Agenda item - BH2021/01731 - Brighton and Hove Bus Garage, 43 Conway Street, Hove - Full Planning

1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

2.       Councillor Yates was informed that the 10 year temporary permission was considered sufficient time for a long term resolution to come forward. The redevelopment of the site is to facilitate its more efficient use. The applicant proposes fencing, green walls and buffer strips to lessen the impact on the neighbouring area.

3.       Councillor Theobald was informed that the proposal was for open parking, not under shelter to allow maximum rationalisation of the site. The number of staff will remain the same, however, the number of day time parking spaces will increase at a time when buses are out of the garage en-route. A replacement roof at this time would have an impact on the long term development of the site.

4.       Councillor Moonan was informed that the applicant wishes to establish a zoned area for future building in the area. The open plan design would have an impact on noise and the applicant’s statement addresses this issue. Parking will be outside whilst the workshop will remain inside. Activities such as refuelling, and washing will remain under cover. Under condition 20 the developer is required to provide details of noise mitigation.

5.       Councillor Yates was informed that the cars would park in the open during the day and buses at night. There are 3 disabled bays proposed, close to the entrance and Conway Street, with 12 electric charging points.

6.       Councillor Theobald was informed that the materials would need approval by condition.

7.       Councillor Fishleigh was informed that there was no Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as the proposal did not increase the floor space.

Debate

8.       Councillor Theobald considered the development to be an improvement for Hove Station, the bus company and improved the site entrance.

9.       Councillor Moonan expressed concerns at the height of the screening. The case officer informed the councillor that behind the proposed fencing there would be a large gap between the parking bays and the screening.

10.      Councillor Moonan proposed an amendment to condition 17 to increase the height of the fencing to at least 3 metres with the final wording to be agreed by the Planning Manager. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Yates.

Vote

11.      A vote was taken on the proposed amendment to condition 17, and 6 to 2, the committee agreed to the amendment. It was then agreed that this would be an Informative rather than an amendment to condition 17.

Vote

12.      A vote was taken, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.

13.      RESOVLED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 9 June 2022 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in in the final section of the report.