Agenda item - BH2022/03810 - 15-26 Lincoln Cottages, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee. It was noted that the applicant has taken the application to the Planning Inspectorate as the application was not determined within the set timescales. The committee were therefore being requested to give an opinion as to whether they would have granted or refused planning permission. The case officer updated the committee noting that the date on condition number 5 had been updated, condition 6 was to remain the same following agent enquires, the turning space was deemed acceptable, and the Fire and Safety consultation found the amended plans acceptable.

Speakers

2.    Liz Cook addressed the committee on behalf of the objecting residents and stated that they represented more than 60 households surrounding the proposal site. The community are open to a development that enhances the city, the report does not give enough weight to the serious harms the development will cause. The following are disputed: access – is not fit to support the burden of the proposed level of use; disturbance and intrusion – the area is characterised by back to back housing; however, this development creates a new street outside our bedroom windows, noise and light pollution and disturbance from human traffic. If approved the light levels should be controlled by condition. The report does not mention the serious harm caused by the bins for the development. Harms to health will come from the large bin collection point adjacent to existing properties. Traffic increase has been seriously underestimated in the report. The report acknowledges there is no light assessment and losses of light to the existing neighbours are likely to be greater than stated. Over shadowing and overlooking: the proposals will cause significant loss of privacy for neighbouring gardens and bedrooms, if approved the non-use of roofs and no replacement of opaque windows should be required by condition. The development would lead to a cramped and intrusive arrangement for existing and future occupiers. Please refuse the proposals and aspire to something better for the community.

3.    Ward Councillor Rowkins addressed the committee and stated that they had been watching the application carefully, which is located in the heart of the city. The existing structures are used as work spaces and should be comparably used in the future. The foot print of the development needs to be reduced with more room for trees and wildlife. The bins collection space needs to be better designed. Under urban design policy the site needs to be put to better use. An amended scheme is in the application system already and committee could look at that as a way forward. The committee were requested to refuse the application before them.

4.    Oliver Milne addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and noted that the site had been set aside under the local plan for 18 homes and this application was for only 8. The development consisted of much needed 3 bedroom homes on this brownfield site. The development is a good use of the site and not an overdevelopment. The preapplication advice received from the council and consultation with the public has led to changes in the proposals. Biodiversity will form part of the development. Green technology has been included to future proof the homes were possible. The development will be car free, and no objections have been received from the consultations. The committee were requested to agree the planning permission.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed that the amended application still to be decided was not for consideration at the meeting and the Members were to be decide the application before them. The councillor was informed by the resident that the street lighting proposed would be to bright for the existing homes and that no invites had been received to the consultation event and those who did attend considered it a presentation only with on interaction from residents.

6.    Councillor Loughran was informed by the resident that the closest property to the proposed bin collection store would be number 89.

7.    Councillor Theobald was informed by the agent that the existing garages were mostly vacant, and the remaining would be soon. It was noted that sprinklers would be installed in the new properties.

8.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the affordable housing threshold was 14 units, and this application was for 8. The case officer noted that more units would have a greater impact on the local amenities.

9.    Councillor Cattell was informed by the resident that they were not aware of the consultation process undertaken for City Plan Part Two. The Principal Planning Policy Officer informed the committee that there had been a series of consultations for City Plan Part Two in the summer of 2018 and autumn of 2019 and there had been a number of options to make representations. No comments were received regarding this site. The consultations were evaluated in 2021 and published online. The Planning Manager noted that the City Plan Part Two was adopted and due process had been carried out.

10. Councillor Miller was informed by the resident that tree planting was wanted by the residents, however, the existing landscaping scheme included deciduous trees not evergreen. The Planning Manager noted that condition 14 required the landscaping scheme to be secured by condition and therefore agreed to review it at a later date if the appeal was allowed. The resident considered there was not enough room to plant big enough trees in this scheme to provide privacy.

11. Councillor Robinson was informed by the agent that the street lighting details were to be agreed. The case officer agreed that a further condition could be added for more details of the lighting.

12. Councillor Nann was informed by the Highway Agreements Officer that four vehicles per day were estimated at the site and the access road would be private. The developer would be responsible for maintaining the access. The officer confirmed that the impact of the delivery vehicles was not considered significant enough to refuse the application.

13. Councillor Miller was informed by the resident that they wanted to Green up the Hanover community and trees would be welcomed. The nine large bins would total 18 with the recycling bins and collection point would be preferred to be an alleyway. The Planning manager noted that condition 13 covered the storage of bins for each property and collection. The agent stated that communal bins were not preferred, and each property would store their own bins and wheel down for collection day from the private access.

14. Councillor Theobald was informed that the landscaping scheme was to be approved by condition. If the Planning Inspector approves the appeal, they will look at conditions suggested by the council.

15. Councillor Cattell was informed by the case officer that the design of the development allowed only oblique views of neighbouring properties.

16. Councillor Loughran was informed by the agent that the details of the heat pumps and solar panels would be submitted by condition.

Debate

17. Councillor Cattell noted there were no objections to the selection of the site for housing. The site could hold 18 dwellings however the application was for 8.

18. Councillor Loughran considered there were many constraints on the site and the spacing around the homes was an issue. The councillor considered that the developer had not worked with the community and considered there was inadequate circulation, harm to the neighbours. More details were required relating to the green energy.

19. Councillor Shanks wanted affordable housing and considered that homes were needed and supported the application.

20. The Planning Manager noted that the current scheme in the system could not be considered in the debate and the committee were to make a decision on the application before them.

21. Councillor Nann considered that the traffic was underestimated, and the character of the area would be changed. They did not consider the development was a good use of the site.

22. Councillor Miller considered that if the application was agreed, the residents should be consulted to minimise impact.

23. Councillor Hamilton noted the site had been set aside for development in City Plan Part Two however the committee did not need to accept the scheme before them. The proposals are an overdevelopment of the site with no parking. The councillor considered the scheme would have a detrimental impact on local residents. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

24. Councillor Fishleigh considered the development have a detrimental impact on light and privacy; layout and density were harmful with loss of amenities to residents. The councillor was against the application.

25. Councillor Theobald considered the application difficult and considered the site visit very helpful to understand the application. The access for emergency vehicles would be difficult and bin collection point was not good. The councillor considered that two storey dwellings would be better as the current design blocked views. The councillor stated they could see both sides.

Vote

26. A vote was taken, and by 1 to 9 against the committee voted against the officer recommendation.

27. Councillor Fishleigh proposed a refusal, seconded by Councillor Miller, on the grounds of overdevelopment, loss of light, privacy, density, loss of amenity and traffic.

28. A recorded vote was taken to refuse the application on the grounds proposed. Councillors: Allen, Cattell, Fishleigh, Hamilton, Nann, Robinson, Theobald, Miller and Loughran voted for the refusal. Councillor Shanks abstained.

29. RESOLVED: That the application be refused. The reasons to be agreed with the proser and seconder.