Agenda item - BH2023/00789 - Land to the rear of 69 Centurion Road, Brighton - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Paul Bowes addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that they lived in Centurion Road, and they objected to the proposed garage. The garage was bought last year, and the proposals would make the structure three times bigger. Commercial use was originally requested and then withdrawn. It is considered that the size will be for commercial use. The development will increase parking pressures on the site. If the council were to approve, please use a S106 agreement for non-commercial use. Please also have an informative to maintain the right of way. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

3.    Ward Councillor McLeay addressed the committee and noted there had been 32 objections and there were many concerns including over development, intended use, wall maintenance and scale of development in a tight area of the site. The use is unclear as business use was previously applied for and the application was submitted under a company name. The local residents want clarification and a tighter agreement on use. The maintenance of the retaining wall will be an issue and the design is close to the wall.

4.    James Oliver addressed the committee as the applicant and stated that they thanked the case officer for the changes agreed. The use would be for private storage and car parking. The space is derelict at the moment and anti-social behaviour has been noted in the area. Planting is planned to deter intruders.

5.    The Planning Manager clarified that the maintenance of the retaining wall was a private matter and not a planning consideration. The suggestion of s106 agreement would not be advised. If the unit is used for commercial purposes, then the enforcement can be taken.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.    Councillor Allen was informed by the architect that the roof was pitched and guttering would deal with the rainwater and there would be a gulley to the rear of the building against the retaining wall.

7.    Councillor Cattell was informed by the architect that the B8 use was withdrawn as it had become cleat to the applicant it was not needed. The applicant confirmed the garage was not for commercial use.

8.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the access to the retaining wall was not a planning matter, and the land was not owned by the council.

9.    Councillor Theobald was informed by the applicant that they owned an electric bike business in Lewes and the garage would be for private storage only such as a canoe and personal bikes. The applicant was happy to have a condition restricting the use to private. The Planning Manager noted that condition 3 restricted the use to private.

Debate

10. Councillor Allen noted that the site was not attractive, and the drainage proposed was acceptable. The councillor supported the application.

11. Councillor Theobald noted that the gap between the retaining wall and the structure was tiny. The councillor did not support the application.

12. Councillor Robinson noted the current space was used for anti-social behaviour. The new garage would be better, and they supported the application.

13. Councillor Fishleigh noted the Planning Enforcement team were very good.

14. Councillor Shanks considered they were not able to oppose and asked that if any commercial use was seen that it be reported.

Vote

15. A vote was taken, and by 9 to 1 against 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.