Agenda item - BH2015/00575, 13, 14, 15, 16-17, 18, 19, 20 20-24, 21, 22 and Pugets Cottage North Street, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of building at 15 North Street and store to west of Puget’s Cottage and creation of a new link lane, ‘Puget’s Lane’, linking North Street to the previously consented ‘Hannington’s Lane’. Erection of new building at 15 North Street to provide 1no ground floor retail unit (A1) and 1no residential unit (C3) over including over part of 14 North Street. Alterations to rear of 16-17 North Street to provide 2no additional ground floor retail units (A1) and 3no residential units (C3) above accessed from the new lane. Restoration of Puget’s Cottage, extension to existing historic paving through new lane, alterations to shop fronts along North Street elevation and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Regency

              Demolition of building at 15 North Street and store to west of Puget’s Cottage and creation of a new link lane, ‘Puget’s Lane’, linking North Street to the previously consented ‘Hannington’s Lane’. Erection of new building at 15 North Street to provide 1no ground floor retail unit (A1) and 1no residential unit (C3) over including over part of 14 North Street. Alterations to rear of 16-17 North Street to provide 2no additional ground floor retail units (A1) and 3no residential units (C3) above accessed from the new lane. Restoration of Puget’s Cottage, extension to existing historic paving through new lane, alterations to shop fronts along North Street elevation and other associated works

 

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

 

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Jason Hawkes, gave a presentation by reference to site plans, photographs, elevational drawings showing the site as currently configured and as proposed, also photomontages showing the existing and proposed North Street frontages. The presentation dealt with applications BH2015/00575 and BH2015/00576 as did the questions asked and debate and decision making process. Following the conclusion of consideration of both applications they were voted on separately.

 

(3)          It was explained that the application site related mainly to two separate buildings at 15 North Street and Puget’s Cottage, to the rear of 15 North Street. The first building at 15 North Street was located on the south side of North Street directly opposite the Chapel Royal Church on North Street, a Grade II* listed building. 15 North Street included three floors and a basement level. The building was currently in use as a Class A1 retail unit by Timpsons and included a modern shopfront and fascia. Two original timber windows were above the shopfront. The buildings immediately adjacent at 14 and 16 North Street were significantly taller than no.15. No.14 was two-storeys taller and no.16 was one-storey taller than no.15. No.15 was separated from 14 North Street by a small twitten. This building was in need of substantial repairs, with the roof being supported internally to stop it from collapsing.

 

(4)          The main considerations in the determining the application related to whether the principal of the uses was acceptable, whether the demolition of the Grade II Listed Building at 15 North Street was appropriate and thoroughly justified, whether the proposed alterations to Puget’s Cottage were appropriate in the context of the character, architectural setting and historic significance of the Grade II Listed Building, whether the other alterations proposed including the alterations to the North Street frontages preserved or enhanced the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and whether the proposal was appropriate in respect of residential amenity, highway and transport considerations, standard of accommodation and sustainability.

 

(5)          It was considered that whilst there were some public benefits that would directly arise from the demolition of 15 North Street, these were not substantial public benefits and that they did not therefore outweigh the substantial harm resulting from the complete loss of the heritage asset. Nor can these benefits be regarded as powerful enough to set aside the statutory presumption in favour of the preservation of the listed building. Number 15 North Street and Puget’s Cottage were both listed partly for group value in relation to each other. It therefore followed that the demolition of 15 North Street would cause harm to the significance and setting of Puget’s Cottage. In addition, 15 North Street was a listed building that contributed positively to the character and appearance of the Old Town Conservation Area and its demolition would therefore fail to preserve the architectural and historic interest of the conservation area. The application was therefore recommended for refusal.

 

              Public Speakers and Questions

 

(6)          Mr Komosa spoke on behalf of objectors explaining that he lived in the immediate vicinity of the site. He referred to the fact that both the existing “Timpson’s” building proposed for demolition and the Puget’s Cottage building behind it had been spot listed together indicating that they were both valued equally. The building proposed for demolition was unique dating from around 1700 and its removal would result in irreparable loss of a significant heritage asset and should be resisted. Alternative options for opening up the Lanes and creating a new landmark entrance had not been explored adequately by the applicants and they should be pressed to do so.

