Agenda item - BH2013/04348- The Hippodrome & Hippodrome House, 51-58 Middle Street, 47 Middle Street, 10 & 11 Dukes Lane and land adjacent to 18-19 Ship Street, Brighton - Full Planning

Full Planning - Internal and external alterations to Brighton Hippodrome and Hippodrome House to form an eight screen cinema (D2) and four associated café/restaurants units (A3) to include the following works:  demolition of the fly tower and other later additions and construction of replacement rear extensions; excavation works to extend existing basements; construction of two storey extension to northern elevation; reinstatement of original Hippodrome entrance on Middle Street; demolition of 11 Dukes Lane to create a new pedestrian route; new bay window to western elevation of 10 Dukes Lane, new windows to 47 Middle Street; new windows and entrance way to Hippodrome House; reconfiguration of existing service yards and parking areas; improvements to pedestrian and disabled access to Middle Street and Dukes Lane; construction of new three storey plus basement unit on land adjacent to 18-19 Ship Street  (referenced as 19A Ship Street in supporting documents and plans) comprising A1/A2/A3 use on the ground floor and B1 use on the upper floors; and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

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

 

(2)       The Senior Planning Officer, Adrian Smith gave a detailed presentation in relation to both the application for planning permission (BH2013/04348) and the application for listed consent (BH2013/04351) by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings. He referred to the amendments to the report and conditions set out in the Additional Representations List and to representations received following preparation of the report. He referred to the fact that a petition containing 1,083 signatures had been received by the Economic Development and Culture Committee at its meeting in January 2014 which pre-dated the planning application before the Committee for determination. Its contents had been considered however in the context of its reference to future use of the building. A petition had also been handed in the previous day containing 11,584 signatures seeking use of the Hippodrome as a live performance venue. He referred to the fact that if the Committee minded to grant Listed Building Consent that the application would have to be referred to the Secretary of State (National Planning Casework Unit) in consequence of the objection made by the Victorian Society.

 

(3)       The Senior Planning Officer explained that the application site forms a parcel of land set between Middle Street, Ship Street and Dukes Lane, comprised of the Grade II* listed Brighton Hippodrome and Hippodrome House (51-58 Middle Street), its service yard to the north and rear, 10 & 11 Dukes Lane, and 47 Middle Street.

 

(4)          Planning permission was sought for internal and external alterations to the Grade ii* Hippodrome and Hippodrome House to form an eight screen cinema (D2) with 4 associated café/restaurant units. The works included the following elements: Internal and external alterations to Brighton Hippodrome and Hippodrome House to form an eight screen cinema (D2) and four associated café/restaurants units (A3) to include the following works: demolition of the fly tower and other later additions and construction of replacement rear extensions; excavation works to extend existing basements; construction of two storey extension to northern elevation; reinstatement of original Hippodrome entrance on Middle Street; demolition of 11 Dukes Lane to create a new pedestrian route; new bay window to western elevation of 10 Dukes Lane, new windows to 47 Middle Street; new windows and entrance way to Hippodrome House; reconfiguration of existing service yards and parking areas; improvements to pedestrian and disabled access to Middle Street and Dukes Lane; construction of new three storey plus basement unit on land adjacent to 18-19 Ship Street (referenced as 19A Ship Street in supporting documents and plans) comprising A1/A2/A3 use on the ground floor and B1 use on the upper floors; and other associated works.

 

(5)       It was further explained that the Hippodrome was had originally constructed as an ice rink before being converted first into a circus and then a variety theatre by celebrated theatre architect Frank Matcham. Following the closure of the variety theatre in the 1960’s, the building operated as a Bingo Hall. This use had now ceased and the Hippodrome had lain vacant since 2007.

 

(6)       The Hippodrome was in a very poor condition having deteriorated over a long period of time such and had been classified as a ‘Building at Risk’ on the English Heritage and council registers. The extent of deterioration included extensive water and damp penetration, the failing of the ornate plaster decorations, and evidence of failure to structural timbers and corrosion to steelwork.

