Agenda item - BH2015/02431 - Land at and Adjacent to West Pier and 62-73 Kings Road Arches, Kings Road, Brighton - Removal or Variation of Condition

Application for removal of conditions 19 and 36 of application BH2014/04167 (i360 observation tower scheme originally approved under application BH2006/02369). Condition 19 to be removed relates to the requirement for grey and rainwater recycling and condition 36 to be removed relates to the requirement for a wind turbine at the head of the tower.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Application for removal of conditions 19 and 36 of application BH2014/04167 (i360 observation tower scheme originally approved under application BH2006/02369). Condition 19 to be removed relates to the requirement for grey and rainwater recycling and condition 36 to be removed relates to the requirement for a wind turbine at the head of the tower.

(1)             The Principal Planning Officer, Maria Seale, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photos, plans and elevational drawings. The site was located south of Regency Square and next to the remnants of the West Pier. Permission was sought to remove conditions 19 and 36 which related to rain water recycling and wind turbines. There was encouragement nationally for sustainable development, and a number of measures were proposed with the permission for the i360 observation tower; however, it was not until the detailed build stage that it had been considered necessary to remove the relevant conditions. In relation to the wind turbines it was now apparent that they affected the performance of the observation tower and were liable to wind damage. However, the scheme now proposed using energy generated by the pod during descent which could be used within the operation of the tower – this feature provided a better sustainable solution in terms of the amount of energy it could provide, and Officers were satisfied with the proposed deletion of condition.

(2)             In terms of the rainwater condition, the areas where this could be gathered were open to possible contamination as they were predominantly public spaces. A new British standard for rainwater harvesting had been introduced three years after permission was granted which recommended such public spaces were not suitable for rainwater harvesting. A number of different treatments would be needed including chemical process, which was difficult to undertake on site. The removal of these conditions was not opposed by the Sustainability Officer. In both cases it was considered that the applicant had made a robust case, and the application was recommended to be minded to grant, subject to an amended s106 agreement.

Questions for Officers

(3)             In response to Councillor Barradell it was explained that the issues had only become apparent at the detailed design stage of the application; the proposals had also been robustly tested with the Sustainability Officer.

(4)             In response to Councillor Littman it was explained that the site was not suitable for greywater harvesting as it would not use much water; it was also clarified that the condition proposed for deletion related to rainwater, not greywater.

(5)             In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was clarified that it would require purification and chemical process to treat rainwater on site; this would also use additional energy.

(6)             In response to points raised by the Committee it was agreed that the applicant could come forward to answer technical questions. It was clarified that the use rainwater would require numerous stages of filtration. It was not practical to use greywater recycling on the site as the levels of water used were low, and the toilets and washbasins were efficient in terms of their water consumption. It was also clarified that the proposed new measures would actually be a better sustainability solution.

(7)             In response to Councillor Wares the Senior Solicitor clarified that the Committee were being asked to remove conditions; they could do this and add new ones if they were considered to be reasonable.

(8)             In response to Councillor Littman it was confirmed that the applicant had already undertaken a feasibility study in relation to greywater harvesting.

(9)             In response to Councillor Morris it was confirmed that the applicant had the right to apply for changes at any point in the build process.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)          Councillor C. Theobald stated that the appearance of the tower would be better without the wind turbines; she welcomed the new sustainability proposals and would support the Officer recommendation.

(11)          Councillor Taylor noted his support for the Officer recommendation, and he felt the applicant should be applauded for finding sustainability alternatives; he felt it would be onerous to ask the applicant to consider greywater recycling at this stage of the development.

(12)          Councillor Littman stated that it was important not to halt the progression of the scheme, and he recognised that rainwater harvesting would not be efficient on the site; on balance he would support the Officers recommendation.

(13)          Councillor Hamilton noted that he had been Chair of the Committee when the original application had been approved; he highlighted that Officers were satisfied with the proposal before the Committee and for this reason he would support the recommendation.

(14)          Councillor Barradell noted her support for the removal of the condition that related to the wind turbine, but she had reservations in relation to the water recycling and was of the view some greywater recycling could be achieved at the site.

(15)          Councillor Mac Cafferty stated his disappointment that aspects of sustainability on the site were being removed; however, he noted that to oppose the scheme would be impractical and he would support the Officer recommendation.

(16)          In response to Councillor Barradell the Senior Solicitor highlighted that any additional conditions in relation to greywater recycling would have to be evidenced; as this option had not been identified by the Council’s Sustainability Officer it would be difficult to justify were such a condition appealed by the applicant.

(17)          Councillor Wares stated that the scheme was better without the turbines and he felt the applicant was offering a better solution.

(18)          The Committee voted separately on the removal of the two conditions as set out in the report. In each instance the Officer recommendation that the condition be removed was unanimously carried.

(19)          The Committee then voted on an additional informatives that the applicant undertake a greywater recycling feasibility study; this was not carried on a vote of 4 in support and 6 against.

70.2       RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives in section 11.

              Note: Councillor Allen had left the Chamber during the vote on the additional informative.