Agenda item - BH2022/00026 - Parkside Mansions, 34 Preston Park Avenue, Brighton - Removal or Variation of Condition

1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee. It was noted that applications N and O would be discussed at the same time. The case officer updated the committee stating that a late representation stating that the red boundary line is incorrect. The Planning Manager stated that this was not the case.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

2.       Councillor Theobald was informed by the case officer that the car spaces were the same as before, and the impact on the parking would therefore be the same.

3.       Councillor Littman was informed that the condition for car parking stated three spaces and the committee were being asked to amend the condition.

4.       Councillor Shanks was informed the objectors were from the immediate vicinity.

5.       Councillor Moonan was informed by the case officer that the initial plans did not include cycle parking, these have now been amended to include cycle parking. The Planning Manager noted that condition 8 covered storage of cycles.

6.       Councillor Shanks was informed by the Planning Manager that a breach of conditions notice has been issued. If the committee refuses the application to rectify the position, officers will need to consider the options.

Debate

7.       Councillor Shanks considered the applicant should have full filled the conditions as set out in the planning permission. The councillor was against the application.

8.       Councillor Moonan considered the parking to be difficult and considered this may be the result of the developer selling off spaces for profit. The councillor was against the application.

9.       Councillor Littman agreed, and they were against the application.

Vote on Item N

10.      A vote was taken, and by 2 to 5 the committee voted against the officer recommendation.

Vote on item O

11.      A vote was taken, and by 2 to 5 the committee voted against the officer recommendation.

12.      Councillor Littman proposed an alternative recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Shanks that the applications be refused for reasons of ‘the impact on the amenity of residents of the flatted development’.

Vote for item N

13.      A recorded vote was taken, and Councillors Barnett, Moonan, Shanks, Theobald and Littman voted for the new recommendation, and Councillors Ebel and Hills against.

14.      RESOLVED: That the application be refused on the grounds that: The car parking would have a negative impact on the amenity of residents of the flatted development and would therefore be contrary to policies QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan and DM20 of Brighton and Hove City Plan Part Two.

Vote for item O

15.      A recorded vote was taken, and Councillors Barnett, Moonan, Shanks, Theobald and Littman voted for the new recommendation, and Councillors Ebel and Hills against.

16.      RESOLVED: That the application be refused on the grounds that: The car parking would have a negative impact on the amenity of residents of the flatted development and would therefore be contrary to policies QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan and DM20 of Brighton and Hove City Plan Part Two.