Agenda item - BH2015/00513, Brighton Wheel, Upper Esplanade, Daltons Bastion, Madeira Drive, Brighton- Removal or variation of condition

Application for variation of condition 3 of application BH2011/00764 (Erection of a 45 metre high observation wheel including extension of promenade over beach, new beach deck, ancillary plant, queuing areas, ticket booths and merchandise kiosk (for a temporary period of 5 years, except beach deck which is permanent)) to extend the temporary period for a further five years until 19 May 2021.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Queens Park

Application for variation of condition 3 of application BH2011/00764 (Erection of a 45 metre high observation wheel including extension of promenade over beach, new beach deck, ancillary plant, queuing areas, ticket booths and merchandise kiosk (for a temporary period of 5 years, except beach deck which is permanent)) to extend the temporary period for a further five years until 19 May 2021.

 

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

 

(2)             The Principal Planning Officer, Maria Seale, introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans and photographs. The application had been deferred from the previous meeting following the receipt of a late representation referencing recent planning case law; during the deferral Officers had also received clarification from Historic England and the report had been updated. The applicant was seeking a further temporary permission for five years as the current permission expired in 2016. The original permission was granted as temporary for the following reasons: to safeguard the visual amenity of the area; to ensure the future strategic planning of the seafront and allow the operation of the wheel to be monitored. These considerations needed to be again assessed with the new permission; the application was deemed acceptable in terms of positive impact on the local economy and tourism. As stated in the report matters relating to the i360 were not material to the consideration of this application. The main policy changes relating to this application were the City Plan, which was at a late stage of formal adoption, and the NPPF. The City Plan policies were given significant weight, and it was noted that the Corporate Seafront Strategy was at a very early stage and limited weight was placed on it in terms of planning decisions.

 

(3)             It was considered that the 2011 application had been compliant with policy, and this was the case with the City Plan as the application added to the tourism offer in the city and served to help regenerate this area of the seafront. This area of the seafront was already identified for sports facilities and family attractions; and the NPPF was also given significant weight in terms of the application supporting economic growth. Whilst the Wheel had not been as successful as the applicant had originally envisaged it did contribute to regeneration and was considered a tourism asset to the city.

 

(4)             The site was located in the East Cliff Conservation Area and there were a number of listed buildings located near to the site. The main heritage considerations were set out in the report and the Council had been mindful of its statutory role to protect heritage sites and conservation areas. The NPPF gave weight to the preservation of heritage assets, and stated that where substantial harm would be caused an application would normally be refused unless there were substantial public benefits. There had been a number of concerns in relation to the visual impact of the Wheel; it was acknowledged that some harm was caused, but Officers were of the view this was not substantial and Historic England had also noted they did consider the harm to be significant. There had been no objection from either the CAG or the Regency Society, and the temporary nature of the scheme allowed any harm to be undone. It was also considered that the harm was outweighed by the economic and tourist benefits to the city. In conclusion it was noted that the relationship with the surrounding area was the same as when the original permission was granted and there had been no operational issues; the wheel was not considered to cause substantial harm and the application was recommended to be minded to grant for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

 

(5)             Glynn Jones spoke in objection to the scheme; he confirmed he was representing local residents in the vicinity of the application site. He noted the Kingscliffe Society was the amenity group for the area and represented local residents that were of the view that the scheme had a harmful impact on their lives, and at no point had the homes of any residents been visited to assess the impact. The NPPF stated that the harm should be balanced against the public benefits of the scheme. The Wheel would ‘tower’ above the Volks Railway redevelopment scheme, and the claims in relation to the economic benefits were refuted as the Wheel did not bring any new tourists to the city, and it was noted that the Economic Partnership had queried the benefits. It requested that if permission were granted this should only be until the opening of the i360 following which the area should be turned into green space.

 

(6)             In response to Councillor Robins the speaker clarified he had made reference to a proposed Volks Railway/Aquarium redevelopment.

 

(7)             In response to Councillor Miller the speaker used a visual imagine to clarify that some residents had completely lost their sea views as a result of the scheme.

