Agenda item - BH2021/02701 - The Meeting House, Park Close, Brighton - Removal or Variation of Condition

1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. A presentation was given setting out the rationale for the officer report recommendation. It was noted that as the scheme had been approved it was only the acceptability of the variation of condition 26 which could be considered.

2.       This application sought to vary condition 26 which was had been applied to the permission in order to secure satisfactory provision of homes for people with disabilities. Documents had been submitted on behalf of the applicant stating that the site and design constraints would impact on the ability to provide full, ramped accessibility from all parking spaces to all ground floor units for wheelchair users, although step free, level access would be provided to one ground floor flat from disabled parking spaces and one unit would be fully wheelchair accessible.

3.       Although full compliance with Part M4 (3) would not be achieved, the scheme would be compliant with the relevant development plan policies and would provide accessible accommodation for a range of people with different mobility needs. For these reasons it was considered acceptable for condition 26 to be varied in this instance.

          Questions

4.       Councillor Yates sought confirmation regarding the relationship between blocks A and B as there appeared to be a pathway connecting the two blocks. If that was so, he queried whether there a ramp of 11m would be required. The Planning Manager explained that the differences in levels between the blocks was such that it was not possible to provide level access to block A.

5.       In response to further detailed questions, the Building Control Manager detailed the discussions which had taken place with the applicants. Due to the sloping nature of the site although the flats in question were all fully accessible internally or could be easily adapted to be so, it was not possible to make all of them wheelchair accessible without impacting on the access to both blocks. As there were no internal lifts only those units at ground floor level were suitable for disabled access. This was a challenging site in that it sloped down steeply to the rear.

6.       Councillor Shanks sought further clarification regarding configuration of the flats and access arrangements to them that whilst all of the flats were easily adaptable only one had full wheelchair accessibility due to need to have stepped access to one of the blocks or to provide a ramp which would impact on the other blocks.

7.       In answer to questions by Councillor Littman, the Chair, it was explained the in providing one wheelchair accessible unit the scheme was policy compliant, as the requirement that 5% of the units were fully accessible had been met.

8.       Councillor Ebel enquired regarding the rationale for the original condition if the scheme was policy compliant. It was explained that the condition as originally envisaged could not met in the absence of internal lifts. This was not unusual in developments with blocks of the height. In answer to questions by Councillor Moonan it was explained that it stair lifts could be added in future if there was a desire to do so. The Building Control Manager explained that requirements in terms of accessibility to the blocks and within the units themselves fell within two separate sets of legislation, it was considered that a pragmatic and reasonable approach had been taken and what was proposed would be acceptable in this instance.

          Debate

9.       Councillor Ebel stated that having considered the responses provided in response to the detailed asked she considered that the proposed amendment was acceptable, she supported the officer recommendation.

10.      Councillor Bagaeen, concurred considering that on balance what was proposed was a reasonable compromise without losing the condition altogether.

11.      Councillor Moonan also concurred with that view.

12.      Councillor Fishleigh stated that she was unable to support the recommendation. In her view it had been applied for good reason and the applicants should comply.

          Vote

13       A vote was taken and on a vote of 8 to 2 members voted to grant planning permission

36.2    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 also set out in the report.

          MINOR APPLICATIONS