Agenda item - BH2013/01034 - East House 7 & West House 8 Pavilion Mews & 17 Jubilee Street, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Extensions and alterations to the existing building to provide an additional 14no new hotel guest suites, enlargement of the one of the ground floor commercial units, refurbishment of basement car park into a multi-purpose music venue, the formation of a 3no bedroom penthouse flat, associated landscaping and alterations.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Extensions and alterations to the existing building to provide an additional 14no new hotel guest suites, enlargement of the one of the ground floor commercial units, refurbishment of basement car park into a multi-purpose music venue, the formation of a 3no bedroom penthouse flat, associated landscaping and alterations.

(1)                   It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)                   The Case Officer, Anthony Foster, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs plans and elevational drawings; the presentation related to both application BH2013/01034 for full planning permission and application BH2013/01035 for conservation area consent. The application site was on the east side of Jubilee Street, and the building was four storeys in height at the southern side of Jubilee Square with a basement car park. The two 2 storey mews properties were located at the northern end of Pavilion Mews in the North Laine Conservation Area. The proposals would provide an additional 15 hotel rooms; additional space at the ground floor; a green wall and assorted alterations to the basement car park to convert it to a music venue. It was noted that the Heritage Officer had objected to the scheme, and the CAG objected to the demolition of the mews properties. There was also a planning brief for Jubilee Street that referenced the strong cohesion of the buildings, and the prominence of the library in the scheme.

(3)                   The main considerations related to the loss of the residential unit; the principle of the change of use and the impact on the character of the street scene and the conservation area. The loss of the residential unit was considered contrary to policy as the scheme proposed one unit gained against the two that would be lost. The Heritage Team had concerns that the proposed alterations would adversely impact on the character of the conservation area and the surrounding street scene in Pavilion Mews. There would also be an increased level of over and inter-looking. The Highways Officer had objected as there was no provision for sustainable transport in the scheme. For the reasons outlined in the reports the applications were recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

(4)                   Mr Bareham, the agent, spoke in support of the application assisted by Mr Nicolson the applicant. He stated that the application would provide economic benefits, and extensive consultation had been undertaken with community groups. The existing hotel and associated businesses provided for 100 full and part and time jobs, and the proposal would allow for an additional 20 positions, and a projected additional 7000 visitor stays each year. The proposals were well designed and proportionate, and Mr Bareham was of the view that adherence to the Jubilee Street planning brief amounting to prejudgement of the application, and did not allow the scheme to be considered on its own merits. It was acknowledged that Jubilee Street had been very successful; however, it was felt that this did not prevent scope for alterations to the current configuration – furthermore the perceived relative height of the buildings would be in transition when viewed from different locations. The car park was currently not the best arrangement, and the proposals should be encouraged as an improvement. The scheme would provide significant job creation; was well design and respected the character of the area, and the scheme met provisions within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

(5)                   Councillor Davey asked for more information on how the scheme would work with the building on the southern aspects. In response Mr Nicolson explained that the scheme had evolved by looking at how to make improvements to this aspect. Work had been undertaken so that the scheme would have as little impact as possible; the green wall would also help to soften the elevations and add green landscaping.

Questions for Officers

(6)                   Councillor Phillips asked about the reasons for refusal in relation to sustainable transport, and in it was explained that it was a reason that needed to be included as this ensured that the matter would be considered by the Inspector if an appeal was lodged.

(7)                   Councillor Hyde asked for more information in relation to the agent’s view that adherence to the planning brief amounted the prejudgment of the application. In response the senior solicitor explained that the planning brief was a material planning consideration, and it would be necessary for Members to consider the appropriate weight to be given to it – as well as to all other material planning considerations..

(8)                   Councillor Hyde asked why there were no comments from the Economic Development Team in the report, and in response Officers explained that they had been consulted during the consultation period; however, at this point the case had not been made in relation to employment at the site.

(9)                   Councillor Davey asked for more information in relation to the mews properties; in particular their age and how they related the wider development of the Jubilee Street site. In response the Case Officer explained that the mews were part of the funeral directors that had previously occupied Pavilion Mews, and the two mews properties in question had been used as storage. The properties had been retained when the site was development.

(10)               Councillor Davey also asked about the proposals for the area at the front of the hotel and the side where the current access to the basement car park was located. Officers explained that railings would be added to provide a smoking area, and there would be a new sign to the front of the building. The existing vehicular access would be removed and a new access to the music venue installed in its place, and two additional bedrooms built above.