 

(7)          Mr McLean spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. Mr Allison-Wright also spoke in support of the application in his capacity as a representative on behalf of local traders, they shared the available speaking time between them. Mr Allison-Wright stated that the current entrance to the Lanes was “lost”, visitors often had difficulty in locating it and were disappointed when they did. The consented Hannington Lane scheme would effect huge improvements to the area, but it would not achieve its full potential without this proposed scheme. These proposals had the overwhelming support of the local business community as it would optimise the viability of businesses and jobs in Brighton Square and the Lanes as a whole by providing an improved route to it and through it and by giving it the gateway entrance that it deserved.

 

(8)          Mr McLean stated that much thought had been given to the Hannington Lane scheme (it had been developed over a five year period). This “gateway” with a suitably designed corner building would, as shown in the visuals provided would give the opportunity to highlight and give access to Puget’s Cottage the hidden gem which lay behind and to which at present there was no public access. Whilst the loss of the listed “Timpson” building was regrettable it had fallen into a significant state of disrepair over the years leading up to its relatively recent spot listing and realistically was unlikely to be restored beyond a de-minimis level. There was no public access to the building which had been much altered internally and if it was retained that would continue to be the case. After much thought this option had been chosen as it would improve the permeability of the site as whole, which represented a significant public benefit. It would open up the vista along North Street and through the Lanes and would be more appropriate to the context of the Chapel Royal located opposite the site.

 

(9)          Councillor Kennedy sought clarification from the applicant’s agent regarding the proposals to provide public access adjacent to Puget’s Cottage and in connection with its refurbishment and whether it was proposed to mark its history. Mr McLean explained that Puget’s Cottage would be fully restored including work to the adjacent paved area. Opening up the area in this way would provide a significant public benefit, and would give the opportunity to provide information boards and a heritage trail detailing the history of the building, Puget’s School which had once adjoined it and that of the Lanes overall.

 

(10)       Councillor C Theobald enquired why access through the ground floor of no16 North Street was not proposed, rather than the demolition of no15. Mr McLean advised that whilst this option and others had been considered, a covered entrance way through no16 would be oppressive, this proposal incorporating a new corner gateway building which was open to the sky would provide greater permeability and connectivity through and with the rest of the site and would give the appropriate emphasis to The Lanes as a tourist destination.

 

(11)       Councillor Hyde asked whether thought had been given to calling the entrance way “Puget’s Twitten”, rather than Puget’s Lane if permission were to be granted, as this was a local phrase. Mr McLean stated there had been a discussion in relation to this. It was understood that a Twitten was a narrower opening than a Lane, and it the name “Puget’s Lane” had been chosen on that basis.

 

(12)       Councillor Randall enquired regarding the degree of consideration given to alternative options and whether the completion of the scheme would be compromised overall if this element of it did not proceed. Mr McLean responded that improvements were being effected to the shops fronting North Street which would give it a more attractive appearance, relocation of the existing bus stops and pavement widening works would also make a positive contribution. If this element did not proceed the scheme would not achieve is full potential. RBS who owned the site were in the process of selling their interest. No 15 was not an attractive or well maintained building and it was unlikely that it would ever be fully restored. It had also suffered from a number of unsympathetic alterations in the past.

 

              Questions of Officers

 

(13)       Councillor Kennedy enquired whether the officer recommendation would still have been to “refuse” if 15 North Street, the “Timpson’s” building had not been listed. Councillor Kennedy was advised that this was not a relevant planning consideration, Members were required to determine the applications as put before them.

