Agenda item - BH2018/01965- 99 Dyke Road, Brighton- Full Planning

Change of use from two bedroom flat (C3) to yoga studio with therapy treatment rooms (D2) with opening hours of 10am - 6pm Monday to Friday.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected:Regency

              Change of use from two bedroom flat (C3) to yoga studio with therapy treatment rooms (D2) with opening hours of 10am - 6pm Monday to Friday.

Officer Presentation

(1)           Assistant Planning Officer, Michael Tucker, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, elevation drawings and photographs detailing the proposed scheme.

(2)           The Committee were informed that the main considerations in determining the application relate to the principle of the proposed change of use, the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity and transport.

Public Speaker

(3)           The applicant, Mr A Causton, addressed the committee and stated that he was a physiotherapist with a respected clinic. Due to success the clinic needed to expand. Under Policy HO8 Mr Causton felt the application was an exception with good transport links and accessibility. It was felt that customers of the clinic increased traffic for other business in the vicinity. Other conversions to commercial use from residential have been noted in the area. The proposal was supported by HW14 Economic Development and the applicant concluded that the granting of permission would show support for local small businesses.

Questions of Speakers

(4)           Councillor Theobald was informed that the first floor of the building was occupied for approximately 30 years, which had been followed by a 2 year law dispute. Visitors with mobility issues are seen on the ground floor of the building.

(5)           Councillor Miller was informed that other spaces had been looked at, however, the clinic was considered to be well established at the current location. The property also benefits from two disabled bays located in the street in front of the property.

Questions of Officers

(6)           Councillor Littman was informed that the Policy HO8 includes criteria for daylight in residential accommodation and these are taken from the national accommodation standards. Policy HW15 did not require evidence of marketing for a specific time.

(7)           Councillor Hyde was informed that the use on the ground floor was retail not residential. It was noted that the councillor felt that the retention of residential units was important.

(8)           Councillor Mac Cafferty was informed that the officer was not aware of other businesses of a similar nature in the area.

(9)           Councillor Moonan was informed that a change of use from residential to business would require planning permission.

(10)        Councillor Miller was informed that a personal permission would not be appropriate for this application.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)        Councillor Miller considered the business expansion to be good, however, the loss of residential was a concern.

(12)        Councillor Theobald considered the loss of business, should the committee follow officer’s recommendation and refuse the application and thereby driving the applicant out of the city, would be a negative.

(13)         Councillor Cobb supported the clinic and felt that other conversions of business units to residential would even out across the city the loss incurred here.

(14)        Councillor O’Quinn expressed concerns that the thriving area was not so good for residential use and supported the application.

(15)        Councillor Hyde felt that the change of use would enhance the parade of businesses and shops in the area and expressed support for the application.

(16)        Councillor Cattell expressed concerns that expanding the current D2 use would allow a variety of business to take over the premises in the future. Considering this support was shown for the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

(17)        Councillor Miller proposed a motion to overturn the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application on the grounds of supporting small businesses and increasing employment in the city. The motion was seconded by Councillor Lynda Hyde.

(18)        The Committee voted to overturn the officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission.

(19)       A vote was taken and the 11 members who were present when the vote was taken voted by 7 to 3 with 1 abstention that Planning Permission be granted. A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors Bennett, Cobb, Hyde, Mac Cafferty, Miller, O’Quinn and C Theobald voted that Planning Permission be granted. Councillors Cattell, Gilbey and Moonan voted that permission be refused and Councillor Littman abstained.

134.7  RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report but resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions to be determined by the Planning Manager and for the reasons that the development would be a gain to the shopping parade and local businesses and would improve the employment space within the city and subject to conditions to be determined by the Planning Manager.