Agenda item - BH2021/04436 - 16 Talbot Crescent, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.    Ward Councillor Fowler addressed the committee and stated that they objected to the application and considered the proposal to be an overdevelopment of the area. Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) already exist in the area and have created parking and noise issues from parties. The development would have the potential to introduce six more cars where parking is already bad. The councillor considered there were too many HMOs and requested that the committee consider the residents and refuse the application.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

3.    Councillor Janio was informed that the objections from the Coldean Neighbourhood Planning Forum had been taken into consideration. The Senior Solicitor informed the councillor that the forum has no formal status as a consultee, however, the points raised had been taken into account as others have.

4.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the application was for a change of use and a single storey rear extension.

5.    Paul Joyce acting as the agent on behalf of the applicant stated that the application was for change of use and the single storey extension to improve the standard of accommodation, which would be ‘permitted development’ if it related to a dwelling.

6.    Councillor Shanks was informed by Ward Councillor Fowler that there are no resident parking permits in the area. The only permits are for match days.

7.    Councillor Theobald was informed there was still parking for one car after the conversion of the garage to habitable accommodation.

Debate

8.    Councillor Theobald noted there were 29 objections and along with the Forum objection and they were concerned at the loss of a family home in this Crescent.

9.    Councillor Barnett considered the rooms to be small with no shared space. The councillor was against the application.

10. Councillor Fishleigh stated they were against the application because of the impact on highways, infrastructure, social facilities, layout and density.

11. Councillor Ebel considered the application to be compliant with policy, not in the city centre, having communal areas and enough bathrooms and toilets. The councillor stated they supported the application.

12. Councillor Janio considered there was no legal reason to refuse, and they would abstain from the vote.

13. Councillor Moonan considered the proposals to be well developed, there to be enough space, and policy compliant. The councillor supported the application.

14. Councillor Littman considered the development to be fine with enough space and noted the need for housing. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

15. A vote was taken, and by 4 to 3, with 1 abstention the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

16. 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.