Agenda item - BH2016/01877 - The Shelter Hall, 150-154 Kings Road Arches, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing building and external steps. Erection of two-storey building at lower promenade level incorporating mezzanine floor and a single storey rotunda building on the upper promenade level on raised plinth to provide mixed use development comprising retail/café/restaurant/public toilets (A1/A3/sui generis uses) and new external steps.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Regency

Demolition of existing building and external steps. Erection of two-storey building at lower promenade level incorporating mezzanine floor and a single storey rotunda building on the upper promenade level on raised plinth to provide mixed use development comprising retail/café/restaurant/public toilets (A1/A3/sui generis uses) and new external steps.

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

(2)             The Planning Manager, Major Applications, Paul Vidler, gave a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs. It was explained that the site was located at the bottom of West Street and involved the upper and lower seafront promenade. The Shelter Hall was an unlisted historic building with decorative features which straddled the boundaries of the Regency and Old Town Conservation Areas and was a focal point of this section of the Victorian arch development fronting the beach, which had been built as a structural element of the King’s Road thoroughfare and in order to provide a recreational facility for promenaders. It had close association with the listed kiosk formerly at road level and now removed for construction in a new position.

(3)             The main considerations in determining the application related to demolition of the unlisted building which contributed positively to the Conservation Areas, the principal of providing a larger replacement building, impact on visual amenity, crime prevention , transport demand and sustainable transport accessibility and the principle of introducing A3, A1 retail and sui generis public toilet facilities in that location. The site was in a very prominent seafront location, and was sensitively located within the conservation areas and it was considered that loss of the (non-listed) historic Shelter Hall building would cause harm to the conservation area as it contributed positively to it; however it was dangerous and beyond repair. The replacement building was needed in part to hold up the seafront road and would deliver significant highways improvements and benefits, new usable commercial spaces that would contribute to the tourism offer of the seafront and much needed permanent public toilets. The proposed uses were considered to be appropriate for the seafront and would enhance year round tourism, would not harm the vitality and viability of any established shopping centres and would provide an attractive contemporary building.

(4)             Whilst heritage consultees had raised some concerns regarding the overall scale and detailed design of the scheme, it is considered that the scale and design had been largely justified and the revisions to the scheme had mostly mitigated this harm (and further revisions may be sought by condition). The scheme would deliver welcome regeneration of the site and would reinforce the role of the seafront as a vibrant, thriving tourist and recreational destination. It was considered that there were sound reasons to justify the loss of the historic but unlisted Shelter Hall and that significant public benefits would mitigate the harmful impact the replacement development could have on the conservation areas and approval was therefore recommended.

Questions of Officers

(5)             Councillor Mac Cafferty queried that this application had been brought forward for consideration by the Committee without the requirement for Listed Building Consent for its demolition. It was explained that this had been granted in March 2016, in order to facilitate repair and restoration of the kiosk and its relocation to East Street Bastion. Approval had also been given at that time to removal of a section of seafront railings and a lamppost.

(6)             Councillor Morris asked to see elevational drawings showing the north elevation, location of the vents associated with the development and clarification of how they would read from the promenade and from street level.

(7)             Councillor Janio asked to see drawings showing the Shelter Hall and as it appeared currently and giving perspectives of the completed scheme in order that he visualise it within the wider context of the seafront. Also, arrangements for access by cyclists.

(8)             Councillor Hyde sought confirmation that there no conflict would occur between cyclists and others. The Development and Transport Manager, Steven Shaw, confirmed that the issues of pedestrian access, cycle parking, disabled access and parking had been fully considered and were deemed to be acceptable subject to the inclusion of conditions relating to cycle parking, deliveries/loading and CEMP.

(9)             Councillor Gilbey sought confirmation regarding landscaping proposed. In answer to questions disabled access arrangements were shown and it was explained that there would be level access to the disabled toilet facilities. Councillor Miller sought information regarding their configuration and whether they would be mixed but it was explained that would be an operational matter.

(10)          Councillor Moonan referred to the existing subway access enquiring whether refurbishment was intended in concert with this scheme. It was explained that fell outside the remit of this planning application.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)          Mr Gowans CAG, referred to the comments made by CAG that whilst they welcomed the proposals in principle they had grave concerns regarding the inadequacy and piecemeal nature of information provided in relation to a site located in a key sea front location.

(12)          Councillor Moonan referred to comments received from the Police and it was explained that the proposed café would have standard hours of operation. Councillor Moonan considered that was acceptable stating that she supported the vital work being carried out and proposals for reinvigoration of the sea front which would result.

(13)       Councillor Morris stated that he supported the proposals which were being undertaken on the back of the necessary repairs and which would enhance this as a sea front destination and would provide a landmark for visitors. Councillor Miller concurred in that view.

(14)       Councillor Littman stated that he considered that the proposals would result in significant improvements to that part of the seafront, he therefore supported the officer recommendation.

(15)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that whilst unhappy at the manner in which the Listed Building element of the scheme had been processed, he supported the scheme overall.

(16)       Councillor Russell-Moyle stated that he fully supported the scheme but was anxious to ensure that measures were undertaken to ensure that features such as the silver keystones and Neptune’s Head Seal were retained and reinstated appropriately, ideally to the front of the building. In his view they were integral to the seafront environment and should be retained as such, he wished additional conditions to be included to ensure this took place. Members of the Committee were in agreement voting that additional conditions to that effect were included in any permission granted.

(17)       A vote was taken and Members voted unanimously that minded to grant planning permission be given to include the amendments and additional conditions set out below.

44.2       RESOLVED – That theCommittee 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 and amendments/additions set out below.

              Delete Condition 7;

              Amend Condition 2 to reflect amended and additional plans received;

              Additional Condition(s):

              12e) the replica head and shields be installed on the front of the building;

              Additional Informatives:

              Conditions 12/13/15 to delegated by the Planning Applications Manager in consultation with the Chair