Agenda item - BH2014/00178 - 8 Richardson Road, Hove - Full Planning

Change of use from retail (A1) to public house (A4).

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Change of use from retail (A1) to public house (A4).

(1)             The Area Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application site related to a retail unit on Richardson Road; the surrounding other shops were predominantly in retail use and permission was sought for the change of use to a public house. There was a supporting statement with the application which outlined that micro- pubs had no food service; no gambling and ‘pub bar’ in the traditional sense. The development did not propose any external alterations other than the addition of a flue. Change of use was permitted where criteria were met, and there was no policy objection to the change of use. There were close by residential units on the floors above the unit, and there would be some additional use based on the hours of change, and it was considered noise could be controlled through conditions. Subject to the imposition of such conditions the application was recommended for approval.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(2)             Ms Louise Etheridge spoke in opposition to the application in her capacity as the resident living direct above the unit. She stated that she represented other residents and traders in the immediate area that also objected to the proposals. An aspect of the area was the commercial activity by day – all of which largely ceased (with the exception of the off-licence) by the evening. Whilst the rationale of a micro-pub was conversation it was considered that the customers would still be loud whilst they were drinking. There would be soundproofing, but the impact of this would not be felt if customers were outside the premises smoking and making noise, and regardless of the type of customer there was always a risk of anti-social behaviour. There would be an air-conditioning unit which would also make noise. There was some concern that the hours within the application were inconsistent and most of the objections were from the properties in the immediate vicinity. Ms Etheridge also expressed concern of the impact on her daughter’s education as she would take her GCSEs the following year.

(3)             In response to Councillor Cox the objector confirmed the location of her flat, and stated she had lived there between 8 and 9 years, and lived 15 years in the immediate area. The applicant had undertaken a local letter drop and also held a public meeting about the proposals.

(4)             In response to the Chair it was explained by Ms Etheridge that there was concern the micro pub would change the nature of the area in the evening as people would not be able to have windows open due to the noise and there would be increased noise from people coming and going.

(5)             The applicant Mr David White spoke in support of the application and stated that this would be the first micro pub in the city, and whilst they understood the concerns of residents the additional of the micro- pub would not impact negatively on residents. The applicants were themselves local people, and noted that other businesses in the parade and mews had been closed or vacant for some time. The design of the micro- pub would fit into this sort of setting and add to the existing offer of facilities.

(6)             In response to Councillor Hyde the applicant explained that they had contacted local residents in December about the application through a leaflet drop and held a public meeting. There had been additional meetings with the owner of the units about how residential amenity would be protected. In response to a further query it was explained that there would be a small service area to dispense drinks and the hours of operation, as set out in the report, were clarified. The applicant also confirmed they had not yet applied for a licence through the licensing regime.

(7)             In response to Councillor Cox it was explained that the applicant intended to install high quality sound proofing and would have to consider if this provision impacted on the viability of the business. The applicant also confirmed that they would not allow customers to smoke directly outside the premises, and instead they would be asked to smoke further away.

(8)             In response to Councillor Robins the applicant explained the premises would sell only traditional beers and a very limited wine selection.

(9)             Councillor Gilbey asked about the air-conditioning unit and the applicant explained that they had visited five other sites and looked at silent air-conditioning units. A feature of this type of micro- pub would be to have the stillage displayed. There would be no extractor fan; only an outlet for the warm air.

Questions for Officers

(10)          In response to Councillor Littman Officers confirmed that it was acknowledged there would be some additional noise caused by the premises, but this was not considered to be significant.

(11)          In response to Councillor Duncan it was explained that there was nothing in the use class to distinguish micro- pubs; restricting the use to a micro-pub had been considered, but Officers had not felt this would meet the test of reasonableness. However the use was restricted through conditions and these could not be amended unless through the usual application. It was also clarified that the opening hours were conditioned in the report.

(12)          The Deputy Development Control Manager confirmed that the hours of application were those stated in the report. 

Debate and Decision Making Process

(13)          Councillor Wells noted the applicant had made real attempts to consult with local residents, and were offered measures such as sound proofing. In a climate where many pubs were closing a new pub was welcomed and Councillor Wells concluded he would support the Officer recommendation.

(14)          Councillor Davey stated that he knew the area very well and agreed that some of the shops had struggled in recent times, and areas such as this need to change in order to survive. He stated he would support the Officer recommendation and was convinced that the applicant would be sensitive to the local residents.

(15)          Councillor Hyde stated that she echoed the comments already made in the debate and had been reassured by the applicant. It had been apparent at the site visit that the area was ‘buzzing’ and this would add to the offer. Councillor Hyde noted that she understand the concerns of residents, but also added that the licensing regime would add appropriate conditions to protect residential amenity.

(16)          Councillor Littman noted that he did not agree with the comments made by colleagues, and felt that this type of shopping parade would be permanently changed with this type of application and cause more noise and disturbance. Whilst he acknowledged the area was struggling this option would not be right for residents.

(17)          Councillor Jones stated that he was mindful of the residents’ objections, but he had been impressed with the level of research the applicant had undertaken. He noted there would be further controls through the licensing regime, and on balance he would support the Officer recommendation.

(18)          Councillor Robins noted that he agreed with the comments made by Councillor Littman, and the original intention was for these shops to be owner occupied. He could not support the Officer recommendation.

(19)          Councillor Cox stated that the community were fairly divided in relation to the application; with those in the immediately vicinity more likely to be against the scheme. The conditions would need to be stringent to protect residential amenity as there was concern that this could unsettle the community of long-term tenants. He could see the applicants had been commendable in their efforts, and hoped that if the application were approved every effort be made to accommodate the concerns of residents.

(20)          Councillor C. Theobald stated it was unusual to see a new pub, and she welcomed the new type of venue, but remained undecided due to the potential impact on the residents.

(21)          A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation that planning permission be granted was carried on a vote of 8 in support in 4 against.

201.4    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolved to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.