Agenda item - BH2023/01369 - Flat 1, 108 Brentwood Road, Brighton - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.         Ward Councillor Fowler addressed the committee and stated that they had no objection to the access proposed and they had spoken to residents who use the pathway. The councillor requested extra lighting and a gate to protect the communal garden. The councillor noted that residents considered the proposals a security risk. The committee were requested to look at the stepped access instead of creating a new path.

3.         Stuart Allen addressed the committee as the agent and stated that the applicant had requested the access as the existing access to the car park was via steps, which could not be reconfigured to a slope as the correct angle of slope could not be achieved. The proposed access would have very little change in gradient. Extra lighting is considered. A gate would require additional funds and would be large scale. A gate had not been requested by the council.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.         Councillor Shanks was informed by the Ward Councillor that the access would join a cut through and dog walking path. The Planning Manager noted the application was not reating a cut through.

5.         Councillor Allen was informed that passive surveillance was provided by the residents of the overlooking flats. It was noted the access would lead to a communal hallway.

6.         Councillor Earthey was informed by the agent that a gate was not needed to stop dogs as owners needed to look after dogs and the property was owned by a housing association.

7.         Councillor Cattell was informed that the council were the freeholder of the property.

8.         Councillor Robinson was informed by the Ward Councillor the suggested gate would be onto a public footpath.

9.         Councillor Nann was informed by the agent that currently there was no wheelchair access and the affected resident needed to be lifted to the car park.

10.      Councillor Loughran clarified that a gate could be erected under permitted development rights up to 2m.

Debate

11.      Councillor Shanks asked the committee to support the application.

12.      Councillor Allen considered the accessibility improvements would be good for all residents.

13.      Councillor Robinson supported the application.

14.      Councillor Nann considered the application to be worth the trade-off of negative impact over requirements.

15.      Councillor Theobald considered the proposals to be good for all the flats and requested that extra lighting and a gate should be looked at in the future. The councillor supported the application.

16.      Councillor Loughran supported the application.

Vote

17.      A vote was taken, and the committee agreed unanimously to the officer

recommendations.

18.      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.