Agenda item - BH2018/02579 - Patcham Service Station, Patcham By Pass, London Road, Brighton - Removal or Variation of Condition

Variation of condition 7 of application BN83/386 (Demolition of existing service station and the construction of a new self-service petrol filling station with canopy and 32,000 gallons of fuel storage) to extend trading hours in addition to the erection of a 3m high fence to the southern boundary of the site. Current approved hours are 07.00 to 23.00, hours now proposed 06.00 to midnight.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Patcham

1.              The Principal Planning Officer, Luke Austin, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme. The main considerations for this application relate to the impact of the additional opening hours on the amenity of neighbouring residents and the impact of the proposed 3 metre boundary fence on the appearance of the local area and the neighbour’s amenities. It was noted that the service station had been granted planning permission on appeal and was adjacent to a Conservation Area.

Speakers

2.             Councillor Lee Wares spoke to the Committee as Ward Councillor. Councillor Wares stated that the service station noise impact has been constant and extended hours would have an impact on the neighbouring properties. It was considered that the noise assessment should have monitored noise nearer to the neighbouring residential properties. The extended hours would allow alcohol to be sold in the later hours if permission is granted. It was noted that the appeal restricted the hours to reduce light and noise pollution. The application will increase noise and light pollution as it would create a late-night take-away and off licence.

Questions for speaker: none

3.             The applicants’ representative, Mr Baker spoke on behalf of the applicant. It was noted that no complaints have been launched regarding noise or light pollution relating to the service station. Any noise from the on-site car wash has been remedied by the current operator, who is also dealing with the trees to reduce impact on the neighbours. It is considered that there would be minimal impact from the extended hours and the proposed fence will shield neighbouring residents from the forecourt. It was also noted that currently alcohol is only 5% of sales.

Questions for speakers

4.             Councillor Carol Theobald was informed that the proposed fence would be acoustic, and this had been agreed with officers.

5.             Councillor Siriol Hugh-Jones was informed that sound measurements had been taken from the residential property to the rear of the site.

Questions for officers

6.             Councillor Bridget Fishleigh was informed that the fence is to reduce the noise impact that may result from the service station and the extended hours.

7.             Councillor Daniel Yates was informed that condition 3 – no motor vehicle shall be displayed for sale on site, formed part of the previous conditions and that all conditions would need to transfer to the new permission that would be granted if the application were to be approved.

8.             Councillor Sue Shanks was informed that the planning permission granted at appeal restricted sales of alcohol.

9.             Councillor Dee Simson was informed that the timber fence would be 3m from the ground level of the service station forecourt.

10.          Councillor Siriol Hugh-Jones was informed that the fence was considered to have no significant loss of daylight to the neighbouring properties.

Debate

11.          Councillor Dee Simson considered the proposed fence to be intrusive and impactful on the neighbours.

12.          Councillor Carol Theobald considered the busy road to be less noisy at night. It was noted that youth related issues have been reported in the nearby park. The extended hours to sell alcohol were a concern. The high fence is considered to have an impact on the neighbours.

13.          Councillor Daniel Yates considered that the proposed fence would give 24-hour protection to neighbours and would not reduce sunlight or affect the amenities of the nearby residents. The extension to opening hours was a concern.

14.          The Committee were invited to vote on the officer recommendation to Grant permission.

For = 4, Against = 5, Abstentions = 0.

15.          Following the overturn of the officer’s recommendation Councillor Carol Theobald proposed a vote to refuse the application on the grounds of light pollution, public nuisance and noise. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Sue Shanks and it was proposed that the final wording of the reasons for refusal was to be agreed by the Planning Manager).

For =5, Against = 4, Abstentions = 0. (Councillors Joe Miller and Phelim Mac Cafferty not present).

Recorded Vote: Councillors: For: Hugh-Jones, Theobald, Fishleigh, Shanks, Simson. Against: Hill, Williams, Mac Cafferty, Yates.

RESOLVED: That Planning Permission be REFUSED for the reasons proposed by Councillor Theobald.