Agenda item - BH2018/01926-(Linked with BH2018/03932) Unit 4, The Savoy Centre, 100 Pool Valley, Brighton - Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2018/01926-(Linked with BH2018/03932) Unit 4, The Savoy Centre, 100 Pool Valley, Brighton - Full Planning

Change of use of ground floor and mezzanine above from nightclub (Sui Generis) to casino (Sui Generis).

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Regency

Minutes:

              Change of use of ground floor and mezzanine above from nightclub (Sui Generis) to casino (Sui Generis).

 

(1)          Due to the linkage between them this application and, the preceding application, Application F, BH2018/03932, Unit 1, 75-79 East Street, Brighton they 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.

 

(3)          The application site related to a two storey unit located within the Savoy Centre to the west of Pool Valley and the North of Grand Junction Road. The site was currently used as a night/club music venue and is located adjacent to the Grosvenor Casino. This application was seeking consent for change of use from a nightclub to a casino in order to facilitate an extension to the adjacent casino. This application seeks permission for the conversion of Unit 4 only. It was the intension of the developer that the use operating with the site in question within this application would be relocated to Unit 1 and that this would be secured as such via a S106 agreement.

 

(4)       It was noted that the main considerations in determining this application related to the principal of the conversion and the associated impacts of the loss of the music venue and the associated impacts of the proposed casino on the sustainable transport network and on neighbouring amenity. Whilst loss of an established venue was regrettable however as identified above it is proposed that the existing operator is to be relocated to another unit within the building and is to be secured via a legal agreement. It is also recognized that there would be a number of benefits associated with the proposed relocation site including an improvement of the facility on offer and improved management / operation of the site. The proposed extension of the Casino was considered acceptable in terms of neighbouring amenity and the impact on the local highway network would also be less than the existing use. The proposed development was therefore recommended for approval, subject to the appropriate conditions and legal agreement set out in the report.

 

              Public Speakers

 

(5)          Councillor Miller spoke having Chaired the Live Music Policy Panel in the City which had resulted in the creation of the Live Music Roundtable referring to his letter of objection which had been circulated with the agenda. Dependant on the outcome of the preceding application he was objecting to the loss/potential loss of this venue in the city. Loss of the venue would be contrary to policy CP5 and in his view none of the criteria for exceptions to policy had been met. There were few venues of a comparable size and it should therefore be retained.

 

(6)          Mr Derry and Mr Hepher spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. They confirmed that it was intended that “The Haunt” would move into its new venue once the extended Casino use was in place, any displacement would be temporary. Both uses were well established and neither had given rise to problems. It was not anticipated that extension of the existing Casino use would give rise to additional late night noise, disturbance or have a detrimental impact on neighbours as rigorous management arrangements were in place. Whilst separate applicants and agents were associated with these two linked applications they had worked together to put forward applications which supported the needs of both and respected the amenity needs of local residents.

 

              Questions of Officers

 

(7)          Councillor Moonan referred to the proposed intensification of the existing Casino use which would result in an extension of gambling/gaming activity and enquired whether objections or concern had been raised by the Police or other statutory consultees. It was explained that there had been none although they would not constitute a planning consideration. There were no objections on policy grounds, a statement had also been provided by the applicants detailing robust management arrangements which would be in place.

 

              Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(8)          The Chair, Councillor Cattell, stated that she was aware that “The Haunt” was a well-managed small venue and was pleased to note that it would not be lost. The Casino had also been in situ as a well-run establishment for a number of years and she would be voting in support of the application.

 

(9)          A vote was taken and the 8 Members present when the vote was taken voted by 7 with 1 Abstention to grant planning permission.

 

123. 7   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 grantplanning permission subject to a s106 agreement in the terms set out in the report and subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report. The s106 to 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 spoken in respect of the above application Councillor Miller then withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the discussion or decision making process. 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