Agenda item - BH2015/04577 - 78 West Street & 7-8 Middle Street, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing nightclub buildings (Sui Generis use).  Construction of part 5, 6 and 7 storey building plus basement to provide 'A' uses (A1 retail, A2 financial & professional services, A3 restaurant/café, A4 drinking establishment) on part of basement and ground floor fronting West Street and hotel use (C1) on all floors with reception fronting Middle Street to provide a total of 133no hotel rooms.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Demolition of existing nightclub buildings (Sui Generis use). Construction of part 5, 6 and 7 storey building plus basement to provide 'A' uses (A1 retail, A2 financial & professional services, A3 restaurant/café, A4 drinking establishment) on part of basement and ground floor fronting West Street and hotel use (C1) on all floors with reception fronting Middle Street to provide a total of 133no hotel rooms.

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

Officer Introduction

2)               The Principal Planning Officer (Maria Seale) introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs, visuals and elevational drawings. There had been pre-application consultation with Planning, Heritage, Transport and Environmental Health officers, a public consultation exercise had been carried out and the application had been presented at the pre-application stage to elected members at a briefing session in October 2015.

3)               The height of the proposed building would be set away from the road and the extent of the height would not be visible from South Street, as the road was too narrow. Two courtyard areas at basement level were included in the application and the use of the basement level and ground floor to West Street would be for flexible space. The main entrance to the hotel would be on Middle Street and the flexible use would have an entrance on West Street.

4)               The Principle Planning Officer explained that the Local Planning Authority had encouraged the applicant to work with the developers of the neighbouring site at 8-12A South Street & 79-81 West Street, Brighton. An indicative Masterplan, submitted by the applicant was shown to the Committee and it was explained that the two sites could be developed together or independently.

5)               The proposed site was located in the Old Town Conservation Area; however, the application had support from Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) and Historic England. The site would benefit tourism and the economy and be architecturally positive for the area. The application was recommended to be minded to grant, subject to a s106 agreement for the reasons outlined in the report.

Questions for Officers

6)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald, the Principal Planning Officer explained that there was no parking proposed as part of the application as there was a public car park located close to the site and a taxi rank at back entrance of the hotel. It was also confirmed to Councillor C. Theobald that bat and bird boxes would be installed on the site, as this complied with policy.

7)           It was explained that the City Plan policies support the provision of public art within the site or in the immediate vicinity of the development. It was likely that the contribution given would be to enhance the listed bollard located in West Street in front of the site.

8)           In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was clarified that the proposed greenwalls would be in the courtyard areas and it would be ensured that suitable plants were grown.

9)           It was explained to Councillor Mac Cafferty that the Synergy Centre did not have planning permission and the Officers were of the view the loss of this community use could not be taken into account as it was not lawful.

10)            The Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained to Councillor Moonan that there would be loading bays located outside the site.

11)            In response to Councillor Morris the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that there was a taxi rank on the other side of West Street. There were also car parks located close to the site and the walking distance was considered adequate.

12)            In response to the Chair, the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that a travel plan would be developed to encourage the use of public transport rather than cars.

13)            It was clarified for Councillor Miller that the primary pick up and drop off point would be on West Street, as there was not enough space to develop a parking bay on Middle Street. It was added that it was legal to pick up and drop off on double yellow lines, such as those outside the main entrance on Middle Street.

14)            In response to Councillor Moonan it was explained that the Council were in the process of developing a gateway scheme from the town centre to the sea; therefore, would not be removing the taxi rank on West Street in the near future. If the taxi rank was removed, provisions would be put in place.

15)            Councillor Miller requested that the materials be approved by Officers in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

16)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the Planning Manager explained that it would not be appropriate to for a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) to be conditioned to control waste recycling because the purpose was for it to mitigate the impact of the construction. It was added that the relevant policies in the Waste & Minerals Plan, outlined in the report, would cover recycling waste from the development, and if Members were minded to, they could add a condition to require a Site Waste Management Plan. 

10)            In response to Councillor Hyde the Principal Planning Officer explained that all the s106 requirements had been satisfied but it could be viewed as low due to lack of any residential units in the scheme. The proposed development had met all the local employment scheme s106 requirements. The Legal Advisor added that developments could only be required to contribute to what was necessary and in accordance with policy.

11)            The Planning Manager confirmed to Councillor Morris that if the application were approved, Members could agree to attach a condition ensuring that the developers had to recycle the waste from the demolition.

Debate and Decision Making Process

12)            Councillor Hyde noted that she was satisfied with the scheme. She added that it was a good use of the site and would support employment for the city. She thanked the Principal Planning Officer for the report and stated that is was helpful to have the Masterplan of both sites together.

13)            Councillor C. Theobald noted that the s106 contribution amount did not seem enough for a large development and that the tall building could look out of place. She added that it would enhance West Street and it would be a positive contribution to employment in the city.

14)            Councillor Miller hoped the Council would work with the hotel to ensure there were transport options. He noted that the proposal was well designed, was ‘architecturally stunning’ and hoped it could be developed quickly as the area would benefit from the improvements proposed in the scheme. He added that he would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

15)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner thanked the Officer for the report and congratulated the architect for the design.

16)            Councillor Littman stated that it was unfortunate that the proposal would lose the frontage on Middle Street; however, this loss was outweighed by the positives the development would provide.

17)            The Chair noted that she was supportive of the application and that the design was very good.

18)            The Members agreed that a condition should be added to ensure the waste materials were recycled in accordance with a Site Waste Management Plan.

19)            The Members agreed that the materials should be agreed by Officers in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

20)            A vote was taken by the 11 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant planning permission was carried unanimously.

18.1       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, as well as the additional condition and informative set out below:

Additional condition:

No development, including demolition and excavation, shall commence until a Site Waste Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved.

Reason:  To maximise the sustainable management of waste and to minimise the need for landfill capacity and to comply with policy WMP3d of the East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Local Plan.

Additional Informative:

The details submitted in relation to materials condition no.5 are delegated to the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager for agreement in consultation with the Chair, the Deputy Chair and the Opposition spokesperson.

Note: Councillor Taylor was not present for the consideration and vote on the application.