Agenda item - BH2016/01719 - Daltons Bastion (site of former Wheel), Madeira Drive, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of 22.5m high tower (D2) with zip wire to a landing area along Madeira Drive opposite the entrance to Atlingworth Street with ancillary storage and changing facilities and erection of a café (A3). Retention of existing base plinth.

RECOMMENDATION – MINBDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected – Queens Park

Erection of 22.5m high tower (D2) with zip wire to a landing area along Madeira Drive opposite the entrance to Atlingworth Street with ancillary storage and changing facilities and erection of a café (A3).Retention of existing base plinth.

 

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

 

Officer Presentation

 

2)               The Case Officer, Maria Seale, introducted the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The site for the high tower was within the East Cliff Conservation Area where the former Brighton Wheel had been located. The tower would be approximately half the height of the former Brighton Wheel and the two proposed zip wires would be 35 metres. The application included a café area with seating and an area for locker space at the base of the tower, and an objection had been received from the neighbouring café.

 

3)               There was a proposed landing stage on the beach along Madeira Drive at the end of the residential pavement. It would be a large structure designed to replicate a boat.

 

4)               It was explained that since the late list was published a further 26 objection letters had been received; however, these had not raised any new material objections. The Planning Department believed that the application complied with policy and would be publically beneficial, as well as providing an attraction for the city. The heritage team were satisfied with the application and there was a condition that detailed that the original railings would be reinstated. The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

 

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

 

5)               Mr Scoble spoke in his capacity as a local resident and noted that the attraction should be moved further down the beach towards the Marina where it would not affect the local residents in the area.

 

6)               Mr Egleton spoke on behalf of the ‘crazy golf’ and café outlet and explained that the business had concerns for the noise disturbance. He noted that the application sought a closure hour of 2300 hours and this would encourage groups of intoxicated customers into the area. The report detailed that there would be a maximum of 24 riders per hour at peak times; however, he felt that this would not be restricted. The location was a quieter area of the beach and the café outlet would be affected by the noise from the zip wire itself and the users.

 

7)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald, Mr Egleton confirmed that he was uncertain of the café’s opening hours; however, he believed that it was not open beyond 2300 hours.

 

8)               Mr Coomber, and his colleagues spoke on behalf of the applicant. They explained that the tower, zip wire, landing stage and café area were a replacement of the Brighton Wheel and it would be an additional family attraction to the city. They had consulted with local residents and explained that the attraction would be part of city regeneration and were not aware of any existing problems in the area that the zip wire could contribute to. The objectors had raised concerns regarding the noise; however, it was explained that the attraction was set away from the residential properties, and situated in a busier area on the beach that was near the pier which had a music licence. The design had been the subject of considerable amendments.

 

9)               In response to the Chair it was explained that they would not recommend anyone using the zip wire whilst under the influence of alcohol, and the operators would be made fully aware of this suggestion.

 

10)            In response to Councillor Gilbey it was clarified that realistically having 24 users per hour would be the maximum due to the need to carry out safety checks and the time it would take for the customer to put on the harness could be lengthy.

 

11)            Mr Coomber confirmed to Councillor Moonan that he was uncertain whether the café was planning to sell alcohol but confirmed that this would be the subject of the separate Licensing regime.

 

12)            In response to Councillor Miller it was noted that the agent was unaware how customers would get back from the landing stage to the tower; however, it was assumed they would walk.

 

13)            In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle it was noted that there would be lockers at the tower to ensure safe storage for customer’s belongings, and loose items would have to be removed before using the attraction.

 

14)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald, Mr Coomber noted that the scheme proposed provided for 75 covers on the ground floor level and 100 covers on the first floor level.

 

15)            In response to Councillor Hyde it was noted that there had not been any reported noise disturbance from a similar zip wire in Bournemouth, and it was added that that zip wire was positioned directly above cafes.

 

Questions for Officers

 

16)            In response to Councillor Moonan the Case Officer explained that the Committee could agree a condition to only sell alcohol to seated customers; however, the Planning Authority was unable to restrict alcohol sales completely.

 

17)            It was clarified that the tower would be white painted metal.

