Agenda item - A BH2014/03012, Rose Hill Tavern, 70-71 Rose Hill Terrace, Brighton -Full Planning

Change of use of ground floor and basement from Public House (A4) to form 1no three bedroom flat (C3). Reinstatement of railings and basement level window to front elevation and associated alterations.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: St Peter’s & North Laine

Change of use of ground floor and basement from Public House (A4) to form two residential units(C 3), Reinstatement of railings and basement level window to front elevation and associated elevations.

(1)          It was noted that this application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)          The site related to a public house (The Rose Hill Tavern) located to the southern side of Rose Hill Terrace. It formed part of a terrace of similar two storey rendered dwellings with canted bay windows.

(3)          The main considerations in the determination of this application related to the principle of the change of use from public house to residential, the visual impact upon the building and the surrounding area, the standard of accommodation to be provided, the impact upon neighbouring amenity and transport, environmental health and sustainability issues. It is noted that the building had been listed, at the request of the Save the Rose Hill Tavern Action Group, as an Asset of Community Value (“ACV”) under provisions contained in the Localism Act 2011. Listing as an ACV allowed community interest groups to prepare and submit a bid, if they wished, should the owner of the asset decide to dispose of the asset. Whilst ultimately this listing could not prevent the owner selling the asset to whomever they want, at whatever price they wanted, by providing for a moratorium on sale the legislation does offer an opportunity for community groups to make a bid for the asset.

(4)          It was acknowledged that the property was an Asset of Community Value and this fact is a material planning consideration of some weight. However, given that an exception to policy HO20 was evident and the proposal did not undermine the wider objectives of policy SA6 or the NPPF, the balance of the recommendation was considered to lie in favour of a grant of permission. The development would be of an appropriate appearance, no significant harm to neighbouring amenity would be caused, and subject to compliance with conditions, matters relating to transport, sustainability and potential land contamination would be successfully addressed, the application was therefore recommended for approval.

              Public Speakers and Questions

(5)          Mr Boyle spoke on behalf of objectors. He referred to the inclusion of the site on the Council’s List of Assets of Community Value and said this was very rare, only one other site in the city had been accorded this status and indicated its importance.

(6)          There was a large body of local support for the building as a community facility, rather than as a vertical drinking establishment, a petition containing 720 signatures, 28 objections and a local action group of 37 plus members indicated the level of support for this. Such a facility would be significantly different from the offer provided by the public houses and other establishments cited in the nearby London Road. The previous use had failed because it had been badly run.

(7)          Mr Bareham, representing the applicant’s agents spoke in support of the application. Mr Bareham stated that a number of those who had indicated support for a community use were local residents. It was considered that there were a number of establishments providing similar facilties nearby. The scheme would provide much needed accommodation whilst preserving the external appearance of the building.

(8)          Councillor Jones sought clarification regarding the level of local support for the community use as there seemed to be conflicting information about that and a number of residents also appeared to support the site being used for housing. Mr Boyle explained that although he was not directly involved in dealing with Membership issues he was aware that a number of those living in the immediate vicinity of the site had expressed support for a community use. Councillor  Mac Cafertty, the Chair asked questions of clarification of the applicant and of officers.

              Questions for Officers

(9)          Councillor Robins sought clarification of the position should the building be purchased for community use but failed subsequently. It was explained that would be matter for the then owners. Mr Boyle explained in answer to questions that in their view there were other successful models and that it was important to note that a community use would not be run on the same model as a commercially run public house, it could however still be financially viable. The former public house in Bevendean which now operated as a community resource was cited.

(10)       Councillor Gilbey enquired regarding any discussions which had taken place between the parties.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)       Councillor Randall stated that whilst noting with interest all that had been said, he considered that it was important to differentiate between this site and that in Bevendean which had been cited. The premises in Bevendean was located on an estate with no other provision in the immediate vicinity. He did nonetheless consider that a pub/community facility which sat at the heart of a community and provided a focus for it was a very important asset.

(12)       Councillor Robins concurred stating that once a community facility had gone it was gone forever. A good local pub was a very different thing from a commercial facility which catered largely to passing trade. It was important to provide housing but a balance had to be struck.

(13)       Councillor Davey stated that whilst recognising the need to provide housing in the city was paramount, this should not be irrespective of other considerations, it was important to seek to protect community cohesion too.

(14)       Councillor Gilbey sought clarification regarding marketing of the site which had taken place and considered it was important to protect recognised community assets where possible. Councillor C Theobald concurred in that view stating that to her knowledge the building had a number of unique features which would be lost from public view if this development was to go ahead.

(15)       In answer to further questions, the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager, Jeanette Walsh stated that whilst it was acknowledged that the building was an Asset of Community Value and that this had been given due weight as a material planning consideration. It was however, considered that an exception to policy H020 was evident and that the proposal did not undermine the wider objectives of policy SA6 or the NPPF, the  balance of the recommendation was therefore considered to lie in favour of permission. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward explained that in coming to a decision on whether to uphold the listing of the building as an Asset of Community Value the judge at the First-tier Tribunal had not assessed, and was not required to have assessed, the listing against planning policy. The relevant legislation regarding Assets of Community Value was the Localism Act 2011 and its secondary legislation - not planning legislation.

(16)       Councillor Littman stated that whilst having listened carefully to all that had been said he was ultimately of the view that in this instance a sufficiently compelling case had not been made for loss of this asset for housing use, he was therefore unable to support the officer recommendation on this occasion. Councillors Davey and Randall concurred in that view.

(17)       Councillor Cox stated that he concurred with the officer view and supported the recommendation that planning permission be granted.

(18)       Councillor Mac Cafferty, the Chair stated that having visited the site the previous day he had had the opportunity to view the unique 1930’s architecture within the building which in his view represented an important asset in its own right.

(19)       A vote was taken and Members voted on a vote of 7 to 3 with 2 abstentions that planning permission be refused.

(20)       Councillor Littman proposed that the application be refused on the grounds set out below, this was seconded by Councillor Mac Cafferty, the Chair.

(21)       A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors Mac Cafferty, the Chair, Davey, Gilbey, Robins, Littman, Randall, and C Theobald voted that planning permission be refused. Councillors Carden, Cox and Wells voted that planning permission be granted, Councillors Jones and Hyde abstained.

165.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee resolves that planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Notwithstanding the need for housing the Rose Hill Tavern is a community asset which is valued for its unique offer. The applicant has submitted no evidence to persuade the local planning authority that this type of community facility is provided for in the vicinity of the site or that it is re-provided elsewhere. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policy HO20 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005;

2. The approval of this application would have a detrimental impact on the reasonable range of public houses within easy walking distance for local residents and would represent a lost opportunity to enhance the sustainability of this community. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policy SA6 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (Submission Document).