Agenda item - BH2020/00673 - Garages, Dunster Close, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The Planning manager introduced the report.

Speakers

2.    Ian Beck spoke to the committee representing local objectors and stated that the people of Dunster Close don’t want the proposed development. The scheme will change the eco system affecting around 130 people in this small street. Badgers, foxes, bats and slow worms will be affected if the eco system is destroyed. Concerns are raised on how the development will be linked to sewers and other facilities as the existing garages have no heating, water or electricity. To dig up Dunster Close for sewers will turn this quite street into a building site. The speaker will happen as they had been in the construction industry many years and the development was considered dangerous. The scheme will upset the eco system and people.

3.    Ward Councillor Theresa Fowler spoke to the committee and stated that they objected to the development and supported the residents. The councillor considered the scheme to be overdevelopment of the constrained site in a narrow road. The garages to be demolished were for local residents. The councillor expressed concerns regarding access by blue light services and refuse collections. Parking is a major issue in the area with no room for disabled parking. The development should be refused as a danger to the safety of pedestrians as cars will park on the pavement and verges. The loss of light and view will be an issue for existing properties. The scheme is considered and over development of the site where trees will be lost.

Questions for speaker

4.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the construction disturbance, loss of outlook, as the development will be close to Oldbury Row, loss of wildlife, namely badgers, access by refuse vehicles, not in keeping and the over development in this narrow close were the main issues.

5.    Councillor Theobald was informed that all the surrounding roads have parking issues and refuse vehicles and ambulances can not access the road.

6.    The applicant’s agent, Raphael Lee, spoke to the committee on behalf of Bunker Housing Co-operative and stated that other sites had been contentious, and had been resolved. These are complicated sites where the proposed number of units has been reduced. Community engagements have taken place and changes have been implemented as a result. The affect on trees has been reduced after meeting the neighbours. A daylight survey has been carried out and showed no effect on neighbouring properties. The development is set back and only hallway windows will face neighbouring properties. Refuse bins will need to be left at the end of the driveway for the development. The speaker stated that ecology was taken seriously.

Questions for speaker

7.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the development will use a modular system of small sections to help access to the site. It was considered that there will be little disruption on the site with a small crane being used and health and safety issues have been covered.

8.    The case officer confirmed that the sunlight report contained errors and had therefore not be included in the officer report.

Questions for officers

9.    Councillor Theobald was informed that views of the highway authority were included in the report and that development included a rear patio and communal space at the front.

10. Councillor Fishleigh was informed that two applications have been submitted as they were two separate sites on separate land.

Debate

11. Councillor Theobald considered the site to be tiny and the design ugly. It was noted that highways have objected on four occasions, as well as southern water, arboricultural and access issues. No turning point is available for vehicles and the parking was half on the pavement. The councillor was against the application.

12. Councillor Shanks stated they had visited the site and noted that the application was for a car free development. It was noted that existing parking was an issue. The councillor considered the development to be good on this small site and supported the application.

13. Councillor Janio considered the site to be too small, with vehicle problems, therefore this development was not feasible. The councillor was against the application.

14.  Councillor Henry considered the site to be constrained and hard to reach.

15. Councillor Littman noted there was no objection from Southern Water.

16. Councillor Childs noted the existing garages were not used and there was pressure from housing targets. The councillor supported the application.

17. A vote was taken, and by a vote of 7 to 2 the application was granted. (Councillor Yates had left the meeting and did not take part in the discussions or decision making process).

18. RESOLVED: 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.