Agenda item - BH2021/22709, 41 and 42 Park Wall Farm Cottages, Station Approach, Falmer, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The Planning manager introduced the application to the committee.

Answers to Members Questions

2.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the trees location was not ‘like for like’ and 5 young trees were to be planted as part of the landscaping scheme. The councillor was informed by the applicant’s agent that one tree was removed in error and the other was removed having exhausted all other options.

3.    Councillor Moonan was informed that the existing trees had been removed to allow electricity and water utilities to access the site. The applicant’s agent apologised to the committee for the loss of the trees and stated that more trees had been planted to replace the two removed. The council arboricultural officer explained that trees removed were semi mature and that the smaller replacements were more likely to survive.

4.    Councillor Shanks was informed by the applicant’s agent that the council were informed of the tree’s removal approximately one year ago.

Debate

5.    Councillor Yates expressed concerns that the only point of entry onto the site for electricity and water required the removal of the two trees and noted that this resulted in a breach of conditions. The councillor considered the applicant has taken mitigating actions and considered this application to be the best way forward. The councillor was unhappy but supported the application.

6.    Councillor Moonan expressed frustration at the removal of the trees as the applicant should have come back to the Planning committee before taking actions and asked for some sanctions to be taken.

7.    Councillor Childs considered enforcement action to be a deterrent.

8.    The Planning Manager stated that the only action was to send stern letters to the applicant asking for replacement trees.

9.    Councillor Theobald stated she was upset by the tree removal and Members should have been told of the breach of condition.

10.Councillor Janio considered that the council don’t enforce enough, and that applicant feel the council are ‘soft’.

11.The case officer noted that action can be taken if a tree is removed and has a preservation order or is in a conservation area. Planning conditions cover the site as apposed to specific trees on the site. It is usual to negotiate with developers on these type of site where there is no preservation order or conservation area.

12.Councillor Fishleigh considered a new condition should be added to the permission for the applicant to provide more trees in the vicinity. The councillor suggested 25.

13.The council lawyer stated that conditions needed to be reasonable and could be only for this development, not for the wider area. The arboricultural officer would need to accept any new conditions and the first suggested number of 25 trees would not be considered reasonable.

14.Councillor Moonan noted that the maintenance of the trees would need to be included in any agreement.

15.Councillor Childs suggested 5 trees.

16.Councillor Fishleigh accepted the reduced number.

17.The council lawyer noted that a S106 agreement would be more suitable, and this would need to be agreed by the developer.

18.A vote was taken, and the committee agreed by 6 and 2 abstentions that a S106 would be drafted to secure provision of 5 trees ‘in vicinity of site’ as well as their maintenance, for a suggested for 5 years.

19. A vote was taken, and the committee agreed by 6 to 1 the inclusion of a new S106 agreement regarding 5 trees in the vicinity of the site with a suggested 5 year maintenance programme and the conditions on the late list.

20.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 the variation of conditions 9 and 11 of application BH2018/02854.