Cllr. Bella Sankey

BH2025/02297 – The Pinnacle (formerly Rayford House), 8 School Road

14^th November 2025:

I believe the planning application contravenes policy CP9 of Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One which states:

I believe the planning application also contravenes: Paragraph 4.122 in the supporting text which states:

As has been made clear by the number and strength of resident objections to this planning application, the open access currently provided has become an integral part of the sustainable and active travel infrastructure of the surrounding area. Encouraging people out of vehicles and onto their feet is essential for health and wellbeing. This is especially the case close to schools as the Pinnacle access points are, with close proximity to the popular and large West Hove community primary school and also so close to a railway station, Aldrington, which services a wide catchment of travellers and commuters. Encouraging easy and accessible use of footways and public transport is essential to cut pollution and emissions and to create healthier, more active communities. It is also relevant that the railway line means access north and south across the line is difficult and infrequent, aside from Aldrington tunnel, the only pedestrian walkways are on Sackville Road or Olive Road. Easy access to Aldrington Tunnel is therefore critical to maintain quality of life. The access points also save residents on the Eastern side of the Pinnacle valuable time in accessing Portslade station and

access to bus stops on Portland Road.

Any concerns about Anti-Social Behaviour need to be evidenced and should then be dealt with in the normal way through policing and community safety measures. In any event, the proposed blocking of access points would not eliminate ASB that apparently arises from the fact the carpark appears

secluded at night.

While I appreciate that the Inspector amended the original planning condition, my view is that the revised condition is unenforceable and is therefore not sound. In any event the revised condition does not mandate nor permit this application which would entirely block one access point, and the application fails to make the case that this is necessary nor reasonable. Rather it would deliver a loss

of public amenity and connectivity and undermine planning principles of inclusivity and integration.

I request that this application is called in to Planning Committee.