Agenda item - BH2023/00183 - Land East of 24-30 that Manor Hall Close, Gardener Street, Portslade - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.       Ms Gill Murr spoke in objection on behalf of local residents, stating the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the existing cul-de-sac, on parking, about 17 vehicle parking spaces currently available for local residents would be affected, the local highway network was already congested. It would result in noise and disturbance due to the additional traffic and there would be negative impact on the ancient boundary wall. Gardener Street would become a through road, there were also concerns that the boundary path would be closed during the construction process and that once completed the access road would be a hazard for pedestrians using the existing boundary.

3.       Councillor Hamilton spoke as a Local Ward Councillor echoing residents’ concerns. He stated that the site which sat across the boundary between the city and Adur and Worthing District Council would be detrimental to residents on the city side of the boundary. It would be detrimental to the existing cul-de-sac which would cease to be so, having been in existence for over 100 years and to the boundary wall. A parking survey had not taken place and there would be a negative impact on parking. There would be an adverse effect on Gardner Street where there were no garages or off-street parking and on the boundary path and collection of recycling and refuse would be problematic.

4.       Mr Lee Bailey, the applicant spoke in support of his application. He explained that he had experience of similar projects. Smaller transit type vehicles would be to transport materials and waste to/ from the site during the construction process, anticipated to take 12-15 months in order to minimise the impact on existing residents. Discussions had taken place and were on-going as to whether yellow line restrictions would required, a built access road and speed humps suitable for motor vehicles would be provided. Each property would have two parking spaces and would be wheelchair accessible.

          Answers to Committee Members Questions

5.       Councillor Cattell enquired regarding the timing of the application as it appeared that permissions had been obtained from Adur and Worthing before it had been sought from Brighton and Hove. It was explained that approvals had been obtained in 2018 but had lapsed during the Covid pandemic but planning permission had been granted for the development of the main site by Adur Worthing in June 2023. The applicant confirmed that they had purchased the site in 2020.

6.       Councillor Allen considered that this application was unusual in that it straddled the boundary of two neighbouring authorities. He referred to the existing stepped pedestrian access and enquired whether they could be retained. It was explained this would remain, however, that this Council was only able to consider the acceptability of the access road to the wider site.

7.       In answer to questions by Councillor Lyons it was confirmed that the development would provide four 3-bedroom detached properties.

8.       Councillor Loughran, the Chair sought information regarding the level of public engagement which had taken place and it was confirmed that a meeting had taken place with residents shortly after the applicant had purchased the site. Residents’ concerns in respect of parking and traffic had been noted at that time.

9.       Councillor Pickett also enquired regarding the consultation process and the number of parking spaces which would be lost, also the hours during which work could be carried out. It was confirmed the Committee could not impose conditions in respect of off-site parking spaces, but that there was a condition requiring details of boundary treatment.

          Debate

10.      Councillor Robinson noted that the Committee was not able to impose conditions on any part of the site which fell outside the city boundary and that the majority of the site fell within the neighbouring authority.

11.      Councillor Pickett also noted that was so.

          Vote

12.      The 8 Members present when the vote was taken voted unanimously that the application be granted.

13.      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 also set out in the report.

          Note: Having spoken in objection to the report Councillor Hamilton left the meeting and took no part in the debate or decision making.