Agenda item - BH2025/02344 - 89 Holland Road, Hove - Removal or Variation of Condition

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

Speakers

2.    Ward Councillor O’Quinn stated they were speaking on behalf of local residents, and they considered 38% increase in bulk and massing was not modest. Objections relate to noise, from students and parents, littering and parking. The level of noise is considered excessive. Complaints have been made, but to no avail. Significant issues arise at drop off and pick up times, with major congestion. Hove junior school is nearby and that has a knock-on effect. It is considered that the proposals will add 34 extra parents.

3.    Zac Denton addressed the committee as the agent and stated that the nursery has been extended, and the space is already available. It was noted that Ofsted find the increase from 51 to 70 acceptable. There is a demand for more spaces in this city centre location. The woodland play area is good, and this is a sustainable location. The proposals agree with policies CP9 and CP18. The committee were requested to support local businesses and agree the application.

4.    The Head of Planning stated that the more than 51 may well currently go to the nursery and the restriction to 51 was at any one time.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.    Councillor Parrott was informed by the agent that there is a travel plan in place, 88% of parents used sustainable transport, and the traffic levels would be low level. It was noted that the management plan included staggered drop off and pick up times.

6.    Councillor Pickett was informed by the agent that Ofsted had assessed the nursery and found 70 pupils acceptable.

7.    Councillor Robinson was informed that the management plan would cover smells, noise, and any other neighbour’s issues.

8.    Councillor Sheard was informed that the transport team have no objections and the capacity of the building was not a planning issue.

Debate

9.    Councillor Sheard considered that if the transport team were content, then they would be also. The small building was a concern, however, there was no reason to refuse the application.

10. Councillor Robinson considered the applicant had listened to the case officer and there was a need for nursery places in the city. There was no reason to refuse the application, therefore, the councillor supported the application.

11. Councillor Nann considered that 70 pupils will make as much noise as 51. The councillor supported the application.

12. Councillor Parrott considered the noise created by parents on drop-offs and pick-ups, was an issue and asked that they be considerate to neighbours.

13. Councillor Pickett requested that 70 be the limit.

14. Councillor Earthey considered the applicant should be a good neighbour.

15. Councillor Thomson requested the applicant be nice to neighbours and should try not to have an adverse impact.

Vote

16. A vote was held, and the committee unanimously agreed to grant planning permission. (Councillor Theobald took no part in the decision-making process or the vote).

17. 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.