Agenda item - BH2015/02443 - Units 2-8, The Terraces, Madeira Drive, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Demolition and replacement of existing oval glass pavilion on lower tier level to form new café (A3).  Demolition of existing circular building on upper tier level.    Change of use of units 6-8 on lower tier level from restaurants (A3) to Members Club (SG) together with construction of two new pavilions above at upper tier level consisting of restaurant and bar (A3/A4) with indoor and outdoor seating, open air plunge pool with changing facilities and terraced area with sunbeds solely for the use of the Members Club (SG).  Alterations and refurbishment of existing public restaurants (A3) at lower tier units 2-5 including revised fenestration.  Other associated works including the external and internal refurbishment of the existing 1920s pavilion.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

              Demolition and replacement of existing oval glass pavilion on lower tier level to form new café (A3). Demolition of existing circular building on upper tier level. Change of use of units 6-8 on lower tier level from restaurants (A3) to Members Club (SG) together with construction of two new pavilions above at upper tier level consisting of restaurant and bar (A3/A4) with indoor and outdoor seating, open air plunge pool with changing facilities and terraced area with sunbeds solely for the use of the Members Club (SG). Alterations and refurbishment of existing public restaurants (A3) at lower tier units 2-5 including revised fenestration. Other associated works including the external and internal refurbishment of the existing 1920s pavilion.

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

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Sue Dubberley introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, elevational  drawings and photographs, showing the site as existing and on completion of the proposed scheme. Details of additional representations and a petition received and set out in the Additional Representations List were given, although it was noted that no new/additional planning considerations had been raised. In addition to representations received from local residents, a representation including visuals had been received from a resident of the Van Alen Building, from two local businesses, Legends Hotel (including visuals) and Melhor Massage Therapies and the Kingscliffe Society. The application site lay within the East Cliff Conservation Area within the setting of a number of listed buildings, notably the Aquarium, and was bounded on the north side by listed cast iron seafront railings, and on the South side by the walls piers railings and lamps associated with the Aquarium.

(3)          Planning permission was sought for the demolition and replacement of the existing oval glass pavilion on lower tier level to form new café (A3). Demolition of existing circular building on upper tier level. Change of use of units 6-8 on lower tier level from restaurants (A3) to Members Club (SG) together with construction of two new pavilions above at upper tier level consisting of restaurant and bar (A3/A4) with indoor and outdoor seating, open air plunge pool with changing facilities and terraced area with sunbeds solely for the use of the Members Club (SG). Alterations and refurbishment of existing public restaurants (A3) at lower tier units 2-5 including revised fenestration. The existing historic pavilions, balustrading and iron railings would be retained in the scheme and repairs and the reinstatement of elements of these was included in the proposals. The new buildings on the upper tier would be in the form of two single storey flat roofed curved pavilions with large areas of glazing on the south elevation, with open air terraces in front of the buildings and a plunge pool. A glass balustrade was proposed. The north elevation would be more solid in appearance with render punctuated by windows. A green roof was proposed on both buildings. Refurbishment of the existing units on the lower tier would consist of the replacement of the current windows and doors with a more simplified glazing pattern to give a more modern appearance. The surrounding stonework which was currently damaged and badly weathered would be repaired and refurbished.

(5)          The main considerations in determining this application related to the proposed use, design, impact on the East Cliff Conservation Area, impact on adjoining listed buildings and railings, impact upon neighbouring amenity, transport and sustainability. It was considered that the proposed development on the site would provide two modern buildings of an acceptable scale, mass and design and the refurbishment of existing restaurant units. The proposed use was considered to be appropriate for the location and consistent with Development Plan policies. The proposed new structures on the site would have an impact on its current openness and this would affect the identified character of the conservation area at that point. However it is considered that the harm that would be caused to the character of the conservation area as experienced from Marine Parade was less than substantial, and that there would be no harm to the conservation area as viewed from Madeira Drive. Due to its relative scale it is not considered that the new building will have a harmful impact on the setting of the buildings on the north side of Marine Parade. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF requires that if the harm was less than substantial the public benefits of the scheme should be considered to outweigh the harm in order for a proposal to be acceptable. The heritage benefits to the public from the development of this underused and deteriorated structure are the repairs to the historic masonry balustrade, the filling of the gap in the railings and improvements to the façade treatment of units 2 – 5 and the existing lower level of units 6-8. 9.3 There was not considered to be any significant impact on residential amenity. The traffic impact of the development was acceptable and the building would meet BREEAM ‘very good’; minded to grant approval was therefore recommended.

            Public Speakers & Questions

(6)             Professor Watts and Mr Davis spoke on behalf of the applicants setting out their objections to the proposed scheme. Mr Davis spoke on behalf of residents of the Van Alen building and on behalf of other objectors including the Kingscliffe Society stating that the proposed scheme would completely compromise views from that building and others towards the sea and was contrary to Policy QD4. Local Ward Councillors and all of the amenity societies had objected to the proposal which did not respect the sensitivity of this prominent location. Professor Watts spoke on behalf of the neighbouring hotels stating that this scheme would result in serious loss of amenity and trade, their prime location offering sea views for which customers paid a premium would be compromised. The existing line of Marine Parade would be interrupted and would have a detrimental impact on that part of the sea front.

