Reserved matters development at 295 Dyke Road, Hove

Earlier permission

The agent said the application concerned reserved matters and that outline permission had already been granted.

“Simon Bareham addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the application was for reserved matters and outline permission had already been granted. The proposals have been reduced and will be 4m to 5m away from the boundaries, whilst the garage will be 2.2m from the boundary. The proposals conform the planning policy DM20 and good practice. The 430 rule is not broken.”

Minutes

Residents’ concerns

A neighbouring resident said 12 residents objected, citing overdevelopment, privacy loss, construction access, disruption, boundary treatment and tree removal.

“Jon Newey addressed the committee as a neighbouring resident and stated that they were speaking on behalf of 12 residents who had objected to the application. The proposals are considered over development of the site, with a loss of privacy for neighbours. The speaker lived at 293 and the proposed construction accessway will be inches from the neighbour’s house, an Arts & Crafts building and construction traffic will have an effect on the house.”

Minutes

The speakers

A neighbouring resident opposed the proposals, while the applicant’s agent said the reduced design complied with policy and avoided overlooking.

Questions and safeguards

Members discussed boundary treatments, trees, privacy, construction protection, a possible management plan, party-wall matters and the lack of a neighbourhood plan.

“Councillor Shanks was informed by the agent that the boundary treatments will be agreed by condition, however, a brick wall potentially could be looked at. The case officer confirmed that there was no condition requiring a construction environmental management plan and it was not usual to request to agree the boundary treatments until occupation.”

“Councillor Robinson was informed that a temporary wall or barrier could be constructed to protect the neighbouring property under a construction environmental management plan. The planning manager stated the boundary wall would however need to be acceptable and may not be practical alongside a construction access, and that temporary fencing may be more suitable.”

Minutes

Members’ debate

Members weighed the development’s scale, privacy and construction impacts, with some supporting an added construction management plan and others finding it unnecessary.

“Councillor Robinson considered the party wall agreement would be difficult and extra protection would be good for the neighbour. The legal officer noted that the party wall agreement was outside planning considerations. It was noted that construction vibration would potentially be covered if a construction environmental management plan was added by condition.”

“Councillor Sheard considered that a construction environmental management plan would be excessive for the scale of development.”

Minutes

The votes

Members approved the additional construction environmental management plan condition by 7 votes to 3 and granted permission by 9 votes to 1.

“A vote was held on the additional condition and by 7 to 3 the motion was agreed.”

“A vote was held and the committee agreed by 9 to 1 to grant planning permission with the additional condition.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to the report’s conditions and informatives, with the additional condition agreed by the committee.

“RESOVLED: 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, with the added condition.”

Minutes