Agenda item - BH2013/03793 - 11B (Former Ice Rink) and 11 Queen Square, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of former Ice Rink and number 11 Queen Square and erection of a 5no storey building providing 31no residential units (C3) and office use (B1 or A2) at lower ground floor level with associated works.

Ward: St. Peter’s & North Laine

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

- Demolition of former Ice Rink and number 11 Queen Square and erection of a 5no storey building providing 31no residential units (C3) and office use (B1 or A2) at lower ground floor level with associated works.

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

(2)       The Senior Planning Officer (Sue Dubberley) gave a presentation detailing the constituent elements of the scheme by reference to site plans elevational drawings and photographs showing the site in the context of the residential dwellings in Wykeham Terrace and St Nicholas’ Church and its surrounding churchyard and in longer views. Although the site was not located in a conservation area it adjoined the Montpelier and Clifton Hill Conservation Area to the north and west side of the site and was close to and visible from the West Hill Conservation Area. St Nicholas Church was a Grade II* listed building dating from the 14^th century, the churchyard also contained a number of historic tombs some of which were also listed.

(3)       A modern five storey building was proposed, at lower ground floor the building would be cut into the gradient as the land slopes upwards towards the application site. The upper floors on the front south elevation had been designed with a vertical emphasis with floor to ceiling glazed windows and balconies and doors with glazed balcony railings. The front elevation incorporated a visual break in the building at ground and first floor levels towards the western end, which would allow a view through to the churchyard. A vertical feature photovoltaic panel spanning four floors was also proposed. The top storey would be set back and has been designed as a glass pavilion with a frameless balustrade surrounding the roof terrace. The front elevation would be white painted render on the upper floors with brickwork and glazing to the ground floor office. Proposed elevational treatment of the rear north, west and east elevations was also  detailed.

(4)       Reference was also made to the circulated Additional Representations List and it recommended that if approval was granted Condition 7 be amended to read as follows:

(5)       Notwithstanding the details on the approved drawings, the windows on the west elevation at first, second and third floors shall be obscure glazed to a height of 1.7m above the floor of the room in which the windows are installed and non-opening unless the part of the windows which can be opened are more than 1.7m above the floor of the room in which the windows are installed with bottom hung hinges and thereafter permanently retained as such.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the properties and to comply with policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

(6)       The main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of development, design and impact on the adjoining Conservation Areas, the adjoining listed buildings, impact on neighbouring amenity, transport and sustainability. There was an extant planning permission for the redevelopment of the site and it was considered that the proposed redevelopment of the site would provide a modern building of an acceptable scale, mass and design. The proposed mixed residential and office use was considered to be appropriate for the location. The residential units, including 6 affordable units, would provide a much needed addition to the city’s housing stock. The detrimental impact on some views of the listed terrace, church and adjoining conservation area was considered to be acceptable when balanced against the advantages of an appropriate, well designed scheme, while the taller parts of the building could be seen from some sensitive locations these viewpoints have already been compromised by other tall buildings such that any additional harm caused would be incremental.

(7)       The amenity impact of the increase in scale and mass on adjoining residential properties of the infill development is considered to be acceptable within the context of the form of neighbouring development and surrounding architecture. Therefore the development was recommended minded to grant for the reasons set out in the report.

            Public Speakers and Questions

(8)       Ms Diane Moody spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors living in Wykeham Terrace assisted by Mr Iian Findlay. Ms Moody stated that local residents were extremely disappointed at the extremely negative impact that would result from the proposed scheme. In their view the current scheme was worse than that for which there was an extant permission, some elements were taller, giving a greater bulk and massing and would be located closer to the properties in Wykeham Terrace. The proposals would have a very negative impact on those dwellings which it would tower above and on the Listed churchyard. The council’s own Heritage Team had expressed concerns regarding the scheme.

(9)       Councillor Lizzie Deane in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the proposed scheme. She considered that the height and bulk of the proposed development ran counter to the council’s own guidelines and that the reduction in height (1m) of certain elements did nothing to assuage the damage which would be caused overall. Views of St Nicholas churchyard would be compromised and the proposed 60 degree balcony would give rise to severe overlooking. There were no proposals to replace the community facility which had been lost with the closure of the ice-rink and access arrangements for anyone who was wheelchair bound did not appear to have been addressed adequately.

(10)     Mr Paul Zara, the architect for the scheme spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the proposed development. He explained that the hotel use was no longer considered viable and that the current scheme was considered to be more sympathetic overall, although some of the lower stories were marginally closer to the adjoining properties the upper storeys had been stepped back in order to negate the impact of any overlooking. The windows on the west elevation facing Wykeham Terrace represented an improvement over the approved hotel application as 6 fewer windows were proposed at second and third floor levels. A condition was proposed to ensure that the windows were obscure glazed and non-opening unless the part of the windows to be opened were more than 1.7m above the floor of the room in which the windows were installed.

