Agenda item - BH2022/00670 - 9 - 12 St Catherine's Terrace, Hove BN3 2RH - Full Planning

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

2.       The case officer informed the committee that no objections had been received from Sussex Police or Environmental Health. An additional condition had been added requiring that only people with a connection could be housed at the site.

Speakers

3.       Ward Councillor Wilkinson addressed the committee and stated they supported local residents in objecting to the application which will have a substantial adverse effect on the community. The location was never salubrious, and the condition has got worse. Many residents avoid the site following anti-social incidents. A number of emergency calls to the site have been recorded. The councillor requested that the site was changed to a less impactful use. The current use was temporary on trial for two years and the application was retrospective. The councillor has received letters objecting to the site. The change from hotel to hostel has created issues and the harm outweighs the benefits. The councillor requested the committee refuse the application.

4.       Dan Olney of St Mungo’s addressed the committee and stated that the site was part of the ‘no second night out’ project and was a rapid assessment centre where rough sleepers were re-connected or found accommodation. Some 321 persons have been moved away from rough sleeping and given support to recover from issues. 45 beds are required with 24/7 staffing. St Mungo’s moved into the site last October and have a management plan agreed by the Police. There have been no reports of anti-social behaviour to the police since, with patrols and robust warning procedures. Residents can be asked to leave, and it was noted that if the residents were not here, they would be in the city, with the associated anti-social behaviour issues. The group want to be good neighbours. St Mungo’s are committed to ending rough sleeping. The committee were requested to support the application.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.       Councillor Ebel was informed by the case officer that the management plan prevents congregating outside the front of the building. Dan Olney stated there was a smoking area in the large garden to the rear of the property. Staff patrol outside and request residents to come inside if they are too noisy. The case officer confirmed that this was a retrospective application and prior to the application no formal planning controls were in place. The application is to regularise the use. The management plan is enforceable and if issues occur, the enforcement team can investigate. Dan Olney stated that nothing was in place prior to St Mungo’s taking over the site in October 2021 and stated that other sites have management plan and are self-monitoring with patrols and Police call outs recorded. The management plan is regularly reviewed, and more staff are deployed if needed. St Mungo’s are happy to talk to the local community and respond to any issues immediately.

6.       Councillor Shanks was informed by Dan Olney that the staff are very well trained and are able to cover all aspects of the rough sleepers, who are assessed within seventy two hours of arrival. Those without local connections are connected to the relevant social services teams elsewhere. The role of the site is to support and move on.

7.       Councillor Moonan was informed by Dan Olney that data regarding the length of the longest stay could be supplied, and that some people stay longer than 42 days whilst awaiting accommodation or reconnecting. The team look at the challenges with partners and providers, and persons are only asked to leave if they are in breach of the licensing condition. It was stated there is a break clause with the landlord and the building will return to the council after 2023. St Mungo’s took the building last year as there was a time pressure to find a location with tight timescales to move from a previous property. Only three rooms are below space standards to a small degree, which is acceptable as a percentage of accommodation.

8.       Councillor Yates was informed by Dan Olney that the average stay was 67 days, St Mungo’s wanted the best size of rooms available, and it was considered that as emergency accommodation these rooms were better than the streets. Residents will be moved to larger rooms when they become available, and if necessary, given their personal circumstances. Under the management plan the crime rate has decreased since October 2021 with regular patrols and risk assessments for all residents. The percentage of residents asked to leave due to anti-social behaviour is not known. There are no residents still in the hostel who there in October 2021.

9.       Councillor Theobald was informed by Dan Olney that there 18 members of staff who cover nights as well as days, with 6 on site at any one time. The number of residents who are from Brighton and Hove is not known.

10.      Councillor Childs was informed by Dan Olney that the hostel only takes single persons, and the size of the hostel was not unusual. If the planning application is refused, the applicant could appeal and it was noted that it was very difficult to find this type of accommodation, and this was the only building which came up in the area.

11.      Councillor Moonan was informed by Dan OIney that St Mungo’s had the right to refuse entry to visitors, access was controlled at all times, there is CCTV throughout the building, men and women are accepted and the building can be zoned for gender. Rooms are allocated by needs, with the majority being ensuite. No cooking is allowed in rooms as food is provided at breakfast and dinner.

12.      Councillor Yates was informed by Dan Olney that to reduce costs lunch was not provided and it allowed residents a chance to be independent. It was noted that this is not uncommon. Microwaves and ovens are provided on site.

13.      Councillor Childs was informed by Dan Olney that there was zero tolerance of drugs and regular checks are carried out. The case officer noted that the management plan was supported by the council and the Police.

Debate

14.      Councillor Shanks supported the application and considered the site did very important work and was vital in the city. The councillor requested the committee support the application.

15.      Councillor Yates supported the application and was happy for the try out at the hostel and noted the strong management plan which would cover any upcoming issues. This was the best use of the building.

16.      Councillor Theobald considered the building to be lovely and this to be a good use. The councillor supported the application.

17.      Councillor Ebel noted that hotel was empty prior to use as a hostel. The councillor had some concerns and wanted the management plan to be followed. The councillor noted that St Mungo’s was working with the community and supported the application.

18.      Councillor Childs considered the work done by St Mungo’s to be laudable. The councillor considered the scale may lead to issues and had some concerns. It was noted that the property is lovely and there is a dire need to house the homeless. A permanent use for social housing would be better. The councillor was against the application.

19.      Councillor Moonan stated their knowledge of the building included breach of conditions over many years and noted the neighbours’ frustrations, and as with other hostels in the area there have been significant challenges. The number of residents in the building is too many and the three small rooms are not appropriate, with the average stay too long. The solution at the end of the short term proposed is unclear. The councillor considered the building too big with not enough support and was against the application.

20.      Councillor Littman understood the concerns and noted that it meets policy and helps the most vulnerable people in the city. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

21.      A vote was taken, and by 5 to 2 the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

22.      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 in the report.