Agenda item - BH2022/00287 - Land Adjacent Hillside, Ovingdean Road, Brighton - Reserved Matters

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

Speakers

2.       Ward Councillor Fishleigh addressed the committee and stated that they considered that trees with Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) would be removed as a result of this application, and some have already been damaged. The proposed roofline would be visible from the nearby National Park. The councillor requested that the trees were saved, and the committee reject the application. It was noted that the TPOs were old, however, mature trees are valuable, and some 40 trees were to go. A plan for protecting the trees is needed. The committee were requested to condition a tree management and planting schedule and to refuse the current application.

3.       Martin Blake addressed the committee as an objector and stated they were a neighbour to the site, and they wanted the concerns of some 40 residents to be addressed. The loss of trees and the position of the proposal are not right. The South Downs National Park has not been consulted and the roof will be visible from the park is built. The single storey neighbour’s garden will be dominated by the new high roof. The proposed new driveway will be on a dangerous corner, which is difficult for traffic. The driveway would be better located at the top of the hill. It was considered that there had not been enough time to consider the drawings submitted in August 2022.

4.       Umut Gedik Kilic addressed the committee as the agent acting on the behalf of the applicant and stated that the outline application had been approved and it was agreed that the old trees with low life expectancy could be removed. The Arboricultural survey suggests new trees. The neighbour advised that tree works required a licence when tree works started and work was stopped. The application is far from the neighbour’s house. The landscaping was agreed in the outline application. It was noted that some 100 metres below the site there is a development of 45 houses. The committee were requested to be fair and grant planning permission.

5.       The Planning Manager noted that 7 trees had been felled unlawfully.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.       Councillor Shanks was informed by the Planning Manager that this application was for reserved matters: layout, scale and appearance. Outline permission has already been granted.

7.       Councillor Moonan was informed by the case officer that the South Downs National Park was not a statutory consultee. The total number of trees to be removed was not known at this stage, the figures would need to be provided later under the landscaping condition. It was noted that it is not possible to cut down trees with TPOs without consent. The proposed landscaping will need to be agreed. The Arboricultural officer

noted that 8 sycamore trees were to go and possibly some others. The TPO covers a large area and no ash or elm have been found on the site.

8.       Councillor Ebel was informed by the Planning Manager that the landscaping details could be refused, when they are submitted.

9.       Councillor Theobald was informed by the Planning Manager that the application could be deferred to get more details and understand which trees have been removed and which are to be retained.

10.      Councillor Shanks was informed by the Planning Manager that the applicant can decide the scheme to be submitted and not all information needs to be submitted as they have submitted an outline application. It was noted the application could be deferred to gain

more tree information.

11.      Councillor Hills was informed by the Planning Manager that it was not possible to say at this stage what would be considered satisfactory reasons to remove the trees.

12.      Councillor Littman was informed by the Arboricultural officer that some trees with TPOs have been damaged. It was noted by the case officer that trees needed to be removed to build the proposal.

13.      A motion to defer the application was presented by Councillor Theobald and seconded by Councillor Littman to gain more tree information.

Vote

14.      A vote was taken, and by 6 to 1, the committee agreed to defer the application to gain more tree information.