 

(8)             Ian Coomber spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant. He reiterated points made in the Officer presentation that the temporary permission had been to assess harm and that consideration of matters in relation to the i360 were not material to the scheme. He commended the robust and comprehensive Officer report; he stated that the application adhered to policy and there were no planning reasons before the Committee to refuse the application. He made reference to the increased level of support for the retention of the Wheel, and noted there had been no objection from the CAG or Historic England. Visit Brighton also welcomed the scheme on the grounds that it added to the tourist offer in the city. Further temporary planning permission was appropriate, and the Committee were invited to support the application to maintain the tourist offer and the contribution towards regeneration.

 

(9)             In response to Councillor Barradell the speaker explained that a permanent permission had not been sought as the Wheel was movable and could operate from a different global location. In response to a further query from Councillor Morris the speaker explained that the five additional years would allow further assessment of the scheme to take place.

 

(10)          In response to Councillor Littman the speaker confirmed the Wheel had been in operation in Cape Town prior to its operation in Brighton.

 

(11)          In response to Councillor Miller the speaker confirmed that the Committee could add conditions in relation to maintenance of the structures at the base of the site if they were minded to grant consent.

 

Questions for Officers

 

(12)          In response to Councillor Robins the Case Officer confirmed that some weight had been attached to the letters of support from outside of the city as the application site related to a tourist attraction.

 

(13)          In response to Councillor C. Theobald the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager, Jeanette Walsh, confirmed that a 10 year temporary consent had been given for a climbing wall, and this was on the basis of the case made by the applicant.

 

(14)          In response to Councillor Barradell the Senior Solicitor, Hilary Woodward, confirmed that issues relating to competition between businesses were not a material consideration; in relation to representations received it was explained that the content gave them weight, not simply the number received.

 

(15)          It was confirmed for Councillor Morris that both the application before the Committee and the 2011 application had been subject to the same consultation with local residents.

 

(16)          In response to Councillor Wares the Senior Solicitor confirmed that the original permission was granted as temporary for 5 years; this differed from a trial period for the scheme.

 

(17)          In response to Mr Gowans the Case Officer confirmed that the setting of a listed building, the view to it and around it would be considered rather than the view from a listed building.

 

(18)          In response to Councillor Miller the Case Officer explained that Historic England had sent the Local Planning Authority a standard non-intervention letter; this indicated they were of the view the matter should be determined at local level with input from local specialists. The response also indicated that Historic England were not of the view the scheme would cause substantial harm.

 

(19)          The Senior Solicitor confirmed that any revenue raised from rents at the site was not a material consideration.

 

(20)          In response to the Chair the Senior Solicitor clarified that the Council would be acting in different capacities in relation to the application: as Local Planning Authority; as highway authority and as land owner. It was important the Committee understand they should only consider the matter in their capacity as the Local Planning Authority; any other matters in relation to the lease and highway licence were separate to the considerations before the Committee.

 

(21)          The Case Officer also confirmed for the Chair that the Seafront Strategy had been given very limited weight.

 

(22)          In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager explained that the issue of temporary consent and the length of time for which this was suitable was a matter of judgment. In this instance Officers were recommending that it was acceptable to extend the consent for a further five years; however, it was in the gift of the Committee to amend this length if they felt a shorter consent was acceptable on balance.

 

(23)          In response to Councillor Morris the Senior Solicitor explained that for the consent to go ahead the Council as landlord would have to enter into a new or extended lease with the operator.

 

(24)          In response to questions from Councillor Barradell Officers explained the following: the Committee could take a view on the length of consent if they were minded to grant permission – a further temporary consent was also considered acceptable on balance as both the City Plan and Seafront Strategy were not both fully adopted yet. The nearest residential property was 95 metres from the site, and Officers in Environmental Protection had visited nearby properties when the 2011 consent was considered to look at light issues. It was clarified there had been no highways or noise complaints; no breach of planning conditions and the overall there was no harm to amenity.

 

(25)          In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was confirmed that the Committee could be minded to attach a condition for full details of all the structures at the base of the development.

 

(26)          In response to Councillor Morris it was confirmed that Officers were not aware of any bids in relation to the Volks Railway and Officers were of the view that this was not a material consideration.

 

(27)          In response to Councillor Miller the Senior Solicitor confirmed there was nothing to prevent the Local Planning Authority granting a further temporary consent; in each case the authority had to consider the law and current policy to come to a decision. In relation to the difference between harm and substantial the Case Officer clarified this was a matter of judgement.

