Agenda item - BH2013/02823 - Hove Museum, 19 New Church Road, Hove - Council Development

Creation of terrace incorporating new low level perimeter wall.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Creation of terrace incorporating new low level perimeter wall.

(1)                   The Senior Team Planner, Kate Brocklebank, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. A verbal update was provided that an additional letter of support had been received from 20 Westbourne Street, and Sussex Police had stated they had no objection to the proposals. Hove Museum was a locally listed building; with the Grade II listed Jaiper Gate in the grounds; the application sought a new terrace area to be used in connection with the existing tea rooms. The submitted plans sought space for 22 covers on the terrace, and involved the construction of a 66mm low level wall. The proposal was acceptable in terms of the design; would not detract from the main building and the conditions were satisfactory to address neighbouring amenity concerns. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for approval.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Ms Julia Besser addressed the Committee and spoke in her capacity as a local resident; she stated she was speaking on behalf of herself and other neighbours in relation to a potential lack of privacy and the existing problems with anti-social behaviour, and referenced a local newsletter which had discussed these issues. The real issue related to the bench on the site which acted as a congregation point, and it was felt that the problems would get worse if additional seating were added at this location. Residents also felt that their concerns were not as important as the proposed benefits with the application. It was suggested that the situation would be better if the tables and chairs were taken in each evening as they been in previous years. It was also added that the facility was not just for a tearoom, and there were plans for a restaurant and for barbeques to be held where people would be able to drink outside. Ms Besser added that the terrace was a ‘town centre’ use that was not appropriate in this location, and she felt her quiet home would be lost if the application were granted.

(3)                   At this point in the meeting Councillor Cox noted he had written the newsletter that Ms Besser had discussed, and he withdrew from the meeting during the remaining of the consideration of the application and the vote thereafter. (see minute 87.3)

(4)                   Councillor Cobb addressed the Committee in her capacity as the Local Ward Councillor and stated that she had been contacted by residents who lived in the immediate vicinity, and she shared their concerns as the area was an important conservation area. She stated that the museum grounds were covering by by-laws that related to the control of noise and disturbance, and she expressed concern for the potential loss of mature trees which added to the character of the area. The museum ground was the only green space in the ward, and there was concern in relation to overdevelopment here. In the past chairs had been bought outside during opening hours, and this seemed a more advantageous solution. There was also concern that increasing the capacity of the tearoom would increase the traffic in the area, and there would be slow creep of the museum being turned into a food lead venue. Councillor Cobb asked that the Committee agree this was an inappropriate development in a residential area.

(5)                   Abigail Thomas spoke in support of the application in her capacity as an employ of the Museums division at the Council. She stated that the tearoom activities were ancillary to the primary use as a museum, and the reduction in the green space would be a small localised area and would not be detrimental to the established planting on the site. It was noted that the tearoom would not create such volume or continuous noise to cause disturbance; furthermore the clientele would be museum visitors. The terrace would only be open for limited hours during the day and normally be closed by 1630 hours. It was not felt the proposal would be a beacon for antisocial behaviour, and there would be no fixed seating. There would also be no loss of trees, and the area of green space to be lost was no further than the existing path.

(6)                   It was confirmed in response to a query from Councillor Hyde that there would be no fixed seating and the tables and chairs would be removed and taken inside each evening.

(7)                   In response to Councillor Ken Norman it was confirmed by Abigail Thomas the area where the green space would be lost, and it was estimated this was 13 metres long and 1.5 metres wide.

(8)                   Councillor Randall asked Ms Thomas about the opening times, and it was clarified that the museum could open until 2300 hours twice a month, and these later hours were to allow for evening events or private exhibitions when alcohol would normally be served.

Questions for Officers

(9)                   In response to Councillor Hyde it was explained that as the tables and chairs were not fixed it would not be possible to add a condition stating they needed to bought inside each evening; however, an informative could be added to this extent.

(10)               At this point in the meeting the Solicitor, Alison Gatherer, noted that the Committee could not give weight to the by-law as this was considered the same as a restrictive covenant, i.e. it was not a planning consideration. The Senior Team Planner also added that the report incorrectly stated the tables and chairs were permanent, and if the operation of the building were to change to primarily a restaurant then this would constitute a change of use and require planning permission.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)               Councillor Hyde noted the residents concerns in relation to potential nuisance from the licensed activity of the premises, but stated that these concerns could be dealt by the separate powers of the Licensing regime.

(12)               A vote was taken and planning permission was granted on a vote of 9 to 2.

92.5       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.

              Note: Councillor Cox was not present during the debate and vote on this application (see minute 87.3).