Agenda item - BH2025/00532 - Land North of Swanborough Drive, Brighton - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Lauren O’Connor addressed the committee as resident representing other objecting residents. They stated that they were not opposed to a development on the site, however, they were concerned that there was not sufficient infrastructure for the proposed development. The residents have been involved in the consultation process since 2022 and stated that parking was a major issue. It appears that no one is listening. Swanborough Drive is a cut through and has become very congested with parked vehicles. If 56% of occupiers of the new development have one car, then 25/30 vehicles will be added to the existing parking crisis. The parking at other sites will not be sufficient. Local transport is declining, buses 1 and 21 cannot solve the parking problems. The road is often blocked with cars having to reverse to make way for others. The committee were requested to refuse the application and then come to Swanborough Drive to see the congestion for themselves.

3.    Ward Councillor Williams addressed the committee and stated that the site was owned by the council, and the development would be for the benefit of local people. There are five other blocks of flats nearby, which are to be redeveloped in the future. The parking issues in the area are understood, and this will be alleviated when the five blocks are remodelled. The proposed development will be a positive for the Whitehawk estate, and it was noted that parking came up as an issue from the consultation process. The last consultation gave positive responses. The committee were requested to approve the planning application.

4.    Stephen Drybrough addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, Brighton and Hove City Council and stated that the development would provide 36 affordable homes, on the site set down in the City Plan. There were 6,000 on the housing register and this development will be an opportunity for families to have a home. Following consultations the development has been shaped for the community, with a community space forming part of the proposals. The homes will be high performance with affordable heating. The scale and massing have been carefully considered in the design. The sustainable transport will include a bus stop upgraded, cycle storage, discounts for bus users, car club spaces and electric bikes outside space. The habitat loss will be compensated by sympathetic landscaping and planting. The ecological gains from the development will be in the local park. The scheme is part of the 2,000 homes over two years project. The committee were asked to approve the application.

Answers to Committee Members Questions

5.    Councillor Cattell was informed by the agent that the development will comply with condition 10: The development hereby approved should achieve a minimum Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating ‘B’. The scheme has been designed with a fabric first approach and is compliant as designed. However, will be possible to make the development more efficient by adding solar panels.

6.    Councillor Sheard was informed by the applicant that there would be one visitor parking space, undercroft parking, two additional blue badge parking spaces and car club bays as well. Also 46 cycle spaces, long stay, 12 short stay, plus 6 e-bike stands. It was noted that the access pathway to the community orchard would remain unchanged.

7.    Councillor Robinson was informed by the applicant that the highways team looked at the parking stress in the area and found some commuter parking. The introduction of a parking zone would be challenging and does not form part of the scheme. The Principal Transport Development Officer stated it was considered that 20+ cars could park off road. It was likely that 45% of the residents would require parking and this equalled 16 vehicles. The development is close to the bus stop.

8.    Councillor Theobald was informed by the Estate Regeneration Project Manager that all the new homes would be let to those on the housing register. The applicant stated that the accessible units would be on first and second floors, accessed via lifts. The scheme is compliant with requirements. A hedge with tree planting will form the northern boundary with a low-level fence to the rear of the site. The Principal Transport Development Officer confirmed that buses run on average every 8 minutes.

9.    Councillor Parrott was informed by the applicant that there were no communal charging points or storage area for mobility scooters.

10. Councillor Earthey was informed that by the Principal Transport Development Officer that there had been no double counting of parking spaces and there would be 16 available parking spaces.

11. Councillor Pickett was informed by the Principal Transport Development Officer that new residents would be able to get discounted bus travel from the council, and it was considered that there would be no significant impact on parking in the area. It was noted that new trees would be planted under the landscaping scheme. By condition the proposed materials for the balconies would be required to agreed.

12. Councillor Thomson was informed by the applicant that the community space was identified in the community engagement. There are other spaces, however, these are located further south on the Whitehawk estate. The proposed space will be a large hall with kitchen, which could be a café or meeting place. It was noted that the site was identified as housing allocation, even though there was a bee bank at the location. The sunlight/daylight assessment considered there would be some loss of light for three existing units in neighbouring blocks.

Debate

13. Councillor Theobald considered the design, with balconies and terraces, was good and the city needed affordable housing. The proposed community space was good; however, more parking spaces would have been better. The scheme was good for Brighton and Hove; therefore, the councillor supported the application.

14. Councillor Nann stated they understood the inconveniences; however, 36 units was good and any issues arising could be managed. The councillor supported the application.

15. Councillor Sheard considered that parking was an issue, however, there was a housing shortage and the city needed homes. Transport issues can be looked at, perhaps the new 1x bus could be re-routed to include the Whitehawk estate. More cycle parking would be better. The councillor supported the application.

16. Councillor Robinson considered the design to be lovely, with the nice orchard, close by greenery and much needed 36 affordable housing units. More parking for future schemes would be appreciated. The councillor supported the application.

17. Councillor Cattell stated they looked at the planning balance, the ‘pros-and-cons’ for the proposals. Parking for other schemes should be looked at, including when the nearby blocks are refurbished.

18.The Head of Service for Planning stated that no decisions have been taken on nearby blocks regarding their future.

19.Councillor Earthey considered the proposals ticked all the boxes and asked that all issues raised by existing residents be noted by the planning officers.

20.Councillor Pickett considered the biodiversity to be good, with reduced lighting and bee bricks. The design was great. The councillor supported the application.

21.Councillor Parrott considered the design to be great, and the scheme had been designed with disability in mind. The parking issues have been heard.

22.Councillor Thomson noted the parking issues.

Vote

23. A vote was held, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.

24. RESOLVED: 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 the applicant entering into a Memorandum of Understanding or a decision taken by the Cabinet/Director of Property and Finance of the council to ensure delivery of the Heads of Terms set out in the report, and also subject to the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report.