Agenda item - BH2018/00224 - 56 Church Road, Hove - Full Planning

Change of use of basement from retail (A1) to fitness studio (D2).

Recommendation - Grant

            Change of use of basement from retail (A1) to fitness studio (D2)

            Introduction from the Planning Officer

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, elevational drawings, photographs and floor plans. She stated that the main considerations when determining the application related to: the principle of development, the impact on amenity, environmental health and transport.

(2)          The Planning Officer stated that included on the late list was an amendment to condition 4 following objections. The condition now stated that the studio would close at 8pm through the week, open 9am-6pm on Saturday and 10am-4pm on Sunday.

Public speakers

(3)          Councillor Wealls spoke in his capacity as a local councillor and stated that he welcomed the reduction in opening hours. He stated that the concerns of the residents came from the fact that the mews where the entrance to the studio was located was to the rear of the flats and was overlooked by bedrooms. As the proposed use was for class based activities there would be groups of people arriving or leaving together generating more noise than individuals leaving. He also expressed concern that the conditions may not be viable as if recorded music was playing all windows and doors had to be closed and there was no alternative method of ventilation.

(4)          In response to Councillor Hyde, Councillor Wealls stated that while he welcomed the reduced hours he still felt that the additional noise generated would impact residents as people on shift work or young children may be sleeping during the opening times. He stated that if the entrance had been on the front of the building and if there was ventilation the proposal would have been viable.

(5)          Paul Burgess spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the proposed studio was to be used for small classes participating in calm exercise which was restricted by condition 3. There were already other commercial units in the mews which generated noise and pedestrian activity during the day. As the studio was to be used for calm classes the lack of air conditioning would not make the space unviable.

(6)          In response to Councillor Theobald, Paul Burgess stated that he did know the maximum capacity of the room but he estimated it would be suitable for classes of around ten people. He stated that that classes that required loud music or equipment would not take place in the studio.

(7)          In response to Councillor Miller, Paul Burgess stated that the provision of small class activities was the business plan for the applicant and even though other forms of use would be permitted under class D usage the area was well served by other gyms and the small space provided by the scheme would struggle to compete directly.

(8)          The Planning Officer stated that that planning statement listed the six uses referred to in the conditions and suggested that if the Committee wished they could remove the phase ‘such as’ in the condition limiting uses so as to limit use of the site to the six activities explicitly mentioned.

(9)          Paul Burgess stated that he felt the change in conditions was acceptable.

(10)       In response to Councillor Moonan, Paul Burgess stated that the applicant had submitted a scaled down application in recognition that the site was in a conservation area and so had not asked for the external modifications necessary for air conditioning.

(11)       The Chair asked if it was reasonable to say that applying for planning permission to install air conditioning would have added a substantial cost to the application and so the applicant applied for the change of use initially and if Committee were to grant permission they may look to come back with a further application.

(12)       Paul Burgess stated that he felt this was a reasonable evaluation of the application.

Questions to the Planning Officer

(13)       In response to Councillor Moonan, officers stated that condition five required the windows and doors to be closed when playing any amplified music regardless of the volume.

(14)       In response to Councillor Gilbey, officers clarified that ‘other entertainment noise’ referenced in the conditions referred to television, radios or similar.

(15)       In response to Councillor Hyde, Officers confirmed that the room was 90m2.

Debate and decision making

(16)       Councillor Gilbey stated that she could not see any issues with the application with the amended conditions.

(17)       Councillor Theobald stated that she was still concerned that the nature of the proposed used entailed groups of people leaving together which potentially would cause disturbance for residents.

(18)       Councillor Moonan stated that she welcomed the reduction in hours and the reassurance from the applicant’s agent that classes would be around 10 people. She did still have concerns about the space and the lack of air conditioning but felt that the conditions would control any disturbance to neighbours.

(19)       The Planning Manager reminded Members that although Paul Burgess had suggested classes of 10 there was no condition on the capacity of the space.

(20)       Councillor Littman stated that he supported the application and stated that the conditions worked well. He stated that if there were breaches in conditions it would become an issue for planning enforcement.

(21)       On a vote of 9 For and 1 Against planning permission was granted.

43.5      RESOLVED:That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report.

Councillor Wealls left the room after making following public speaking and was not present for the debate or decision making process