 

(7)       The Senior Planning Officer explain that the main considerations in the determination of this application related to the principle of the development in relation to the partial demolition, extension and conversion of the grade II* listed Hippodrome and Hippodrome House and its impact on their heritage significance, the impact of the extensions and alterations on the character and appearance of the Old Town Conservation Area, the strong statutory presumption that arises against granting planning permission where development is likely to harm a heritage asset, and the impact of the development as a whole on the amenities of adjacent occupiers. Further material considerations included the acceptability of the public realm works, the principle of providing new A1, A3 and B1 units within the application site, the transport implications of the development and sustainability matters. In order to address and allay concerns that conversion would permanently disable the Hippodrome’s future ability to operate as a theatre or other performance venue; the applicants had sought to design in elements of reversibility into the proposals so that they would not preclude a future conversion back into a performance venue. Specifically, the three semi-basement auditoria and mezzanine floor within the Hippodrome itself were designed to be essentially stand alone structures that could be removed to allow for a new raked floor for seating to be inserted with minimal interference to the fabric of the building. The extension that replaced the existing fly tower to the rear had intentionally been scaled designed and positioned in order to be readily adapted into a new fly tower and stage house should the need arise without the need for total demolition and rebuild. The applicants had also provided track plots to demonstrate the access into the service yard by articulated lorries and pantechnicons would remain largely as existing such that a future theatre use could be serviced to the same extent as currently.

 

(8)  The Senior Planning Officer concluded his presentation by stating that issue of viability had been one of the major considerations in assessing the scheme. The Grade ll* Brighton Hippodrome and Hippodrome House were in a poor state of repair and had deteriorated to such an extent that they had been identified as Buildings at Risk on English Heritage’s register and the council’s own. It was considered that it had been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed development to part demolish, extend and convert the buildings to form a cinema complex with associated restaurants represented the optimum viable use of the buildings.

 

(9)       The proposed extensions, alterations and restorations would result in a very significant public benefit by both restoring and re-occupying the most significant parts of the listed buildings and contributing positively to the overall character and regeneration of the conservation area. This significant public benefit would outweigh the strong statutory presumption against planning permission being granted where harm to the preservation of a listed building, its setting, or to a conservation area had been identified, to which considerable weight had been attached. Subject  to conditions, the proposed uses would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenities of adjacent occupiers or on highway safety. Taken overall, the condition of the listed building and public benefit derived from the positive aspects of the proposals were therefore considered to outweigh potential harm of the various elements of the buildings and insertions in accordance with the NPPF and development plan policies. Minded to Grant planning permission was therefore recommended subject to a S106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11of the report.

 

            Public Speaker(s) and Questions

 

(10)     Mr Pol the Co-Chair of the Middle Street, Ship Street and Ship Street Gardens Residents Association addressed the Committee. Whilst residents supported the concept of suitable viable development which would return the site to use they did not agree that the proposed development was of an appropriate design, nor that it would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring buildings or the character of the conservation area. Residents did not feel that they had been properly consulted in respect of the proposed form of development. Residents regarded the proposed rear extension to be particularly detrimental to the adjacent residential properties. Residents were also concerned in respect of the proposals to include shops and restaurants within the proposed form of development and the pressure which any additional footfall could put on the surrounding narrow twittens.

 

(11)     Councillor Davey sought clarification regarding residents’ objections to the retail units within the site and Mr Pol explained that in the current economic climate local businesses and restaurants were placed under increasing financial pressure, the introduction of new businesses would squeeze those already there.

 

(12)     The Chair, Councillor MacCafferty referred to the fact that often when major schemes were in the process of being submitted residents were often approached throughout from inception to submission of the scheme and enquired as to the number of meetings and level of consultation that had taken place in this instance. Mr Pol stated that there had been no separate consultation and nothing in addition to the two day exhibition that had been held.

 

(13)     Mr Neate spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He considered that it was important the building had not originally been built as a theatre, but as an indoor ice skating rink, then a circus and most recently as a Bingo Hall. Whilst the building had been in use as a theatre that had been of relatively short duration and amongst a number of other uses. Their scheme sought to re-invigorate and restore the building and to enable the public to have access to it which was not the case at present and sought to recognize its importance as a heritage asset. The scheme would be executed in a manner which would enable it to be returned to use as a theatre venue should that be a viable option in future.

