Agenda item - BH2023/01186 - 58-60 Beaconsfield Road, Brighton - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.         Lucy Duckworth addressed the committee as a representative of the Beaconsfield Arches Community Organisation and stated that they were deeply concerned regarding light, noise and pollution. The noise from the vehicle engines will have an impact on the neighbouring properties. The noise impact report was not considered sufficient as it stated one hour for jetwash use. The proposals would lead to a significant loss of privacy for the neighbouring houses. There would also be a negative impact on wildlife, with ponds being within 50 metres of the site. The committee were requested to refuse the application for the lack of community engagement. Alex Levant also spoke for the Beaconsfield Arches Community Organisation and stated that the increased number of cars would be a danger as there had been a number of near collisions at the entrance. The proposals would be detrimental to enjoyment of the neighbouring homes.

3.         Ward Councillor Hill addressed the committee and stated that they considered the noise assessment to be incorrect as certain measurements were not taken. The proposals would be detrimental to the surrounding residents, with car horns, mechanical works, gear changes, jet wash and vacuum noise. The net gain of biodiversity would be affected. The bat boxes under the arches will be affected by the increase in noise by the coming and going on the site. There had been no engagement with residents. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

4.         The Planning Manager stated that there was no increase in the movement of vehicles over previous site use and there was no limitation on hours currently. An ecological assessment has been submitted and ecology is protected by condition.

5.         Chris Dodds addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that they recognised residents’ concerns and noted that Enterprise was a respectful company, and they wanted to avoid conflict. All requested reports have been submitted and all statutory and non-statutory consultees have supported the application. The proposals comply with policies and there is positive weight given to the use of a brownfield site, provision of jobs, and business improvements. It was noted that the majority of vehicles are either hybrid or electric. The committee were requested to approve the application.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.         Councillor Fishleigh was informed by Lucy Duckworth that the site parking spaces will be next to the residents’ gardens and will be only 1.3m away. There is a wildlife corridor outside the gate to the site including 3 ponds. This and the residents’ amenities will be affected by car fumes. The case officer stated that 2m fences would be erected along the site boundary, required by condition.

7.         Councillor Cattell was informed by Lucy Duckworth that the wildlife corridor was on private land at the moment. The application site was not formerly open to the public and would be secured.

8.         Councillor Allen was informed by Lucy Duckworth that the previous owners reached out to the community and reduced the lighting. The applicant has not contacted residents.

9.         Councillor Shanks was informed by the case officer the 2m high fencing will be on the northern side of the site.

10.      The Planning Manager noted the jet wash was allowed 60 minutes each day which would be secured by condition.

11.      Councillor Nann was informed that the applicant had submitted the timescale for the jet wash. The agent stated that 2 minutes per vehicle would be sufficient, and this was the reason for being happy with its use being limited to 60 minutes/day.

12.      Councillor Robinson was informed by the agent that the public would be accompanied by staff at all times when on site and that vehicles to be used that day would be at the front of the site. The front gate will be opened in the morning and closed by the pub in the evening.

Debate

13.      Councillor Theobald considered the existing buildings to be unsightly and the hours to be moderate. The councillor supported the application.

14.      Councillor Cattell considered the current noise and proposed to be similar to the previous use, and noted that new cars will produce less pollution. The County Ecologist has agreed the conditions, however there may be slow worms on site which should also be protected. The Planning Manager confirmed that ecological report included reference to slow worms so these would therefore be protected.

15.      Councillor Nann considered they preferred cars to a building merchant. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

16.      A vote was taken, and the committee voted unanimously to grant planning permission.

17.      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.