Agenda item - BH2012/03987 - Unit 2, rear of 121 - 131 Conway Street, Hove - Full Planning Permission

Change of use from Light Industrial (B1) to Stroke Care Facility (D1) and Martial Arts Facility (D2).

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Change of use from Light Industrial (B1) to Stroke Care Facility (D1) and Martial Arts Facility (D2).

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans and photographs. The application only related to unit 2 on the site – which had been sub-divided containing a physiotherapy centre and martial arts unit. The letters of objection predominantly related to the ‘comings and goings’ at the site rather than the actual proposed use in the application. Officers in Environmental Health had made no comment on the application, and it was felt that – despite the narrow access – the site was being operated without causing significant harm to amenity. The site had also been marketed for B1 use and little interest had been shown; the applicant also felt the current use would be compatible with the rest of the activity on the site. The application proposed conditioning the use of the site to the specific activities applied for – otherwise it would revert back to the original B1 use, and this was considered an acceptable control. The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Mrs Prescott supported by Mrs Coleman spoke against the application in her capacity as local resident. She stated that access to the site was not accessible for stroke patients, and the only access was by car, and the operator currently used the site largely in the evenings. She also stated that exercise classes were held in both the car park and the road. Mrs Prescott stated that Mr Ellis had pressured local residents into supporting his application through a petition; the businesses were not ‘start-up’ and they should consider relocation to a more appropriate location. She also highlighted there was no disturbance from the Salvation Army, and the letters of support for Mr Ellis were not from local residents.

(3)                   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. Mr Bareham stated the NPPF encouraged mixed use development, and the scheme was supported by Officers in Economic Development; the proposals also had social benefits for the users of the services. There was also good access to the site by public transport, the application also sought the same hours of operation as in the previous application.

Questions for Officers

(4)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Gilbey that the uses comprised two different businesses, and the recommended conditions sought to restrict activities tightly to the specific use. The application proposed that, should these activities cease, the premises would revert back to the B1 use rather than remain dormant.

(5)                   Councillor Mac Cafferty asked for further clarification in relation to the number of trips by car to the site, and in response Officers explained that the driver for the calculation of trips was floor area, and given that this was not changing it was not envisaged this would be significantly different from the current B1 use. It was also confirmed for Councillor Wealls that the number would not necessarily be the same, but not significantly different.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(6)                   Councillor Carol Theobald thought the use and the hours were appropriate, and the area was already in the city centre; she acknowledged the restricted access, but felt on balance she would support the Officer recommendation.

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

6.7         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.