Agenda item - BH2022/00487 - 48 St Aubyns, Hove - Full Planning & Demolition in CA

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2022/00487 - 48 St Aubyns, Hove - Full Planning & Demolition in CA


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


Answers to Committee Member Questions


2.         Councillor Theobald was informed by the case officer that there were no trees on the site, however there were two significant trees in the far southwest corner close to the site boundary that required protection during building works by condition. There was no parking at the site, however, two existing spaces would be accessible. When the case officer visited the site there were no cars parked and they were informed that the garages were for storage and vintage cars.


3.         Councillor Pickett was informed by the case officer that the trees would have investigation holes dug to define the tree roots and then protection measures would be defined. If it was not possible to protect the trees, then the applicant would need to make an application to vary or remove the condition. The councillor was informed that the development adhered to national space standards.


4.         Councillor Robinson was informed by the case officer that the Heritage team had no objections to the proposals having looked at the main impact on the road to the rear of the site, which is screened by trees. The councillor considered the conservation areas guidance was not met by the development.


5.         Councillor Nann was informed by the case officer that the development was considered more attractive than the existing garages and concrete parking area in consideration of the conservation area. The application is considered acceptable.


6.         The Planning Manager noted that in July 2023 the Heritage team had confirmed they now had no objections following earlier concerns.


7.         Councillor Loughran was informed by the case officer that the Heritage team had no objections. It was noted that the land to the rear of 47 was not amenity space as this was occupied by hardstanding and garages. The Planning Manager confirmed there was no loss of amenity space. The case officer confirmed under policy DM1(F) there was no loss of amenity space and that policy DM2 was not relevant. The councillor was informed that the urban design team had made no comments.


8.         Councillor Cattell was informed by the case officer that the density of the scheme was considered acceptable.




9.         Councillor Robinson expressed concerns that no residents wished to speak on the application.


10.      Councillor Theobald expressed concerns regarding the conservation area and the limited space for the hotel and lack of parking spaces. The councillor considered one dwelling would be better than two smaller dwellings.


11.      Councillor Pickett considered two dwellings too much for the site and one would be better.


12.      Councillor Nann considered the development was better than the existing garages, but not good for the conservation area.


13.      Councillor Allen considered another location would be better for the development than this site in a conservation area.


14.      Councillor Loughran considered the design quality was not the same as the surrounding area and the development was visible from other roads. The councillor considered the proposed cumulative flat roofscape to be harmful and would disrupt the rhythm of the townscape. The councillor did not support the application.




15.      A vote was taken, and by 1 to 8 the committee voted against the officer



16.      Councillor Robinson proposed a refusal as the development was considered harmful to the conservation area, with the views from Vallance Road causing harm and the design is not in keeping with the conservation area. Councillor Cattell seconded the motion to refuse.




17.      A recorded vote was taken and councillors Allen, Cattell, Nann, Winder, Robinson, Pickett, Theobald and Loughran voted for the refusal. Councillor Hamilton voted against the refusal.


18.      RESOLVED: The Planning Manager to agree the wording of the refusal with the proposer and seconder.

Supporting documents:


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