Agenda item - BH2017/01259 - Sussex Police, Sussex House, Crowhurst Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Change of Use of part of ground and first floor from general business (B1) to recreational use/immersive adventure experience (D2).

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Patcham

Change of Use of part of ground and first floor from general business (B1) to recreational use/immersive adventure experience (D2).

Officer Presentation

1)               The Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings and explained that the application had previously been deferred at the Planning Committee on 9 August 2017. This allowed the officers to consider further information submitted by the applicant. It was explained that a suitable site closer to the city centre had not been identified and that the scheme would generate a similar amount of employment as a B1 use would. The application was for a temporary use and sought permission for ten year consent. The site was a primary industrial site identified in the City Plan Part One and protected by policy for a B1 or B2 use.

2)               The previous occupiers of the site were the Sussex Police and it was located within an industrial area. The footprint of the applied for area was approximately 2098sqm and there would be no external alterations to the building. There would be a maximum footfall of 32 an hour at full capacity as there would be a maximum of eight people per group. The majority of the site was made up of storage rooms and there was no natural light in the majority of these.

3)               There would not be significant harm to the neighbouring amenity as it was within an industrial area. There was a proposed condition to ensure the development was fully sound-proofed as the attraction could generate noise. There were 30 parking spaces proposed, there would be a car share for employees and a travel plan had been secured. The Highways Authority had not submitted an objection.

Questions for Officers

4)               In response to Councillor Moonan the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that there was underground parking on site, in addition to the proposed 30 parking spaces, and condition 6 secured the parking details to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority before development begun. It was noted that due to the location 30 parking spaces was acceptable for the proposal.

5)               In response to Councillor Yates the Planning Officer explained that the County Ecologist had made some recommendations and it was felt that a condition was not required as there was no construction work to take place.

6)               In response to Councillor Littman it was explained that the proposed tenants would be investing a lot to adapt the site and ten years would ensure that the scheme was financially viable. It was also added that there was not currently a B1 use demand for the site.

Debate and Decision Making Process

7)               Councillor Miller stated that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation and that he was pleased the proposal was for a temporary period.

8)               Councillor Yates noted that it was common to have mixed used units within an industrial site and the proposal would be generating money within the city. He explained that as there was not a demand for a B1 use then he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

9)               The Chair noted that she was pleased the Planning Committee agreed to defer the application and thanked the Planning Officer’s for working closely with the applicant. She explained that the policy had been applied flexibly and the application was not contrary to policy; therefore, she would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

10)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be minded to granted was carried unanimously.

58.1       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT permission for the reasons set out in the report.

              Note: Councillors Gilbey and Inkpin-Leissner were not present for the consideration and vote of this application.