Agenda item - BH2024/00617 - 8 & 9 Lucraft Road, Brighton - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Ward Councillor Alexander addressed the committee and stated they had received emails from concerned residents. The councillor asked the committee to consider the look and character of the road and area. Parking in the area in football match days is very difficult as is parking in general. Losing two parking spaces and adding more cars would have a negative effect. The narrow home would change the appearance of the road. The committee were asked to refuse the application.

3.    Simon Bareham addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the development was identical to another application allowed at appeal in 2021. The main issue is visual impact and the inspector found this acceptable under CP12 of government guidance. The parking and appearance of the development are acceptable. It was noted that there was a housing crisis in the city, this was a brownfield site, and the scheme was well designed. The committee were requested to grant planning permission.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.    Councillor Earthey was informed by the agent that there were two garages to the rear of the existing properties, and these would be demolished.

5.    Councillor Galvin was informed by the agent that the proposed development would not be a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) like the adjoining neighbours and converting the property to an HMO would require planning permission.

6.    Councillor Sheard was informed by the agent that there was no policy to prevent a dwelling being ‘sandwiched’ between two HMO properties, only a new HMO ‘sandwiching’ a dwelling.

7.    Councillor Thomson was informed that the terraced design was established in the streetscene by an existing terrace of properties. It was noted that there was 4m between the front doors of the properties.

8.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the 2021 appeal was allowed and the applicant had 3 years in which to start works but that had elapsed, so the permission had expired.

9.    Councillor Loughran was informed that the same architect was attached to the application and the appeal.

Debate

10. Councillor Allen considered the appeal decision added great weight to the application. It was noted that the Ward Councillor considered parking to be a major issue and the inspector did not.

11. Councillor Sheard expressed concerns that the development took away parking, which was an issue on football match days. The councillor considered that an application to turn the development into an HMO would be refused by the council. It was noted that the owner was prepared to lose the two garages, but not if the occupiers agreed. The councillor was concerned at the inspector’s decision and how this reflected on City Plan policy.

12. Councillor Theobald expressed concerns that they did not feel they had much option. The councillor supported the application.

13. Councillor Earthey stated they would like to object, however, they felt they could not.

14. Councillor Thomson considered the development felt wrong and they would like to object.

Vote

15. A vote was taken, and by 8 to 2 the planning committee agreed to grant planning permission.

16. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives in the report.