(8)          Councillors Barradell and Miller asked questions in respect of the visuals provided by the objectors in order to reference them in respect of the submitted plans and drawings, particularly with reference to views across the site and towards the sea from the neighbouring vicinity, the height of the constituent elements of the scheme and angles of the roof slopes.

(9)          Mr Coomber spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their scheme. He explained that the earlier application had been withdrawn in order to address objections to the scheme and to engage actively in a further consultation process. The existing policy in relation to the seafront supported appropriate development and this scheme accorded with that. Some of information submitted by the objectors was misleading as it indicated that the buildings on site would be higher than would be the case. The existing historic pavilions, balustrading and iron railings would be retained including repair and re-instatement of some of these elements. This scheme differed from that previously submitted in that a gap had been created between the two upper pavilions in order to provide a partial view through to the seafront.

              Questions for Officers

(10)       Councillor Miller enquired regarding the distance of the gap between the two buildings on the upper terraces and in respect of the landscaping arrangements to be put into place. Also, whether there was any “right to a view” and it was confirmed that there was not.

(11)       In response to questions by Councillor Gilbey regarding the proposed landscaping arrangements it was explained that these would form part of the conditions and that details would need to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of the works.

(12)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner sought further clarification of the differences between the previously withdrawn scheme and that currently submitted.

(13)       Councillor Barradell inquired regarding the height of the new structures from pavement level.

(14)       Councillor Morris stated that he did not consider the proposed “grass” roof would be practical especially bearing in mind the marine location, considering that precise details needed to be submitted, particularly as this material could impact significantly on views, especially if they could be seen from some distance away in views along the sea front.

(15)       Councillor C Theobald sought clarification of the distance from the site and the neighbouring hotels and the nearest domestic dwellings and also, details of renovations to the railings and the other restoration works proposed. The Principal Planning Officer, Sue Dubberley, confirmed that the distance between the roadway and the application site varied between 1m and 4m.

(16)       Councillor Gilbey referred to the East Cliff Conservation Study and enquired whether the submitted scheme complied with that. The Heritage Officer, Lesley Johnson, explained that on the basis that two separate smaller buildings were now proposed, as was the 10m gap between the two buildings, these matters as well as the fact that the new buildings set into the site had now been moved away from the listed buildings in Marine Parade, and that the refurbishment of units 2-5 had now been included in the application meant that it was considered that any harm was considered less than substantial and was outweighed by the benefits and so the proposed development was considered acceptable in regard to its impact on the East Cliff Conservation Area and the setting of the listed buildings.

(17)       Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the Proposed Heads of Terms, further and south information regarding submitted samples, also regarding transport and access arrangements to the site. The Principal Transport Officer, Steven Shaw, confirmed that although the pedestrian route in front of the terraces would be closed, this was located on private land and was not adopted highway, although the public had been allowed access over recent years. Although this reduced pedestrian permeability, alternative routes were available and access would be enhanced via a lift. Furthermore, the applicant had indicated that they were willing to accept a condition requiring further details of the proposed lifts to provide access between the two different tiers.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(18)       Mr Gowans spoke on behalf of the CAG, stating that the group’s views remained that the application should be refused on the grounds that the proposal would cause a loss of views of the sea and Brighton Pier from Marine Parade.

(19)       Councillor Gilbey stated that she could not support approval of the application as she considered that it would be detrimental to the setting of the neighbouring listed buildings and views along the sea front.

(20)       Councillor Morris stated that there were a number of issues in relation to the level of deterioration of existing buildings on site and other aspects of the scheme which had not been addressed.

(21)       Councillor Barradell stated that she considered that there were a number of finely balanced issues to be considered and that she did have concerns regarding the appropriateness of the scheme overall.

(22)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that notwithstanding the concerns expressed regarding impact on strategic views he considered that overall the scheme was acceptable. He enquired whether it would be possible to attach additional conditions to ensure that two lifts were provided. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, explained that there were constraints on what could be required and the Committee needed to form a view on that.

(23)       Councillor Miller stated that he considered the scheme was acceptable, considering however that conditions attached to any planning permission should ensure that the 10m gap between buildings referred to should be respected and that final details of landscaping, and materials etc., should be agreed by the Building  and Development Control Manager in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and both Opposition Spokespersons.

(24)       Councillor C Theobald noted that the stated she noted that the scheme had been amended in order to address earlier concerns and that it would provide significant investment which would result in improvements to the existing 1920’s pavilions and to the railings.

(25)       Councillor Wares stated that having considered the germane issues on balance he considered the application to be acceptable. If the application was refused, the timescale within which another application would be submitted was not known and in the interim the buildings on site would continue to deteriorate.

(27)       Councillor Bennett stated that she considered the proposed scheme would effect improvements and she supported it.

(28)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, stated that she was minded to support the officer recommendation as approval of the scheme would result in the tidying up of a down at heel site in a prominent location.

(29)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to 4 with 1 abstention Members agreed that minded to grant planning permission be given.

118.1    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 a S106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11. The following additional conditions and informative to be added:

              Additional Conditions:

There is to be an Archaeological Investigation

Submission and implementation of landscaping scheme

There to be a visual gap of 10metres between the two permitted built structure to remain free of any visual obstruction.

Additional Informative:

The applicant is advised that the details required by the materials condition are to be delegated to the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokesperson.