Agenda item - BH2020/01986 - 22 Crescent Road, Brighton - Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2020/01986 - 22 Crescent Road, Brighton - Full Planning

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: St Peters and North Laine

Minutes:

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.

 

Speakers

 

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.

 

Debate

 

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.

 

Supporting documents:

 


Bookmark this page using:

Find out more about social bookmarking

These sites allow you to store, tag and share links across the internet. You can share these links both with friends and people with similar interests. You can also access your links from any computer you happen to be using.

If you come across a page on our site that you find interesting and want to save for future reference or share it with other people, simply click on one of these links to add to your list.

All of these sites are free to use but do require you to register. Once you have registered you can begin bookmarking.

Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints