Agenda item - BH2016/00040 - Bingo Hall, Fairway Trading Estate, Moulsecoomb Way, Brighton - Full Planning

Change of use from bingo hall (D2) to mixed use general manufacturing (B2), offices (B1a), research and development (B1b), light industrial manufacturing (B1c), warehousing (B8) together with external alterations for new windows and doors and new entrance at ground floor level.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Change of use from bingo hall (D2) to mixed use general manufacturing (B2), offices (B1a), research and development (B1b), light industrial manufacturing (B1c), warehousing (B8) together with external alterations for new windows and doors and new entrance at ground floor level.

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

(2)             The Principal Planning Officer (Kate Brocklebank) introduced the application with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. A verbal update was provided in respect of Condition 4; the Planning Authority had received further information and were satisfied that this condition be amended to reference BREEAM ‘very good’ rather than ‘excellent’. The application sought some minor external alterations, but was primarily concerned with the change of use of the building. The relocation of the business from Conway Street to this site would allow for the business to grow from 200 employees to approximately 250 by 2019. The use was categorised as sui generis as there was not one overriding planning use across the site. The bingo hall use had ceased in February 2016, and the vacated Conway Street site would form part of redevelopment of the Hove Station area. The relocation to Moulsecoomb would allow the production site to be very close to the distribution centre. The appearance was considered acceptable and there were appropriate highways mitigation measures; for the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for approval

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(3)             Nicolas de Conde addressed the Committee in his capacity as a local resident objecting to the scheme. He stated that the application would take away much needed community facilities in the area as not all residents could afford to travel into the centre of Brighton and the site could potentially be used to relocate the Bridge Community Centre. The site was accessible for a number of neighbourhoods in that area of the city, and it would be impossible to replicate the site with its accessibility and parking provision. The area needed community facilities as well as jobs; the factory would be anti-social and potentially add to the traffic problems along the Lewes Road. In summary the speaker requested that a socially motivated development be considered at the site.

(4)             Simon Bareham, John Scott and Nigel Richardson the agent, project manager and Chief Executive of the business respectively, came forward and noted they had nothing to add to the Officer report, but were available for any questions from the Committee.

(5)             In response to Councillor Barradell the speakers explained that the nature of the business and the licensing controls ensured there would be no external emissions from the manufacturing process and the air extraction system had an ‘absolute filter’ which only expelled clean air.

(6)             In response to Councillor A. Norman it was explained that health and safety was crucial to the manufacturing process and the relocation of the facility would allow the business to achieve greater levels of containment.

(7)             In response to Councillor Littman it was clarified that the other Bingo facilities in the city were viewed as a sufficient alternative as the customer draw on the previous bingo hall had been county-wide, rather than locally focused.

(8)             In response to a further question from Councillor Littman it was explained that it was the intention of the applicant to continue a parking agreement with Mears up until construction – when it would not be appropriate for safety reasons. Once the building was at full occupation capacity it was considered there would still be some parking capacity to allow a long-term agreement with Mears.

(9)             In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty assurance was provided that most of the noisy equipment would be in the basement; the external equipment would be enclosed, but were any issues to arise the applicant would be fully prepared to enter into an open dialogue with residents to resolve this.

(10)          In response to a further question from Councillor Mac Cafferty it was explained that the BREEAM standards were more focused on achieving the standard in a typical office environment, not a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility. To achieve the ‘excellent’ standard would cost substantially more and threaten the viability of the project. 

(11)          In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was estimated there were usually 8-10 employees on a night shift.

Questions for Officers

(12)          In response to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner it was explained that there were no powers in planning terms to agree any additional community group funding from the applicant.

(13)          It was confirmed for Councillor Morris that in determining the application the Planning Authority did not need to have an understanding of the products or manufacturing process as this was regulated by separate licensing legislation.

(14)          In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the location of the acoustic louver was highlighted and it was added that there would be limited visibility of it due to the setting. In relation to waste disposal, it would not be appropriate to condition this as commercial waste was privately contracted.

(15)          In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that the details of disabled parking were sought through condition, and there was a requirement, by condition, to maintain access to real time bus information at the site.

(16)          In response to Councillor Barradell the location of the closest objection in relation to the site was clarified.

(17)          In response to Councillor Bennett it was confirmed there was a bus shelter in close proximity to the site as well as a zebra crossing.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(18)          Councillor Barradell noted that the loss of the bingo hall was regrettable, but this was not linked to the application. She had received assurance in relation to emissions and would support the Officer recommendation.

(19)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner noted the Planning Authority had no legal power to ask the application to retain any community use at the site, and he welcomed the additional jobs that would be created at the site.

(20)          Councillor Morris noted his support of the business expansion, in particular as it had links to both universities in the city.

(21)          Councillor C. Theobald noted it was shame that the bingo hall would be lost, but she felt it was excellent the business wanted to stay in the city and expand to provide additional employment.

(22)          The Chair stated that she would support the Officer recommendation and welcomed the links to universities and the expansion of the business.

(23)          A vote was taken of the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee approve the application was carried unanimously.

190.1    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to be GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in section 11 and the amended condition 4 set out below:

Condition 4:

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the non-residential development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a BREEAM Building Research Establishment issued Post Construction Review Certificate confirming that the non-residential development built has achieved a minimum BREAAM Refurbishment of ‘Very Good’ has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy, water and materials and to comply with policy CP8 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One.