 

(14)     In answer to questions of Councillor Hyde regarding the level of public consultation which had taken place Mr Neate explained that a two day public exhibition had been mounted and that materials on display there had included reference to the proposed developers web address. The applicants had not had knowledge of a residents association.

 

(15)     Councillor C Theobald asked whether the site had been actively marketed as a theatre and why it had been allowed to deteriorate over the past seven years into its current condition. Mr Neate explained that at present responsibility for the site lay with the current tenants,a contributory factor in part was the number of years it had been vacant. However pending the proposed re-development works  had been undertaken to prop up those parts of the building which were in a parlous condition and to make the building watertight.

 

            Questions for Officers

 

(16)     Councillor Theobald referred to assessments made regarding the viability of the scheme bearing in mind that there were already a number of cinemas in the city. In her view the number of screens proposed seemed very high. She also referred to reversibility of the proposed use in the event that the proposed venture failed.

 

(17)     Councillor Hyde referred to the proposed modern aspect to the Middle Street frontage enquiring why that design solution had been chosen. The Senior Planning Officer stated that planning policies did not preclude well designed modern buildings, a number of amendments had been made following as a result of discussions with officers and this element of the scheme was not considered at variance with the setting of the conservation area subject to approval of all final details in relation to finishes and materials. In response to further questions the distances between the rear extension was given. The Heritage Officer confirmed that a number of changes had been made to the originally submitted plans and that this building was of a size massing and proportions that were comparable with its neighbours. It should be noted that although the conservation area contained a number of listed buildings, it was not characterised by one particular building style but had within it buildings of varied styles and ages.

 

(18)     Councillor Hyde also referred to the signage to be used but it was explained that this did not form part of the application before the Committee that day.

 

(19)     The Chair, Councillor MacCafferty explained that as the site was of national, arguably international importance because of its architectural heritage a number of factors needed to be balanced in determining the application.

 

(20)     Councillor Jones sought further clarification regarding the stand alone elements of the scheme which would be reversible should a theatre use be required at a future date.

 

(21)     Councillor Davey sought clarification regarding configuration of the internal space within the Hippodrome building and location of viewing screens within the cinema complex. Councillors Davey and Cox sought clarification of the access/egress arrangements and the distance between the proposed new elevations to the rear of the site.

 

(22)     Councillor Shanks enquired regarding whether large vehicles would be ble to access the site (for example carrying theatrical scenery) following completion of the works and it was confirmed that they would be the same as currently.

 

(23)     Councillor Pissaridou enquired regarding access by the public and it was explained that anyone entering the building would be able to view the restored building. In answer to further questions it was explained that the restaurant, café and retail elements of the scheme were considered to be integral to the viability of the scheme by the applicants.

 

(24)     Councillor Davey enquired regarding any other viable uses and tests that had been undertaken to ensure that any element of harm to the listed building and its environs were mitigated against.

 

(25)     Councillor Pissaridou referred to the level of investment proposed to convert the building to its proposed use and to convert it to a theatre. It was noted that should the building be required for use as a theatre at a future date the cost of conversion would have already been met in part by the current proposals.

 

            Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(26)     Councillor Jones, the Deputy Chair stated that he had given a great deal of thought and consideration which was the only current proposal to retain the building and noted that at present the public did not have access to the building at all and that it was in a very poor state of repair  so much so that it had been placed on buildings at risk registers.

 

(27)     Councillor Cox concurred in that view stating that this application did appear to be the “only game in town”. The Hippodrome building was clearly in an advanced state of deterioration having stood empty for a number of years and if something was not done soon it could well be lost. Whilst use as a theatre would be his preferred choice that was not the application before the Committee and it did not appear that such an application was likely to be brought before them in the foreseeable future. This application needed to be determined and he felt  able to support it.

 

(28)     Councillor Davey stated that he also supported the officer’s recommendations. The proposed use would affect the changes that were required in order to make the building safe and would return it to public use whilst not precluding its future use as a theatre.

 

(29)     Councillor Pissaridou concurred with the views expressed by other Members whilst agreeing that it was not an easy decision to make it was clear that at present the options were either to agree this application or to have nothing and leave the site to deteriorate further. It was far better to have this use than to have nothing, particularly in view of the reversible elements of the scheme.

