A Brighton pub’s plans for a new roof terrace have been approved by councillors.
The Hare and Hound, at Preston Circus, has been granted planning permission for the proposed roof terrace by Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee.
In the planning application, Indigo Leisure director Chris Bloomfield said: “It will enhance the customer offer and future viability of the popular public house through the provision of an inviting outdoor seating area.
“The considered design respects the attractive architectural detailing of the public house building and will preserve the street scene.
“The amenity of nearby residents will not be adversely impacted through any noise transference or overlooking.”
Brighton Access for Disabled Groups Everywhere (BADGE) objected to the application because there was no disabled access to the terrace and just one disabled toilet in the pub.
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Mark Earthey asked how significant this issue was in planning terms.
Planning manager Jane Moseley said that the pub company was challenged on the access issue which was why it had taken since September to reach the committee.
She said: “If it started from scratch, we would require disabled access to the roof terrace, as we did belatedly for Rockwater.
“For this existing building, we’ve accepted that it would be impossible – or not viable – to provide. That’s why we’ve pushed them to provide better access at ground level.”
Green councillor Sue Shanks said that the council could ask for a lift because even some able-bodied people struggled to get upstairs.
Labour councillor Joy Robinson was also concerned about access for disabled people upstairs and the minimal number of disabled toilets.
Councillor Robinson said: “I don’t really see the point of this. It’s an enclosed roof terrace with the dummy roofing. It’s really for them to gain capacity.”
At Hove Town Hall on Wednesday (7 February), the committee approved the plans by seven votes to one.
I’m sorry that disabled people can’t get to every rooftop venue in Brighton but trying to stop a venue having a roof terrace simply because there’s no disabled access is just crazy!!!
BADGE and others badgered (yes that was intentional) Rockwater for ages and ages until they were forced to spend an insane amount of money installing a lift to their roof terrace that’s hardly been used. I remember speaking to one of the campaigners who said “oh I’ll never take my disabled nephew there I just want to make sure they put in a lift”.
Perhaps BADGE would be better-off campaigning about the huge amount of blue-badge fraud and misuse in Brighton.
This issue with Rockwater was that installing a lift was a condition of the planning permission for it and they failed to install one.
So the council took enforcement action and so it cost Rockwater far more than if they’d put it in in the first place.
But I agree not every venue can be access compliant especially if a premises is being refurbished whereas for new builds is much easier.
Complaining about only one disabled toilet too, that’s one more than the majority of pubs.
IMHO Rockwater are a big enough business to be required to finance such a major adaptation. Not sure that’s the case with yer average pub
Hi David, yes, we kept up the pressure to ensure that a multi million pound development complied with the Building Regulations and the specific conditions attached to their Planning Permission so that anyone who has a permanent or temporary physical disability that affects their mobility, or someone who is an elder and physically not able to manage the stairs, or a family with a pram/buggy, could access the events and the beautiful roof terrace. It’s quite appalling we had to invest so much of our time and energy in ensuring that Rockwater complied and that the Planning Department ensured it happened. As a flagship establishment which gained its support based on community values, the lift should have been a given. Disability access is underpinned by the Equalities Act 2010 and by the Building Regulations. We are now a designated Accessible City. Ergo lift or ramp access should be integral not a ‘nice to have’. Incidentally, telling disabled people what we/they should or shouldn’t expect in terms of being able to join in and have a social life like others who are not (yet) disabled is a quite unpleasant read. I would be more than happy to discuss this further with you if you would like this to be explained more to you. Best wishes Pippa (BADGE) You can reach us at BADGE.BrightonHove@gmail.com
For reference, here is the comment that was submitted by BADGE – which looked at the broader access issues in the original plans. The resubmitted plans have addressed some of the basic ground floor access issues, which is an improvement to the original. We will continue to raise awareness where poor design is excluding people, especially when it falls short of Access to Buildings and is not in keeping with the Accessible City Strategy.
“I am commenting on behalf of BADGE the city’s disability access group. Having looked at the plans we are concerned that the Proposal seems to have totally omitted disability access considerations. The ground floor accessible wc is written up vaguely as a box that also mentions cold store and office. The changes remove other toilets to the first floor, leaving just one WC downstairs that inevitably will be used by others who can’t be bothered to go upstairs. The proposed terrace is only accessible by stairs but looks to be a sizeable space that could be used for private hire. In its current format this would exclude some disabled people with mobility difficulties or who are wheelchair users, elders, and families who need their pram/buggy/special needs buggy (and anyone with temporary mobility difficulties) who all need lift access as an alternative to stairs. Without a lift this does not comply with the Accessible City Strategy or with Building Regs Part M 1&2 which makes specific reference to the requirement for full access to all areas both vertically, horizontally and including external terraces in entertainment/refreshment establishments such as bars and cafes. This is not just for the general public but also to ensure that disabled people are able to work or provide inspection or trades to the venue if they choose. The proposal would offer a significant increase in users, but contrary to the Proposal, it is not ‘welcoming’ when it’s excluding people due to their disabilities. If accessible wc facilities were included on all levels as well as a well maintained lift, then we would not have any further objection.“
The law is clear that if building from new or undertaking a major redevelopment then disability access must be considered. Older buildings not always suitable for this purpose. In fact the building may be subject to heritage considerations as well that may conflict with installation of lifts etc.
Another important consideration with lifts are that they are not suitable for use in a fire. So other solutions for fire escape must be included otherwise you are permitting people in an are where there is inadequate route to safety. Fire waiting zones are no longer deemed safe.
The law as it stands strikes a balance between not discriminating against a group of people while recognising that not all buildings can be modified to accommodate them.
The building is so old and when built, it’s original staircase is tiny. You can’t change the integrity of the building just to accommodate disabled people. It’s a fact of life that not everywhere has to accommodate everyone. What a blinkered view, if they don’t have disabled access then let’s make sure that no one can.
These comments show no regard to removing barriers to equity for disabled people and seem to even drip with contempt for disabled people for daring to push for equity. No wonder not enough councillors gave a toss about it. Everyone’s an ally until it it causes them the slightest bit of inconvenience.