Drive-through fast-food restaurant at 267 Old Shoreham Road, Hove

What was proposed

The application sought full planning permission for a drive-through fast-food restaurant with 39 parking spaces, 76 covers and reduced opening hours.

“Ward Councillor Hewitt addressed the committee and stated that they supported the officer recommendation to refuse the application. The site is a small industrial estate with standard hours of business. The surrounding streets are residential. The proposed drive-through fast food restaurant will change the area. The increase in traffic on Old Shoreham Road will put a strain on the roads. The community objections include schools.”

“Councillor Sheard was informed that the Transport Team have objected. The Principal Transport Development Officer stated that 10 parking spaces would be complaint with planning policy, however, the proposals were for 39. The Planning manager stated it was considered the nature of a drive-through restaurant was such that it would create additional vehicular trips. It was noted that any further change of use after this application would require planning permission.”

Minutes

Site and surrounding area

The site was described as a small industrial estate surrounded by residential streets, with protected employment use and nearby schools.

“Councillor Earthey was informed that the existing floor space would be reduced from 900sqm to 350sqm with 62 full time equivalent jobs. It was noted that the site has protected use under planning policy. The Principal Policy Planning Officer stated that the site was protected for employment purposes. The 2024 land study showed that there was a demand for units within established industrial estates.”

Minutes

Officer recommendation

The officer recommendation was refusal, supported by concerns about policy, employment floorspace, public health, traffic, queuing and road safety.

“Councillor Cattell supported the officer’s recommendation to refuse as the application was contrary to policy and the floor space was needed for employment uses. Another fast-food establishment was not needed. There was no reason to depart from policy.”

“Councillor Sheard noted the highway issues and considered there was not enough space for queuing. The site is protected by policy for employment. The councillor supported the case officer’s recommendation to refuse.”

Minutes

Consultation concerns

Transport and public health concerns included an unsafe uncontrolled crossing, unclear traffic modelling, possible queues and fast food as a health risk factor.

“Councillor Robinson was informed by the Principal Transport Development Officer that there were concerns regarding the proposed uncontrolled pedestrian crossing, which would be close to road junctions. Modelling has been used; however, the results were not clear. It was a concern that traffic would stretch back to Holmes Avenue and Elm Drive, thereby having a severe impact.”

“Councillor Nann was informed by the Principal Transport Development Officer that the modelling calibration was very important and not enough of the detailed background information had been provided by the applicant. The videos were submitted very late and the uncontrolled pedestrian crossing was not included in the modelling. The authority’s Consultant in Public Health stated that the fast food could be a health risk factor if nearby.”

Minutes

What people said

Objecting residents raised concerns about children, schools, pollution and road safety, while the applicant cited acceptable parking, no adverse effects and around 120 jobs.

“Emma Russell addressed the committee as a resident representing other objecting residents and stated they lived in the area and had concerns relating to public health and road safety. Emma Russell set out a number of concerns; The application site is on a major walkway for children to nearby schools, with as many as 3,000 students. It appeared that the applicant was targeting young people.”

“Mike Spurgeon addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that they considered the local schools were not too close at half a mile away, which is more than the accepted 400m. Parking provision is acceptable and there are no adverse effects from the proposals. All planning matters have been addressed. The existing industrial estate is small; the proposed restaurant will employ more people with around 120 new jobs.”

Minutes

Who spoke

A resident representing objectors, a ward councillor and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee.

The vote

The committee agreed with the case officer’s recommendation by nine votes to one abstention.

“A vote was held and by 9 to 1 abstention, the committee agreed with the case officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused for the reasons given in the officer recommendation.

“RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons given in the report.”

Minutes