Agenda item - BH2019/02639, 8-9 King's Road, Brighton - Full Planning

1.          Russell Brown (Senior Planning Officer) introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site location plans, elevational drawings and photographs. It was noted that the main planning considerations material to this application are the principle of development, the design of the alterations, the impact on heritage assets, the amenity of neighbouring properties and on highways as well as the standard of accommodation to be provided.

Speakers

2.          Ward Councillor Tom Druitt spoke in support of the application. It was noted that many people don’t have a place to call home. Homelessness needs to be solved. It was felt that there is no good place to locate the facility and there are no reasons not to have the assessment hub. It was considered that the sea front would be acceptable as it ticks all the boxes. It has taken 18 months to find a suitable property for the centre. There is a responsibility to manage the centre and to not have an impact on the local residents. The Committee are urged to agree the application.

Questions for the Speaker

3.          There were none.

4.          Emily Ashmore – Rough Sleeper Co-ordinator for Brighton and Hove City Council attended the meeting to represent the applicant.

Questions for the Applicant

5.          There were none.

Questions for Officer

6.          Councillor Daniel Yates was informed that the 12 persons stated under condition no.3 did not include staff. Councillor Yates felt that a management plan should include a revised total of 15 with staff.

7.          Councillor Leo Littman was informed that the pre-app advice supported the principle and contained little detail. It was noted that the Planning Policy SR4 did not apply as the unit was a secondary frontage, with no loss of A1 use.

8.          Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty was informed that the property had been chosen after 10 others had been considered. Others had not been followed through for a variety of reasons including too expensive, heavily residential, near schools, prohibitive conversation costs and partners completing quicker. The property is located in the city centre close to services. It was considered that the crash beds, which will be packed away during the day, could be increased in number. No provider has been identified yet. The procurement process for the provider will require management plans. It was noted that no anti-social behaviour had been recorded in this area.

9.          Councillor Carol Theobald was informed that the crash beds would be put out at night and away during the day. Users would be able to stay in the building during the day when staff would give support. It was noted that the service will be open to all, especially those newly on the streets, not just local people. The item had taken time to come to committee as funding needed to be identified first.

10.      Councillor Tony Janio was informed that users would be given support to move away from drugs and alcohol. It was noted that alcohol could be accessed locally, this was true across the city.

Questions for Officers

11.      Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty was informed that the silencing of doors could be added as an informative if agreed by the Committee.

Debate

12.      Councillor Sue Shanks supported the scheme and the increase of total persons.

13.      Councillor Joe Miller felt the centre was much needed to reduce rough sleeping in the city.

14.      Councillor Carol Theobald felt the centre should prioritise locals, understood that this was not to be the case and supported the scheme as a good idea.

15.      Councillor Daniel Yates agreed that finding the best location was a challenge and felt that the centre should support as many people as possible. Councillor Yates supported the application and looked forward to the next one.

16.      Councillor Nick Childs supported the application in a good location, supporting the massive issue of rough sleepers should be supported.

17.      Councillor Tony Janio agreed with the initiative. Councillor Janio felt that the location was not the best and did not support the application.

18.      Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty felt a tight management plan would be needed and supported the proposal.

19.      Councillor Leo Littman supported the application.

20.      Vote: Following the debate a vote was held on the motion proposed by Councillor Shanks and seconded by Councillor Yates to amend the number of persons onsite by condition to 15 from 12. By a majority vote the motion was agreed.

21.      Following the debate, a vote was held on the motion proposed by Councillor Mac Cafferty and seconded by Councillor Littman regarding noise emitting from slamming doors. The motion was agreed by a unanimous vote.

RESOLVED: The Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out below and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives in the report and the additional condition regarding the maximum number of occupiers and an informative to reduce disturbance created by noise of slamming doors. The wording to be finalised by the Planning Manager.