Agenda item - BH2024/01184 - 32 Varndean Gardens, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Answers to committee Member Questions

2.    Councillor Thomson was informed that there would be a maximum of 5 children per training session and total lesson time would be 4 hours per day and 4 days a week.

3.    Councillor Robinson was informed by the applicant that pool was a 1980s build, with a wide door and level access and there was no teaching for physically impaired persons. Special needs and other children attend at any time.

4.    Councillor Nann was informed that there was a maximum of four hours per day used for lessons and 3 cross overs were possible both in the morning and afternoon (resulting in a potential total of 6 cross overs per day).

5.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the pool build would require planning permission; however, the build had existed for decades, and no action could be taken after 4 years.

6.    Councillor Theobald was informed by the applicant that there was one parking space on the driveway. It was noted that no complaints had been received regarding parking and any inconsiderate parking was dealt with straight away.

7.    Councillor Thomson was informed that the applicant owned the pool and rented it to the swim school.

8.    Councillor Winder was informed by the applicant that parents of babies stay for the duration of the lesson. It was noted there would be a maximum of 40 visits per day.

9.    Councillor Loughran was informed by the applicant that they operated for 39 weeks a year with 160 visits per week. It was noted there were double yellow lines and some parking bays in the street. The applicant stated they encouraged sustainable transport and there was cycle parking on site.

Debate

10. Councillor Theobald considered the build to be ugly outside and good inside. It was noted there were hardly any complaints, and this was a good facility for learning to swim. The councillor supported the application.

11. Councillor Robinson considered the lack of disabled access to be an issue.

12. Councillor Thomson supported the application.

13. Councillor Shanks noted the use had been going on for some time and there were no grounds to refuse the application.

14. Councillor Nann supported the application and considered learning to swim to be good. It was noted that disability swimming lessons would be given by specialist.

15. Councillor Winder expressed concerns relating to parking and disabled access, which they considered could be improved. The councillor did however support the application.

16. Councillor Loughran noted the intensification of use with 160 visits per week, which was considered a lot for the quite street. The application would cause significant harm to the neighbours’ amenities.

Vote

17. A vote was taken and by 6 to 3 the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

18. 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.