            Questions of Officers

(11)     Councillor Davey sought clarification regarding the implications on daylight particularly to the gardens and rear of the properties in Wykeham Terrace. In answer to further questions it was explained that this was not considered to be significant. The height and proximity of the development to properties in Wykeham Terrace was considered acceptable as the application related to a gap site in a city centre location and the extant permission was for a building of a similar height and mass.

(12)     Councillor Wealls sought clarification as to whether the scheme as as had been suggested was contrary to the council’s own policies. If it was at a loss to understand why it was recommended for approval. Reference was made to the existing extant permission and to the fact that the proposed density and mix of unit sizes was considered appropriate.

(13)     In answer to further questions by Councillor Wealls regarding the levels of direct sunlight to the rear of the properties in Wykeham Terrace. It was explained that it was considered that the impact of this scheme would be similar to that for the existing.

(14)     Councillors Hamilton and Jones asked for clarification whether the affordable units would be available to rent or as shared equity (part rent–part buy). It was confirmed that the details of these arrangements had yet to be finalised, the District Valuer had requested that a condition be added to any permission granted.

(15)     Councillor Pissaridou sought clarification regarding the distance between the proposed development from the churchyard and the extent to which the second and third floors of the proposed development would be set back. Councillor Pissaridou sought confirmation whether the existing permission could be built, it was confirmed it could and also asked whether/when it would lapse.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(16)     Councillor Hyde stated that she considered that the extant permission was relevant and did not consider that overall it would give rise to more significant harm than the earlier scheme. Notwithstanding the complexities of the site she considered the current scheme was appropriate and included some improvements on the previous one.

(17)     Councillor C Theobald stated that she was concerned that although re-configured so that some of the scheme had been reduced in height, she considered it regrettable that it was closer to Wykeham Terrace and that some elements were higher. Councillor Theobald also sought confirmation of the location of the wheelchair accessible units within the development and the location of the disabled and motor cycle parking bays. The Principal Transport Planning Officer (Pete Tolson) explained that the disabled bays located in the north east corner of the square would be retained, the applicants would be required to enter into a S278 agreement in respect of the other elements. Councillor Theobald stated that she did not consider it acceptable that no on-site parking would be provided.

(18)     Jim Gowans (CAG) referred to the objections by CAG to the scheme. Whilst supportive of the development of offices and flats they considered the proposed design was poor and failed to respect the architecture of the nearby buildings. They also believed that the building was too high and questioned the need to provide west facing windows which would overlook Wykeham Terrace.

(19)     Councillor Littman stated that the scheme was complex and that he found it very difficult to read in the context of the neighbouring dwellings and churchyard, he was also concerned that the proposed development would give rise to a greater degree of overlooking.

(20)     Councillor Hamilton stated that he not supported the previous application and was concerned that the current application would have a worse detrimental impact particularly on the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings in Wykeham Terrace. He considered that the height of the proposed development would result in overshadowing and significant loss of light.

(21)     Councillor Pissaridou stated that whilst aware that weight needed to be given to the existing permission she had concerns about the proximity of the proposed scheme both to the listed churchyard and the dwellings in Wykeham Terrace and sought further clarification regarding exactly what had been given approval already. This was done by reference to diagrams showing the front elevation of the approved hotel development and showing views of St Nicholas’ Churchyard. It was explained that the overall bulk had been settled by  the previous application.

(22)     A vote was taken and the application was refused on a vote of 6 to 5 with 1 abstention. A recorded vote was then taken and the reasons for refusal are set out below.

80.1    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation set out in section 1 of the report but is however of the view that planning permission should be REFUSED on the following grounds:

(1) The proposed development would result in more than substantial harm to the setting of the listed St. Nicholas Church and the listed Wykeham Terrace by reason of its bulk, scale and massing contrary to policy HE3 of the Brighton & Hove Local plan 2005;

(2) The proposed development would result in a scheme with direct adverse visual harm within the Montpelier and Clifton Hill Conservation Area by reason of its bulk, scale and massing contrary to policy HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local plan 2005; and

(3) The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to residents of the adjoining Wykeham Terrace by virtue of its close proximity and massing resulting in a loss of light and increased sense of enclosure contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local plan 2005.

Note1: A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on a vote of 6 to 5 with 1 abstention.

Note 2: A recorded vote was then taken on the grounds for refusal set out above proposed by Councillor Littman and seconded by Councillor Wealls. Councillors Hamilton, Littman, Phillips, Pissaridou, C Theobald and Wealls voted that planning permission be refused. Councillors Mac Cafferty, (the Chair) Carden, Cox, Hyde and Davey voted that planning permission be granted. Councillor Jones abstained. Therefore planning permission was refused on a vote of 6 to 5 with 1 abstention.