Agenda item - BH2025/00019 - 267 Old Shoreham Road, Brighton - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Emma Russell addressed the committee as a resident representing other objecting residents and stated they lived in the area and had concerns relating to public health and road safety. Emma Russell set out a number of concerns; The application site is on a major walkway for children to nearby schools, with as many as 3,000 students. It appeared that the applicant was targeting young people. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that fast food outlets near schools should be refused. The site is not an appropriate location near a very busy road junction. The application will impact on road safety, pollution levels, and residents. The proposals are in opposition to the City Plan which strives to reduce pollution.

3.    Ward Councillor Hewitt addressed the committee and stated that they supported the officer recommendation to refuse the application. The site is a small industrial estate with standard hours of business. The surrounding streets are residential. The proposed drive-through fast food restaurant will change the area. The increase in traffic on Old Shoreham Road will put a strain on the roads. The community objections include schools. It is noted that the proposed 24-hour opening has been reduced to 16 hours per day. Councillor Hewitt stated that this concession was due to the residents objecting who have highlighted the impact on local people. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

4.    Mike Spurgeon addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that they considered the local schools were not too close at half a mile away, which is more than the accepted 400m. Parking provision is acceptable and there are no adverse effects from the proposals. All planning matters have been addressed. The existing industrial estate is small; the proposed restaurant will employ more people with around 120 new jobs. The applicant wishes to support the community.

Answers to Committee Members Questions

5.    Councillor Sheard was informed that the Transport Team have objected. The Principal Transport Development Officer stated that 10 parking spaces would be complaint with planning policy, however, the proposals were for 39. The Planning manager stated it was considered the nature of a drive-through restaurant was such that it would create additional vehicular trips. It was noted that any further change of use after this application would require planning permission. The traffic back-up for the nearby retail park was not known. It was confirmed that the proposed restaurant would have a trademark appearance.

6.    Councillor Thomson was informed by the Principal Transport Development Officer that the transport assessment was based on 39 spaces being full and the resulting traffic build up. It was noted that some detailed information arrived late and the application has been with the planning team for over a year. The applicant’s highway consultant stated that the highway junction has been surveyed and modelled, all of which took time. It was noted that there were 28 parking spaces at Shoreham restaurant and 43 at the Marina. The Principal Transport Development Officer stated that the proposed yellow junction box was a sensible idea, however, the uncontrolled pedestrian crossing was an issue, the central island suggested was not considered suitable given the risks.

7.    Councillor Robinson was informed by the Principal Transport Development Officer that there were concerns regarding the proposed uncontrolled pedestrian crossing, which would be close to road junctions. Modelling has been used; however, the results were not clear. It was a concern that traffic would stretch back to Holmes Avenue and Elm Drive, thereby having a severe impact. The applicant’s highway consultant confirmed that any highway alterations or works would be funded by the applicant. The Principal Transport Development Officer stated that there were no improvements proposed for pedestrians or cyclists. The applicant’s highway consultant stated that they had a meeting with the council to understand concerns regarding junction plans.

8.    The applicant’s highway consultant stated they had carried out pedestrian and queuing surveys and used micro simulation modelling, which included the local bus timetable. There had not been time to submit the requested supporting information, however, the pedestrian crossing information has been provided. The site would have 11 parking spaces for operational uses. The parking has been assessed against two other nearby locations in Shoreham and Brighton Marina, and enough parking spaces are proposed compared to these other sites. An articulated lorry will be able to turn on the site, with deliveries of 3 to 5 times a week at quite times.

9.    Councillor Theobald was informed by the applicant’s highway consultant that the proposed filter lane will mirror the lane opposite to the south of Old Shoreham Road. The pedestrian crossing proposed would be 93m from the site. A yellow road junction box was also proposed. The restaurant would be 377sqm with 76 covers. The planning manager confirmed that the building to the rear of the photographs was not part of the application site.

10. Councillor Pickett was informed by the Case Officer that it was considered that 800m was a reasonable distance to walk to the restaurant. The authority’s Consultant in Public Health stated that the 2011 study and mapping showed secondary school children would find 800m usual. The Principal Policy Planning Officer, Policy that there was insufficient industrial land in the city and policy protects the remaining space. The application site is not vacant, which demonstrates demand.

11. Councillor Nann was informed by the Principal Transport Development Officer that the modelling calibration was very important and not enough of the detailed background information had been provided by the applicant. The videos were submitted very late and the uncontrolled pedestrian crossing was not included in the modelling. The authority’s Consultant in Public Health stated that the fast food could be a health risk factor if nearby.

12. Councillor Parrott was informed that Hove Park secondary school was 740m away from the site, Goldstone Primary 761m, Blatchington Mill secondary 876m and Aldrington Primary 1,130m. The sea front was some distance from the site. The authority’s Consultant in Public Health stated that mapping showed secondary school children purchased fast food on the way to and from school. National guidance was fed into the mapping information. The applicant’s highway consultant stated that they compared the Shoreham and Marina restaurants as requested by the council.

13. Councillor Earthey was informed that the existing floor space would be reduced from 900sqm to 350sqm with 62 full time equivalent jobs. It was noted that the site has protected use under planning policy. The Principal Policy Planning Officer stated that the site was protected for employment purposes. The 2024 land study showed that there was a demand for units within established industrial estates.

14. Councillor Shanks was informed that the under policy SPD18 this application was considered an out-of-town drive through restaurant. The city already has a high level of fast-food restaurants and under the NPPF the restaurant should not be within walking distance of a school. The authority has a responsibility to protect residents. The authority’s Consultant in Public Health that the city has the second highest number of fast-food restaurants per population in the southeast of England. It was noted there was a strong relationship with obesity and poverty.

15. Councillor Cattell was informed by the agent that it was considered that the benefits outweighed the out-of-date policies. The creation of jobs would be good and a merit for the scheme.

Debate

16. Councillor Nann supported the officer recommendation to refuse. They considered the proposal would exacerbate health issues in the area and have a negative impact.

17. Councillor Theobald considered that the report notes the loss of employment space, however the application proposals will employ over 100 mostly young people and the schools were not exactly next door. Healthy eating was not a planning matter. 39 parking spaces was good, and it would not be in the city centre. The opening hours have been reduced from 24/7 and there are no residential properties nearby. If the roads were made safe the councillor would support the application.

18. Councillor Cattell supported the officer’s recommendation to refuse as the application was contrary to policy and the floor space was needed for employment uses. Another fast-food establishment was not needed. There was no reason to depart from policy.

19. Councillor Robinson wanted to safeguard the existing employment floorspace. The councillor supported the case officer’s recommendation to refuse.

20. Councillor Shanks supported the officer’s recommendation to refuse. The road is dangerous and very busy; a crossing is needed. The heavy traffic would not be good.

21. Councillor Parrott considered the combination of children and fast-food restaurant would exacerbate the road dangers. The councillor supported the case officer’s recommendation to refuse.

22. Councillor Sheard noted the highway issues and considered there was not enough space for queuing. The site is protected by policy for employment. The councillor supported the case officer’s recommendation to refuse.

23. Councillor Pickett considered the application should be refused given the public health and road safety issues, and the site being protected.

24. Councillor Earthey supported the case officer’s recommendation to refuse.

25. Councillor Thomson supported the case officer's recommendation to refuse given the use of space is protected and the road is very dangerous.

Vote

26. A vote was held and by 9 to 1 abstention, the committee agreed with the case officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

27. 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 given in the report.