Agenda item - BH2021/02844 - Land to the North of St Nicholas CE Primary School, Locks Hill, Portslade - Full Planning

1.    The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee and updated the committee that the Conservation Action Group had changed comments to support the application, and extra conditions have been added regarding contaminated land and M4.2 implementation.

Speakers

2.      Ward Councillor Hamilton submitted a statement which was read out by the Democratic Services officer: I find it unbelievable that this application to build properties on what was an access driveway to a private house is down for approval. At the very least a site visit should   take place as the site is not visible from any public location. On my visit today it was not possible to inspect the site as there are high gates at the western end and a garage at the eastern end. This driveway runs immediate to the south of Loxdale, an impressive building with extensive grounds. The presence of these buildings, referred to as sheds by some residents, will be detrimental to the Portslade Conservation Area. On page 100 of the report, it states that CAG objected, and it is not clear whether this objection has been withdrawn. The narrow nature of the site rules out the use of vehicular access. There is no vehicular access to these properties with access for pedestrians and cyclists only. How deliveries or even the construction of the properties will be carried out is unclear. There will be no access for fire appliances and ambulances will have to park outside the site and ambulance crews will have to then walk to the property concerned. It is my understanding that the freeholders of Greenways, the flats at the eastern end of the proposed development, are not prepared to allow vehicles from the new development to park on their car parking area and that part of the development site is not in the ownership of the developer.

The case for approval appears to be based on the concept that as we are short of building land virtually any housing applications are acceptable irrespective of all policy considerations. On an housing application refused last year where officers had recommended consent, they nevertheless found two reasons to justify refusal on all four of the refusal reasons.

I ask committee to reject this application and if not to at least make a site visit to see for themselves that the development proposed for this site is unacceptable.

3.    Joseph Pearson, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, addressed the committee and stated they supported the officer’s report which had a good level of detail. All units meet space standards. The new application is better located and designed. The concerns around Greenways are understood. The new homes will be one bed pre constructed dwellings creating 6 homes following negotiations with officers.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.    Councillor Theobald was informed by the agent that there was no affordable housing as no registered provider wanted any sites with less than 20 units.

5.    Councillor Childs was informed by the Planning Manager that CP20 policy states there is no requirement for onsite provision of affordable housing on a site of 6 units, there would be financial contributions only.

6.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the previous house was demolished and replaced with flats. As the site would not be directly accessible to fire engines, the proposed dwellings would include sprinklers. Access for ambulances would be from Highlands Road or Locks Hill. Five trees of low quality and damaged are to be removed. The units exceed room standards. Bin stores will be located at each property and bins will be collected from Locks Hill.

Debate

7.    Councillor Yates liked the scheme and felt the narrative needed to change across the city, with a different number of ways to live in the city. The councillor noted no car parking was proposed and the 6 units would be good quality with outside space, bus links and cycle links to come. The councillor supported the application.

8.    Councillor Shanks supported the application.

9.    Councillor Theobald considered the development to be too much to be built in a driveway and was concerned over bins, parking and emergency services access. The councillor was against the application.

10. Councillor Ebel considered the application to be nice and green. The councillor considered that if this was refused then others with no direct access for fire and ambulance should also be refused.

11. Councillor Childs considered the proposal to be a good use of redundant land and better here than on fringe edges of the city.

12. Councillor Littman considered the application to be fine and all within policy.

Vote

13. A vote was taken, and by 6 to 1, the committee agreed to grant planning permission. (Councillors Barnett, Janio and Moonan took no part in the decision making process or the vote)

14. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement on the Heads of Terms and with the Conditions and Informatives all as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 27^th  July 2022 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 12.1 of the report.