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.

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Head of Planning, Policy and Major Projects, Liz Hobden, explained that for the reasons set out in section 3 of the report, the Committee was being asked to review its decision, made on February 6, 2019, to refuse planning application BH2018/01336: Land rear of 1-45 Wanderdown Road (“the application) and to determine either the decision of the Committee to refuse the application be upheld or that the officer “Minded to Grant” recommendation set out in the report to that Committee be agreed.

(2)          The application was considered by Planning Committee on 6 February 2019. The officer report from that meeting had been updated to include the items on the Additional Representations list, as appended as Appendix 1 to this report. Members resolved to refuse the application contrary to the recommendation on the grounds set out and the wording of the reasons for refusal had been drafted and was awaiting final agreement. A decision had not been formally issued on the application. On the day following the committee meeting, the applicant’s agent wrote to the council setting out their concerns about the decision. Based on the conclusion of the Planning Inspector at the appeal for the previous scheme that 9 dwellings would not have a harmful ecological impact, the applicant considered the grounds of refusal were very weak and could not be substantiated at appeal. The applicant had requested that the application be taken back to the next available Planning Committee for reconsideration and that if the application was refused the decision will be appealed and an award of costs against the Council sought. Further correspondence had also been received setting out their opinion that the committee had not paid due regard to the detailed application submissions on ecological matters, the comments of the County Ecologist or the recommendations of officers in endorsing approval of this scheme and that undue weight had been given to anecdotal information on site habitat/ecological conditions and representations made by non-statutory consultees. Whilst this represented an unusual set of circumstances which had not occurred previously the county ecologist and county arboriculturist respectively were in attendance at this meeting neither having been available at the previous meeting of the Committee and would be able to answer any questions which Members might have.

(3)          In answer to questions it was explained that it had been considered appropriate for Members to consider the additional information provided and to have the opportunity to ask questions of the relevant expert officers. The Committees decision making was not fettered and having done so Members were able to re-affirm their decision that the application be refused. It was however considered important for them to be given the opportunity to do so.

(4)          For the benefit of all Members a brief presentation was given detailing the proposed scheme and setting out the rationale for the officer recommendation.

(5)          It was noted that neither Councillors Moonan nor Wealls had been present at the previous meeting of the Committee but that both had watched the webcast of the proceedings in order to familiarise themselves with the points raised and the decision taken.

              Questions of Officers

(6)          Councillor O’Quinn cited her concerns in relation to the impact of the proposed form of development on the wildlife corridor across the site and in particular their impact on the badger setts. The County Ecologist confirmed that arrangements would need to be put into place by the applicants in order to address this and to meet DEFRA requirements. There were specific procedures that needed to be met and which were used routinely used when dealing specifically with successfully trans-locating badgers but also in relation to the protection of other wildlife.

(7)          Councillor Littman requested information in relation to the measures to be put into place to preserve the surrounding chalk-grassland habitat and stated that the additional information provided was helpful considering that it was unfortunate that this clarification had not been available previously.

(8)          Councillor Hyde sought reassurance that detriment would not occur to the badger setts in consequence of heavy duty vehicles accessing the site in connection with on-site building works, she was anxious that the applicants did not simply engage in a tick box exercise. It was explained that all of the preparatory works would need to be carried out and verified as having been adequately completed pre-commencement.

(9)          Councillor C Theobald referred to the protected trees on site and to measures to be undertaken to ensure that they were suitably protected, particularly those in close proximity to access road. It was confirmed that a full road safety audit of the site had taken place and that this would be controlled by condition. Any issues arising would require adequate resolution.

(10)       Councillor Wealls referred to the findings of the Inspector in relation to the previous decision and it was explained that it was a matter of planning balance that, weight did need to be given to that decision which had related to a larger scheme, also the potential for loosing at appeal. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, stated should the applicant appeal as they had indicated that they would the considerations of the Committee and the fact that they had given further measured consideration to the issues raised and the expert advice given would be included as part of the Council’s submission.

(12)       The County Ecologist, explained in answer to further questions that whilst all protected species needed to one taken account works to trees would need to be carried out outside of the nesting season and that all of the proposed conditions set out were considered to be suitably robust.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(13)       Councillor Hyde stated that having heard all that had been said she was concerned that this application was being revisited in this way and was concerned that it could open the floodgates going forward of . She also remained concerned that detriment to wildlife could occur.

(14)       Councillor Theobald stated that she remained concerned regarding impact on the prevailing landscape.

(15)       Councillor Miller considered that it  had been helpful  to  hear the  additional information provided and to have the  opportunity to ask further questions. Whilst it was a very difficult situation it was important that Members were aware of potential risk to the council and to make a decision having had the possibility to consider all germane factors.

(16)       Having heard all that had been said, Councillor Page stated that he was aware that robust mitigation measures would be put into place and the need to provide housing, on balance he supported the officer recommendation.

(17)       Councillor Littman stated that he remained concerned about the impact of the scheme on the scale proposed albeit that the number of units had been reduced.

(18)       Councillor O’Quinn concurred stating that the site was in her view of strategic importance she remained to be convinced that the complexities of such a diverse site could be adequately managed and as a custodian of the site she could not support this scheme.

(19)       Councillor Gilbey stated that she remained conflicted and whilst was concerned regarding the level to which the scheme could be overseen and what enforcement could be undertaken.

(20)       Councillor Cattell stated that she was of the view that it was important for Members to have had the opportunity to be updated and to have the opportunity to ask questions of the expert officers in order that a decision was a made in the light of all relevant information.

(21)       A vote was taken and it was agreed that each of the constituent recommendations be voted on separately. The 10 Members of the Committee who were present when the vote was taken voted on a vote of 3 to 5 with 2 abstentions that having reviewed their original decision to refuse the Committee were no longer minded to do so. The decision to refuse was therefore lost and the Committee then proceeded to vote on the remaining substantive recommendation that the officer recommendation set out in the report to the 6 February 2019 that the Committee be Minded to Grant planning permission was voted on. It was agreed on a vote of 5 to 3 with 2 abstentions. It was also agreed that the appropriate

113.5    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report of 6 February 2019 and resolved that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in that report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 29 May 2019 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 10 of the report.