Agenda item - BH2018/02136 - 22-24 St George's Road - Brighton - Full Planning

Revised shopfront, infill of courtyard creating new roof.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: East Brighton

Removal of doors, revised window layout and enlargement of entrance to shop, and infill of courtyard to create new floorspace on basement and ground floors.

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

Officer Presentation

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Matt Gest, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to plans, elevational drawings and photographs. The application site is formed of two premises on the northern side of St George's Road, in Kemptown - the existing Co-operative store on the corner of College Place, and a vacant restaurant (formerly known as '24') to the east of the Co-op. The buildings were three storey properties, with basements below, and residential above the ground floor shopfronts. The application sought to incorporate the empty restaurant into the existing Co-operative store, making alterations to the internal layout of the two properties at basement and ground floor level, including alterations to the roof behind the stores.

(3)          It was noted that the main considerations in determining the application related to:

the suitability of the proposed change of use of the former restaurant (A3) to retail (A1);

the impact of combining the two units into one;

the impact of the works to the rear of the combined premises on the appearance of the building and the amenity of neighbours resident above the shop premises;

the amenity impact of the operation of the enlarged A1 unit and; the impact of the proposed works on the design and appearance of the property on the street scene and in the context of the East Cliff Conservation Area in which it is located.

(4)       Overall the scheme was considered acceptable and approval was recommended.

            Public Speakers

(5)          Councillor Platts spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections and those of local residents in respect of the proposed scheme. These were lack of consultation, potential negative structural impact due to lowering of walls and removal of load bearing walls, increased noise from the cooling plant and deliveries unsocial hours, increased vehicle movements, increased parking, negative impact on viability of local traders and increase in unsightly storage racks etc.

(6)          Mr Edge spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He explained that the existing retail unit was too cramped and the proposal would improve the existing frontage and access arrangements. The scheme as put forward had also sought to address any concerns raised by residents including reduction of any existing on-street “clutter”. No additional deliveries were proposed.

            Questions of Officers

(7)          Councillor Shanks referred to the servicing, parking, delivery arrangements proposed and to the concerns raised by residents asking for the rationale for the arrangements proposed. It was explained that they represented the most appropriate option.

(8)          Councillor Simson asked regarding arrangements in respect of the Delivery and Service Management Plan referred to in proposed Condition 5 and it was confirmed that no additional deliveries would take place and on-street delivery/parking loading arrangements already existed. Councillor Simson also enquired regarding provision of bins storage. It was confirmed that this would be via the basement area.

(9)          Councillor Theobald enquired about why the option of servicing the site from College Place had not been used and it was confirmed that this option had not been considered appropriate by the Heritage Team.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)       Councillor Yates stated that he considered the scheme would bring the adjacent empty building into good use and would improve the existing space without having a negative impact as the current hours of operation and delivery arrangements would remain unchanged. He did not consider in-fill work would be detrimental.

(11)       Councillor Simson concurred stating that she considered that the proposed in-fill would be an improvement. The fact that an empty unit would be returned to use was also welcome. She supported the officer recommendation notwithstanding that she would have preferred it if servicing of the bin storage area had not been from the rear.

(12)       Councillor Theobald agreed considering that the proposal represented a good use of the site.

(13)       A vote was taken and the 8 Members who were present at the meeting voted unanimously that planning permission be granted.

25.4       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 also set out in the report.

Note: Councillors Fishleigh and Miller had given their apologies and were not present at the meeting.