Agenda item - BH2014/02105 - Toby Inn, 104 Cowley Drive, Brighton -Full Planning

Extensions and alterations to existing building including additional floor to facilitate change of use from Public House (A4) to Hostel (Sui Generis).

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward: Woodingdean

Extensions and alterations to existing building including additional floor to facilitate change of use from Public House (A4) to Hostel (Sui Generis).

(1)             It was noted that the application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)             The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings; an error in the report was also noted and the correct figure of the proposed s106 agreement, £12k, was highlighted. The application site related to a large three-storey building which had been in use as a public house up until 2006 and was now only used for private events. Of particular note in the planning history was the refusal of a scheme earlier in the year for a hostel, and the reasons for refusal related to design and the impact on amenity. The application proposed an 18 bedroom hostel in sui generis use; the main considerations related to: the principle of the development; the impact on amenity; the appearance of the building; the impact on highways and the impact on sustainable transport.

(3)             Whilst policy sought to protect public houses the applicant had argued that the change of use complied with policy as the pub had suffered from a poor reputation; had ceased to operate as a public house since 2006; there was evidence that it had been unsuccessfully marketed and there were concerns in relation to its profitability. Whilst the loss was considered regrettable Officers were of the view that a pub in this location would struggle and there was evidence that the pub had historically not made a positive contribution. The hostel would be for medium to long-term stays and the supporting documentation suggested a typical stay would be months rather than days. As there was no established requirement for this type of use the application should be considered in terms of the NPPF’s position in relation to sustainable development; unless material negative impact could be demonstrated.

(4)             The units would be a mixture of single, double and twin rooms and there would also be some studio flats; the standard of accommodation was considered acceptable as the accommodation was temporary. The elements of the scheme to extend the building were highlighted, and it was felt the new pitched roof extension would remove the blocky elements of the flat roof. In relation to amenity it was acknowledged that the plot already had a significant slope and the alterations would not create any more significant overlooking or overbearing than already existed – there was also a minimum distance to the rear properties of 10 metres. Whilst amenity issues had been raised through the objections it was considered that these could be controlled through conditions. The proposed development was considered acceptable with appropriate changes and necessary conditions to protect amenity. For the reasons outlined in the report the application was recommended for approval with the removal of condition 3 as this duplicated condition 6 in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(5)             Ms Erica McKenzie spoke in objection to the scheme in her capacity as a local resident; she stated that her home was located opposite the application site, and she noted that the developer described all the rooms as en-suite and self-catering, but it was her understanding that 16 of the units would not have any cooking or washing facilities. She questioned the definition of ‘temporary’ and asked what measures there would be in place to stop residents becoming permanent; or to prevent sharing or subletting. She expressed concerns in relation to the management of the hostel, and felt the hostel did not offer a good standard of living. In summary Ms McKenzie highlighted the view of Officers that there was no need for this type of accommodation in the city.

(6)             Councillor Simson spoke in objection to the scheme in her capacity as the local Ward Councillor; she stated that the premises was in a quiet residential area which was unsuited to this type of development. The Toby Inn had been a valued community asset, and the final incident leading to its closure had been as a result of poor and weak management. Since the closure in 2006 the viability of the pub had not been properly tested and this part of Woodingdean lacked facilities. There was no need for short or long term hostel accommodation in the city particularly in this non-central location away from transport and facilities. There were concerns from residents in relation to how the facility would actually operate – as well as concerns in relation to the amenity issues. Councillor Simson invited the Committee to refuse the application.

(7)             In response to Councillor Hyde it was explained by Councillor Simson that there were a lack of facilities in this part of Woodingdean and the transport was inadequate – all the community facilities were on the other side of the village.

(8)             In response to Councillor Davey it was explained by Councillor Simson that it was her view the brewery had ‘lost interest’ in the pub since the licence had been revoked.

(9)             Ms Josie Lawrence spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the agent; she stated that the last recorded nuisance incident was in 2005 and the public house had closed down in 2006 due to anti-social behaviour. It had opened in 2009 under the control of the current applicant and since then there had been no incidents as it was largely used as an events location. The applicant had been able to demonstrate that the loss of the pub was in accordance with policy and the objections to previous schemes had largely related to the loss of the public house. It was clarified that all of the rooms in the proposed scheme would be en-suite with kitchenettes and laundry facilities – the applicant also operated a similar type of facility elsewhere. There had been consultation with the Planning Officers and this had resulted in a recommendation for approval; the Committee were invited to approve the application.

(10)          In response to Councillor Jones it was explained by Ms Lawrence that the rooms would be let, for example, to people undertaking casual summer work and construction workers – the applicant had a business plan and was confident the rooms would be well used. In relation to the kitchen facilities these were highlighted in the rooms using the plans and it was confirmed that all rooms had cooking and washing facilities.

