Agenda item - BH2025/02723 - The Hippodrome, 51 - 52 Middle Street, Brighton - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Channa Karunaratne addressed the committee as a resident and stated that they supported the restoration of the Hippodrome, however, they considered this application to increase the impact on the residents. The capacity increase from 1800 to 2300 was an issue, as was the removal of conditions, which protected the residents. As many as 1400 people would be leaving the venue at once, impacting on Ship Street and Middle Street, which are both in the cumulative impact zone. There is no management of taxis or s106 obligations. The risks to residents are not abstract. There has been anti-social behaviour in the area for the last 15 years, which the council should act to reduce.

3.    Chris Smith addressed the committee as a resident and stated that they lived opposite the Hippodrome, and they were a director of Avalon. There is a great deal of noise from Middle Street, and the Hippodrome was in a residential area. The increase in proposed numbers will have a negative impact. The transport plan is not good enough. 450 taxis arriving and leaving at night will add the existing parking issues. The emergency services will have an issue with access. The local residents should be involved in designing the management plan and not just be consulted. The proposed roof will be harmful, with more impact on views.

4.    Simon Lambor addressed the committee as applicant and stated that they wanted to save the Hippodrome. The previously proposed members bar has been removed. The 2300 capacity is half of that seen in the 1960s, and the bingo hall also capacity for more. The acoustic treatments are to protect the residents and over £1m has been spent on engineers to set up the plans, with modern compliances being an issue. The site is a crime hot spot, with Sussex Police regularly asking for CCTV footage. Break-ins have been an issue. This application is to bring the building to life again and thereby protect the area. The applicant has been engaging with the public. It is proposed that marshals will attend both ends of Ship Street Gardens to deter anti-social behaviour. It was stated that the area is not only residential and the applicant wants to mitigate disruption.

Answers to Committee Members Questions

5.    Councillor Nann was informed that the Event Management Plan would be reviewable over 1, 3 and 5 years, and the local community could be involved. The numbers per performance are not known. There are 550 seats in the balcony with standing at ground level. If tables and chairs are added downstairs, this will reduce the capacity. It is hoped there will be a mix of performance types.

6.    Councillor Theobald was informed by the applicant that the historic features, such as the Palm Court, would be retained where possible by the operator in their later interior designs. It was noted that there would be 6 exits, no additional seating, new toilets, and no disabled parking in the scheme, including the hotel.

7.    Councillor Winder was informed by the applicant that the intension was to have a variety of performances in both the daytime and evening, and they would be predominantly live music lead. The applicant wanted to support other local businesses.

8.    Councillor Parrott was informed that the premises licence will have conditions and that can be reviewed and bought to review by members of the public and by Sussex Police should licence conditions be breached or behaviour in proximity be causing a public nuisance.

9.    Councillor Earthey was informed that the roof will increase by 3m in total height, however, any loss of view was not a planning consideration. The roof is already sited on a position which is taller than the properties in Ship Street Gardens and therefore increasing the scale of the roof would have little impact on properties to the south of the site. The roof is also considered to have little impact on Middle Street given that the visibility from street level would be limited however it would be visible from the upper floors of properties on Middle Street directly adjacent to the site but that it would be separated by the existing road of Middle Street and would not have a significant impact over the existing roof. It was noted the transport team have no objections to the application.

10. Councillor Sheard was informed that the increased capacity to 2300 was for the entire building. The surrounding roads are key routes, and the dispersal is likely therefore to be quick to surrounding commercial areas of the city.

11. Councillor Thomson was informed by the Highways officer that it was assumed that most patrons would walk away from the venue and the transport team had no objections. It was noted that the applicant assessed the transport, it was also noted that they considered most journeys to be ‘linked’, and patrons would move onto other venues such as pubs. The numbers of taxis at nearby ranks were not known, however, this was a sustainable city centre location.

12. The applicant stated that there would be daytime events, along with seasonal events. A dressing room will be retained as a heritage item and memorabilia will be displayed. Tours of the building are to be instigated, and numbers depend on the number of bookings. The applicant stated that the event management plan will show how many marshals are to be employed per performance and how the patrons are to be dispersed.

13. It was noted that the conditions to be removed related to the balconies and external bar areas, which are no longer to be used. There is no relaxation of controls. The gating of Ship Street Gardens is not a planning matter in itself but that marshals could be required as part of the Event Management Plan. The new roof is the best way forward for acoustic insulation. The applicant stated that they had consulted sound engineers and this had led to the new steel roof frame supporting cement acoustic boards. The applicant also stated they would remain with the project for a long time.

14. Councillor Pickett was informed that the roof will be higher and the same shape. The grand master control panel is not useable but is to the retained as a museum piece.

Debate

15. Councillor Cattell considered the site was located in the historic core of the city, and after the Pavilion was the most important heritage asset with cultural significance.

16. Councillor Theobald considered the applicant had done a fantastic job so far. They knew residents have issues, but more protection will be added by this application. A variety of performances would be good, and Max Miller should be in the hall of fame.

17. Councillor Earthey was concerned at the extra 500 patrons as they wanted safety to be put first, however, on balance they supported the application.

18. Councillor Sheard expressed concerns that performing arts venues were dying out. The residents’ issues and concerns were noted; however, this is a city centre location.

19. Councillor Pickett was glad an operator was in place, and the Hippodrome would be given priority phasing before the hotel. The councillor supported the application.

20. Councillor Nann considered the review mechanism to be good. The Councillor supported the application.

21. Councillor Thomson noted that the residents were generally onboard with the renovations and noted that the gating of Ship Street Gardens was not a planning matter. The Councillor supported the application.

Vote

22. A vote was held, and the committee voted unanimously to grant planning permission.

23. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to APPROVE planning permission subject to the Conditions & Informatives set out at Appendix B of the report.