orders on the site; one dating from 1990 covered a number of individual trees on the site. A Woodland TPO had also been adopted in April 2015 following site clearances which were carried out at the end of 2014.

(3)        It was noted that the main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the development, landscape impacts, ecology, transport and highway safety, neighbouring amenity, standard of accommodation, potential risk of flooding and sustainability. It was also noted that objections received from neighbouring occupiers had raised concerns regarding the capacity of local infrastructure in the form of roads, sewers, schools, doctors and dentists. Neighbouring occupiers considered that any additional dwellings in the area would worsen the existing situation as the existing infrastructure was perceived to be already overstretched. The potential additional burden of three dwellings and households in this regard was not however considered to be of a magnitude which would warrant refusal of planning permission. It was considered that the local infrastructure did have the potential to accommodate a development of this scale without significant harm being caused and the same was considered to be the case in respect of concerns raised in regard to worsening existing air quality.

(4)       It had been concluded that the proposed development would provide three dwellings suitable for family occupation. The grounds for the dismissal of an appeal which had been lodged in respect of the previous planning application had related to landscape/visual impact and it is considered that these concerns had been overcome. The residential development of a greenfield site would cause harm to ecology/biodiversity however the County Ecologist, having regard to the comments of the appeal Inspector, considered that the harm which would be caused could be appropriately mitigated and conditions were recommended in that regard. The proposed vehicular access was also considered acceptable; the Transport Officer considered that an increased highway safety risk would not result as did the appeal Inspector previously. All other matters were considered acceptable subject to securing a contribution towards sustainable transport infrastructure and approval was therefore recommended.

            Public Speakers

(5)          Mr Smith spoke on behalf of the Ovingdean Residents and Preservation Society and neighbouring objectors. He stated that in their view notwithstanding reference which had been made to the decision of the Planning Inspectorate the previous reasons for refusal had not been overcome, not least because the location of the on-site dwellings would completely cut across and destroy the existing wildlife corridor. The mitigation measures proposed were considered insufficient to counter the harm which would be caused which would be irreversible. The existing TPO’s would also be compromised.

(6)          Councillor Mears spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the proposed scheme. She stated that although the number of dwellings proposed had been reduced she remained of the view that this would still result in over-development of the site, would be visible from the National Park which would be unacceptable, would also be detrimental to the setting of Ovingdean Village and Longhill Ridge and would have a damaging impact on the ecology and biodiversity of the site. Three large luxury houses would be provided which would do nothing to address the city’s need for affordable housing supply. Although a number of trees on site were protected by a TPO it appeared that this would be compromised as it appeared that it was intended to clear the site of trees and vegetation.

(7)          Mr Barker spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of the proposed scheme. He explained that in the light of the Planning Inspector’s decision the applicant had looked at the site afresh and had sought to address the points which had been made. The dwellings would be set into the site so that they would be inconspicuous within and would respect the semi-rural location of the site. The units would read as single storey across the site from east to west, thus being of an appropriate scale and massing; suitable landscaping was proposed which would respect and enhance that setting and would respect the ecology and bio-diversity of the site.

            Questions of Officers

(8)          Councillor Miller sought confirmation that if the scheme was approved signage could be provided which would encourage vehicles approaching the site from the brow of the hill of the need to slow down. Councillor Miller was also concerned that protection of badgers and other species was protected by suitably robust conditions and that the setting of the National Park and its boundaries was respected. Councillor Miller referenced the comments received from the County Ecologist in relation to the amended scheme which had stated that in the light of the appeal Inspector’s comments; that harm caused by the scheme would need to be appropriately mitigated by badger protection measures, a lighting strategy, an ecology design strategy and a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, seeking confirmation that all of these matters would be covered.

(9)          It was confirmed that signage could be provided and that a thorough road safety audit of the site had been carried out. The comments received from the County Ecologist had been picked up by Conditions 25 and 27.

(10)       Councillor Miller referred specifically to the badger setts which had been observed on site and regarding measures which would be put into place to protect them and in relation to Members ability to have input into the landscaping treatments provided.

