Agenda item - BH2017/01043, Brighton College, Eastern Road, Brighton-Full Planning

Installation of inflatable dome over tennis court incorporating plant machinery shed and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Queens Park

              Installation of inflatable dome over tennis court incorporating plant machinery, shed and associated works.

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs and plans indicating the appearance and location of the building within the site. Permission was sought for installation of the dome as a temporary structure over the tennis court incorporating plant machinery, shed and associated works. It was explained that this application dovetailed with that for the erection of a two storey temporary classroom with ancillary temporary two storey changing rooms, single storey temporary toilets and storage unit, BH2017/00482 which had been agreed at the previous meeting of the Committee on 21 June 2017.

(2)          The main considerations in determining the application related to the impact of the development on the appearance of the site, the setting of the adjacent listed buildings and boundary wall, the wider College Conservation Area, and the amenities of adjacent occupiers. It was considered that the proposed dome, storage shed and plant machinery would be located at a sufficient distance from any neighbouring properties and would not affect their amenity in terms of overshadowing, loss of light, outlook or an increased sense of enclosure. Nor was it considered based on assessment of the Environmental Health Team who had raised no objections to the proposed scheme that use of the dome would result in a significant increase in noise or lighting impact toward the nearby residential properties, nor, as its use would be largely ancillary to the existing college, was it expected to create substantial trip generation; approval was therefore recommended.

              Questions for Officers

(3)          Councillor Morris expressed concern that no visuals were available showing views towards the proposed installation when on site trees were not in leaf and the degree of screening provided would be considerably reduced. He asked to see visuals showing the degree of set down into the site and distances to the nearest residential dwellings and sought clarification regarding potential negative impact to neighbouring residencies.

(4)          It was confirmed that as the temporary structures including the inflatable dome would be temporary and would be removed on completion of the works they were considered acceptable and, in view of the distances involved, it was considered that any impact would not be significant.

(5)          Councillor Morris also sought clarification regarding access arrangements for delivering materials to the site and thereafter. Officers confirmed that it was understood that the dome was delivered ready for installation and that it would not be necessary to remove the railings or any of the existing screening in order to facilitate that. Councillor Morris also enquired regarding the consultation process as it was unclear to him whether all neighbouring properties had been consulted. It was confirmed that this had been carried out in accordance with statutory procedures.

(7)          Councillor Moonan asked whether the existing tennis courts were floodlit. It was explained that was not currently the case; it was intended however to provide a facility which was capable of use year round, ultimately to be replaced by a permanent structure.

(8)          Councillor Greenbaum referred to the fact that a number of objections had been received enquiring as to the weight they had been given. It was confirmed that these had been taken account of as both the negative and positive aspects arising from the scheme had been set out in the report. The proposals were considered acceptable however, as they were temporary and would be removed once permanent replacements had been provided.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)          Councillor Moonan stated that she shared Councillor Morris’ concerns that during the winter months when the level of screening provided was reduced lighting inside the dome could impact negatively on neighbouring dwellings. She considered that even allowing for changes in level across the site light pollution could result.

(10)       Councillor Miller considered that a slide reflecting periods of the year when there would be less vegetation would have been beneficial. It was noted that Environmental Health had been consulted and had raised no objections.

(11)       Councillor Mac Cafferty enquired whether it would be possible to add

an informative to any permission granted to enable concerns to be monitored. The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, explained that Conditions 4 and 5 had been informed by the observations received from Environmental Health and sought to control both hours of operation and maximum light levels. If breaches occurred that could be enforced.

(12)       Councillor Hyde stated that in her view during the winter months residents were likely to have their curtains closed during the hours of darkness, which would be likely to mitigate any problems. As a sports facility she considered this use should be welcomed and was in agreement that it was a temporary arrangement pending a permanent solution.

(13)       Councillor Miller welcomed the scheme stating that given that the structure would be set down into the site he did not consider that it would give rise to significant problems in terms of either light or noise.

(14)       Councillor Gilbey considered that if the structure was opaque rather than clear that would reduce the level of light refraction.

(15)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner supported the scheme agreeing that it would provide an improved sports facility which would not in his view impact negatively.

(16)       Councillor C Theobald stated that she had some concerns in relation to light pollution citing a similar structure in the Droveway in Hove which she was aware had given rise to complaints from local residents.

(17)       Councillor Morris stated that he had concerns in terms of both the proposed hours of operation and the fact that it was intended to be used 7 days per week. He considered that there would be an unacceptable impact on College Terrace and he could not therefore support approval.

(18)       Councillor Moonan reiterated her concerns regarding the proposed hours of operation enquiring such long hours had been sought. In her views  the hours of operation permitted needed to be scaled back.

(19)       Councillor Moonan then formally proposed that use of the tennis court should cease by 7.30pm during the winter months, between 1 October and 1 March and this was seconded by Councillor Morris. A vote was then taken on this proposed amendment but was lost by a vote of 7 to 3 with 1 abstention.

(20)       A vote was then taken by the 11 Members present on the substantive recommendations in the officer report. On a vote of 8 to 2 with 1 abstention planning permission was granted.

20.5       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.