Agenda item - BH2020/00674 - Land Adjoining 12 Dunster Close, Brighton BN1 7ED - Full Planning
navigation and tools
You are here - Home : Council and Democracy : Councillors and Committees : Agenda item
BH2020/00674 - Land Adjoining 12 Dunster Close, Brighton BN1 7ED - Full Planning
1. The Planning manager introduced the report.
2. Daniel Bowler spoke to the committee on behalf objecting residents and stated that there were slow worms, bats and no surveys had been carried out for these protected species and this was considered a legal requirement. Planning policies are not being adhered to with regard to impact on the area and out of keeping in design. The block design is considered to oppress the neighbours. Parking is an issue in the area and the development is car free, so where would the proposed disabled parking go. Ambulances have no access to the close. The loss of trees will have a negative impact on the area with no new trees proposed.
3. Ward Councillor Fowler spoke to the committee and stated that although houses were needed, green spaces were also needed. The development, up a hill was considered to tower over neighbours and would lead to a loss of wildlife. Damage to a supporting wall would be an issue, as would the loss of light to neighbours. The trees need to stay at the site to retain the birds and bats. The loss of six trees is not good and this pocket of wildlife should be retained. It was noted that no reptile report had been submitted and slow worms have been seen. Southern water have objected to the development in relation to the adjacent culvert. The councillor considered that Bunker Housing have ignored sewage blockage issues.
Questions for speaker
4. Councillor Childs was informed that the area was used for residents as a children’s play area.
5. The applicant’s agent, Raphael Lee, spoke to the committee and stated that this site was more complicated than the garage site in Dunster Close, however it was a larger site. Many changes have been made to the development following issues raised by neighbours including levels. The sewer piping will be covered by a large undercroft and is not as complex as it seems. The least number of trees will be removed following the ecology assessment. The location of the development at the end of the street will have least impact.
6. The case officer noted that Natural England had been contacted after a neighbour had seen a slow worm.
7. Councillor Fishleigh considered the development would have an adverse impact and there were issues with highways, overlooking, and overshadowing. The councillor was against the application.
8. Councillor Theobald expressed concerns relating to loss of wildlife, trees, green space and considered the development would upset the neighbours, was an ugly design with hardly any garden, out of keeping with the area, and would have a negative impact on the neighbours by way of overlooking. The parking, half on the pavement was an issue. The councillor was against the application.
9. Councillor Childs did not consider the development acceptable with the loss of wildlife, amenity space and was considered to be an overdevelopment of the site. The councillor was against the application.
10.Councillor Shanks noted the site was not a field and was a small patch of land. The area benefits from many gardens and it was not considered that wildlife was an issue on this small site. Housing is needed. The councillor supported the application.
11.Councillor Littman considered the site not to be brownfield but was greenfield and the loss of green space was an issue. The councillor was against the application.
12.A vote was taken, and the committee voted 7 to 2 against the officer recommendation. (Councillor Yates had left the meeting and did not take part in the discussions or decision making process).
13.Councillor Fishleigh proposed a motion to refuse the application by way of contradiction of local policies, adverse effect on nature conservation interests, biodiversity opportunities, and loss of trees; highways issues; loss of sunlight, layout and capacity of buildings, impact on infrastructure, overlooking and loss of privacy. Councillor Theobald seconded the motion. It was agreed that the final wording would be agreed with the Planning manager.
14.A vote was taken, and the committee voted 7 to 2 for the motion to refuse the application.
15.RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and does not agree with the reasons for the recommendation and the application is REFUSED.
- Header BH2020 00674 - Land Adjoining 12 Dunster Close, item 113I PDF 22 KB View as HTML (113I/1) 3 KB
- Plan BH2020 00674 - Land Adjoining 12 Dunster Close, item 113I PDF 335 KB
- Report BH2020 00674 - Land Adjoining 12 Dunster Close, item 113I PDF 406 KB View as HTML (113I/3) 144 KB
- Cllr Ashun rep BH2020 00674 - Land Adjoining 12 Dunster Close, item 113I PDF 37 KB View as HTML (113I/4) 4 KB
- Item I - BH2020 00674 - Land Adjoining 12 Dunster Close, item 113I PDF 2 MB