Agenda item - BH2026/00234 - 65 Ladies Mile Road, Brighton - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Michelle Graham addressed the committee as a neighbouring resident and stated that they considered the proposals to be an overdevelopment of the site, which was not vacant and was the rear garden of 65 Ladies Mile Road. The development will affect the openness and green views of the area and will be out-of-step. The proposed parking to the rear of the site needs to be rejected as an over intensification. The development will reduce the amount of space and therefore be out-of-keeping with the area. The proposals will be near the neighbour’s boundary and result in overlooking and loss of privacy against policy DM20. The resident understood housing was needed; however, they considered the proposals must be appropriate. The development will have significant impact and should be refused.

3.    Ward Councillor McNair addressed the committee and stated that they considered the site had received change upon change. The existing House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) was suitable for seven persons. The proposals if approved should have a condition to prevent use as an HMO. The site is next to an open park, and the development would have an impact on openness of the space. The councillor requested no extensions to the property without planning permission. The councillor agreed with the transport team in that the new driveway will reduce on street parking. There is a gradual loss of green space in the area and they should be respected. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

4.    Toby Deacon addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of applicant and stated that the location was sustainable, and the proposals would add to the housing supply. Following officer recommendations, the development has been reduced, and the bungalow was considered a good design. There is no overlooking, loss of light or intensive bulk and massing. The development is a two-bed dwelling and therefore a reasonable size. The car parking stress levels are acceptable, and highways team have no objections. The space standards have been met and are not against National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.    Councillor Theobald was informed that there is an Article 4 direction preventing conversion to an HMO. To convert to an HMO would require planning permission. It was noted that the resident speaking in objection lived next door in the other half of the pair of semi-detached houses, and the development would be 4.5m from the boundary with the neighbour.

6.    Councillor Pickett was informed that the proposals include storage in the undercroft and hallway. There is no alteration to the street lighting as the access has been moved away from the streetlamp. Landscaping is to be approved by condition.

7.    Councillor Robinson was informed that the proposals are to occupy the northwest part of the rear garden of 65 Ladies Mile Road. It was noted that the proposed rear elevation windows will look at the boundary fence 4.5m away.

8.    Councillor Guilmant was informed that an Article 4 prohibits conversion of the development to an HMO, and no permitted development will be available for the new dwelling.

9.    Councillor Cattell was informed that the development was a self-build/custom build dwelling, therefore the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was not payable, and the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) was not required either for a self-build project.

Debate

10. Councillor Cattell considered it was hard to accept there would be any overlooking as the proposals were set back beyond a 1.8m fence. The existing property has a lot of garden space and would appear to be a typical Patcham bungalow in a high-density area. There are no yellow lines to prevent street parking. The councillor supported the application.

11. Councillor Pickett considered the dwelling to be modest, which fits well into the location next to open space. It was good to retain the tree and remove permitted development rights. The design is good. The councillor supported the application.

12. Councillor Robinson expressed sympathy for the neighbouring residents; however, they considered the development would add to the area as it was small and not imposing. The councillor supported the application.

13. Councillor Theobald considered the plans were not readable and the outlook of number 67 will be affected. Parking in the area is difficult, and this development will reduce parking spaces. The proposals will set a precedent and change the appearance of the area.

14. Councillor Sheard considered the small single storey development to have reduced impact on the area, parking and to help the housing crisis. The councillor supported the application.

15. Councillor Guilmant considered the application to have a sympathetic design similar to the neighbouring properties. The councillor supported the application.

16. Councillor Thomson considered that neighbours often object to planning applications but find it’s not so bad once it has been built.

Vote

17. A vote was held, and by 8 to 1 the committee agreed to grant planning permission. (Councillor Hill took no part in the decision-making process or the vote)

18. 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.