Agenda item - BH2022/00749 - 12 London Road, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.    Ian Bros, the applicant, addressed the committee and stated that the buildings between Aldi and Costa along London Road appeared unoccupied and it seemed not right to be worried about one small piece of frontage when there were at least 20 shutters along London Road, and none appeared to have been granted planning permission. Boots and Greggs did not appear to have planning permission. There appeared to be no retrospective applications either. The speaker considered that if shutters were not wanted on London Road, why haven’t they been removed. The speaker has complained to the Planning department and noted a number of social issues in the area making shutters much needed.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

3.    Councillor Moonan was informed that the enforcement team will look at the issues raised by the speaker and the application should be considered on its own merits. The Planning Manager noted that there is a 4 year time limit on enforcement action.

4.    The applicant stated that the doorway had been used as a public toilet, and for drug deals. Nappies and needles have been left in the doorway, where people have sheltered from the rain. The area adjacent to the frontage is dark at night.

5.    Councillor Moonan was informed that a grill across the doorway would also require planning permission. The Planning Manager stated that the doorway to nearby Santander was covered by a grill set back in the alcove.

6.    Councillor Childs was informed by the applicant that a grill would not be practicable as the frontage shop fittings would not allow fitting and a grill would not be sturdy enough. The applicant also stated that a metal gate would be difficult to fit as a result of the existing fittings and no quotes for fitting such had been requested by the applicant. The applicant believed that anything would require a substantial strut, and this would not be possible given the existing windows.

7.    Councillor Ebel was informed by the applicant that the submitted drawings show the artwork to be used on the proposed shutter. The applicant was happy to have the top half slotted and it would therefore be difficult to put a design on this part of the shutter. The case officer noted that if permission were granted for the shutter the artwork may also require planning permission. Councillor Ebel noted that a heavy shutter would require electricity to operate to ensure the shutter was not left down during the day.

8.    Councillor Shanks was informed that when the shutter would be down, it would larger than other shutters in the area. The proposed shutter would be too big in any area of the city and the housing outside the building would be against policy.

9.    Councillor Yates was informed that no police consultation had taken place as the applicant had not considered policy SCP2.

10. Councillor Littman was informed that if permission were granted a condition would require external artwork.

Debate

11. Councillor Yates advised the applicant to read the guidance contained in SPD2which gives a range of options including demountable shutters, changeable shutters and exemptions. The councillor considered the application to be worse than the previous application. The councillor considered the application did have an exemption and was against the application, supporting the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

12. Councillor Theobald considered enforcement action should be taken against any shutters without planning permission and the proposed shutter was not good. The councillor stated they were against the application, supporting the officer’s recommendation.

13. Councillor Ebel noted that London Road was not a conservation area, however, the council needs to be strict in other areas. The councillor considered the proposal would not ruin the area and felt the anti-social challenges would be reduced by the shutter. The volunteers should not have to clear a pathway into the shop. An electric shutter would be best. The councillor noted that the applicant was open to having artwork on the shutter and the shutter would often be up in the evenings as the site did not follow shop hours. The councillor supported the application against the officer recommendation.

14. Councillor Fishleigh supported the application against the officer recommendation.

15. Councillor Moonan was sympathetic to the issues however the application was an overengineered solution. The proposal needs to be proportionate. Reporting crimes online would help the case for a shutter. It was considered that a grill would be better. The councillor was against the application, supporting the officer’s recommendation.

16. Councillor Yates stated that he agreed with Cllr Moonan and that there were probably other structures that could be installed. The councillor considered the proposal would damage the street scene.

17. Councillor Shanks supported the application, against the officer recommendation.

18. Councillor Theobald considered that London Road had improved over the last two years and the proposed shutter would spoil the area. The councillor was against the application and supported the officer recommendation.

19. Councillor Littman sympathised with the applicant; however, evidence was needed to make an exemption. The applicant should talk to the council on how to maintain the shop front and security. The councillor noted other properties were boarded up, however, this was temporary.

Vote

20. A vote was taken, and by 5 to 3, the committee voted to refuse planning permission. (Councillors Barnett and Janio took no part in the decision making process or vote).

21. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the report.