Agenda item - BH2021/02054 - Goldstone Retail Park, Newtown Road, Hove - Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2021/02054 - Goldstone Retail Park, Newtown Road, Hove - Full Planning


1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application to the Committee by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. A presentation was given setting out the rationale for the officer report recommendation.


          Public Speakers


2.       Councillor Bagaeen spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objections to the scheme. He stated that there had been a lack of engagement with local residents and the proposed building itself was a hideous ugly shed which he was very surprise was recommended for grant. He did not consider that there would be any social value for the local community. Generally, Costa Coffee had long opening hours and this use would therefore impact negatively on the retail park and neighbouring residents.


3.       Councillor Allcock spoke in his capacity as a neighbouring Ward Councillor stating that he was in agreement that this proposed use in an obscure and dimly lit area of the retail park which would be trading outside the hours of other businesses could encourage/give rise to anti-social behaviour and would have a negative impact.


4.       Mr Price was in attendance on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He explained that it was not proposed that this outlet would operate after 10.00pm. in answer to questions it was explained that screening would be provided and all existing vegetation would be retained. It was not considered that there would be additional trip generation, deliveries would be made using small delivery vehicles and this additional small unit of 167sqm would provide an additional offer and new jobs.




5.       Councillor Theobald asked how many covers would be provided and clarification regarding delivery arrangements. Mr Price explained that details of the precise number of covers were unavailable at present. Deliveries would be from the front and rear of the premises, although it was likely that they would take place predominantly from the rear, it was anticipated that there would be no more than 3 deliveries per week.


6.       Councillor Shanks asked whether account had been taken of the number of coffee shops which were already in existence in the vicinity. It was explained that this had been considered, however given the small size of the unit, 167sqm, it was a use class E and the fact that the neighbouring units were not solely retail it was not considered that refusal was sustainable on those grounds.


7.       Councillor Janio stated that he considered the design of the unit was acceptable given its retail park location. He did however have concerns particularly as the unit would be located in a dark corner of the site that it could attract anti-social behaviour enquiring whether the applicants would agree to a condition requiring CCTV to be provided and Mr Price confirmed that they would. It was confirmed that no alcohol would be sold from this unit and that the proposed use was policy compliant.


8.       Councillor Ebel stated that she was concerned that if this outlet opened earlier than other units on the site and nearby and closed later those using the unit could sit outside with coffee and other refreshments which could give rise to noise and other disturbance. Councillor Moonan concurred with that view. Councillor Yates sought clarification regarding whether activities outside of the premises, i.e., elsewhere on site could be controlled by condition.


9.       In answer to further questions Mr Price confirmed that the applicants would agree to conditions in respect of the opening hours of the unit.


10       Following discussion regarding what would be the most appropriate hours of operation which would coincide with those of other units on the site, Councillor Ebel formally proposed and Councillor Moonan seconded amendment of the proposed conditions to ensure that no deliveries took place before 7.00am, the time at which the premises would also open. This was taken up when the application was voted on at which point the issue of CCTV provision was also considered. Councillor Moonan suggested that CCTV should be provided to the and rear of the premises.


11.      Councillor Moonan asked for confirmation whether it was considered that there was sufficient capacity on site to accommodate those attending the site. It was confirmed that discussions had taken place with the applicants and based on Costa’s mode of operation at similar sites it was not considered that this use would result in additional trip generation. It was noted that there was spare capacity in the car park even at peak times.


12.      Councillor Theobald referred to the café in Hove Park which it was understood was in the process of extending its existing lease, enquiring whether another outlet could impact on that premises. It was explained that was not known and could not be taken into account as this application needed to be considered on its individual planning merit.




14.      Councillor Barnett stated that this was an additional coffee outlet in an area where there were already a number. The proposals could result in additional traffic congestion and would be located in a dark and dreary corner which could encourage anti-social behaviour, she was unable to support this scheme.


15.      Councillor Yates stated that he was pleased to support the recommendation to grant, alcohol would not be sold and he considered that fears of anti-social behaviour were unfounded.


16.      Councillor Ebel stated that in view of the applicant’s agreement to amend their proposed hours of operation she was willing to support the application. Councillor Shanks was in agreement with that view.


17.      Councillor Moonan concurred stating that she accepted that most customers using this outlet would also be using other outlets on the retail park and would not therefore result in additional traffic generation. Sufficiently robust conditions had been proposed and she therefore supported the recommendation to grant.


18.      Councillor Theobald stated that she did not feel able to support the application.


19.      A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to 2 planning permission was granted to include the amendments and additions set out in paragraph 10 above.


26.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report and an additional condition requiring CCTV coverage of the front and rear of the site and to the amendments to conditions  7 and 8 agreed by the Committee and set out below:


Amend conditions 7 & 8 to ensure no deliveries before 7am and not to open before 7am.

Supporting documents:


Bookmark this page using:

Find out more about social bookmarking

These sites allow you to store, tag and share links across the internet. You can share these links both with friends and people with similar interests. You can also access your links from any computer you happen to be using.

If you come across a page on our site that you find interesting and want to save for future reference or share it with other people, simply click on one of these links to add to your list.

All of these sites are free to use but do require you to register. Once you have registered you can begin bookmarking.

Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: | how to find us | comments & complaints