Agenda item - BH2014/02883 - Land at Brighton Marina comprising Outer Harbour West Quay and adjoining land, Brighton Marina Village, Brighton - Removal or Variation of Conditions

Application for variation of condition 1 of application BH2012/04048, as amended by applications BH2013/00799, BH2013/03432 and BH2014/01970 (Original Permission - Major mixed use development comprising new engineered basement structure to create platform on Spending Beach and West Quay, 853 residential units in 11 buildings ranging from 6-40 storeys, Class A, D1, D2 and B1 uses, Lifeboat Station, 496 parking spaces, alterations to pontoons and moorings, new bridges, informal and formal recreation space and alterations to access arrangements) to allow for revisions to the approved scheme including reconfiguring the type and quantum of uses within blocks F1 and F2 incorporating alterations to shopfronts, revised landscaping, relocation of the bus waiting room and changes to the RNLI station. Total number of residential units and car parking spaces to remain unchanged. (Amended description)

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Application for variation of condition 1 of application BH2012/04048, as amended by applications BH2013/00799, BH2013/03432 and BH2014/01970 (Original Permission - Major mixed use development comprising new engineered basement structure to create platform on Spending Beach and West Quay, 853 residential units in 11 buildings ranging from 6-40 storeys, Class A, D1, D2 and B1 uses, Lifeboat Station, 496 parking spaces, alterations to pontoons and moorings, new bridges, informal and formal recreation space and alterations to access arrangements) to allow for revisions to the approved scheme including reconfiguring the type and quantum of uses within blocks F1 and F2 incorporating alterations to shopfronts, revised landscaping, relocation of the bus waiting room and changes to the RNLI station. Total number of residential units and car parking spaces to remain unchanged. (Amended description)

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

(2)             The Principal Planning Officer, Sarah Collins, introduced the report by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings; reference was also made to matters in the Late List. The application was a minor material amendment to the consented scheme which had been granted in 2006 and amended in 2012. The applicant now sought to make changes to phase 1 of the development; for the purposes of the application only the changes before the Committee were under consideration; all other aspects of the scheme had existing consent. The key changes related to the enlargement of the F1 and F2 building envelope on the eastern and northern façade. The residential entrances were proposed to be relocated to the eastern façade, as well as the amended location of stairs and the addition of flues to building F1.

(3)             The internal layout would be reconfigured, and the car park entrance would be ‘straightened’, but would remain in the same location. The reconfiguration of buildings F1 and F2 would provide additional commercial space. The yacht club had been relocated to the west jetty, and this had consent and was under construction. As part of the changes the harbour office would be removed from building F2; the other offices at the first floor level would be replaced by residential units as they were no longer going to be used by the Brighton Marina Company. To ensure the number of residential units remained the same three other residential units elsewhere in the development would be replaced with plant rooms. The bus and taxi waiting room in the northern end of building F1 would be relocated near to the West Quay pub; there were proposed changes to the RNLI building.

(4)             The scheme proposed a number of landscape changes including the removal of the raised stage in the performing arts area, and changes to the air intake and ventilation – cycle parking had also been slightly redesigned. A number of consultation responses from neighbours had been received in relation to potential flooding as it was believed the vehicular access was below sea level; it was confirmed that the application had been amended so that the access location was now the same as previously approved, and was not part of the considerations in relation to this application. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that Officers were satisfied with the determination of the application as a minor material change given there was no changes to the amount of parking; the number of residential units and no change to height or scale. The proposed increase in retail space had been subject to a sequential test, and it had been considered appropriate by Officers in Planning Policy as the offices had not been developed and they were for a specific need. The changes in the application were also considered acceptable by transport officers. For the reasons outlined in the report the application was recommended to be minded to grant.

