Agenda item - BH2025/00936 - 295 Dyke Road, Hove - Full Planning

1.    The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.    Jon Newey addressed the committee as a neighbouring resident and stated that they were speaking on behalf of 12 residents who had objected to the application. The proposals are considered over development of the site, with a loss of privacy for neighbours. The speaker lived at 293 and the proposed construction accessway will be inches from the neighbour’s house, an Arts & Crafts building and construction traffic will have an effect on the house. The development site slopes, and a huge swimming pool will need to be removed. It is estimated this will take a year at least with lots of disruption. The speaker considered a brick wall along the boundary should be erected instead of the thin wooden fence. The trees to be removed along the boundary will also lead to a loss of privacy.

3.    Simon Bareham addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the application was for reserved matters and outline permission had already been granted. The proposals have been reduced and will be 4m to 5m away from the boundaries, whilst the garage will be 2.2m from the boundary. The proposals conform the planning policy DM20 and good practice. The 430 rule is not broken. The windows facing the neighbours will be obscure glazed to prevent overlooking. The development is designed to simulate with the surroundings and is acceptable under policy.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.    Councillor Shanks was informed by the agent that the boundary treatments will be agreed by condition, however, a brick wall potentially could be looked at. The case officer confirmed that there was no condition requiring a construction environmental management plan and it was not usual to request to agree the boundary treatments until occupation.

5.    Councillor Earthey was informed that there was no Neighbourhood Plan for this area of the city.

6.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the boundary trees on the south side would be removed and replacements planted across the site. There are no direct south facing windows on the development, only one dormer set much further back.

7.    Councillor Cattell was informed that there were no Tree Preservation Orders on the site, and it was not in a conservation area. The resident stated they did not speak when the previous application came to committee as they were not advised of the meeting. It was noted that the proposed small dormer windows would obscure glazed and it was considered that there was no impact on privacy.

8.    Councillor Robinson was informed that a temporary wall or barrier could be constructed to protect the neighbouring property under a construction environmental management plan. The planning manager stated the boundary wall would however need to be acceptable and may not be practical alongside a construction access, and that temporary fencing may be more suitable. The agent stated that a party-wall agreement would also need to be agreed.

9.    Councillor Thomson was informed that a construction environmental management plan was not usually considered necessary for this small scale of development. However, if the committee wanted a plan; this could be added by condition. It was noted that the proposals would be 20m away from the house at 293 Dyke Road and there was one other new dwelling in the road nearby at 285.

10. The resident stated that the extension on their house was not shown on the drawings. The case officer stated this was noted at the site visit.

Debate

11. Councillor Shanks considered a condition requiring a construction environmental management plan should be added. The planning manager stated a standard model condition wording could be used and adapted as necessary with the addition of a temporary fence alongside the access boundary.

12. Councillor Robinson considered the party wall agreement would be difficult and extra protection would be good for the neighbour. The legal officer noted that the party wall agreement was outside planning considerations. It was noted that construction vibration would potentially be covered if a construction environmental management plan was added by condition.

13. Councillor Theobald stated they were not keen on backland developments and these proposals seemed large. The boundary screening is to be removed resulting in a loss of privacy. The development will set a precedence. The councillor was torn about the application.

14. Councillor Sheard considered that a construction environmental management plan would be excessive for the scale of development.

15. Councillor Cattell considered that a construction environmental management plan would not be required, the application is supported as it stands.

16. Councillor Nann considered the digging out of the site would be an issue. The councillor considered there was no reason to refuse the application.

17. Councillor Thomson considered they would approve the application and asked that the applicant be mindful of neighbours.

18. Councillor Shanks proposed a condition to add a construction environmental management plan. Councillor Robinson seconded the motion. The wording to be agreed by the proposer and seconder.

Vote

19. A vote was held on the additional condition and by 7 to 3 the motion was agreed.

20. A vote was held and the committee agreed by 9 to 1 to grant planning permission with the additional condition.

21. 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, with the added condition.