Agenda item - BH2020/03272 - 24 Holland Road, Hove BN3 1JJ - Full Planning

1.         The Planning Manager introduced the report and gave a detailed presentation using enhanced visuals.

            Speakers

2.         Mr Shaw spoke as a local resident setting out his objections to the scheme. Whilst residents welcomed restoration of the building, there were grave concerns that in the absence of any on site management presence the building could give rise to considerable noise and other nuisance, potentially late into the night in the neighbouring residential area to the detriment of neighbouring residential amenity.

3.         Councillor Clare spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out detailing her objections to the proposed scheme. She was in total agreement with the objections of residents. In her view the proposal was contrary to policy QD27 as it was in very close proximity to the residential part of Holland Road. Policy CP6 stated that new hotel proposals should be directed in the first instance to central Brighton area as this was proposed for a Hove location it was not consistent with that approach.

4.         Ms Webb spoke in support of the applicants in support of their application. The proposed development would return the building to use in a fully restored condition and would create a lovely venue for small family gatherings and weddings. Objections were in her view based on a misunderstanding of the concept behind the scheme. The applicants had 22 years experience in providing this type of high end offer. The price point was such that it would attract use for hen parties or party house use. Those hiring the venue would not create noise nuisance or behave in a rowdy manner. The building would accommodate up to a maximum of 20 people.

            Questions of the Applicants

6.         Councillor Shanks sought confirmation regarding the internal restoration proposed and it was confirmed that it was intended to reinstate period features which had been removed to recreate an art deco appearance including  reinstatement of railings and trees to the front of the property.

7.         In answer to questions by Councillor Osborne the applicants explained that whilst consultation with residents had been limited in consequence of the current pandemic situation.

Questions of Officers

8.         In answer to questions the Planning Manager explained that permission for this use was not personal to the applicants and if permission was granted could be used by another operator in the future.

            Debate

9.         Councillor Henry stated that he had been persuaded by the concerns of residents and the ward councillor. Whilst the venue would be perfect as a boutique hotel in the absence of any on site management presence he was in agreement that there was the potential for significant noise nuisance and that it would be difficult to control that. A high price point did not guarantee impeccable behaviour.

10.       Councillor Fishleigh was in agreement stating that large family get togethers would inevitably give rise to noise in a residential area particularly if combined with the consumption of alcohol. She also considered that those arriving at the site by car could also create highways/parking issues.

11.       Councillor Theobald considered that the building was attractive and whilst there were measures to improve its appearance she was in agreement that this use would undoubtedly give rise to noise in view of the numbers of people who would be gathered together.

12.       Councillor Osborne was in agreement that in without an on-site presence it would be very difficult to enforce the conditions of any permission granted.

13.       Councillor Shanks considered that there were a number of Air bnb establishments which operated well and she could not see any grounds on which to refuse the application.

14.       Councillor Janio considered that such facilities were integral to welcoming visitors to the city and considered that that the recommendation should be supported.

15.       The Chair, Councillor Littman, whilst welcoming the improvements and restoration to the building considered that this use would be contrary to policy.

16.       A vote was taken and on a vote of 8 to 2 the officer recommendation was not carried. An alternative recommendation was then sought and it was proposed by Councillor Fishleigh and seconded by Councillor Theobald that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proposed scheme was unacceptable as it could give rise to unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance and was contrary to Policy QD27 in view of its close proximity to residential property and Policy QD6 which stated that new hotel proposals would be directed firstly to the central Brighton area. The final wording of the Decision Notice to be agreed by the Planning Manager in consultation with the proposer and seconder.

            A further vote was taken on the grounds for refusal put forward by the proposer and seconder. Planning permission was refused on a vote of 8 with 2 abstentions.

124.7    RESOLVED – That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proposed scheme was unacceptable as it could give rise to unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance and was contrary to Policy QD27 in view of its close proximity to residential property and Policy QD6 which stated that new hotel proposals would be directed firstly to the central Brighton area. The final wording of the Decision Notice to be agreed by the Planning Manager in consultation with the proposer and seconder.