Agenda item - BH2025/00889 - The FreeButt, 1 Phoenix Place, Brighton - Full Planning

1. The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2. Sarah McCarthy addressed the committee as the chair of the Phoenix Residents Group and stated that the application site was previously listed, starting as tap house then a music venue. The extension of the building would remove the Georgian style. The surrounding area is all social housing. The ownership has changed several times. The current building is not accessible; however, the proposals would impact on the listed building next door. Parking in the area is already an issue. The residents want the application building to be listed.

3. Ian Coomber addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of applicant and stated that the former music venue is not wanted now. Planning permission exists for the site and this application seeks to vary that permission with level access to ground floor. The building has been empty for 15 years and is in the conservation area. The current building is a disgrace and renovations are needed. The planning conditions would remove some of the uses under use class E, however, a medical centre would still be possible. The application would attract Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4. Councillor Shanks was informed that the proposals included one extra unit and an extra floor when compared with the previously approved scheme on the site. The previous refused application included a mansard roofscape with parapet that was considered too large in relation to the neighbouring listed building. This application includes eaves that match the neighbouring listed building.

5. Councillor Loughran was informed that the internal layout of the units included one bedroom over a living space and Building Regulations would cover noise regarding units over each other.

Debate

6. Councillor Sheard considered the design a good use of space, and there was no need to look at old schemes. The councillor supported the application.

7. Councillor Theobald noted the historic building was not very attractive, however, the proposals include four ensuite bedrooms, which was good. As the development would be the same height as the neighbour, the councillor supported the application.

8. Councillor Cattell considered it was good to bring life back to area and the inclusion of business space was also good. The proposed House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) was good and the flats were a decent size and an improvement on the existing. The councillor supported the application.

9. Councillor Thomson considered that the building required some TLC (tender loving care) and the proposed height was in keeping with the neighbouring property.

Vote

10. A vote was taken, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.

11. RESOVLED: 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 in the report.