Agenda item - BH2025/02297 - The Pinnacle (formerly Rayford House), 8 School Road, Hove - Removal or Variation of Condition

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

Speakers

2.    Ward Councillor Nann addressed the committee and stated that they represented objecting local residents. The proposals would represent a significant loss of amenity. The removal of access points is not good for the community. The pathways lead to close by schools, the train station and buses. Anti-social behaviour is a matter for the police. The applicants are requested to not block the access, and the committee are asked to refuse the application.

3.    Neil Bernard addressed the committee as the applicant and stated that the Pinnacle Freehold was created to restrict access to residents of the flats. Access should only be for Pinnacle residents and not for others. The application is for the removal of an access point and the installation of a controlled gate. The access point currently gives straight onto a highway, which is considered dangerous. The application would reduce highway safety concerns. The application is to reduce access and thereby reduce crime. The committee were requested to support the application.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.    Councillor Cattell was informed by the agent that the gates should have been added, however, the original scheme was not completed at the time Pinnacle Freehold took over. It was confirmed that there was provision for 40 cycles, however, they were not used. There has been low level anti-social behaviour, however, this has not been reported to the police. The access leading straight onto a road was considered a Health & Safety issue by the applicant.

5.    Councillor Pickett was informed that the pedestrian access will be restricted to pedestrians only.

6.    Councillor Sheard was informed by the Head of Planning that the application was for the installation of a gate and blocking an access.

7.    Councillor Parrott was informed by the agent that all the residents of the flats would be able to use the gate.

8.    Councillor Thomson was informed by the legal officer that the existing condition permitted the 4 units to use the gate, however, this application proposes that access would be for all the flats.

Debate

9.    Councillor Robinson considered that a big detour would be created for residents by the proposals, however it can’t be helped, the gate is acceptable. The councillor supported the application.

10. Councillor Sheard considered the detour for residents a shame. The anti-social behaviour and crime are not good, however, there was no planning reason to refuse the application.

11.Councillor Parrott considered the neighbourhood to be close-knit and a good environment, however, there was no planning reason to refuse the application, and they reluctantly supported the proposals.

12.Councillor Earthey considered there was no planning reason to refuse the application.

13.Councillor Theobald stated they were torn and were sad for the local residents who would have to walk around, however, they considered there was no option but to grant permission.

14.Councillor Cattell considered there was no need for the application. Young families will need to walk a long way round. The councillor was against the application.

15. Councillor Thomson considered it would be safer to allow more people to pass through the area.

Vote

16. A vote was held, and by 6 to 1, with 1 abstention, the committee agreed to grant planning permission. (Councillor Nann took no part in the decision-making process or 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.