Agenda item - BH2012/03988 - 121-131 Conway Street, Hove - Removal or Variation of Condition

Application for variation of condition 4 of 3/87/0895 (Change of use to 3no Class B1 Units from existing Builders Depot) that the use hereby authorised shall be limited to the hours of 0700 to 2100 Monday to Saturday, and 1100 to 1500 hours on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Recommendation – REFUSE

Application for variation of condition 4 of 3/87/0895 (Change of use to 3no Class B1 Units from existing Builders Depot) that the use hereby authorised shall be limited to the hours of 0700 to 2100 Monday to Saturday, and 1100 to 1500 hours on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings, and made reference to the current hours of operation and those applied for in the application to vary the condition. The current conditioned hours were historic and had been imposed as the site backed onto residential properties on Conway Street and had a narrow access between two of the properties; it was felt that the current hours protected residential amenity. Officers considered that the hours applied for would cause material harm – in particular those later into the evening and on a Sunday; changing these would be harmful to residential amenity. The application was recommended for refusal for the reason outlined in the report.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Mrs Prescott spoke in objection to the application in her capacity as a local resident.  She explained that she had lived in Conway Street for 20 years, and the site was located behind 10 residential homes; all residents in the street were affected by the site as Conway Street was a no-through road, there was a small access point to the site. In the last few months there had been a significant increase in traffic, and the hours that the units had been operating were beyond those in the current planning permission. The busiest time was now during the evening when events such as parties and exhibitions had been held. Until seven months ago the businesses using the site had operated within the conditioned hours and these arrangements had worked well for residents; if the businesses needed to go beyond these hours then they were in the wrong location due to the close proximity of the residential neighbours. Mrs Prescott asked that the Committee refuse the application.

(3)                   Councillor Davey asked for more information in relation to the businesses exceeding the conditioned hours in the last seven months, and in response Mrs Prescott explained that before August 2012 the units had been used by light industrial businesses and warehouses for storage and supply; these businesses had always worked within the conditioned hours. Since August 2012 some of the units had been subdivided and worked beyond the conditioned hours; for example late into the evening.

(4)                   Mr Bareham spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent. He explained that the application sought a modest increase to the hours to reflect the changing nature of work patterns since the original approval; it was suggested that if the Committee were minded to grant the application this could be for a temporary basis to allow the situation to be properly monitored. The site had 50 employed people using the units, and this equated to 30 full time positions; with 10 different companies operating and all but one needing to work into the evening. There was a danger that without the variation the businesses would have to relocate as the later hours were essential for the viability of their small businesses. The proposed hours were not excessive, and they reflected that the original permission was over 25 years old and working patterns had changed. It was considered that the report underplayed economic development arguments in favour of approval, and whilst the concerns of residents were understood the site was in a town centre location and there was no history of complaints to Environmental Protection. The work at the site was low key and efforts were made to ensure the units operated with respect to their neighbours. The Committee were asked to approve the application or consider approval on a temporary basis for monitoring.

(5)                   Councillor Hyde asked for more information on why businesses would need to work so late in the evening and in response Mr Bareham explained that it was necessary for some small start up businesses.

(6)                   Councillor Carol Theobald asked Mr Bareham for more information on the types of businesses currently operating and he stated these included: technology, jewellery makers, photographers, physiotherapists and magazine subscriptions. They were mostly start up businesses that needed the late hours.

(7)                   Councillor Cobb asked about martial arts classes being run from the units, and Mr Bareham explained that there were currently no classes; however, there was a separate application for a change of use to allow small classes.

(8)                   Councillor Bowden asked for more information on the length of tenancy of the units, and in response it was explained by the applicant, Mr Ellis, that the businesses had all been on 1 year tenancies which would roll on after this initial period. None of the new tenants since August had left.

Questions for Officers

(9)                   In response to a query from Councillor Mac Cafferty the Area Planning Manager explained that a temporary permission for one year could be explored if the Committee were minded to grant the application.

(10)               Councillor Hyde asked if the application was a means to regularise the current arrangements following complaints from residents, and in response it was explained that this application sought an amendment to the conditioned hours; Officers were aware of other uses at the site and there were retrospective applications to address these which were separate from this application. Officers could not say if the application related to unauthorised activity outside the conditioned hours.

(11)               Councillor Bowden asked if there had been any formal complaints in relation to the site, and it was explained that there was an historic complaint in relation to fan noise; this application had received no objections from Environmental Protection. Following further questions the Area Planning Manager confirmed he could not comment on the hours the nearby Salvation Army Citadel operated.

(12)               Issues in relation to the address and the location of the units on the site were confirmed following queries from Councillors Cobb and Hyde.

(13)               Councillor Gilbey asked about the level of parking at the site, and Officers could not give an exact number, but felt this to be in the region of approximately 12 spaces in an informal arrangement.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(14)               Councillor Mac Cafferty noted that the application sought to balance a number of different factors. The original permission dated back to 1987; he was of the mind that a compromise could be to grant the permission for a temporary period to properly monitor the impact of the change. Councillor Hawtree added that it was important to keep employment space, but he was mindful that this was a residential area. Councillor Hyde noted that she agreed with these comments, and was supportive of approval on a temporary basis; she also noted that if the units were no longer viable they could be lost in favour of housing.

(15)               Councillor Robins expressed concern that the site was not gated and there was no way to monitor who was using the site late at night.

(16)               Councillor Bowden noted that a temporary approval could be a solution, and this might include some kind of provision for gated access to the site.

(17)               Councillor Hamilton said that the historic permission presented the compromise that was already in existence; he calculated that the units were already able to operate for 61 hours per week, and the extension requested in the application was unacceptable in a residential location. He would vote in support of the Officer recommendation.

(18)               Councillor Mac Cafferty added that Conditions and Informatives could be attached to a permission to ensure the site was property monitored.

(19)               Before the vote was taken the Deputy Development Control Manager highlighted that the application was for an extension to conditioned hours for the current B1 authorised use.

(20)               A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on a vote of 6 to 4 with 1 abstention.

168.5      RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and the policies and guidance set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below:

      i.                   The proposed extended hours of use would result in additional comings and goings to and from the commercial premises, both pedestrian and vehicular, outside of normally accepted working hours thereby leading to additional noise and disturbance to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of residential properties that adjoin the site. The proposal is thereby contrary to the provisions of policies QD27 and SU10 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Note: Councillor Davey declared an interest during the consideration of this application – having realised that he knew the applicant personally; he withdrew from the meeting and took no further part in the debate or discussion on the application.