Agenda item - BH2022/02562 - Montpelier Inn 7-8 Montpelier Place Brighton - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Ward Councillor Philips addressed the committee and stated that the pub had been a constant source of nuisance to the residents, and this had been reported to the Police and licensing team. There are 3 pubs in the immediate area and residents don’t want this pub, which was not used by locals. The application to convert to residential use would not create a precedent. The committee were requested to support the application against the officer recommendation for refusal.

3.    Shelley Tiltman addressed the committee as a representative of local residents, noting that there were 180 bars and pubs within 20 minutes’ walk of the pub and 45 restaurants within 6 minutes’ walk. There have been 10 years of complaints regarding noise nuisance and drugs, as well as a murder. The pub is not independently owned, the community has spaces and there is a need for housing. Parking for the area is an issue. Graffiti and drug use is ongoing. The committee were requested to approve the application to change the use of the site.

4.    Simon Bareham, the agent, addressed the committee and noted the objections to the loss of a community space at the site were withdrawn. Pubs in planning policy terms are considered community spaces, however this pub was not considered valued by the local community, particularly with 3 other pubs close by. The Members were requested to take note of the current impact on the listed building, which the proposals will improve and allow the application.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.    Councillor Janio was informed that a community run space had not been proposed.

6.    Councillor Theobald was informed that there were residents in the floors above the pub.

7.    Councillor Moonan was informed that community use would need to comply with policy DM10. It was noted by the agent that policy DM10 encourages use of the site as a local pub, however, this is not possible here and was not considered a viable community asset.

8.    Councillor Hugh-Jones was informed that the marketing had been for a pub use for 10 months only, when 24 months is required by policy.

9.    Councillor Yates was informed that the applicant could come back in 14 months’ time to meet the policy requirements.

Debate

10. Councillor Moonan considered more housing was required, however, the policy is for everyone, the agent should look at community use and market for 24 months as policy requires. The councillor supported the officer recommendation.

11. Councillor Yates noted that other pubs have been community run and have succeeded and considered the pub could be good again. The policy was there to prevent the loss of pubs which once gone, were lost for good. The councillor supported the officer recommendation.

12. Councillor Childs considered the protection of pubs a key part of CPPT and there appeared to be no evidence of proper marketing. After a further 14 months the councillor may support. The councillor supported the officer recommendation.

13. Councillor Theobald considered the listed building to be nice and pubs should be protected and noted the application was against policy. It was considered a shame to lose the pub to housing. The councillor supported the officer recommendation.

14. Councillor Janio noted that the Ward Councillor had spoken against the officer recommendation to refuse and noted that residents live in horror and don’t want the pub. The pub does not appear to be a community asset and the city is not lacking in pubs. The councillor was against the officer recommendation.

15. Councillor Hugh-Jones expressed sympathy with the residents and the Ward Councillor, however the marketing had not been done adequately and nothing had been said to justify an exception. The applicant should come back in 14 months’ time as required by policy. The councillor supported the officer recommendation.

16. Councillor Littman expressed sympathy for the residents but noted that pubs with bad reputations can be made good. The application was against policy and the councillor supported the officer recommendation.

Vote

17. A vote was taken, and by 7 to 1 the committee agreed to refuse the application. (Councillor Shanks took no part in the vote or the decision making process).

18. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the report.