A new coffee shop can go ahead after the business owner was granted planning permission to make changes to a property in Hove.
The changes would bring an empty premises back into use and involve the replacement of a previous extension, the addition of two dormer windows and turn the upstairs office into a flat.
Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee voted eight to two in favour of the proposal for 6 Westbourne Place at a meeting at Hove Town Hall yesterday (Wednesday 2 September).
Nine neighbours objected to the application, according to a report to councillors, while 26 people wrote in support of the plan.
Objectors’ concerns included noise, smells from the kitchen extractor fan and harm to the Sackville Gardens Conservation Area.
Councillors were told that the proposal was considered to preserve the character and appearance of the building itself and the conservation area.
Conditions attached to the planning permission would control the opening hours, use of the rear garden for commercial purposes and any extraction and sound insulation.
The supporting comments welcomed the prospect of an empty shop coming back into use as an independent business as well as the potential for an increase in activity in the area.
One neighbour, Margaret Parkes, spoke against the application at the Planning Committee meeting yesterday afternoon.
She said: “Outdoor seating and any use of the garden for customer seating would create an unacceptable level of noise nuisance and loss of privacy to the neighbours’ gardens.
“Any commercial use front and back is inappropriate in our conservation area.”
She said that neighbours were also concerned about early opening hours and a seven-day operation, with baking starting at 5am.
Draft conditions on the application permitted opening hours from 7am to 5pm from Monday to Friday and from 8am to 4pm at weekends and on bank holidays.
The back garden would be limited tcommittee members o opening at 10am, with the same closing time as the premises, with five customers allowed outside.
Planning agent Henry Wagstaff, from Wilbury Planning, representing the applicant, Ellie Barber, said that noise from the garden and extraction system would be dealt with through planning conditions.
He said: “Representations of support outnumbered objections by around three to one.
“This application proposes to put a vacant building back into active use, with an independent and local business created and an additional home delivered.”
Miss Barber said that her business would be called Frank’s after her grandfather and her miniature schnauzer.
She said: “My grandad had an amazing ability to talk to anyone. Those everyday conversations and familiar faces in his Richardson Road community became his life – and that feeling of connection is exactly what inspired Frank’s.
“Building Frank’s at 6 Westbourne Place alongside my mum, who lives on the road itself, and with my dad who lives just around the corner … this is our home and being good neighbours genuinely matters to us.”
She said that the 5am start would involve proving dough rather than baking from so early. The extractor fan would be internal.
The committee was told that the flexibility of the planning category meant that the coffee shop did not require change of use.
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald was one only two to vote against the application, raising concerns about early morning noise.
Councillor Theobald said: “I do feel sorry for the neighbour who doesn’t want it there if it does wake her up on the morning – and the extractors can sometimes be noisy.
“I don’t like them and there’ll be a lot of people sitting in the garden. I think it’s probably the wrong place.”
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Bridget Fishleigh cited the saga of Cin Cin’s extractor fan, in Western Road, Hove, where neighbours called for a licence review before the noise problems were resolved.
Before voting to refuse the application, Councillor Fishleigh said: “Obviously there’s a reason why there’s never been a café on that strip of commercial properties because it’s not suitable.
“If I lived in a terraced place and my next door neighbour wanted to open a café with a garden right next to where I sat, I’d be absolutely devastated.”
She urged Miss Barber to find a different location.
Labour councillor Tobias Sheard said that he understood neighbours’ concerns but did not want the small shopping area to decay.
Councillor Sheard said: “These aren’t high streets but a loss of these little shopping spaces, these little community corners can have, if left vacant, can cause so much more trouble down the line than what is bring proposed.
“We all are aware of the damage of the declining high street and these declining small corners and these kind of applications are very good.”
Green councillor Kerry Pickett said: “I get the worry about the noise and everything but we do have conditions and environmental health so they can resolve any issues that may come up.”
How terribly interesting.