 

(30)     Councillor Hyde supported all that had been said stating that she would be voting for the officers recommendations.

 

(31)     Councillor Theobald stated that she did not feel able to support the recommendations as she felt that the venue had not been marketed sufficiently as a theatre and she considered that the building should be returned to use as a theatre.

 

(32)     Councillor Carden agreed with Councillor Theobald stating that he was of the view that loss of the building for use as a theatre was to be regretted and he could not support it.

 

(34)     Jim Gowans, CAG responded in answer to questions that CAG had divided views about the application. Overall they had no objections to the principle of the scheme or the restoration/refurbishment proposed, including those to the canopy, façade and interior, they did however have some concerns regarding the new building and how its design would sit in relation to the neighbouring street scene.

 

(35)     Councillor MacCafferty, the Chair stated that he had poured over the application and struggled with considering the principle of it for days. The site and the Hippodrome building itself were of wider importance than to the city alone being of national and arguably wider significance. He had serious concerns regarding the overall viability of the scheme and was mindful in particular of the comments that had been received from the Victorian Society. He did not feel able to support the recommendations at this stage and concluded by stating that his preference would be to defer consideration of this application in order to enable continued dialogue to take place and to allow time for other applications to come forward including one for use as a theatre space.

 

(36)     The Legal Adviser to the Committee stated that in order to defer the application detailed and robust reasons for doing so would need to be given. The Committee as local planning authority had a legal duty to determine applications that came before them.

 

(37)     Councillor Cox stated that in view of the debate that had taken place he was perplexed that the Chair had raised these issues so late in the process. The Chair responded that he had considered it important not to seek to steer the debate and for Members to have the opportunity to formulate their own views in respect of the application. Councillor Shanks stated that in order to support deferral she was of the view that would need to know how long they were deferring consideration for and whether there was a reasonable prospect of another application being submitted in the foreseeable future.

 

(38)     The Senior Planning Officer confirmed in answer to questions that although he had been in discussion with Our Brighton Hippodrome since March 2014 and had encouraged them to put forward alternative proposals and further information for consideration that had not happened and there were no indications that such details were imminent.

 

(39)     The Deputy Development Control Manager, Paul Vidler stated that the application before the Committee had been the subject of a detailed presentation and lengthy debate. Arguments in support of and against the scheme had been put and Members had heard that no other viable scheme was anticipated. The current condition of the building and the fact it was deemed “at risk” had been given weight by officers and underpinned their recommendations. The Committee needed to deal expeditiously with all applications which came before them unless they had compelling reasons otherwise.

 

(40)     Councillor Theobald indicated that she would be prepared to support a proposal to defer if that was put formally but the Chair stated that he sensed that the mood of the Committee was that it wished to detrmine the application and also mindful of the advice given he considered it was appropriate to proceed to the vote.

 

(41)     A vote was taken and on a vote of 8 to 3 with 1 abstention Members resolved that they were minded to grant planning permission as set out below which include the amendments set out in the Additional Representations List:

 

31.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendations set out in section 11of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 of the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a S106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report and the amendments set out in the Late Representations List and reproduced below.

 

Amended conditions 4, 13 & 23 to read:

4. The D2 (cinema) use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers except between the hours of 09:00 Sundays to Thursdays, and 02.00 the following day.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

13. No works to any property on Dukes Lane shall take place until 1:20 scale elevations and sections of the new bays to the gable ends of 10 and 12 Duke’s Lane have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The works shall be implemented in strict accordance with the agreed details and maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to comply with policy HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

23. No works to form the portico and stepped access into Hippodrome House shall commence until the adopted highway on Middle Street where the new portico and steps are proposed, as is indicated on drawing no. P101 revision B received on 28 May 2014 (proposed ground floor plan), has been stopped up.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory access arrangements are provided to the development and to comply with policy TR7 and TR8 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

Additional Condition:

No development shall take place until full details of the elevational treatment of the new building fronting Ship Street, including 1:20 scale elevations and 1:1 scale profiles, where appropriate, have been be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in full in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: As insufficient information has been submitted, to ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and to comply with policies QD1, QD2 & HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

Additional Condition:

Prior to their installation a written scheme for new street nameplates for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority. The nameplates shall be installed in strict accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to comply with policy HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.