Agenda item - BH2023/03236 - Emblem House, Home Farm Business Centre, Home Farm Road, Brighton - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Maude Casey addressed the committee as a resident and stated that they were a lifelong promoter of world peace and live in this city considered a ‘sanctuary-on-sea’. If the application was granted this would polarise society. The equalities assessment shows that ethnic groups would be affected. Minorities feel vulnerable. Neighbours have reported losing family members as a result of war. The council should support residents, as should the committee Members.

3.    Ward Councillor Fowler addressed the committee and stated that they objected to the application, which was considered an overdevelopment of the site. The current permission granted in 2018, ran out in 2023, therefore the building should be removed, and the site made good. The media coverage has shown abhorrent actions from Palestine, and it needs to stop. Hate crimes across the city have increased. Harassment in the city needs to stop. Planning permission needs to be refused to stop the creation of arms. The committee were asked to vote against the application.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the informal enforcement action was always attempted before formal enforcement action which can include seeking a planning application to regularise development which had happened in this case, hence the planning application under discussion.

5.    Councillor Allen was informed that some external legal advice had been shared in in the officer report, to be transparent, and in providing the advice, it had considered the Officer Report and equalities impact assessment. Other advice had also been sought but this was legally privileged. It is the decision of the committee as to the weight given to the legal advice received from King’s Counsel in the overall planning balance. The resident informed the councillor that they had contacted the Minister for Parliament and local councillors to request the removal of the factory in the community. The resident considered that a cross section of Brighton residents shared their thoughts.

6.    Councillor Earthey was informed by the Chair that the social impact of the application could be considered.

7.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the applicant requested planning permission after considering that they wished to retain the structure.

8.    Councillor Nann was informed by the resident that children had not been included in the equalities assessment and they would be deeply affected by the war in Palestine and war components being made in the city. The Planning Manager noted that there was no evidence to show children would be disproportionately affected by the development. The resident considered there would be a disproportionate impact on certain parts of the community, with Jewish and Muslim city communities affected. The resident considered that the applicant was in breach of UK and European law.

9.    Councillor Thomson was informed by Ward Councillor Fowler that they had read that the use was permitted for 5 years only, after which the land should be returned to original condition. The Planning Manager noted the applicant had suggested the five-year temporary permission in the original application, it had not been imposed by the local planning authority. An extension to the time would require planning permission.

10. Councillor Loughran was informed by the Planning Manager that it was not known if the development had been designed specifically for that space, however, it was subservient and considered an acceptable extension on an industrial estate under planning policy.

Debate

11. Councillor Shanks considered it was not a difficult decision as they did not want this is the city. The councillor was against the application.

12. Councillor Allen considered the impact on city cohesion, and the council needed to be the right side of justice. Human Rights affected all decisions, and this was damaging. The councillor was against the application.

13. Councillor Nann considered that voting for the application would create a rift in the community. The councillor was against the application.

14. Councillor Thomson stated they had looked at the application for a long time and if stripped away it would appear to be acceptable, however, the community will be affected, therefore the councillor was against the application.

15. Councillor Earthey stated they had read the King’s Counsel report and they wanted to boost harmony in the city.

16. Councillor Winder considered the King’s Counsel report to be weighty and must be considered. The councillor was against the application.

17. Councillor Galvin stated they were against the application.

18. Councillor Theobald noted the planning permission was temporary, however, the development did impact on the South Downs National Park. The councillor considered it was difficult to not get involved with the politics of the application.

19. Councillor Sheard considered to support the applicant would not be good or humane, and if voted against there may be costs, however, the King’s Counsel report had weight and the councillor was against the application.

20. Councillor Loughran considered that the equalities assessment noted the impact on minority groups in the city, particularly the Jewish and Muslim groups, some 11,000 residents. It was noted hate crimes had increased and this was a significant concern. They noted the building was not in use for additional employment, however, the Planning Manager noted it was a loading bay so part of the wider site use.

Vote

21. A vote was taken, and the committee voted unanimously against the officer recommendation to approve the application.

22. A motion to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Allen and seconded by Councillor Nann.

23. A recorded vote was taken and Councillors Allen, Earthey, Galvin, Nann, Shanks, Theobald, Thomson, Winder, Sheard and Loughran voted for the refusal.

24. RESOLVED: The planning committee agreed that planning permission be refused for the following reason, subject to final agreement with the proposer and seconder: The benefit of retaining the extension on a permanent basis would be outweighed by its impact on community cohesion and on the provision of safe, accessible spaces and would have a disproportionate impact on those with protected characteristics, increasing discrimination, harassment, and victimisation, to the detriment of fostering good relations between people of one race and another, or one religion and another, contrary to section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010 and paragraph 135(f) of the NPPF, and Strategic Objectives 19 and 20 and Policy SS1 of the City Plan Part 1.

25. It was further agreed that if the application went to appeal that the Committee delegates resolving any conditions and obligations to the Head of Planning.