(11)       Councillor Mac Cafferty requested details of the arrangements to be put into place to ensure that light spillage and pollution into the SNCI would not occur. Also, in relation to detail relative to landscaping measures which needed to ensure that the SNCI was respected. It was explained all statutory requirements in relation to the SNCI would need to be met. Feedback received from the Sussex Wildlife Trust would also need to be heeded.

(12)       Councillor Hyde stated that at the site visit the previous afternoon evidence of badger activity had been clearly visible in the form of well-worn and clearly established tracks and paths. Details as to how they would be accommodated were important.

(13)       Councillor C Theobald sought details regarding whereabouts on the site the badger setts would be re-located to and in relation to which trees/ foliage was to be retained which if any was to be removed and whereabouts on the site this was located. It was confirmed that the existing woodland area would be retained and that the houses which would replace the manege would be set back from and screened by it. The requirements of DEFRA and Natural England would need to be met and complied and that the applicant would need to satisfy them that was so.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(14)       Councillor Hyde stated that she was gravely concerned about the impact on animals, including badgers, bats and reptiles living on the site and was mindful and agreed with the concerns put forward by Sussex Wildlife Trust and did not consider that ecological concerns had been taken sufficient account of, nor the close proximity to the national park. In her view the mitigation proposed was insufficient and a gain of 3 houses was insufficient to overcome the detriment and harm which would result. She could not support this application.

(15)       Councillor Littman concurred with all that had been said stating that the comments of the Planning Inspectorate sought strong mitigation to address and prevent irreparable harm and he did not agree that had been evidenced.

(16)       Councillor Miller stated that whilst noting the information provided relating to mitigation he was struggling to assess what impact there would be and whether what was proposed was sufficiently robust.

(17)       Councillor C Theobald acknowledged that this scheme represented an improvement on that previously refused and welcomed the reduction in the number of dwellings proposed. She was concerned however regarding potential impact on wildlife and loss of trees and on balance considered that she was likely to vote against the scheme.

(18)       Councillor O’Quinn totally supported all that had been said by other members. Having attended the site visit there was clear evidence of badger activity and although the site was not beautiful it was valuable to local ecology. The gain of 3 houses was insufficient in her view to outweigh the harm that would undoubtedly result.

(19)       Councillor Gilbey stated in addition to the other issues raised she was concerned about potential light pollution from the site and did not consider that had been adequately addressed.

(20)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair stated that she considered the application had addressed the previous reasons for refusal, represented an improvement on it and was acceptable. The site as it stood had suffered from fly-tipping and in her view this would continue to be a problem if left in its current condition.

(21)       A vote was taken and the 9 Members who were present when the vote was taken voted by 6 to 2 with 1 abstention that planning permission be not approved. An alternative recommendation was then sought and Councillor Hyde proposed and Councillor Littman seconded the proposal that the application be refused. The reasons put forward for refusal were that the proposed scheme would result in danger to biodiversity and ecology of the site; loss of the site for endangered species – badgers, bats, reptiles, birds; the gain of 3 houses did not mitigate that and was inappropriate, the loss of the site did not balance out for the gain of 3 houses; the LWS should be looked after; they were in agreement with the comments of the Sussex Wildlife Trust; the inspector on the appealed scheme had not been aware of the subsequent granting of planning permission for the nearby Vale development or able to make their decision in conjunction with that.

(22)       A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors Gilbey, Hyde, Littman, Mac Cafferty, O’Quinn and C Theobald voted that the application be refused. Councillors Cattell, the Chair and Bennett voted that planning permission be granted. Councillor Miller abstained. Therefore on a vote of 6 to 2 with 1 abstention planning permission was refused. It was agreed that the final wording of the grounds for refusal would be prepared by officers in consultation with the proposer and seconder and that should the refusal be appealed the Committee agreed a s106 planning obligation could be entered into on the heads of terms as set out in the report.

101.3    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out above and authorises that should the refusal as subsequently agreed with be appealed that a s106 obligation be entered into on the heads of terms set out in the report.

             Note: Councillors Inkpin-Leissner, Morgan and Robins were not present at the meeting during consideration or determination of the above application.