Agenda item - BH2021/03532 - 1 Courtyard Lane, Hove - Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2021/03532 - 1 Courtyard Lane, Hove - Full Planning

Minutes:

1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.

 

Speakers

 

2.       Councillor Appich addressed the committee and stated that the swimming pool, to be used for commercial purposes, was very close to neighbours and had a significant impact on the surrounding residents, especially when children used the pool. There was no management or travel plan in place, and concerns were expressed at how an ambulance would obtain access to the pool. The councillor considered a trained person should be on site and asked if an effluent discharge licence was in place. The councillor noted the area was heavily populated and even though the pool was good for exercise the noise impacted on the tower block next door. The councillor requested that the committee refuse the application.

 

3.       Hal Mileham addressed the committee as neighbour objecting to the application and stated that they spoke for many neighbours who found the noise from the pool intrusive. The speaker stated they did not want a business on this site, close to a tower block of flats and considered that business taxes should be paid. It was considered that the pool would become a leisure centre if the committee granted planning permission. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

 

4.       Marie Johnson addressed the committee as neighbour objecting to the application and stated that they objected on the grounds of noise and noted that the police had been called in the past, and that the activity is carried out with no respect for neighbours with screaming and shouting. The speaker noted that other businesses go home, this one was already home, which bought anxiety and stress to the neighbours all year round in this residential area. If the application were to be granted it would affect the neighbours forever.

 

5.       The agent, Jon Puplett addressed the committee and informed the committee that the applicants had been partners for many years, and it was not known that planning permission was required. The previous 33 working hours had now been reduced to 18 after taking on neighbours’ comments to reduce noise levels. The owners would be present at all times with the teachers, and swimmers would be requested to respect neighbours. There would be no access from the lane. Planning permission would give the council control over the site, and it was hoped that neighbours would support the application.

 

Answers to Committee Member Questions

 

6.       Councillor Shanks was informed by the case officer that the application was for the partial change of use of the pool, not the construction of the pool.

 

7.       Councillor Ebel was informed that the pool could be used 365 days a year as it was heated and there were no seasonal restrictions. The agent stated that the pool was probably used less in winter as teaching took place in the summer months. The agent also stated that the times of use on a Sunday reflected set up time for the scuba class.

 

8.       Councillor Yates was informed by the case officer that changing facilities, pool cleaning and testing were not planning matters. The Planning manager considered there would be no changing on site

 

9.       Councillor Meadows was informed that a condition requiring disabled changing rooms was not considered reasonable for this scale of business.

 

10.      Councillor Theobald was informed that the objectors lived next door to the application site. The agent stated that an outbuilding could be used as a changing room, as well as inside the dwelling. A toilet was also available in the house.

 

Debate

 

11.      Councillor Yates expressed concerns at running a business in a back garden where facilities would be needed. This application was not suitable for the location as there are restrictions on commercial use in residential areas. The councillor considered that other pools required changing facilities and it was not unreasonable to have them at this site. The councillor did not want to encourage the business.

 

12.      Councillor Fishleigh stated they wanted to refuse the application on the grounds of noise and disturbance. The councillor was against the application.

 

13.      Councillor Theobald felt sorry for the flats overlooking the pool, which should have proper changing facilities. The pool was good for exercise but not noise. The councillor was against the application.

 

14.      Councillor Shanks considered the new times to be limited to small usage for a big pool. The councillor considered the city was a noisy place with lots of music. The councillor stated they would abstain.

 

15.      Councillor Meadows stated they would vote against the application as they were concerned as the lack of disabled facilities, and they supported Councillor Fishleigh.

 

16.      Councillor Littman considered that noise may emanate from a private pool as well as a commercial business. The councillor considered a dangerous precedent could be set in this residential area and stated they were against the application.

 

Vote

 

17.      A vote was taken, and by 5 to 2 abstentions, the committee voted against the officer recommendation.

 

18.      Councillor Yates proposed the application be refused on the grounds of disturbance. Councillor Meadows seconded the proposal.

 

19.      A vote was taken, and councillors Fishleigh, Theobald, Yates, Meadows, Littman voted to refuse the application. Councillors Ebel and Shanks abstained.

 

20.      RESOLVED: The application be refused by reason of the intensification of noise and disturbance to neighbours.

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints