Controlled gate and blocked access at The Pinnacle (formerly Rayford House), Hove

What was proposed

The application proposed removing an access point and installing a controlled gate, with access available to all flats.

“Neil Bernard addressed the committee as the applicant and stated that the Pinnacle Freehold was created to restrict access to residents of the flats. Access should only be for Pinnacle residents and not for others. The application is for the removal of an access point and the installation of a controlled gate. The access point currently gives straight onto a highway, which is considered dangerous. The application would reduce highway safety concerns.”

“Councillor Thomson was informed by the legal officer that the existing condition permitted the 4 units to use the gate, however, this application proposes that access would be for all the flats.”

Minutes

Local objections

The ward councillor said the proposals would reduce amenity, harm community access and create longer routes to nearby schools, transport and the station.

“Ward Councillor Nann addressed the committee and stated that they represented objecting local residents. The proposals would represent a significant loss of amenity.”

“The removal of access points is not good for the community. The pathways lead to close by schools, the train station and buses. Anti-social behaviour is a matter for the police. The applicants are requested to not block the access, and the committee are asked to refuse the application.”

Minutes

Who spoke

The ward councillor spoke for objecting residents, while the applicant supported the gate and blocked access on safety and crime grounds.

What members debated

Most members considered there was no planning reason to refuse, although they regretted the longer detour and one member opposed the application.

“Councillor Sheard considered the detour for residents a shame. The anti-social behaviour and crime are not good, however, there was no planning reason to refuse the application.”

“Councillor Parrott considered the neighbourhood to be close-knit and a good environment, however, there was no planning reason to refuse the application, and they reluctantly supported the proposals.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee granted planning permission by 6 votes to 1, with 1 abstention; the ward councillor did not take part.

“A vote was held, and by 6 to 1, with 1 abstention, the committee agreed to grant planning permission. (Councillor Nann took no part in the decision-making process or vote)”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.

“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.”

Minutes