Agenda item - BH2020/01620 - 57 Goldstone Crescent, Hove - Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2020/01620 - 57 Goldstone Crescent, Hove - Full Planning


Ward Affected: Hove Park


1.    It was noted that an in-depth presentation had been provided by officers in advance of the meeting and was included on the council website detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs which showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development.


2.    The main considerations in the determination of this application relate to the principle of development, affordable housing provision, density, design, landscaping and biodiversity, their impact on neighbouring amenity, the standard of accommodation, the impact on the highway, and sustainability.




3.    Ward Councillor Bagaeen spoke on the item to the committee declaring that they spoke on behalf of residents and the Hove Park Forum. The councillor expressed concerns that a site visit had not taken place and did not consider the other designs mentioned in the design and access statement are material, and strongly disagreed with the statement that the tree is not significant. The development site is not a windfall and is not on the register of potential development sites. The density of the area is important, and the titled balance of consideration should be ignored. No affordable housing has been offered in the scheme. The design and access statement states that the applications at 57 and 55 are being dealt with separately The Hove Park Forum is currently working on the Hove Park neighbourhood plan, and this should be a material consideration even though it has not been adopted yet. The plan includes design guidelines created to protect the area. This development fails on landscaping and sustainability strategies. The Forum commissioned a housing needs assessment and found the dwelling mix must be decided by life stage modelling. Hove Park plays a wider role in the city and offers larger homes.


4.    The Planning Manager informed the committee that there had been no site visits during lockdown to protect the health and safety of staff and residents. The neighbourhood plan has not been drafted and therefore has no weight in the discussion.


5.    The case officer informed the committee that the developments at 57 and 55 Goldstone Crescent were two separate applications. This was a decision made by the applicant as they were two separate properties under different ownership.


6.    Ian Coomber spoke to the committee on the item as the applicant’s agent. The speaker considered that the application was a model of co-operation and working together with officers. It was noted that the presentation was the best view of the application. The street scene in the area is not considered uniform. The development includes a mix of flats which will be good for those wishing to downsize. The scheme is good and cannot be considered against the draft neighbourhood plan design code. The area offers a variety of housing creating a good mix. The development will help to address the 5 year land supply for the council. It is considered that the report and presentation are good and show everything needed to determine the application. The speaker requested the committee to approve the application.


Questions for speaker


7.    Councillor Miller was informed that the development would be a good match for those wishing to downsize in the area.


Questions for officers


8.    Councillor Hills was informed that the cycle parking would be to the rear of the building. The exact location is under negotiation. By condition the development will not be occupied until this has been resolved.


9.    Councillor Childs was informed that the development was a similar footprint to the existing property and the majority of the garden would be retained.


10. Councillor Fishleigh was informed that the developer decided to submit two applications for 57 and 55 Goldstone Crescent as they were under different ownership. The Councillor was informed that the S106 agreement would need to be signed and agreed before the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was introduced.


11. The Senior Solicitor informed the committee that the S106 agreement would need to be agreed before 2 October 2020 as this would be before CIL started. After that date the contributions will change.




12. Councillor Miller considered the number of units and affordable housing contribution to be good, along with the materials. The dug down design was good, as was the downsizing for city residents and the flats will add 7 units to housing targets. The councillor supported the application.


13. Councillor Osborne appreciated the report and the development, on the same footprint, not over the height of neighbouring properties and with little harmful effect, to be acceptable and supported the application.


14. Councillor Hills considered the development to create more good homes, with downsizing opportunities and to be well planned. The councillor supported the application.


15. Councillor Fishleigh found the application a challenge to consider away from the other development proposed at No.55.


16. A vote was taken and out of the 9 Members present the committee voted by 7 to 2 that planning permission be granted.


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 be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement on the Heads of Terms set out in the report and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 2nd October 2020 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 11.1 of the report.

Supporting documents:


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: | how to find us | comments & complaints