Public Speakers and Questions

(5)             Mr Robert Powell and Professor John Watts spoke in objection to the scheme. They stated that the ramped entrance to the car park was unacceptable; there was no space for barriers or machines and cyclists would also have to share the entrance for access to the cycle storage. The entrance also cut a hole in the tidal flood barrier which threatened the integrity of the sea defence. The entrance was also ‘barely’ wide enough for two vehicles to pass; this would create congestion at the base of the ramp and a revised traffic assessment would be needed. They were of the view that the public sewer was at capacity the proposed sewer would restrict the height of the car park entrance, and whilst an additional private sewer was conditioned this would be insufficient as it would still need to discharge into the main sewer. When the permission had been granted in 2006 the Local Planning Authority had not given consideration to the Brighton Marina Act. It was believed the 2006 Committee had been misinformed, and that parts of the development were illegal as they were outside the limits stated in the Act.

(6)             In response to Councillor Hyde the objectors confirmed there would no longer be an entrance to the car park below the tide level, but they still had concerns in relation to the configuration of the drainage.

(7)             Councillor Mears spoke in relation to the application in her capacity as one of the local Ward Councillors. She stated that the 2006 application had been the subject of a special meeting of the Committee, and the application had been very detailed given the complexity of the scheme. Councillor Mears had concerns in relation to the variation applications and noted that the affordable housing aspects had been changed leaving only shared ownership. She felt that the variations should be treated as a new application to give greater understanding of the whole scheme. If the Committee were minded to grant to application it was requested that careful consideration be given to safety to ensure the finalised development was an asset to the city.

(8)             Councillor Randall asked for more information in relation to the tankers referenced in Councillor Mears letter in the agenda. Councillor Mears explained that there was an existing issue in relation to sewer capacity, and tankers were used regularly to clear it.

(9)             Councillor Mears confirmed for Councillor Littman that the number of lifts was being halved.

(10)          Mr Peter Green and Mr Andrew Goodall spoke in support of the scheme as the applicants. They stated that the scheme had commenced and was currently built up to the podium; there were 100 people working on site and this would rise to 300 at the end of the build – they were employing 40% local staff and a number of apprentices. All the necessary conditions and parts of the s106 agreement up to this point of the build had been complied with, and the first phase was on track to be completed by October which included the affordable units. The yacht club was being handed over at the end of the month, and the proposed amendments before the Committee were to improve the final scheme. The restaurants at the Marina had been successful and the model was to build on this. The wider scheme was a major part of the Marina redevelopment; it was envisaged this would help to provide a world class leisure destination in the UK.

(11)          In response to a series of questions from Councillor Hyde the applicants explained that it had been agreed the main sewer could handle the additional waste; it had been recently enlarged; there was no need to clear it by tanker and the main sewage line did not breach the tidal barrier. The ramped access to the car park was part of the original planning application, and all parties had been satisfied with the transport analysis undertaken at that time. It was confirmed that one lift had been removed as part of the application; this complied with building regulations and there was provision in place for evacuation.

(12)          In response to Councillor Jones the applicants explained that over 40% of the scheme would be affordable housing; the changes to the type of affordable housing had been due to the withdrawal of Government grants; however, there was explicit wording within the s106 making this change permissible.

(13)          In response to Councillor Cox the applicants explained that the lift had been removed as it was primarily there to service the offices in the building; with the change of use it was no longer considered necessary and would be a maintenance cost saving for future occupiers.

Questions for Officers

(14)          In response to Councillor Wells it was clarified that there was an informative advising the applicant to contact Southern Water to connect to the main sewer.

(15)          In response to Councillor Littman the reference in the report to the removal of the lift was clarified.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(16)          Councillor Hyde noted she had some concerns from listening to the speakers; she noted particular concern with the removal of the lift, but was satisfied on the basis this would comply with building regulations. The amendments in terms of the size of the application were minor, and were not any major changes to the existing permission.

(17)          Councillor Hamilton noted he had been Chair of the Committee when the application had been granted in 2006; he noted the application before the Committee did not give cause to go back on the original permission.

(18)          A vote was taken of the 12 Members and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant was carried on a vote of 9 in support with 3 abstentions.

151.1    RESOLVED –That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 Agreement and the conditions and informatives as set out in section 11.