Flats Plans Next To Music Venue Refused On Appeal

Plans to convert offices into flats have been refused on appeal because they are next to a music venue.

DTA Property Holdings, owned by Timothy Clapham, 52, David Willis, 65, and Alfred Haagman, 65, applied to convert Norwood House in Dyke Road into flats last year. 

But Brighton and Hove City Council refused the application due the potential disturbance from neighbouring Alphabet in the Rialto building.

The Music Venue Trust opposed the original application, along with 60 other people.

The charity wrote to oppose the appeal citing “agent of change” principles which protects music venues from noise complaints from neighbouring new developments.

The trust said: 

“The proximity of new residential units to Alphabet would place the future of the grassroots music venue under sustained risk of permanent closure, undermining the agent of change principle set out in national and local planning policy.

“Moreover, it would result in residential properties with unacceptable amenity and residential quality.”

DTA Property Holdings’ agent Wilbury Planning argued noise from Alphabet’s terrace is irrelevant. The company also stated noise reduction measures would not restrict Alphabet’s operation.

In their decision, planning inspector V Goldberg said the noise survey carried out in April 2024 was limited as the live music finished at 10.30pm when the venue is licenced until 5am.

The inspector also stated one day of analysis did not represent the variety of music or a “worst case scenario”.

There was also concern about ventilation as secondary glazing as noise reduction measures would require windows to remain shut.

The inspector said: 

“The appellant refers to the unlawful use of the terrace at the music venue and the noise levels emanating from it, therefore being irrelevant.

“Even if the noise from the terrace is not considered, this would not address the noise arising from the transmission of amplified music from 11 Dyke Road (Alphabet).

“Despite proposed mitigation, the proposal would not satisfy [planning rules] in regard to the impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development, and prior approval should not be given.

“On the evidence before me, this is a matter which could not be mitigated by conditions.”