(11)          In response to Councillor Bowden the position in relation to cooking and laundry facilities was reiterated, and it was noted that these were not clear on the plans. Ms Lawrence also added that she did not have information on the length of stays at the other site the applicant operated, but she believed it was usually 3-6 months.

(12)          Ms Lawrence explained to Councillor Littman that the anticipated clientele could be students during the summer; casual workers; construction workers and individual who had split from relationships.

(13)          It was confirmed for Councillor Hyde that the applicant’s other site was in Worthing.

(14)          In response to Councillor A. Norman it was reiterated by Ms Lawrence that each unit would have its own cooking and washing facilities.

(15)          In response to Councillor Wells it was explained by Ms Lawrence that there would not be any onsite management or reception areas; the applicant managed the other site remotely and would meet new residents at the site to take them through procedures; sign tenancies and hand over keys.

(16)          In response to Councillor Pissaridou it was confirmed that there would be clear set of rules for residents and there would be out of hours contact numbers.

Questions for Officers

(17)          It was confirmed for Councillor Wells that the ground floor plans did not show any reception or communal areas.

(18)          It was confirmed for Councillor Bowden that there was level access to the ground floor, and any further conditions in relation DDA compliance were not considered necessary.

(19)          The Chair noted that if the Committee were minded to grant the application then a condition could be added in relation to cooking facilities. It was also confirmed for Councillor Bowden that a condition could also be added in relation to landscaping.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(20)          Councillor Wells noted that he did not feel there was a need for this type of facility in the area, and made reference to a site elsewhere in the city that had closed down. He expressed concern with anti-social behaviour problems in the area, and felt the application could make these problems worse. There were no community facilities in this part of Woodingdean and the retention of the pub would be favourable. Councillor Wells stated he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(21)          Councillor Hyde noted she felt very uncomfortable with this application, and had concerns in relation to length of stay and the confusion around the facilities. Reference was made to policy as the site was not well served by local community services as it was ‘semi-rural’ in nature. Councillor Hyde went on to suggest that amenity would not be adequately protected, and that this type of accommodation was not required in such a ‘non-central’ location. There was concern that the type of residents would benefit more from a central location close to services and amenities, and the whole site generally could be better developed for housing if the public house was no longer viable. Councillor Hyde stated that she would not support the Officers recommendation.

(22)          Councillor Littman noted he shared some of the concerns raised by Councillor Hyde and he too would not be able to support the Officer recommendation. He referenced the lack of need for such facilities, and felt the site could be better realised for housing.

(23)          Councillor Pissaridou noted she supported the points made in the debate by Councillor Hyde, and felt that more could be done to protect the use as a public house. She stated she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(24)          Councillor Davey noted that there was degree of assumption being made in relation to the potential residents at the hostel, and he noted that the premises had been in use as a pub since 2006 and had also had is licence revoked by the Council’s Licensing Committee.

(25)          Councillor Bowden noted he was not minded to support the application.

(26)          The Chair noted that he had asked Officers to look further into policy in relation to public houses; he went on to add that the loss of the pub was a shame for Woodingdean.

(27)          The Head of Development Control noted, in terms of policies HO10 and HO15, the application was not seeking to house those in special need or homeless and the use was falling in sui generis class. The Area Planning Manager also noted that there was a nearby parade of shops which had been noted during the site visit.

(28)          Councillor Jones noted that he did not feel the scheme was appropriate in this location, and he refuted the notion that there was not a need for this type of short-term accommodation in the city. He felt he was unable to reach a decision and most likely abstain from the vote.

(29)          A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that planning permission be granted was not carried on a vote of 3 in support with 7 against and 2 abstentions. Reasons were then proposed and seconded to refuse the application by Councillors Hyde and Wells. An adjournment was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Hyde, Councillor Wells, the Head of Development Control, the Solicitor and the Area Planning Manager to draft the reasons for refusal in full. These reasons were then read to the Committee and it was agreed that they accurately reflected what had been put forward. A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors: Hyde, A. Norman, Pissaridou, Littman, Bowden, K. Norman and Wells voted that permission be refused; Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Carden and Hamilton voted that permission not be refused and Councillors Jones and Davey abstained from the vote.

55.2       RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation, but resolves to be REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below:

                    i.          The local planning authority is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated an exception to policy HO20. Were it to be demonstrated the priority use identified in policy is for residential and mixed use schemes.  This application does not fall within the preferred criteria.  This application is therefore contrary to policy HO20 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and CP1 of the City Plan 2005.

                  ii.          This application does not take into consideration the cumulative impact of increased trips from occupiers &  visitors, noise and disturbance to the existing amenities to the detriment of the local community contrary to TR1 SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005 And CP21 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document).

                 iii.          The site is in a non central location where there is an absence of concentrated infrastructure to support that use.  There is no evidence to support the need for this type of use within such a location.  The application is therefore contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.