 

(28)          The Senior Solicitor confirmed that it would not be possible to prevent the applicant coming back for a further temporary consent in the future as in doing so the Council would be seen to fetter its discretion, and the authority had a statutory duty to determine planning applications as the Local Planning Authority.

 

Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(29)          Councillor Mac Cafferty stated he was willing to support the application, but felt the Committee should consider a reduction in the length of the consent to one or two years; he also felt an additional condition in relation to the base structures was necessary.

 

(30)          Councillor Hamilton noted his role as the Deputy Chair of the Policy & Resources Committee, with the portfolio for finance; he stated for these reasons he would take no further part in the debate and abstain from the vote.

 

(31)          Mr Gowans noted that the CAG had no objection on conservation grounds; the structure was felt to be light and breezy and it was not considered harmful.

 

(32)          Councillor Barradell stated she was finding the decision difficult as she was of the view that residents had believed the Wheel would only be in operation for five years; she felt one or two years would be more appropriate, but would not support a five year consent.

 

(33)          Councillor Morris stated he would support a two year consent.

 

(34)          In response to Councillor Robins the Senior Solicitor explained it was matter for him if he felt his position on the Economic Development & Culture Committee would preclude him taking part in the decision before the Committee.

 

(35)          Councillor Littman stated that at the time of the original five year consent it was believed it would be unlikely the operators would stay for the full five years. He noted that both the Seafront Team and the Economic Development objected to the application; he also felt there was sufficient policy within the NPPF to refuse the application. For this reasons he felt unable to support the Officer recommendation.

 

(36)          Councillor Wares felt that granting a one or two year consent would simply mean that the application would be back before the Committee in a short period of time; he highlighted that the report stated the development was not suitable to be permanent, and felt there was little additional monitoring that was necessary beyond what had already taken place.

 

(37)          Councillor Miller stated he did not believe that the Wheel offered a great deal as a tourist attraction; he disagreed with the position of CAG in relation to the harm. He was of the view that it detracted from the area, and a two year consent would be too long.

 

(38)          Councillor C. Theobald stated that she liked the appearance of the Wheel, but was disappointed that it was underused; she noted her concern with the objection from the Economic Partnership and Tourist Alliance and noted that many of the supporters did not live near the wheel itself. The nearby residents found it intrusive especially during the night when it was lit up; on balance she felt she would not be able to support the Officer recommendation.

 

(39)          The Chair noted she understood the position of residents, but she was of the view that it was not substantially harmful.

 

(40)          Councillor Mac Cafferty proposed that the recommendation be amended to propose consent for two years instead of five.

 

(41)          The Committee moved to the vote and firstly took a vote on whether to grant a new permission at all; pending the outcome of that vote they could then seek a further vote on the number of years for the consent.

 

(42)          A vote was taken and the Committee agreed to not grant a new permission on a vote of 4 in support, 6 against and 2 abstentions. Reasons were then proposed to refuse the application by Councillor Littman and these were seconded by Councillor Barradell. A short recess was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Littman, Councillor Barradell, the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager and the Senior Solicitor and the Case Officer to draft the reasons in full. These reasons were then read to the Committee and it was agreed that they properly reflected those that had been put forward by Councillor Littman. A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors: Robins, C. Theobald, Barradell, Bennett, Littman and Miller voted that permission be refused; Councillors: Gilbey, Mac Cafferty, Morris and Wares voted that permission not be refused and Councillor Hamilton and Allen abstained from the vote.

 

18.1       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 have a detrimental impact on the amenity of residents in the vicinity of the Wheel contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005. In addition, the Local Planning Authority is not convinced that granting a temporary consent supports the strategic objectives of the regeneration of the seafront  set out in policies CP5, SA1 and SO17 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (Submission Document).

 

ii)         The Wheel, by virtue of its siting, height, scale and design would be overly dominant and would fail to preserve the setting of the nearby listed buildings and the East Cliff Conservation Area, causing harm that would not be outweighed by the economic benefits of the proposal, contrary to policies HE3 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005 and policy CP15 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (Submission Document) and the National Planning Policy Framework.