(11)               Councillor Robins asked for more information in relation to the status of the two mews properties; particularly if they were protected or had any historical merit. Officers referred the Heritage Officer, Sanne Roberts, who explained that they were part of the conservation area, but had no special listing or protection; the original planning brief mentioned that they had been built as stables, and they had historic merit insofar as they were the remaining example of such buildings.

(12)               Councillor Hyde continued this line of questioning and noted that on the site visit Members had been told they were storage units that had been updated and refurbished when the hotel was built, but she did not believe they were original. Officers reiterated that they had been built as stables; they had been used a storage by the funeral directors, but were now in residential use and retained some of their historic integrity.

(13)               It was confirmed for Councillor Gilbey that the proposals would create a net loss of one residential unit as the two mews properties would be lost and the one penthouse unit would be built.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(14)               Mr Gowans explained that the CAG were recommending refusal on this application, and they had particular concerns in relation to the loss of the flint wall and they were strongly advocating the retention of the mews houses; he also drew attention to the submission from the Heritage Team in the report.

(15)               Councillor Hyde stated that when she had first read the report she had been in agreement with the Officer recommendation; however, since the site visit her view had changed. The southern elevation was bland, and the proposed changed would be an improvement – the access to the underground parking also detracted from the area generally. The application was also seeking to provide extra facilities for a ‘flourishing’ hotel which would bring additional business into the city. At the rear the plant equipment on top of the premises was quite prominent and the proposed extension would help to reduce the visibility of some of this. Councillor Hyde went on to say that she was pleased to see that the hotel was doing well, and it was good to encourage tourism into the city. She stated that during the site visit Jubilee Square had looked ‘brilliant’, but she had some reservations about the green wall on a northern elevation. On the whole she was not of the view that the loss of the two mews houses outweighed the wider benefits of the scheme, and she would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

(16)               Councillor Wells stated that he could not see that there would be a detrimental impact on the existing buildings, and he felt development of this nature should be encouraged. He also felt that too much work had already been done on the original mews houses to justify any historic value, and the loss of the car park was acceptable.

(17)               Councillor Gilbey noted that on the site visit she had been against the loss of the residential units; she also stated that the new eastern elevation would appear as a large white wall and constitute overdevelopment. She went on to say that she liked the mews houses, and if they were removed the view from the entrance of Pavilion Mews through to the houses would be lost.

(18)               Councillor Davey stated he was in two minds in relation to this application; he stated that the current configuration on the southern elevation felt unfinished, but he was concerned about the loss of the two mews houses.

(19)               Councillor Jones echoed these comments; he stated he walked through this area often and was unhappy to see the historic buildings demolished, but the hotel improvements would make the building better. He stated that on balance he would support the Officer recommendation.

(20)               Councillor Ann Norman noted that this was a vibrant part of the city, and it was good to see a business that was successful and wanting to expand – which should be supported. The proposals would improve the appearance of the hotel, and help improve some of the views of the building. She stated that the decision was difficult as she saw the merits of protecting the flint wall; however, she did not feel she could support the Officer recommendation.

(21)               Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the planning brief for Jubilee Street was already approximately 15 years old, and had reservations about attaching too much material weight to the document. The area had changed for the better in last 15 years, and the businesses should be supported in expanding. He stated that he attached some historic value to the mews houses, but they were not as important as other properties on Pavilion Mews, and he did not believe that the proposals would damage the cohesion of the wider area. On balance he stated he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(22)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse was not carried on a vote of 4 in support and with 7 against. Councillor Hyde proposed reasons for approval and these were seconded by Councillor Mac Cafferty. These reasons were then read to the Committee, and it was agreed they reflected what had been put forward by Members. A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Hyde, Cox, Davey, Phillips, Ann Norman and Wells voted that planning permission be granted and Councillors: Jones, Carden, Gilbey and Robins voted that it be refused.

56.10    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer recommendation to refuse, but resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT the application for the reasons set out below and subject to conditions and a s106 agreement to be agreed by the Head of Development Control in consultation with the Chair, and in the event that conditions and s106 terms cannot be agreed the matter will return to Committee for determination.

        i.                 The proposed development is of high quality design and materials, is of appropriate height, scale and bulk and is well sited and thereby conforms with policies QD1, QD2, QD14, and HE6 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005. The Jubilee Street Master Plan is considered out of date in the context of this application and the area has changed in the intervening years.

Note: Councillor Wakefield was not present at the meeting.