Agenda item - BH2014/02054 - Brighton College, Eastern Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing swimming pool and old music school buildings and erection of a 5no storey new academic building with connections to the Great Hall and Skidelsky building, including removal of existing elm tree and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT

Ward: Queen’s Park

Demolition of existing swimming pool and old music school buildings and erection of a 5no storey new academic building with connections to the Great Hall and Skidelsky building, including removal of existing elm tree and other associated works.

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

(2)             The Senior Planning Officer, Adrian Smith, introduced the application and gave a presentation in respect of application BH2014/02054 for full planning permission and application BH2014/02055 for listed building consent by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings – reference was also made to two late letters objecting to the loss of the elm tree. The scheme sought the demolition of existing buildings, and the erection of new ones – the buildings were not listed in their own right, but fell within the curtilage of the wider listing on the site. The proposals also involved the felling of an elm tree close to the old music building. The new buildings would be in brick and flint to match. The main issues related to the principle of the development and the impact on the listed buildings and the conservation area. Officers were of the view that the scheme was high in terms of design standards and would complement the existing buildings on the college site. The assessment in relation to the removal of the tree had been verified by the Council’s Arboriculturist and the applicant had sought to mitigate the loss through the planting of new trees between heights of 3-4 metres. It was considered that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the loss of the tree and for the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for approval.

Public Speakers and Questions

(3)             Mr Nick Denny spoke in objection to the applications in his capacity as a local resident. He stated that the application was largely uncontentious and part of a master plan that had never been considered by the Committee. The application before the Committee indicated that the college’s preferences was to demolish existing buildings and replace these with larger ones; however, this prospect risked creating an unbroken walls of buildings on Sutherland Road for approximately 300 metres – which would be unacceptable. Mr Denny asked that the Committee defer the decision until they had all the details of the college master plan and the implications. The recent applications were evidence that the Council wished to achieve a high standard at the site, and the deferral would be possible as work would not start now until the Spring of 2015.

(4)             In response to Councillor Carden the objector confirmed that he had not seen details of the future college plans.

(5)             In response to Councillor Cox the objector noted he did not object to this scheme as it stood, but he did object to the loss of the tree.

(6)             Mr Steve Patten spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant; he stated that he was the projects director at the college. The master plan had two uses: to realise the original architect’s vision, and to replace poorer buildings that detracted from the listing and were no longer fit for purpose. It was noted that the college had won awards for its work and the work was undertaken with great regard for the listed buildings on the site. Both the swimming pool and the old music hall had curtilage listing; the swimming pool was inefficient and had no architectural significance. The scheme had been developed in view to retaining the elm tree; this had not been possible, but a new established elm would be planted within 12 metres. The Committee were asked to approve the application.

(7)             In response to Councillor Jones the applicant explained that work had been undertaken to try and encompass the tree within the project; digging down would interfere with the roots and setting back the new buildings would encroach on the Great Hall.

(8)             In response to Councillor Hyde the applicant explained it was his intention to source replacement elms between 3 and 4 metres in size.

(9)             In response to questions from both Councillors Pissaridou and Phillips the applicant explained that it had not been possible to submit all the phases of the master plan at once as the college had limited funds to bring forward the development and the architectural works to develop each part of the master plan were high. The college was not seeking to expand further, but rather replace facilities that were out of date. The master plan had been sensed checked in terms of heritage aspects and there was an opportunity to enhance the conservation area. In order to accommodate the teaching space the new building needed to be taller, and it was felt the gap in street view could be lost and still enhance the street scene.

(10)          In response to a further question from Councillor Phillips the applicant confirmed that the options to retain the tree had been given full consideration.

(11)          At this stage the Head of Development Control, Jeanette Walsh, clarified that there was no local planning authority approved masterplan; however, the college had been in discussions with English Heritage and the Council was of the view that there was no need to pursue this for submission nor were they able to make this demand.

Questions from Officers

(12)          In response to the Chair the Arboriculturist, Di Morgan, confirmed that the species of elm was English, but it was not a Wheatley Elm; it was confirmed that neither species had much resistance to Dutch Elm disease, and the intention would be to plant more resistance American species on the site.

(13)          In response to Councillor C. Theobald the Arboriculturist explained that if the structural roots were being severed then approximately 70% of the tree would need to be pruned.

(14)          In response to Councillor Phillips the Arboriculturist explained that trees within conservation areas had protection in the sense that any person wishing to fell a tree would need to notify the Council, and the Council had the option to either allow the felling or place the tree under a TPO. A tree with a TPO had a higher degree of protection as an application had to be made to the Council to fell it. In this case the tree on the site was not the subject of a TPO, but did have the level of protection afforded through its conservation area location.

(15)          The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that policy allowed for replacement trees to be sought.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(16)          Councillor Hyde noted that she had considered the concerns raised by other Members in their questions, but she was of the view that the college had fully explored the options to retain the tree, and they had an excellent track record in terms of development at the site. She noted that the swimming pool was no longer fit for purpose, and argued that the street scene on Sutherland Road was already compromised due to the Freshfield Industrial Estate. The design of the proposals was very good, and Officers confirmed that the tree would not be felled during bird breeding season.

(17)          Councillor C. Theobald stated she had no objection to the demolition of the swimming pool, but she would like the tree to be retained and felt she could not support the Officer recommendation.

(18)          Councillor Wells stated he was disappointed with the proposed felling of the tree, but content that the application sought sufficient mitigation measures. He referenced another recent application that was refused on the basis on felling trees, but felt there were differing circumstances in this case and it was not feasible to refuse this application on the basis of the loss of the tree.

(19)          Councillor Jones noted this was a very well designed scheme; with very attractive buildings – he felt more could have been done to retain the tree and for these reasons he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(20)          Councillor Littman was of the view that the tree was one of the rarest in the country and that the tree had visual merit as it was viewable from the street.

(21)          Councillor Phillips responding to some of the points in the debate and noted that she agreed the new trees did not constitute a like for like replacement. She would not support the Officer recommendation.

(22)          At this point in the debate the Arboriculturist confirmed that the tree was not a Wheatley Elm species, but it was an English Elm.

(23)          A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that planning permission be granted was not carried on a vote 5 in support with 6 against and 1 abstention. Reasons were then proposed by the Chair to refuse the application and these were seconded by Councillors Jones. An adjournment was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Jones, the Head of Development Control, the Senior Solicitor and the Senior Planning Officer to draft the reasons in full. These reasons were then read to the Committee and it was agreed that they accurately reflected what had been put forward. A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Jones, Hamilton, Littman, Phillips and C. Theobald voted that permission be refused; Councillors: Hyde, Carden, Cox, Davey and Wells voted that permission not be refused and Councillor Pissaridou abstained from the vote.

67.2       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into account the Officer recommendation, but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

i)          The proposed development would result in the unacceptable loss of a mature elm tree with good amenity value within the College Conservation Area contrary to policies QD16 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.

ii)         The tree is a native species which is part of the National Elm Collection. Its increasing rarity means that it is of significant scientific and ecological value and should be retained. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policy QD16 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.