Agenda item - BH2025/02058 - 31 Eldred Avenue, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The planning team leader introduced the application to the committee.

Answers to Committee Members Questions

2.    Councillor Lyons was informed by the planning manager that there was a lot of variation in design in the street. Some of the plot widths were generally wider but they did reduce along the street. The width was considered acceptable on planning balance. It was noted that the scheme had been amended to remove side elevation roof dormers and the design reflected the change in ground levels, with descent accommodation that was slightly different. The application was not considered harmful enough to refuse. It was noted that the highways team raised no objections to the proposed crossover.

3.    Councillor Pickett was informed that condition 10 required the crossover to be constructed before the first occupation. The transport team have raised no objections and find the scheme acceptable. It was noted that at 9.35 in the report: there would be an increase in trips as a result of the proposed development, but this is unlikely to have a significant impact on the public highway capacity, therefore the crossover was acceptable. The planning manager noted that informative 4 stated the need for a crossover licence.

4.    Councillor Shanks was informed by the planning manager that there were double yellow highway lines opposite the application site. It was noted it was an offence to park on a crossover and informative 4 states that a licence is required for the crossover.

5.    Councillor Thomson was informed that there was no hard-and-fast rule on garden space. It was noted that the garden was vegetated and the trees to be removed were non-native. Condition 12 required a landscaping scheme to submitted and approved, and condition 17 required the protection of trees during the construction process. It was noted that views are not a planning issue; however, outlook is assessed.

Debate

6.    Councillor Lyons was against the application. Although the extra house was welcome, the proposals would be crammed in the southern part of the street. Parking was an issue on this busy road, and the design was out of keeping with the area.

7.    Councillor Sheard supported the application as they considered it would add one house to the housing stock and the scheme would not have much impact. The councillor wanted to encourage this style of development, which they considered quirky. There was no material reason to refuse the application, which would have a minor impact on the highways.

8.    Councillor Pickett expressed surprise at the owners wanting to develop the land and they were concerned about the impact on the road junction; however, they supported the application.

9.    Councillor Earthey expressed concerns that the scheme may set a dangerous precedent; however, the councillor supported the application.

10. Councillor Thomson noted highways found the scheme acceptable; however, it was a shame to lose the garden space. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

11. A vote was held and by 8 to 1 against, the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

12. 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.