Plans to build four four-bedroom houses on a patch of land behind other homes and some by woodland face opposition from neighbours and one of the area’s councillors.
A new application for land behind 28-30 Longhill Road, Ovingdean, comes nine months after Brighton and Hove City Council granted Cross Homes permission for four three-bedroom homes on the same site.
But another developer, Home Ovingdean Ltd, formerly known as AMF Property Investment, bought the site and submitted a redesigned scheme, with houses built around a courtyard.
The company, owned by Jennifer Anderson-Mann, 44, and Damian Frizzell, 43, included green roofs and electric charging points in the garage in the new scheme.
Home Ovingdean said: “The proposed planning application is largely the same as the extant approval in site layout but seeks to improve upon the extant approval in a few key ways.”
The company said that each property would have a defined front garden and one garage each.
There would also be “a landscaped courtyard to allow each of the primary living spaces to receive direct sunlight and cross-ventilation, providing future residents with high-quality, well-lit, energy-efficient, naturally ventilated homes”.
Planning officials have recommended that councillors grant planning permission when the application goes before the council’s Planning Committee next Wednesday (12 January).
Conservative councillor Mary Mears, who represents Rottingdean Coastal ward, has objected to the scheme and asked for it to go before councillors if officials recommended granting planning permission.
Councillor Mears said: “Planning permission has already been granted to the previous owners of the land for development of three-bedroom properties on the site.
“The revised planning application now the land has been sold on is for larger four-bedroom properties.
“Each house now proposes an integral garage which in turn enlarges the footprint and encroaches more closely to the Woodland TPO (tree preservation order) and the newly designated local wildlife site Ovingdean Copse.
“The wildlife corridor is now recognised and contains two local wildlife sites. We know from the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre that there are many species of flora and fauna in this area, including where this site is located, some of which are rare.”
Councillor Mears is also concerned that the new integrated garages would free up land for further development on the site.
Seventeen letters of objection have been sent to the council, citing concerns about the size of the homes, overdevelopment and the effects on wildlife.
Longhill Woodland group raised concerns about the effects on the neighbouring woodland and wildlife corridor and the extra pressure on infrastructure.
The group said: “Doctors, dentists and school places are in short supply and now with St Aubyns (64 homes) and Meadow Vale (45 homes) approved especially.
“These are larger properties from three to four bed so more people, cars, needs, etc.
“(It) does not contribute to the City Plan target for housing in Brighton as none will be affordable.”
Ovingdean Residents and Preservation Society also objected, as it did for the application approved last year.
The society said: “The new builders are overdeveloping the site with four-bedroom houses, rather the previous three, with now integrated garages.
“As a result, the overall area for building on the site has increased to the extent it now is much closer to the woodland TPO and the newly designated Ovingdean Wildlife Corridor.
“If (the council) is serious about preserving flora and fauna in Ovingdean and specifically protecting the wildlife corridor, it should reject this larger development.”
The Planning Committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall from 2pm next Wednesday (12 January). The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
50% of the stories on the front page are just about NIMBYs objecting to increasing the housing supply
Does this rag have nothing else to report upon than riling up the equity owning, property obsessed, aged 40+ British public?
I am sure no doubt every one of these case will have perfectly exempting reasons why no they are not a NIMBY, just this site is specifically unsuitable.
Personally I would see this whole country levelled to tarmac if it meant my age group could buy houses close to the cost of construction
“Personally I would see this whole country levelled to tarmac if it meant my age group could buy houses close to the cost of construction”
Well, young person if you had your way we’d all be dead of starvation very quickly with no land left to grow food on. Or are you suggesting that we would have to import all our food to satisfy your selfish desires? Plus where would all the wildlife/rain water etc go to?
Grow up.