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.

              It was noted that this application had previously formed the subject of a site visit and that the application had been deferred by the Committee at its meeting on 9 January 2019 to enable additional information to obtained and clarified in relation to access and egress arrangements to the site.

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Planning Officer, Laura Hamlyn, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings detailing the scheme. Details were provided regarding the precise width of the access way to the site and the distances between the proposed scheme and the neighbouring plots and the habitable dwelling rooms in those houses Similar neighbouring development ad been referred to but it was not considered to be comparable. Notwithstanding amendments made to the scheme as originally submitted these did not adequately address the previous reasons for refusal. The current proposal, by reason of the limited plot size, width, height, form, detailing and proximity of the  houses would represent a cramped overdevelopment of the site and the officer recommendation remained that it should be refused.

              Questions of Officers

(2)          Councillor Miller sought clarification regarding the distance between the proposed access way and the adjacent property at 110. It was confirmed that a kitchen and conservatory windows faced towards the development site. Councillor Page raised similar queries and it was confirmed that the view of officers, notwithstanding amendments that had been made, remained that harmful overlooking, noise and additional vehicular movements in close proximity to the neighbouring dwellings would result from the proposed form of development.

(3)          Councillor Hyde sought clarification regarding the distances between the front of the site and the new dwellings proposed to the rear and between them and the existing buildings to the rear and the properties located in Batemans Road.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(4)          Councillor C Theobald stated that she considered that the proposed form of development would represent a very poor back land development which in her view represented over development.

(5)          Councillor Miller was pleased to note that the access issues had been resolved. He considered that the proposed form of development was of a good design and would be acceptable.

(6)          Councillor Page stated that he thought the proposed scheme amounted to town cramming and that too many dwellings were proposed on the site.

(7)          Councillor Hyde stated that she considered the garden space on which the new dwellings were proposed was a large space which could accommodate the proposed development and would retain an acceptable space between it and the neighbouring properties. At the nearest point the access would be in close proximity to a kitchen and bathroom which she considered was acceptable, in her view it would not result an unacceptable increase in vehicular movements or noise. Councillor Hyde stated that she would be voting in support of the application.

(8)          Councillor Gilbey stated that she supported the officer recommendation that the application be refused, considering that the access way would be located too close to neighbouring dwellings.

(9)          Councillor Moonan stated that whilst not opposed to a scheme on the site in principle she considered that three rather than 4 would be more acceptable and would provide each property with a larger garden space. Councillor O’Quinn concurred in that view.

(10)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, stated that the scheme sought to cram too much onto the site and represented a contrived form of overdevelopment which would result in overlooking. She was unable to support the scheme in its present form.

(11)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to 3 by the 10 Members who were present at the meeting Planning Permission was refused.

123.7    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons also set out in the report.