Agenda item - BH2021/03074 - Henge Way (Land Next to 2 Brackenbury Close, Portslade) - Full Planning

1.    The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee. The committee were informed that additional objections had been received from neighbours and Ward Councillor Atkinson. All matters raised had already been addressed in the report.

Speakers

2.    Ward Councillor Atkinson submitted a statement which was read out to the committee by the Democratic Services officer: This development has been extremely problematical and worrying for nearby residents from the first application in 2017 and then from the time the actual building started. There is concern that the developer has, up to now, repeatedly ignored the previously agreed plans and built the property as they wish including confusion over nearby trees and land grabbing for the construction of a wall. Residents have been severely disappointed and astounded by the Planning Department’s apparent lack of interest in policing compliance. On numerous occasions the residents have alerted the Planning Department to contraventions. Surely this should have resulted in the council paying much more attention to this development – particularly as it had been refused planning permission on three different occasions and only allowed on national appeal. One resident puts this succinctly “It is important that the Committee is aware that from the beginning of this application there have been continuous and significant breaches and subsequent applications for variations on what was originally approved. The applicant has shown no regard for requirements asked for by the Planning Department who, equally, seem to have made no determined effort to enforce such breaches – the mantra being nothing can be done until the breach has taken place. A prime example of this is that the total height of the house is clearly much higher than that approved by The Planning Inspectorate. Local residents continually raised this issue when the foundations first went down but the Planning Department did nothing.

Most recently a concrete footing, for a garden wall, was poured several feet west of the plot boundary, on council land alongside an ancient right of way. This resulted in the council’s Estate Team demanding that the developer kept to the new build’s legal boundary. Hopefully the Planning Department will investigate this before this wall is erected on a permanent basis and we are assuming that the developer will be, or has been, instructed to dig out the foundation and return the grass verge to original condition. One of the major issues is that of privacy and how by not building the house to plan this has impacted upon local residents. This is due to the development being higher than on the agreed plan meaning that there is now no privacy whatsoever within one resident’s back garden in particular.

The response from the council to the latest planning application says” All windows on the first floor, east facing elevation of the building facing No.2 Brackenbury Close shall be made of obscure glass”. This was also part of the National Inspector’s conditions. This simply hasn’t happened, and a patio door has been inserted with clear glass with a laughable attempt made at part obscuring it with some kind of adhesive film. It is imperative that this is addressed as it impacts on a number of near neighbours and is a direct breach of the planning agreement.This is particularly embarrassing as the Planning Officer realised before the last planning committee that he hadn’t received a first floor plan for this application, so it had to be pulled from the last committee’s papers.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

3.    Councillor Yates was informed that both conditions 8 and 9 were to be completed prior to occupancy and condition 10 refers to void areas above the ground floor patio doors.

4.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed that the approved scheme showed level ground to the rear of the proposed dwelling, and this is not the case. There is no height increase at the front and 0.9m added to the rear to make the building level. The overall height has not increased.

5.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the levels had been clarified and the first floor windows would need to be obscure glazed before occupation. It was noted that planning officers had visited the site and enforcement investigations were ongoing.

6.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the Planning department were looking at land levels now and the application had been granted at appeal. The Planning inspector made a site visit and did not notice the change in ground levels to the rear.

7.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed that the enforcement team have visited the site and the planning officers were not able to condition matters that were permitted development or consider matters relating to land ownership.

8.    Councillor Moonan was informed that Policy M4.2 required the dwelling to be disabled compliant before occupation. It was noted that the front door has level access.

9.    Councillor Childs was informed that if the committee refused the application, enforcement would continue, and the applicant could appeal the decision.

Debate

10. Councillor Fishleigh considered that Ward councillors and residents should have spoken at committee and considered that developers do not stick to agreed plans. The councillor was against the application.

11. Councillor Theobald considered the proposed dwelling to be a funny shape and there seemed to be a few errors and breaches.

Vote

12. A vote was taken, and by 6 to 3 the committee agreed to grant planning permission. (Councillor Janio took no part in the decision making process or the vote).

13. RESOVLED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives in the report.