 

(14)       The Planning Manager, Major Planning Applications, explained that it was important for Members to be aware that the improvement works currently being undertaken to widen the pavements and relocate the existing bus stops did not form part of these applications and their completion was not dependant on whether or not they were approved. In addition, the applicants had not presented a viability case in support of the proposals or fully considered other alternative access  between North Street and Hanningtons Lane. Whilst acknowledging that public benefits which would result from the scheme, officers were of the view that there was a strong presumption in favour of preserving the listed building at no 15 North Street and these benefits did not outweigh its loss.

 

(15)       Councillor’s Davey and Hyde queried regarding why both no 15 North Street and Puget’s Cottage had been listed so recently. The Principal Planning Officer, Major Projects, Heritage and Design explained that when they had been spot listed Puget’s Cottage and no 15 had been listed together and had been considered to form part of a group in view of their close proximity, whilst each having merit in their own right. Both had been listed as Grade II and had therefore been considered by English Heritage as being of equal value.

 

(16)       Councillor Randall stated that in his view little evidence had been provided by the applicants/agents to show the level of consideration given to alternative options which would provide the same/comparable public benefits without demolishing no 15 North Street. He enquired whether it would be possible to defer consideration of these applications in order to enable further investigation of alternative options to take place. It was explained that this was not possible as the applications both needed to be determined as submitted on their merits.

 

(17)       Councillor Gilbey enquired regarding the depth of the steps to be cited adjacent to Puget’s Cottage and what consideration had been given to disabled access requirements. Mr McLean explained that discussions had taken place with the Brighton Disabled Federation (FED) and that they had supported the proposals. Councillor Gilbey also enquired whether consideration had been given to providing a ramped access and it was explained that whilst this had been considered the length and height which would be necessary had rendered it impractical. Officers measured and confirmed the rise of the steps for Councillor Gilbey.

 

(18)       Councillor Mac Cafferty, the Chair referred to no15 North Street which was clearly in a state of neglect enquiring when the most recent structural survey had been carried out and what measures had been undertaken to ensure remedial works had been carried out. It was explained that a structural survey had taken place in 2012. Prior to its listing the building had deteriorated over a number of years and since that time a level of work required to ensure the structural integrity of the building had been undertaken. Councillor Mac Cafferty also referred to the proposed new corner building which would front North Street, which appeared to be of a very small square footage at ground level enquiring whether it was considered that this would provide a viable business space. It was explained by the agent that it was envisaged that a florists shop or similar small business could be adequately located in the space.

 

              Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(19)       Mr Gowans, CAG enquired regarding the length and breadth of the proposed Puget’s Lane from the back of footway in North Street to Puget’s Cottage. This was measured from the submitted plans and it was confirmed that this would be some 8-10 metres in length and 3 metres in width. Mr Gowan’s reiterated the observations submitted by CAG who supported refusal; 15 North Street formed part of the Grade II microsite and been deemed by English Heritage to have significant historical interest and considered that a link lane could be created at nos 16, 17 or 18 North Street at ground floor level.

 

(20)       Councillor Hyde stated that having visited the site the previous day, she found it hard to understand why no 15 North Street had been listed in view of its poor condition and the fact that internally very little of its original layout remained. The scheme had been well thought out and would result in opening up the area and would provide the opportunity for the wider public to see and appreciate Puget’s Cottage which was currently totally obscured from public view.

 

(21)       Councillor C Theobald stated that she considered that the Timpson’s building, looked odd in the street scene and that it would be good to see Puget’s Cottage renovated.

 

(22)       Councillor Kennedy stated that in her view the public benefits accruing from the scheme were significant and far outweighed the loss of the listed building. There was no public access to the Timpson’s building at no15, it seemed unlikely that it would ever be fully restored indeed, the majority of its original internal features had been removed. Its significance as a circa 1700 building in continuous commercial use was not apparent to anyone walking past the building.

 

(23)       Councillor Davey concurred stating that the building had deteriorated for many years prior to being listed. In its current condition it contributed little to the street scene. However, if it was removed, its surrounds would be opened up and Puget’s Cottage which could and would be restored would be accessible. In this instance he considered that grounds for an exception had been made and that permission should be given for demolition of this listed building.

