Agenda item - BH218/03932-(Linked with BH2018/01926)Unit 1, 75 - 79 East Street, Brighton-Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH218/03932-(Linked with BH2018/01926)Unit 1, 75 - 79 East Street, Brighton-Full Planning

Change of use from restaurant (A3) to public house/dancing/entertainment/live music venue (Sui Generis).

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Regency

Minutes:

              Change of use from restaurant (A3) to public house/dancing/entertainment/live music venue (Sui Generis).

 

(1)          Due to the linkage between them this application and that following it, Application G, BH2018/01926, Unit 4, The Savoy Centre, 100 Pool Valley, Brighton formed the subject of a joint presentation but were voted on separately. Having spoken in respect of G, Councillor Miller withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the decision making process in respect of that application.

 

              Officer Presentation

 

(2)          The Senior Planning Officer, Luke Austin, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme. It was noted that the application site related to a commercial unit, Unit 1 (known as 75-79 East Street), fronting onto the junction of East Street and 100 Pool Valley and was located in the western rear section of a substantial mixed use building, formerly the ABC Cinema and more recently Days Restaurant, currently vacant. This application was closely linked with application G on that days agenda, BH2018/01926, for conversion of Unit 4 from a live music venue to a casino. The venue proposed within this application was a proposed relocation site of the existing venue at Unit 4. The main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of development, the loss of the existing use, the impact of the proposed use on neighbouring occupiers and the sustainable transport impacts.

 

(3)          It was considered that the proposed development would facilitate the retention of a live music venue within the city centre whilst improving the standard of facilities and increasing the capacity available. The proposed development was acceptable in transport and s106 requirements are recommended to secure a scheme of cycle parking within the vicinity of the site. Although there was likely to be an increased level of disturbance associated with the proposed use in comparison to the existing restaurant use, when taking the closure and relocation of the existing venue in unit 4 into account the level of additional harm was considered acceptable. Overall, it was considered that the scheme would deliver substantial benefits and planning permission is recommended subject to conditions and s106 requirements.

 

            Questions of Officers

 

(4)          Councillor Miller sought clarification regarding imposition of the s106, he had concerns in relation to loss of the existing music venue which would be displaced pending works associated with the Casino application (should that be granted). In the event of a hiatus it was possible that the existing venue would become unviable and that a valuable live music venue could be lost. The Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, confirmed that the current use would not cease until use of the new venue had been secured. Whilst the licensing regime was separate as a well-run venue there was no reason to suppose that a new licence would not be granted.

           

(5)          In answer to further questions relating to potential noise-breakout should permission be granted in consequence of this use being located in closer proximity to neighbouring dwellings in Pool Valley, it was explained that appropriate measures were included in the s106. The Regulatory Services Manager, Environmental Protection, Annie Sparks, explained that the applicants had submitted a report in relation to sound penetration and that the need for adequate levels of sound proofing were subject to a pre-commencement condition.

 

Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(6)          Councillor Hyde stated that the Licensing and Planning regimes were separate. This represented relocation of a well-established and well run business, the proposed s106 sought to address any potential/ concerns and she considered this application to be acceptable.

 

(7)          A vote was taken and the 9 Members of the Committee who were present when the vote was taken voted unanimously that planning permission be granted.

 

123.6    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement on the terms set out in the report and to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report. Also, that the S106 be amended to ensure that the casino could not operate until the music venue had its licence as well as being fitted out.

 

              Note: Having declared a prejudicial interest in the above application, Councillor O’Quinn left the meeting and took no part in the decision making process. Councillors Inkpin-Leissner and Mac Cafferty were not present during consideration of the above application.

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints