Agenda item - BH2013/02540 - The Marlborough, 4 Princes Street, Brighton

Formation of beer garden to replace existing garage incorporating blocking up of garage entrance, relocation of toilets and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Formation of beer garden to replace existing garage incorporating blocking up of garage entrance, relocation of toilets and associated works.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced this application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings; attention was also drawn to matters on the Late List, and a minor typographical amendment to Condition 4. The site related to a public house with a theatre on the corner of Princes Street and Pavilion Street; the site of the proposal was currently a garage and store room, and there were also proposed changes to the existing toilets and fire escape. Permission was sought for the creation of a beer garden to the rear of the public house, and a garage door to the street would also need to be blocked off; as well as boundary treatment to the west elevation. The main considerations related to the impact on visual amenity on the parent building; the street scene and the wider area. There was also a proposed condition recommending restricting the use of the doorway, and that the new toilet block be finished in painted render. There were neighbour objections due to the potential for increased noise; the proposed hours of use until 0200 hours had been deemed excessive, and the suggested condition now proposed 2200 hours. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for approval.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Mr Roger Rolfe spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a local resident; he stated there had been a history of noise complaints in the relation the premises, and the addition of the beer garden was likely to have adverse impact on local residents as noise was very difficult to control. Attention was drawn to the Committee report which stated that there would not be a significant impact if the hours were limited until 2200 hours; Mr Rolfe affirmed that the Case Officer had not visited the site in the later hours to realistically assess this. It was felt that the noise reverberation would be worse in the beer garden, and the problem would be moved from the street to the beer garden; residents were at least asking for a site visit for Members to assess the extent of the problems.

(3)                   Councillor Davey asked Mr Rolfe if there was a solution to address the problems at the site, and Mr Rolfe explained that currently there was a smoking and drinking area at the front on the premises on the public highway – this area was wider than the proposed width of the beer garden. Moving those smoking outside to the beer garden would allow sound to reverberate in the space, and simply shift the issue from one location to another. Despite there currently being a sign asking patrons to not smoke or drink outside after 2230 hours the activities often went on until the public house closed at 0200 hours.

(4)                   Councillor Hyde asked Mr Rolfe if he had been in contact with the Environmental Protection Team and kept noise diaries; in response Mr Rolfe explained that it was difficult to keep a diary due to the sporadic nature of the problem; mostly residents tried to ignore it as best they could.

(5)                   Councillor Bowden spoke in objection to the scheme in his capacity as the local Ward Councillor; he stated that the application would shift the noise problem to Princes Street, and the site of the proposed beer garden was 5.2 metres from residential properties. The high walls of the beer garden would act to make the noise worse, and allow the smoke to rise in the area. There was long history of poor management of tenants by the landlord of the public house, and reference was made to the cost to the city of smoking.

(6)                   Councillor Davey asked Councillor Bowden if there was a solution to address the problems at the site; in response Councillor Bowden said that the restrictions at the front of the premises should be enforced and residents should keep noise dairies.

(7)                   Councillor Jones asked Councillor Bowden about people smoking at the front of the building, and asked what was being done by the Council to address the problems residents were reporting. In response Councillor Bowden reiterated the history of problems associated with this premises, and the impact moving the smoking area would have on residents. It was also noted that the residents who supported the scheme were those whom would benefit from the relocation of the smokers.

(8)                   At this point in the meeting Councillor Hyde proposed that a site visit should take place, and this was seconded by Councillor Gilbey; Councillor Davey noted that he did not always see the benefit of such visits and that the Committee should make their decision on the application before them. A vote was taken and the motion to defer the application for a site visit was not carried on a vote of 5 to 6 with I abstention.

Questions for Officers

(9)                   Councillor Cox asked for advice on what level of weight Members could place on Councillor Bowden’s comments in relation to the conduct of landlords and the public health matters. In response the Senior Solicitor, Hilary Woodward, noted that health matters could be a material planning consideration; in relation to the landlord’s conduct there were sufficient powers of enforcement to ensure appropriate action could be taken if conditions were not complied with.

(10)               The Area Planning Manager noted in response to Councillor Wells that she could not answer questions in relation to the direction noise would travel.

(11)               Councillor Shanks asked about the chairs and tables that were currently placed on the public highway; in response it was explained that the Highway Authority would consider the width of the tables and chairs and the space for people to pass, but would not consider noise and amenity.

(12)               Councillor Robins noted his sympathies with the affected residents and queried if the proposals would be a beer garden or a smoking area.

(13)               It was confirmed that after 2200 hours smokers would have to revert to smoking outside of the public house on the highway; as was the current practice.

(14)               In response to Councillor Gilbey the Area Planning Manager explained that she could not answer if people were currently both smoking and drinking outside on the public highway. It was also clarified that Officers in Environmental Protection had concern in respect of the noise, but the application was recommended for overall approval with mitigating conditions.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(15)               Councillor Davey noted that the Committee needed to make a judgement about the impact in relation to noise; he noted that between 2200 and 0200 hours the current problems would remain due to the conditioned closure of the beer garden. He added that he was concerned a decision could disaffect both sets of residents.

(16)               Councillor Cox noted that this application was quite similar to a number in Church Road in Hove, and went on to add that by and large they worked quite well providing conditions were properly adhered to; the application would also remove the unsightly garage.

(17)               Councillor Wells noted the impact the smoking ban had had on publicans, and noted that businesses needed to try and make a profit. He was satisfied with the Officer recommendation and would support the application.

(18)               Councillor Hyde stated that the decision was difficult, and she would have appreciated a site visit. She asked if it could be possible to grant a temporary consent with a view to reviewing the position; in response the Area Planning Manager stated that this could be considered unreasonable due to the demolition and building works that were involved.

(19)               Councillor Littman noted that the question was whether the application would increase the impact or just move the problem to another location.

(20)               A vote was taken and planning permission was granted on a vote of 8 to 2 with 2 abstentions.

80.4       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 11 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.