Agenda item - BH2022/03066 - Land to the East of The Vale, Brighton - Removal or Variation of Condition

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

Speakers

2.       Ward Councillor Fishleigh addressed the committee and stated that the developers appeared to remove trees against the law. The mature trees on the site were a wildlife corridor, and this has gone for ever. The committee were requested to condition the application to include 15 year old tree planting. The councillor considered that if the committee agreed permission, they would be setting a precedent.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

3.       Councillor Moonan was informed by the case officer noted tree works had already been agreed to trees with Ash die-back and 5 additional damaged trees. The application is to amalgamate all the works into one. Twenty two trees are to be removed in total and 22 are to be planted. The Enforcement team Manager stated that the applicant had been asked for tree protection measures to be put in place. However, the Planning Manager noted that the protection measures were not conditioned by the Planning Inspector when the appeal was allowed The application before the committee was to mitigate the damage that has been done.

4.       Councillor Littman was informed by the Enforcement Manager that the application before the committee would have no effect on the current enforcement investigation.

5.       Councillor Janio was informed that the investigation details could not be discussed.

6.       Councillor Theobald was informed by the council Arboriculturist that the developer had been requested to provide evidence and it was noted that the tree roots had been severed and the trees had no long term viability.

7.       Councillor Ebel was informed that if the committee refused permission the applicant could appeal, or another way forward would need to be found.

8.       Councillor Shanks was informed by the Arboriculturist that a condition to have trees of 20/25cms girth was attached, and these would cost in the region of £600/800 each.

Debate

9.       Councillor Moonan noted the original application was refused at committee and granted at appeal. The tree roots have been damaged and this was noticed by the vigilant neighbours and Ward Councillor. The councillor stated they wanted the biggest replacement trees possible, then they would support the application.

10.      Councillor Yates considered it was partially the council’s fault. The councillor noted some trees had Ash die-back and others have been lost, and these were not good. The councillor stated that supporting the application before the committee was the best option for the site and to mitigate the loss of the trees.

11.      Councillor Littman was informed the replacement trees would be eleven Red Maple and eleven Field Maple.

12.      Councillor Moonan was informed there was a watering condition attached.

Vote

13.      A vote was taken, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.

14.      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.