Agenda item - BH2015/04277 - 37 Lewes Road - Removal or Variation of Condition

Application for removal of condition 7 of application BH2012/02367 (Change of use from tool hire premises (Use Class A1) to car sales premises (Sui Generis) including the erection of an office cabin and installation of 3no wall mounted external lights), which states that vehicular access to the site shall be from Lewes Road only and all vehicles shall leave the site onto Newport Street only. (Part retrospective)

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Application for removal of condition 7 of application BH2012/02367 (Change of use from tool hire premises (Use Class A1) to car sales premises (Sui Generis) including the erection of an office cabin and installation of 3no wall mounted external lights), which states that vehicular access to the site shall be from Lewes Road only and all vehicles shall leave the site onto Newport Street only. (Part retrospective)

1)               It was noted that the application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

Officer Introduction

2)               The Planning Manager – Major Planning Applications introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application was for the removal of condition 7 to allow vehicles to access the site via Newport Road. The application was minded to grant, but Officers suggested new conditions: ensuring all vehicles enter and leave the site in forward gear; and a variation of Condition 8 to restrict the size of vehicles able to enter the site or make deliveries of vehicles. The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

3)               Mr Gary Hassel spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a local resident. He was of the view that the application should not be granted as it would cause a loss of amenity to residents and could be unsafe for pedestrians. It was explained that Newport Street was accessed by wheelchairs, pushchairs and often used as a short cut for cyclists. Those exiting the site may not be expecting vehicles crossing over the road to access or exit the site. He stated that Newport Street had never been used to access the road, it had always been used as an exit, and drivers did not reverse on to Lewes Road. It was added that there had been large vehicles delivering cars to the site on Newport Street, and the site was already accessed from Newport Street as the metal barriers had been removed which previously prevented this.

4)               In response to Councillor Hyde, Mr Hassel explained that there used to be one way metal barriers at the exit of the site which would ensure cars left the site slowly. These had since been removed. The Chair clarified to the Committee that it wasn’t a previous condition on the application; therefore it was not a breach.

5)               Mr Hassel confirmed to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner that it was his view the current arrangement was the safest route for vehicles.

6)               Councillor Deane spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor; she explained that she would be reading an objection from a local resident who was unable to attend the Committee. An identical scheme has recently been refused at the site; removing Condition 7 would increase traffic, and retaining the current arrangements would be safer. It would be difficult for vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward gear, and often drivers could not see pedestrians until they were at the gateway. There was no evidence that vehicle movements have reduced at the site and customers were much more likely to use Newport Street. The owners had a right of access from Lewes Road, and issues that related to this should be a separate enforcement matter – rather than being rectified through a new planning permission. The Committee were urged to refuse the application.

7)               Ms Mai Malik spoke in her capacity as the applicant and explained that they were happy to accept the condition of limiting vehicle weight and delivery trucks. More staff had been employed to drive the cars onto the site individually. It was explained that all cars would be leaving and entering the site in forward gear; there was a clear view for drivers leaving the site.

8)               In response to Councillor Barradell the applicant explained that the metal barriers had never been in situ since they had operated the business.

9)               It was clarified to Councillor Moonan that cars would always be individually delivered to the site rather than use delivery trucks.

Questions for Officers

10)            In response to Councillor Hyde, it was explained that the previous application in October was to remove condition 7 & 8 and this had been refused as the applicant had failed to demonstrate the conditions could be omitted without undermining road safety.

11)            In response to Councillor Miller, the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that there was no significant concern with the visibility of exiting onto Lewes Road via Newport Road.

12)            In response to the Chair, the Planning Manager explained that the large vehicle restriction condition was originally imposed to comply with policy and to ensure highway safety. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager added that it was also to prevent vehicles from reversing onto Lewes Road.

13)            In response to Councillor Moonan, it was clarified that there could not be parking restrictions put on the accessway because it was a shared access.

Debate and Decision Making Process

14)            Councillor Hyde noted that she had concerns when reading the report but after attending the site visit, she would be supporting the Officer recommendation. She added that there would not be a high volume of vehicles arriving and leaving the yard.

15)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that he had concerns in relation to pedestrian safety and believed pedestrians would not be expecting vehicles to exit onto Lewes Road; therefore, he would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

16)            Councillor Moonan explained that she understood why it would be beneficial for the applicant; however, she was of the view that appropriate signage would be needed to notify pedestrians of the road exit. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that there were visual clues to help pedestrians, including curbs either side of the road.

17)            Councillor Littman agreed that it would be beneficial for the applicant and for customers; however, it would increase the traffic in Newport Street which was a residential street. He added that the current model of operation worked; therefore he would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

18)            Councillor Barradell noted that having a two way system would significantly increase traffic in Newport Street as it would become the de facto entrance and exit for the site.

19)            The Chair noted that there would not be high volume of traffic and therefore would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

20)            A vote was taken by the 11 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee grant planning permission was carried on a vote of 9 in favour, with 2 against.

6.6         RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in section 11.

              Note: Councillor Mac Cafferty withdrew for the discussion and vote on this application as set out at Item 1.