Agenda item - BH2013/03926 - The Astoria, 10-14 Gloucester Place,Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing Grade II listed building and construction of new building consisting of 3no storeys in height at rear and 6no storeys in height at front (including basement) incorporating café/restaurant (A3) on the ground floor fronting Gloucester Place and community rooms (D1) on the ground floor fronting Blenheim Place with offices (B1) above and to the rear, together with 6no residential units (C3) on the fifth floor.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

(1)          The Senior Planning Officer, Adrian Smith gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs of the site. Indicative drawings showing the proposed site layout were shown and it was noted that the current scheme would have a greater massing at the rear than the previously approved scheme and a larger central courtyard area. Reference was also made to the fact that two Amended drawings had been received (referred to in the Additional Representations List). These drawings clarified the scale of the recessed third floor link section on the Blenheim Place/south elevation. No changes were proposed in the drawings and in consequence the plans list in Condition 2 of BH2013/03926 and Informative 1 of BH2013/03927 had been updated accordingly. All external landscaping works remained as agreed under the terms of the previous permission.

(2)       Approval was sought for demolition of the existing Grade II listed building and construction of new building consisting of 3no storeys in height at rear and 6 no storeys in height at front (including basement) incorporating retail/café/restaurant (A1/A3) on the ground floor fronting Gloucester Place and community rooms (D1) on the ground floor fronting Blenheim Place with offices (B1) above and to the rear, together with 6no residential units (C3) on the fifth floor.

(3)          It was considered that, on balance, the demolition of the building as an exception to national and local policy was justified by the evidence submitted in support of the application. The loss of the existing facility had been sufficiently justified in relation to the benefits provided by the modern flexible B1 office floorspace, residential flats, and community room. Subject to conditions the design of the replacement scheme and the increased massing proposed to the rear would preserve the character and appearance of the North Laine and Valley Gardens Conservation Areas without resulting in harm to neighbouring amenity. The previous extant approvals for the redevelopment of the site were a material consideration .Approval was therefore recommended.

              Questions for Officers

(4)          Councillor Hyde enquired regarding the location of the proposed zinc cladding material and how visible it would be. Councillor Hyde referred to the fact that zinc cladding had been used on other developments across the city, depending on its location it did not always weather well. The Chair, Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the cladding would have little impact as it would not be visible in most views of the development.

(5)          Councillor Phillips referred to the objections raised by the East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service. It was explained however, that that the development would be required to comply with Building Control Regulations and that their concerns would need to be addressed as part of that process; which was separate from the planning process. Councillor Phillips also referred to the proposed removal of two semi-mature trees from the site and asked for information regarding their condition It was confirmed that approval had been given for the trees to be removed as part of the landscaping works agreed under the extant permission. These trees would be replaced and 6 further trees would be added across the scheme as a whole.

(6)          Councillor Norman also expressed concern regarding removal of the trees and it was explained that their removal was required in order to extend the existing loading bay and disabled/taxi parking spaces. Councillor Norman enquired whether it would be possible for this to re-located slightly within the site. The Deputy Development Control Manager stated that this matter had been fully considered and debated when the Committee had given their approval for the extant scheme.

(7)          Councillor Jones sought clarification regarding the Community Room which was now smaller than that for which approval had originally been given and had been relocated from the front of the development. It was explained that this had been done in order to allow a café to be located within the frontage. This facility would be retained and would be made available for community use.

(8)          Councillor Littman referred to the extant permission which would expire in May 2015 and enquired whether would be appropriate to revisit the pros and cons of demolishing this Grade II Listed Building. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward explained that as the extant permission had been granted relatively recently and had not been superseded by other guidance the Committee should be consistent and follow their previous decision in this matter.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)          Councillor Hyde noted that application was very similar to the previous one. Whilst she considered that the use of dark cladding materials to dark areas of the development would result in those areas being even darker, she nonetheless considered the scheme to be acceptable and would be supporting the officer’s recommendations.

(10)       Councillor Carden stated that although he would be supporting the proposed development he did think it was unfortunate that this building would be lost, soon very little of the “old” Brighton would be left.

(11)       Councillor Hamilton stated that whilst the loss of the building was unfortunate, it had been empty for a number of years and it was important that a large site be utilised rather than being left to deteriorate further.

(12)       Councillor Gilbey concurred with Councillor Hamilton. Whilst it was understandable that people could have a sentimental attachment to the building in reality it had remained empty for a very long time.

(13)       Councillor Phillips stated that although she had no recollection of the buildings earlier use she was disappointed that the existing building (which was not in imminent danger of collapse) had not been retained and she would also have liked to see a greater number of residential units provided.

(14)       Councillor Davey stated that he supported the officer recommendation, having visited the site in connection with the earlier scheme he recalled that it showed signs of serious deterioration and notwithstanding the period during which the building had been empty no viable alternative use had been found. He had voted against the earlier scheme but considered that this part of Valley Gardens was in need of uplift and improvement and hoped that this scheme would be implemented.

(15)       A vote was taken and on vote of 9 with 2 with 1 abstention the Committee voted that they were minded to grant planning permission on the grounds set out below.

43.3       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and the policies and guidance in section 7 of the report and resolves that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a S106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11.