Agenda item - BH2025/00363 - Hanover Crescent Enclosure, Brighton - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Paul Papadopoulos addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that they had legal objections to the proposals, and that the courts stated that the objections must be taken into account. Under 1981 act there is a statutory ban on structures on the enclosure. Only a shed may be erected for maintenance purposes and the application will be in breach. There are no ‘get out’ clauses. No approval for the proposals has been agreed at the enclosure board annual general meeting. The application is a misuse of private funds. The council own the land, and this is a breach of trust.

3.    Martha Turland addressed the committee as a member of the Hanover Crescent committee, the applicant and stated that the scheme had received support by 72% of the committee. The funds used for the scheme would be repaid to the committee in use charges. The proposal was submitted to support cleaner environment. Hanover Crescent currently have no access to on street chargers. The East Sussex 1981 Act should not be part of the consideration process.

4.    The legal officer noted that the East Sussex 1981 Act was outside planning considerations and the committee were able to determine the application and that any redress under this Act should be sought outside of the planning application.

Answers to committee Member questions

5.    Councillor Shanks was informed by the applicant that the crescent is a private road with no access to parking zone permits. There are 48 parking bays and 42 vehicles currently. The charger will not be for (general) public use only Crescent residents.

6.    Councillor Robinson was informed that East Sussex 1981 Act was not a planning issue.

7.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the garden area was large and was shown the amount of area lost and the size of the kiosk and electric vehicle charging post.

8.    Councillor Cattell was informed that the existing wooden posts on the enclosure were not classed as ‘buildings’ and would be structures.

9.    Councillor Parrott was informed by the applicant that the electric vehicle charger could extended to service more than one vehicle in the future, should that be required.

Debate

10. Councillor Theobald noted that the trees on the enclosure were protected. The proposed electric vehicle charger was good, and most residents supported the scheme. The councillor supported the application.

11. Councillor Robinson considered there was nothing to dislike. There were no charging points currently available, so they supported the application.

12. Councillor Shanks considered the proposals to be a great project, and they supported the application.

13. Councillor Cattell noted the crescent was not in a parking zone and considered the use of the electric vehicle charger would be good.

Vote

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

15.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.