Agenda item - BH2023/01058 - 15-26 Lincoln Cottages, Brighton - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Liz Cooke addressed the committee on behalf of local residents and stated that they were aware of the context of the application, and they were generally pleased with the new consultation and the changes made. The new community garden and removal of the bungalow from the scheme were welcomed, however, access to the garden was not clear and only mentioned by the case officer. Parking was a serious concern, as 16 new units with parking permits would be an issue. Parking in the area is a major issue and the access would be very narrow for vehicles. The suggested heat source pumps would be noisy therefore insulated sound boxes are requested.

3.    Oliver Milner acting as the agent on behalf of the applicant stated that the development was on a council allocated site for new homes and was a terrace of houses. Following engagement, the development was reduced from 9 to 8 units: the bungalow was removed, and the land given over to a new community garden which increases separation distances with the existing properties. Replacement trees are to be planted, and the bin store is to be repositioned. The net gain on biodiversity has been increased. The development will have Green Technology and meet Future Home standards. The development will be car free, and no parking permits will be issued. It was noted the local community supported the development and the scheme delivered much needed new homes.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.    Councillor Sheard was informed that the landscaping would be covered by condition, as would the lighting of pathways, and the Environmental Health team will be consulted. The landscaping master plan includes 1m high bollards, details of which will be submitted by condition.

5.    Councillor Robinson was informed that the new residents will be responsible for maintaining the community garden. The councillor was informed that the use of the garden by existing residents and if there were a lease agreement was not a planning matter.

6.    Councillor Galvin was informed that who had access to the community garden was not a planning material consideration.

7.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the access to the development would be too small for cars, and parking permits were not restricted by condition, however, they were managed by the parking team. Following the viability assessment the planning inspector recommended a standard contribution to affordable housing. It was noted that the heat pumps will be installed and were considered to cause no harm to the new and existing residents.

8.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the first scheme granted planning permission was not viable, therefore the bungalow has been removed from the development. The agent noted that this reduction in units allowed more money to be put into the new community garden.

9.    Councillor Robinson was informed by the agent that the since the planning appeal, community engagement has increased, and the developer will continue to liaise with existing residents. It was noted that conditions cover the impact on neighbours during construction.

10. Councillor Winder was informed that it was not a reasonable requirement for the agent to agree to use of the new community garden by existing residents.

11. Councillor Nann was informed that it was outside of the consideration process to ask the applicant to talk to existing residents.

Debate

12. Councillor Theobald considered it would be a shame if existing residents were not able to access the new community garden. Affordable housing would have been good; however, it was noted that the development was allowed at appeal. The councillor was not happy with the whole scheme.

13. Councillor Thomson considered the developer had liaised with the community and reduced the scheme. The councillor supported the application.

14. Councillor Robinson considered it to be a shame the affordable housing contribution had been reduced; however, the application was better than before. The councillor supported the application.

15.  Councillor Sheard considered the reduction in affordable housing contribution was a shame. The councillor considered the scheme to be decent and they supported the application.

16. Councillor Earthey considered it was a shame the affordable housing contribution was reduced. The councillor considered the new community garden should be for the use of new and existing residents. The councillor supported the application.

17. Councillor Galvin considered the new community garden should be for the use of new and existing residents.

18. Councillor Winder considered that the developer should continue to liaise with the existing residents regarding the access to the new community garden. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

19. A vote was taken, and the committee voted unanimously to grant planning permission.

20. RESOLVED: Transport and access: 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 on the Heads of Terms set out in the report and the Conditions and Informatives as set out thereafter, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 26 February 2025 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 12 of the report.