 

(24)       Councillor Simson concurred with all that had been said stating that whilst she would not usually support the demolition of a listed building but in this instance this would to maximise the Lanes overall as tourist destination, would open the scheme up and optimise the viability and vibrancy of the area. By providing a heritage trail the history of the area could be emphasised and the importance of Puget’s Cottage to be highlighted. At the moment Puget’s Cottage was land locked and was not visible. Councillor Simson considered that it was important for the history of the 15 North Street and its immediate surrounds to be recorded.

 

(25)       Councillor Wells stated that no15 North Street was a mess, was in poor condition and was completely dwarfed by and out of keeping with its neighbours. This did not appear likely to change and he considered that its loss needed to be balanced against the benefits which would result. Councillor Wells considered that it would be appropriate for the building to be demolished.

 

(26)       Councillor Robins stated that he felt like a lone voice, although these listed buildings were equal it appeared that one was more equal than the other. North Street overall was a mess and this was a very old building which stood apart from its neighbours. So many old buildings across the city had been lost, there was a danger of losing any character in the street scene by making everything uniform and identical.

 

(27)       Councillor Carden stated that having lived in Portslade all his life and having recently researched its history he was aware of the many fine buildings which had been lost. This was true of the city as a whole, when buildings were demolished they were lost forever, he did not consider that a sufficiently compelling case had been made for the loss of this building.

 

(28)       Councillor Gilbey stated that she had concerns that the proposed access arrangements were not suitable for those with mobility problems and did not consider that issues relating to disabled access had been given sufficient consideration. Councillor Gilbey also considered that it was not appropriate for one listed building to be judged against another

 

(29)       Councillor Randall agreed stating that it was not the role of the Committee to argue about whether or not in their view no 15 North Street should have been listed. English Heritage had listed this building as part of a group in concert with Puget’s Cottage, regarding them as being of equal worth. He did not feel that it had been demonstrated that options of providing another entrance into that part of the Lanes without demolishing the listed building had been explored sufficiently. He therefore supported the officer recommendation that both applications should be refused.

 

(30)       Councillor Littman agreed stating that this building was the oldest remaining in North Street and that as such the presumption that it should be protected was very important. It could not be replaced and he supported the officer recommendation.

 

(31)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he had listened with interest to all that had been said and was grappling with the issues involved. He understood the importance of the presumption that listed buildings should be preserved, and that such buildings had merit architecturally whether they were “beautiful” or not. In this case that needed to be weighed against the acknowledged substantial public benefits which would result from the proposed scheme. Overall, the development was exciting and would mark the next chapter in the history of the Lanes. Having considered the points put forward very carefully he considered that in this case substantial public benefits would result from the proposed scheme which would outweigh the loss of 15 North Street.

 

(32)       The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward advised that should Members be minded to approve either/both applications the decision would need to be “Minded to grant”; so far as planning permission was concerned this would need to be “Minded to Grant” subject to the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager approving any necessary s106 planning obligations and conditions in consultation with the Chair of the Committee. In respect of any Listed Building Consent this would be “Minded to Grant”, subject to a) the Secretary of State deciding not to call the application in for his own determination and if so b) the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager approving any necessary conditions in consultation with the Chair of the Committee.

 

(33)       A vote was taken on application BH2015/00575 and the officer recommendation was not carried on a vote of 7 to 5.

 

(34)       Councillor Kennedy proposed that the application be minded to grant on the grounds set out below, this was seconded by Councillor C Theobald.

 

(35)       A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors Mac Cafferty, the Chair, Davey, Hyde, Kennedy, Simson, C Theobald and Wells voted that they were minded to grant planning permission. Councillors Carden, Gilbey, Littman, Randall and Robins voted that the application be refused.

 

177.2    RESOLVED - That the Committee resolves for the reason set out below, that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager approving any necessary s106 obligations and conditions in consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee.

 

Reason: The strong statutory presumption in favour of preserving the listed building at number 15 North Street is outweighed by the substantial public benefits which would result from the proposed scheme.