An arms company will be allowed to keep a temporary extension to its Brighton factory after appealing to the Planning Inspectorate.
L3 Harris wants to keep the extension to its site at Emblem House, in Home Farm Road, but Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee unanimously refused the proposal in June last year.
At the start of the Planning Committee meeting, the chair Alison Thomson announced that the council’s decision had been overturned on appeal.
She said: “The inspectorate has decided that the appeal will be allowed which is disappointing for those of us who voted against approval at the time.
“Officers are now reviewing the appeal decision and will update members again in due course if there are any grounds for challenge.”
Campaigners protested outside Hove Town Hall in the months leading up to the committee meeting last year.
On the day of the meeting, protestors strung the names of Palestinian children who have died in the conflict in Gaza around the entrance to Hove Town Hall.
In its decision last year, the committee said: “The benefit of retaining the extension on a permanent basis is outweighed by its impact on community cohesion and the need to safeguard the public interest in terms of fostering good relations between persons who share protected characteristics and persons who do not share them.
“Retaining the extension would have a disproportionately negative impact on the requirement to achieve the council’s equality objectives as a result of increasing risks of discrimination, harassment and victimisation to communities, particularly minority ethnic and religious groups, where risk to the safety of persons who share protected characteristics feature, contrary to section 149 (1) of the Equality Act 2010.”
L3 Harris said, in its appeal application, that the objections focused mainly on the company’s weapons-related products and that this was not a planning issue. Weapons and related products were regulated in other ways.
The company said: “The development does not cause any harm to the appearance of the main building or the wider location and that removal of the extension would adversely impact on the business requirements of the appellant, with associated risk to local employment.
“If the extension were to be removed, this would cause environmental harms through the loss of the embodied carbon in the existing structure and the potential for materials to enter into the waste stream as a result of the removal.”
The planning inspector ST Wilkinson said that the main issue was the effect on community cohesion and safeguarding people within the community who shared protected characteristics.
The inspector recognised that the council received about 1,000 comments from 650 objectors and four petitions against the proposal signed by 1,000 people.
The inspector noted the council’s decision included an equalities impact assessment highlighting tensions arising from the scheme amid “conflicts in Gaza and the Middle East”.
But the inspector said that there was only anecdotal evidence of hate crimes.
The inspector said: “There have also been reports to elected members from representatives of local ethnic groups that their members feel increasingly unsafe and isolated.
“However, no evidence is before me identifying a direct link between these concerns and the appeal scheme.
“The appeal site is physically linked to and operationally used for ancillary warehousing purposes for the existing factory.
“However, the outputs from the manufacturing process, namely military hardware is not a planning matter. The current operations are lawful in planning terms and the appeal scheme is ancillary to this purpose.
“There is no evidence that the original grant of the temporary planning permission in 2018 has contributed to community tensions and adversely impacted on ethnic groups who share protected characteristics.
“While I acknowledge the strength and depth of these objections, it is important to distinguish between the scale of the proposed extension and the existing operations across the wider site.
“The appeal scheme is for an extension to an existing factory located on an industrial/business estate.”
The inspector ruled that there was no evidence that the appeal would adversely impact on groups who shared protected characteristics and granted planning permission.
L3 Harris’s neighbour and landlord, Paxton Access, has said that it inherited the tenant (L3 Harris) on purchasing Emblem House in 2019.
The company immediately instructed L3 Harris that it would need to leave when the existing tenancy agreement expires in 2027.
I am pleased that this went to appeal & the decision has been overturned. As the only councillor who I believe voted in favour, from a planning perspective there was no reason to not grant planning consent. The company is lawful, provides employment & it is not up to certain individuals to decide whether they like or dislike what is being manufactured as a reason to grant planning agreement.
How could you have voted in favour of the application when you aren’t a member of the Planning Committee?
The application was refused unanimously by the 10 councillors on the committee.
Both the above as per the minutes of the 5th June 2024 meeting and available on the B&HCC website.
Planning consent was refused on an Equality Act compliance ground, which is a material planning matter, as you seem to be mispresenting. The inspector’s ruling doesn’t mean the council acted without reason; it means the inspector judged the evidence didn’t meet the legal threshold to outweigh other considerations.
Correct. I supported the application when it was submitted which you will see on the Planning Application Register.
I’m delighted at this decision. We should support the only democracy in the Middle East and support businesses employing people locally. In Israel you are free to be LGBT+ etc. and to disagree with the government, to be left wing or right wing or radical or conservative or anarchist or communist or whatever you like. You are free to demonstrate, to vote, to agitate, to be a conscientious objector. Christian and Muslim and atheist Arabs have the same rights as Jewish Israelis (who also might be religious, non-religious, atheist or whatever), sit in parliament, vote, make laws, be Judges, cops, councillors, teachers, doctors and so on. Try the same things in neighbouring states and it means death. To not defend these rights means death. We should not forget this.
I’d rather be a hammer than a nail … 🎶
To be Palestinian means death . We are unable to forget this.
The original decision was doomed from the start. Emotional virtue signalling has no place in planning decisions. It’s a pity our elected councillors do not have the wit to understand this. I wonder how much this needless process cost the tax payer?
The refusal was based on the council’s legal equality duty, not “virtue signalling.” The inspector disagreed on the strength of the evidence, but that doesn’t make the process pointless. Councils are required by law to consider equality impacts, and that’s what they did.
It would appear that you are similarly deficient in understanding the difference between relevant facts and spurious, emotional, political opinion. Keep barking up the wrong tree poodle boy….
Atticus, this isn’t about my opinion or yours. Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 sets out the Public Sector Equality Duty, and planning authorities are legally obliged to consider it. Whether you agree with the outcome is irrelevant; the duty exists in law, and the council followed it.
Hear hear. Officers recommended approval but then the committee decided to reject it on entirely spurious grounds with no basis in planning law. Those councillors should therefore be required to pay for the costs of the appeal (both the council’s and L3harris’s)
Oh no this is awful. Brighton needs more empty factories and fewer people employed locally. The council policy of making life difficult for employment generators in Brighton has suffered a major reversal. Employers from this factory will continue ploughing their money into the local economy. Brighton council should have the powers to evict major employers and send them packing up north where they belong. Allow Brighton to continue its growth industries of homelessness and junkies.
🙂
Why do these protesters cover faces, they are just against the State but i bet the State keeps them on benefits. The police should check the ID’s of these protesters then report them as fit to work to the benefits agency.
Yes because that’s an excellent use of police resources. While they are at it, let’s have a closer look at what you’re up too as well.
I imagine the treatment of the JSO protestors would make them more cautious. You’re also assuming protestors don’t work, that’s kind of bigoted, isn’t it?
Excellent news. The eradication of Hamas is to be applauded and if one small UK company can contribute to that then all the better. One small point, why do protesters always smell like wet dog and Pachouli?
This company is an embarrassment to the city enabling Israels continued and well documented Genocide & Crimes against humanity in Palestine
For Shame
So you’re on the side of the people whose avowed aim is to kill 7 million Israelis? Shame on you sad creature.
And you are are of the side that is killing 2 million Palestinians. You are hated and pathetic
Don’t start a war and then moan you loose.
😊🇮🇱
Great news!
Finish the job Israel!