Agenda item - BH2013/00979, Stockwell Lodge, rear of 121-131 Conway Street, Hove - Removal or Variation of Condition

Application for variation of condition 4 of application 3/87/0895 (Change of use to 3no business class B1 units from existing builders depot) that the use hereby authorised shall be limited to the hours of 0700 to 2000 Monday to Friday, 1100 to 1700  Saturdays and Bank Holidays, no working on Sundays.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Application for variation of condition 4 of application 3/87/0895 (Change of use to 3no business class B1 units from existing builders depot) that the use hereby authorised shall be limited to the hours of 0700 to 2000 Monday to Friday, 1100 to 1700  Saturdays and Bank Holidays, no working on Sundays.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager introduced this application and gave a presentation by reference to plans and photographs; attention was also drawn to matters on the Late List. It was noted that the site had very narrow access, and the application related to the whole (units 1, 2 & 3) seeking amended hours of operation. The existing use had been in place since 1988, and it was noted that the newly proposed hours sought a later start time on Saturdays (with no overall increase on this day); a total increase of 10 hours per week across the other days and no operation on Sundays. Officers were of the view that the proposed hours were appropriate, but anything beyond this would be harmful to the neighbours due to the restricted access to the site. The additional two hours in the evening would still ensure that operations at the site finished by 20.00 hours, and the light industrial use of the site was such that it could take place alongside residential properties without material harm. It was considered that a balance needed to be achieved between protecting the employment space, and protecting the residential amenity, and the application presented a sensible compromise. If the premises were to operate beyond the permitted hours then this could be the subject of enforcement action. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for approval.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Mrs Prescott supported by Mrs Coleman spoke against the application in her capacity as a local resident. Mrs Prescott stated she had lived in the street for 23 years, and previously the operation of the businesses had been successful, but in the last 12 months the businesses had operated beyond the permitted hours. Recently there had been security staff to remove cars after 18.00 hours, and incidents of the leaseholders of the units harassing the local residents were reported. Mrs Prescott indicated that the owner, Mr Ellis, had promised residents that the disturbance would stop, and she appealed to the Committee to protect residents from further disturbance. She stated that some of the businesses also operated from others sites, and they should consider relocation to more appropriate sites in the city; tenants had also moved out of the residential properties because of the noise disturbance, and the letters of support were not from people who lived in the street.

(3)                   Mrs Prescott confirmed for Councillor Carol Theobald that there was no allocated parking for residents in the street.

(4)                   Councillor Wealls asked Mrs Prescott for more information about the nature of the disturbance, and she explained that classes held in some of the units creating a number of vehicular trips, as well as general noise and disruption; she also stated a security guard had recently been employed to prevent people entering the site.

(5)                   Mr Bareham spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent for the applicant; he was accompanied by Mr Ellis the owner and applicant. Mr Bareham stated that the application sought a modest increase to the opening hours which was consistent with a modern economy. If the application were refused and the applicant forced to operate under the existing hours then there was a real risk that leaseholders would be forced to relocate, and two had already left due to the restrictive hours. The site currently provided employment for about 30 FTE posts, and it was highlighted that the NPPF advocated the necessity of sustainable employment space. The owner now monitored the activity at the site, and he had evidence to show that it was largely members of the public using the site to park outside of the normal operating hours. It was also highlighted that the location was ‘town centre’ and the Salvation Army already operated well into the evening. It was the intention of Mr Ellis to operate a low-key site, and co-exist with the residents.

(6)                   Mr Ellis confirmed in a response to Councillor Carol Theobald that approximately 12 people attended the martial arts classes, but this had been as high as 18.

(7)                   Councillor Randall asked if Mr Ellis considered himself to be a good neighbour, and in response Mr Ellis stated that he was trying to exist in peace with the neighbours, and he had made it clear to the leaseholders that they had to comply with the hours of permitted activity. Recently he had made it clear that leaseholders needed to move their cars by 18.00 hours, and be off the site completely in the weekdays by 20.00 hours. Mr Ellis also stated the evidence of 84 occasions where residents had entered the site after the permitted hours.

(8)                   Councillor Wealls asked why bank holiday hours were also being applied for, and it was explained by Mr Ellis that two of the largest tenants had activities they wanted to specifically undertake on bank holidays. The Area Planning Manager highlighted that some of this activity would fall under the change of use application to be heard at this Committee.

(9)                   It was confirmed by Mr Ellis, in response to a query from Councillor Jones, that he had recently employed a security guard on the site.

Questions for Officers

(10)               Councillor Hamilton queried the current hours that the premises was operating, and in response it was confirmed that the site was currently operating outside of the permitted hours.

(11)               Councillor Randall asked Officers how they could provide assurance that the operator would keep to the permitted hours if this application were granted given that he was currently in breach. In response Officers explained that the Council had been monitoring the situation, and meetings had taken place with Enforcement Officers; given the application before the Committee it had been the view of Officers to withhold any enforcement action pending the outcome of the application. If the Committee were minded to grant the application then monitoring would continue, and Officers would have the power to undertake enforcement action if necessary.

(12)               Councillor Wealls asked for further information on what kinds of use compromise B1 – light industrial; Officers clarified this and explained that the uses on the site that were outside of this category were the subject of a separate application on the agenda for a change of use.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(13)               Councillor Hyde stated this was a much improved application, and she agreed with the amended Saturday hours, and the restriction of use on Sundays. She was pleased about the installation of CCTV on the site, and noted that it seemed the owner was taking appropriate steps to monitor the activity on the site. The residents already lived in close proximity to established premises, and she was content that action was being taken to work with residents; for these reasons she would be voting in support of the Officer recommendation.

(14)               A vote was taken and planning permission was granted on a vote of 9 to 1.

6.6         RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 of the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 of the report.

              Note: Councillor Littman was not present at the Committee, and Councillor Davey withdrew during the consideration and vote on this application.