Agenda item - BH2020/01986 - 22 Crescent Road, Brighton - Full Planning
navigation and tools
You are here - Home : Council and Democracy : Councillors and Committees : Agenda item
BH2020/01986 - 22 Crescent Road, Brighton - Full Planning
RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT
Ward Affected: St Peters and North Laine
1. It was noted that an in-depth presentation had been provided by officers in advance of the meeting and was included on the council website detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs which also showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development.
2. A Democratic Services officer read the comments submitted by ward Councillor West: As a ward councillor I would like to support the many residents moved to object to this application. With one less bedroom the application not materially different to the one previously refused. If granted the density of HMOs in the area would be in excess the policy threshold for acceptance. The impact from noise, disturbance and loss
of amenity placed upon neighbours will be considerable. I trust the planning officers will be minded to refuse the application, however in
the case they are minded to grant I request the matter is put before the
committee for determination.
Questions for officers
3. Councillor Yates was informed that the outside terrace area was not included as amenity impact in the previous application which was refused. The screening to prevent overlooking and noise has been removed to reduce the impact on the terrace and improve appearance. The councillor noted that in the debate for the previous application access to the terrace was through a bedroom and this could be an issue. The previous decision was considered to be clear. The Member was informed that the previous refused application was for 5 bedrooms and the current application was for 4.
4. Councillor Fishleigh was informed that the previous use of the bedroom stated as being an inner room on the plans, was not clear.
5. Councillor Theobald was informed that the front bedroom did have access to natural light and was referred to as an inner room through the access arrangements.
6. Councillor Osborne was informed that the proposals conformed to space standards. The bedroom next to the kitchen and the one bathroom were considered acceptable. The bedroom below the roof terrace would have the same amount of noise disturbance as the rest of the property. It was noted that the outside space had been accessed for impact on the neighbouring properties.
7. Councillor Theobald noted that 55 letters of objection had been received and two enforcement investigations had been launched. (It was noted that no breach had been found). The Member did not consider the layout to be good and they were not keen on small bathroom or the terrace.
8. Councillor Osborne did not consider the layout to be good and they did not support the application.
9. Councillor Yates noted that the use was not very different from a family, however two enforcement notices had been served with no actions. The councillor stated they were against the application.
10. Councillor Childs that housing was needed, and the application was good for the city. The Councillor noted that not all HMOs were not bad, however, the layout was not good. The impact on the neighbours and nearby residents was a concern, as was noise pollution. The councillor did not support the application.
11. Councillor Littman did not consider the standard of accommodation to be adequate.
12. Following the end of the debate the Chair invited the committee to vote: Out of the 8 Members present the vote was 7 to 1 against the officer’s recommendation.
13. Councillor Yates formally proposed that the application be refused as contrary to policies QD27 and CP21. The proposal was considered to detrimental to residential amenities and harmful to neighbours. Councillor Shanks seconded the proposal to refuse.
14. A recorded vote was taken in respect of the alternative recommendation that the application be refused. Councillors: Osborne, Childs, Fishleigh, Shanks, Theobald, Yates and Littman voted that planning permission be refused. Councillor Miller abstained. (Councillor Henry was not in attendance for the debate or vote). The application was refused on a vote of 7, with 1 abstention. The final wording to be agreed by the Planning manager.
15. RESOLVED: That planning permission be REFUSED.
- Header BH2020 01986 - 22 Crescent Road, item 82G PDF 17 KB View as HTML (82G/1) 3 KB
- Plan BH2020 01986 - 22 Crescent Road, item 82G PDF 360 KB
- Report BH2020 01986 - 22 Crescent Road, item 82G PDF 168 KB View as HTML (82G/3) 55 KB
- Cllr rep BH2020 01986 - 22 Crescent Road, item 82G PDF 36 KB View as HTML (82G/4) 3 KB
- MI BH2020 01986 - 22 Crescent Road, item 82G PDF 1 MB