Agenda item - BH2020/02835 - Land To The Rear of 28-30 Longhill Road, Brighton BN2 7BE - Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2020/02835 - Land To The Rear of 28-30 Longhill Road, Brighton BN2 7BE - Full Planning


1.    The Planning manager introduced the report.




2.    The comments submitted by Rottingdean Parish Council were read out by a Democratic Services officer which stated that the Parish Council objects to the scheme for the following reasons: overdevelopment of the site; and the development would impinge on the adjacent wildlife corridor.


3.    Ward Councillor Mears spoke to the committee and stated that the points to highlight were the impact on wildlife, and the previous application had been refused on density grounds. The site backs onto a wildlife corridor that stretches down to Rottingdean. The councillor considered the whole area should be looked at as this was an over development of the site, where a previous application had been refused.


4.    The applicant’s agent, Simon Bareham, spoke to the committee and stated that the application seeks to improve the existing application. The proposed dwellings will be cheaper per sqft with no further impact. The proposal has been assessed and the density found to be acceptable. The development will include a woodland action plan with coppicing on an annual cycle to maintain the trees. It was noted that the county ecologist had not objected to the proposals. The development will be high quality with positive contribution to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The committee were requested to grant planning permission.


5.    The case officer confirmed that the previous application was refused for the effects on the woodland and vehicle movements, not on density. There was a slight increase in footprint to the dwellings however they would be no closer to neighbouring properties.


Questions for officers


6.    Councillor Janio was informed that the extant permission was given for 3 years and works have started on the site and there is no time limit for the works to be completed.




7.    Councillor Theobald expressed concerns regarding the 31 objection letters and the green ‘lung’ area. The councillor considered the scheme too dense and was against the application.


8.    Councillor Fishleigh stated they did not approve of land banking and expressed concerns regarding the wildlife corridor. It was noted the Parish Council objected to the proposals. The bus service was infrequent, and the occupiers would need to use cars. The councillor was against the application. 


9.    Councillor Miller considered four houses too many and was against the application.


10.Councillor Janio stated that on balance he supported the application.


11.Councillor Childs considered the housing need, no additional impact and on balance supported the application.


12.Councillor Littman stated they understood the Parish council and ward councillor comments and noted the extant permission. The councillor had no issue with four dwellings rather than two and supported the application.


13.A vote was taken, and the committee voted by 6 to 3 that planning permission be granted. (Councillor Yates had left the meeting and did not take part in the discussions or decision making process).


14.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.

Supporting documents:


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