 

18)            In response to Councillor Miller it was noted that the proposal for customers walking back to the tower to collect belongings had not been detailed by the applicant and would be part of the management plan. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager added that it was likely that customers would walk back from the landing stage.

 

19)            In response to Councillor Morris it was stated that the highest point of the landing stage would be 6.2 metres and the main platform would be approximately 3 metres high. Councillor Morris noted concerns for ensuring it was secure at night and proposed a condition be added for CCTV to be provided at the site.

 

20)            The Case Officer clarified to Councillor Hyde that the material for the landing stage would be conditioned and approved by Officers in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons. She added that it was likely to be a new, durable metal that has a rusty appearance.

 

21)            In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle it was noted that if Members felt it was an important to have the walk back from the landing zone to lit, this could be added as a condition.

 

22)            The Case Officer explained to Councillor Mac Cafferty that development on the beach had not been raised as an issue; however, it was felt the area needed a new development. It was clarified that the development on the beach would be the landing stage, as the tower was not on the beach.

 

23)            It was confirmed to Councillor Morris that the site would have a 25 year lease.

 

24)            In response to Councillor Miller it was explained that a detailed acoustic report had been completed and included the noise disturbance from the zip wire in Bournemouth. The noise that would be caused from the zip wire would be a lot less frequent and disturbing than the background noise in the area.

 

Debate and Decision Making Process

 

25)            Councillor Russell-Moyle noted that the concrete structure and shuttering currently in place needed to be renovated to improve the area. He added that he would be proposing that lighting between the landing stage and the starting tower should be conditioned. Overall he was of the view it was a good use of the beach and that developing on the beach would be restoring and improving it. He stated that he would be minded to grant if lighting was secured through condition.

 

26)            Councillor Moonan noted that it was a fun development and would improve the beach; however, she had major concerns regarding the sale of alcohol and wished for the Committee to try and restrict this as much as possible. She added that she was pleased that the proposed material of the landing stage would appear aged.

 

27)            Councillor Hyde stated that she was happy with the application and noted that it was good to see that companies were prepared to invest in the city. She added that she was pleased it would encourage day-trippers to the area, and the starting stage would be white as this would be an improvement as well as being appropriate for the area.

 

28)            Councillor Miller noted that the tower was considerably smaller and slimmer than the previous Brighton Wheel and thought that white was appropriate; however, he queried if the structure could be made more iconic. He noted concerns for developing on the beach; however, the regeneration would be positive and would create jobs. He added that he would have concerns if the management proposed vehicles to take people back from the landing stage to the tower.

 

29)            Councillor Bennett noted that it would be good for tourism and was pleased the historic railings were to be restored.

 

30)            Councillor Morris noted that he welcomed the attraction and it was positive that the local hotels in the area and Visit Brighton supported the application.

 

31)            The Chair noted that she was pleased with the appearance of the landing stage and hoped it would be the first of many schemes in the area. She added that she would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

 

32)            Councillor C. Theobald hoped the scheme would not affect the café and would have preferred the zip wire to cease operation at 2200 hours, rather than 2300 hours.

 

33)            Councillor Moonan proposed a condition that alcohol could only be sold at the premises to seated customers eating food on the premises. Councillor Russell-Moyle seconded this, this was carried.

 

34)            Councillor Hyde proposed a condition to restrict the landing stage from being made in a metal that had a rusty appearance and recommended wood as an alternative. Councillor Bennett seconded the proposal, this was not carried.

 

 

35)            Councillor Russell-Moyle proposed an additional condition to restrict development until details of a lighting scheme between the landing area and the tower were submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Councillor Allen seconded the proposal, this was carried.

 

36)            A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant planning permission was carried unanimously.

 

56.3       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 informatives set out in section 1 of the report and the additional conditions set out below:

 

Additional condition 24:

Alcohol can only be sold at the premises to seated customers eating food on the premises.

 

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

 

Additional condition 25:

No development shall take place until details of a lighting scheme between the landing area and the tower have been submitted to and approved to writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The proposal shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and shall be thereafter retained as such.

 

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and users of the zip wire and to comply with policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.