Agenda item - C BH2015/00169, 5-8 West St Rottingdean - Full Planning

Application for variation of condition 5 of application BH2005/06332 (Amendment to approved permission BH2004/02617/FP (reduction in floor area). Part single storey, part two storey retail unit) to state that the premises shall not be open for customers or in use except between the hours of 06:00 and 23:00.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

Application for variation of condition 5 of application BH2005/06332 (Amendment to approved permission BH2004/02617/FP reduction to floor area). Part single storey, part two storey retail unit) to state that the premises shall not be open for customers or in use except between the hours of 06:00 and 23:00.

(1)          The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to the site plan and photographs of the store as built and in operation including views across the car park.

(2)          The application related to a part one, part two storey retail unit (A1) on the northern side of West Street, Rottingdean. The site lay opposite an existing public car park and some 40m to the west of Rottingdean High Street, a local shopping centre as defined in the Brighton & Hove Local Plan. The site adjoined the Rottingdean Conservation Area via a short section of the rear boundary with the majority of the Conservation Area sited to the north east of the site. The prevailing character of the area was mixed with both residential and commercial properties within the immediate vicinity. The site backed onto residential properties in Park Terrace and adjoined Victoria Mews which had access from West Street via a private road immediately to the west of the site. There was a row of terraced properties to the west of the supermarket on West Street.

(3)          It was not considered that the proposed extension of opening hours by one hour from 06.00 to 23.00 would result in any significant increased noise disturbance to the detriment of the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers and approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers and Questions

(4)          Councillor Mears spoke in her capacity as a local ward Councillor setting out her objections to the proposals. Councillor Mears stated that Condition 5 had been imposed on the original planning permission as a result of very considerable widespread concerns over the impact of the store on residential property in West Street, and other addresses in close proximity, particularly in the morning and late at night. The situation in West Street and the surrounding area had not changed. Councillor Mears also expressed concern that the store had pre-empted their application by beginning to open at 6.00am in contravention of their existing permission.

(5)          Ms L’Estrange spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. She explained that an extension to the existing hours of operation was being sought for the convenience of local people. It was envisaged that there would be little additional footfall, 1 person per minute, and that in consequence no additional noise or other nuisance would result which could be detrimental to neighbouring residents. The proposal was similar to opening hours in place at comparable Tesco local stores.

(6)          In answer to questions, Ms L’Estrange responded that she was uncertain regarding the location of the trolley store, but confirmed that no other changes to the existing operation of the store were proposed, including later opening times, times at which trolleys could be moved and timing of deliveries to the store.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(7)          Councillor Wells concurred with the points made by Councillor Mears. He could not see that there had been a change in the circumstances of the stores mode of operation which meant this condition was no longer applicable. Neighbouring residents needed to be protected from disturbance at too earlier an hour. The Parish Council had also raised objections and clearly shared the concerns of residents.

(8)          Councillors Davey and Littman were in agreement that insufficient evidence had been given to vary the condition. Councillor Littman stated that careful consideration had been given to the fact that the store was located in a residential area when the original permission had been granted and that had also been reflected in the hours of operation which had been agreed, that remained the case and a compelling case to change that had not been made.

(9)          Councillor Robins stated that whilst stating that the change in hours would not lead to any increase in activity the applicants had also indicated the increased levels of footfall they envisaged, both statements could not be correct. Councillor Robins stated that he did not consider there would be any advantage for residents and was concerned that increased disturbance would result, he did not feel able to support the proposed change in hours. Councillor Gilbey was in agreement.

(10)       Councillor Randall stated that the company would not be requesting an earlier opening hour unless they thought it would generate more business which could give rise to increased nuisance at an earlier hour.

(11)       Councillor C Theobald stated that she considered that a 6.00am opening hour was too early and that the existing 7.00am opening hour was appropriate ensuring that residents were not disturbed at too early an hour.

(12)       Councillor Hyde stated that the person speaking on behalf of the applicants was clearly not familiar with this store or its mode of operation. She considered that an earlier commencement hour would inevitably give rise to increased noise which was unacceptable given that residential terraced housing was located close by. Councillor Hyde stated that she could not support the proposed earlier opening time which in her view could have a more detrimental impact than a later closing time.

(13)       Councillor Mac Cafferty, the Chair, having heard and noted all that had been said enquired whether it would be possible to grant a temporary permission for a year which would enable the position to be monitored and an assessment made as to whether any nuisance had occurred.

(14)       The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley, confirmed that as the store was already there and operating this would not involve any unreasonable outlay for the applicants. This option did not, however, receive support from the Committee and as there were no further questions or Members indicating that they wished to speak the Committee proceeded to the vote.

(15)       A vote was taken and Members voted on a vote of 10 with 2 abstentions that planning permission be refused.

(16)       Councillor Hyde proposed that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out below, this was seconded by Councillor Wells.

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

165.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee resolves to REFUSE theproposed variation to extend the morning opening hours as it would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining residents by reason of increased noise and disturbance. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.