We are told that representations in support outnumbered objections by around three to one – apparently a fact worthy of particular mention when councillors considered the application.
Lady Bracknell cannot help recalling the King Alfred affair, where the arithmetic of public opinion was rather more inconvenient and consequently seemed to acquire considerably less importance.
So do numbers of supporters and objectors matter when determining such things, or do they not? One begins to suspect that public opinion is rather like a planning policy at Hove Town Hall – tremendously important when it supports the desired conclusion and rather more flexible when it does not.
Still, I wish Frank’s every success. An independent café bringing an empty premises back into use sounds rather lovely. It is merely the council’s sudden enthusiasm for counting objections that has raised an eyebrow.
One rule for the biscuit tin, another for the grand redevelopment, perhaps.
Oh I do love a jammy dodger.
When someone uses AI to try and be funny
Funnily, they’ve used at least seven different alias in the past month, and on at least one occasion replied to their own comment.
Hear, hear, Lady Bracknell!
You have hit the nail right on the head, or rather, dunked the biscuit exactly where it belongs
I must agree, the way the council counts these numbers is entirely dependent on which way the wind blows at Hove Town Hall. When it suits them, 26 letters of support are treated like gold dust to push through a new café.
Yet, when it came to the King Alfred redevelopment, public opinion was altogether a different recipe. The sheer numbers of objections to those ridiculous plans were piled higher than a double-decker teatime tray, but the council simply chose to look the other way. It seems their commitment to listening to the public is entirely bourbon out of convenience!
That being said, I am entirely soft-centred when it comes to the actual prospect of Frank’s. The idea of bringing an empty premises back to life is an absolute treat. I can already picture myself sitting there enjoying a lovely, hot cuppa, paired with a splendid selection of baked goods. If they get the recipe right, it will be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood – even if the council’s flaky logic leaves a bit of a bitter aftertaste.
Let us hope the new business rises to the occasion, even if the planning committee remains completely crackers. I shall certainly be pop-tarting in for a brew!
Viscount Biscuit 🍪
Planning decisions aren’t decided based on the number of submissions – for or against – it’s not a referendum
Decisions are based on planning policy and planning law. Just because someone writes in doesn’t mean it counts.
You both mention the KA.
Many of the objections were for reasons other than the application in front of the committee. Any objection that said they wanted it to be refurbished would have been ignored because that wasn’t the application in front of the committee. The application was for a new KA
There is guidance on the planning portal on what issues are valid reasons and which aren’t but people don’t read them.
One cogent submission based on the actual application and planning policy will hold far more weight than 1,000 ones that blather on incoherently.
Just reading a few comments on the planning portal is an education.
ChrisC, one is always grateful for a refresher on planning policy, particularly before breakfast. Equally, one is a stickler for policy, so I quite agree – planning is not a referendum and representations should be considered on their merits, not simply counted.
Although “it’s not a referendum” does seem to echo rather splendidly on the municipal breeze. I could almost swear I have heard Councillor Jacob Taylor utter something remarkably similar before.
There is, however, a small irony here. Frank’s own planning agent apparently thought it worth telling the committee that representations in support outnumbered objections by around three to one.
Quite right too – public support is useful context. But if we are going to count the cheers, we should perhaps resist declaring the boos irrelevant.
Consistency, ChrisC. One is terribly old-fashioned about these things.
Thank Heavens! At last, a coffee shop in Brighton and Hove. I was wondering when one would eventually be opened…
It’s amazing how social media can influence a planning application The majority of the support for this where from locals who wanted to support a newcomer to the area. They had no idea of any planning issues they were asked to support and they did. Re previous comment about no coffee shops and bakeries in Brighton and Hove. I wonder where you live because there are dozens of them everywhere
It’s called sarcasm!
Thank-you for explaining… 🙂
Planning permission should have been denied because the area doesn’t need anymore of these cafes and coffee shops. They all can’t possibly be profitable.
That’s not a planning consideration.