The owner of a site next to a Brighton music venue is appealing the council’s refusal of its plans to build offices there, saying it was refused because of politics.
Patricia Camping’s plans to knock down the old Thrifty Care Hire building and put up a four-storey office building with a shop or cafe on the ground floor were rejected by councillors last November.
More than a thousand people had objected to the plans, mostly on the grounds it could lead to noise complaints about the Prince Albert next door.
Members of the planning committee rejected it on the grounds the applicant had not demonstrated it would have an impact on the pub, that its design and size were in character with the area, and that the size would be overbearing.
Mrs Camping has now appealed the decision, and a government planning inspector will now decide whether the plans should go ahead.
Before the appeal was lodged in May, alternative plans for Beak Brewery to use the existing building as a street food market were approved by councillors in April.
The brewery says its plans are unaffected by the appeal.
The appeal, written by planning agent Nathan Mooncie, says: “As stated in the officer’s report the application was ‘minded to grant’ but unfortunately due to the number of objections the application had to be determined at planning committee, where the recommendation was overturned.
“Unfortunately planning becomes a political when it gets to planning committee and it is taken out of the hands of the planners and is no longer a matter of ‘good design’ or even ‘planning policy’.
“The sensible previous reasons for approval then have to be reworded into reasons for refusal. Reason 1 asks for demonstration that the commercial use (Class E) would not be detrimental to the Prince Albert public house, when the original application provided a mixed use scheme of commercial below and residential above, but this residential element was requested to be removed by the planners.
“And then they argue that the wholly commercial use is ‘detrimental.’ It seems that you cannot win, either way.
A recent consent for commercial use has just been granted on the same site for a change of use from car rental facility (sui generis) to street-food market (sui generis) with revised fenestration and associated external alterations.
“It seems that in this case the wholly commercial use in not detrimental serving a maximum of 250 customers, 230 of which will be seated Monday to Sunday from 9am till 11.30pm.
“Surely this sui generis use is the same as commercial use (Class E – shops, offices, cafes, restaurants)?”
The Prince Albert has today asked its followers on social media to make representations to the planning inspectorate.
It said: “The more representations made in support of the original decision of refusal will strengthen our case so much so please take the time to do this. We are and will be forevr grateful.”
It also suggests reasons for people to use to object, including impact on the Grade II listed pub, the visual amenity of the conservation area, and the impact on neighbouring amenity.
Daniel Tapper from Beak Brewery said: “According to the owners, they are still keen to lease the building to us whether or not they are successful with their appeal.
“We are currently negotiating the lease with them as the building requires far more renovation work than envisaged but we’re hopeful we can come to an agreement.”
Save the prince albert!
So getting a government planning inspector involved isn’t politics?,mammy said no so I’ll ask daddy, you’re looking to make a quick buck Mrs camping and looks like you don’t care what the vast majority of the community think.The city is full of empty office blocks and apartments, that’s a fact that shouldn’t be ignored.
If they lose, I’ll bet anyone any money within a year beak will be turfed out following magic numbers of complaints, then the owners will let the building crumble until they get their way
Thanks to B&H news for providing a link above to the planning inspectorate so people can comment on this, and ask the inspectorate to uphold the planning committee’s unanimous decision. Please do so.
Of course it’s a political decision. We have political involvement in decisions like this so the views of the community can be heard. Or at least that’s the idea – and in this case it’s actually worked. Something to celebrate!
The proposed development is damaging to its local context. The Albert is a listed buliding, in a conservation area, and we have already lost too many live venues to noise complaints, which would likely be result of the kind of development proposed.