Agenda item - BH2017/03651, Brighton Square and Units 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, Brighton- Full Planning

Erection of pavilion structure to Brighton Square for the creation of additional restaurant space (A 3).  Alterations to dolphin fountain including new plinth & increased height of fountain. Installation of new shopfronts to 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 Brighton Square.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Regency

Erection of pavilion structure to Brighton Square for the creation of additional restaurant space (A3). Alterations to dolphin fountain including new plinth and increased height of fountain. Installation of new shopfronts to 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 Brighton Square.

            Officer Presentation

(1)          The Planning Officer, Luke Austin, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, elevational drawings, photographs and floor plans. It was noted that the site formed the north/north-eastern frontage of Brighton Square in addition to the central section of the Square within the Old Town Conservation Area and part of the South Lanes. The site was formed of a ground floor parade of shops with two storeys of residential accommodation above in addition to the central square are which included planters and a water fountain feature.

(2)          The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the development, the proposed design, the impact of the proposed use on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and consideration of the wider conservation area. The proposal sought consent for the erection of an external seating area to be used in conjunction with the adjacent restaurant within units 12-16 Brighton Square. External alterations were also proposed to the shopfront of the restaurant. The site fell within the area identified within city Plan Policy SA2 as Central Brighton and was located outside of the prime retail frontage. The site was also designated open space within the built up area, which was protected under City Plan Policy CP16.

(3)          The site formed a civic space and was located within a built up area within the Regency Ward. The proposed development would facilitate additional seating which would retain an element of the existing usage of the site as an informal seating area. It would however, result in a loss of a large proportion of the open space within the square by privatising and enclosing the central section. The square itself was unique in its character and created a welcome open and light environment in contrast to the tight high density of the South Lanes and surrounding area. The proposed seating area would comprise a laminated timber framed pod glazed in a mixture of polycarbonate panels in order to allow access. The roof would be finished in sliding polycarbonate panels in addition to pre-tensioned fabric section. The structure would be set centrally in the square and would create a new fountain base integrating the sculpture from the existing fountain. Internally, the structure would include a number of seating areas with tables centralised around the fountain.

(4)          In isolation, the proposal represented a high standard of design which would be welcome in other more open areas of the city. The structure would, however, cover a substantial proportion of the square leaving narrow sections on either side for pedestrian traffic and public usage. The structure would enclose and restrict the existing open space which was one of the key definitive characteristics of the site. The proposed structure would obscure the site and views across it and would therefore impede pedestrian orientation and legibility. Exits from the square would be obscured and desire lines would be blocked undermining the positive intention of the development to attract pedestrian footfall.

(5)          It was considered that any development within the square should take account of the scale and proportions of the square itself and should leave the majority of the area open. This proposed development would cover the entire central section within the square, leaving only the narrow areas to the perimeter to allow for pedestrian movement around and through the site. The scale of the development was considered excessive in relation to the modest scale of the square. There was no objection to the removal of the existing shop fronts and the new shop fronts were considered to be acceptable provided that the existing flint-faced pilasters were retained as existing and were not over-clad; that could be controlled by condition. Given the central location and existence of other commercial units within the square the level of harm was considered acceptable as neighbouring occupiers could not expect the same levels of noise and activity that would be experienced within a predominantly residential area.

(6)          It was acknowledged that there would be benefits from the proposal including improving the economic vibrancy by encouraging activity and customers into the square year round which was likely to benefit the surrounding commercial units and the character of the area However, overall it was not  considered that the benefits identified were sufficient to outweigh the fundamental concerns that existed relating to the scale of the proposed development and the impact the structure would have on the character of the open space. Refusal was therefore recommended for the reasons set out in the report.

              Public Speakers

(7)          Councillor Druitt spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor in support of the proposed scheme. He stated that having visited the site and having gone through the plans with the applicant he had canvassed local traders for feedback including Brighton Lanes Traders. He considered that the plans would improve the area, making Brighton Square considerably more attractive and appealing to visitors. His one concern was that access through the square be maintained and disruption to businesses minimised during the course of any works carried out.

(8)          Mr Bareham and Mr Grippon spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. They were aware of the full-scale re-development of the Lanes itself and in particular of the nearby Hannington Lane. Currently, this square was unappealing with a number of closed shops. The proposed scheme would help to regenerate the area and to make it a more attractive destination or cut through, which would complement the surrounding Lanes. The applicants would be happy to allow access through the square to continue notwithstanding that it was a private space. It was envisaged that it would provide a year round usable space which was not weather dependent.

(9)          Councillor Morgan sought clarification from the applicants regarding the materials to be used for creation of the proposed pods and arrangements which would be put into place. It was explained that a combination blue lamp timber, polycarbonates and clear vinyl would be used. These materials had been used for a similar development near to Tower Bridge in London and were both durable and easy to maintain, being able to withstand gale force winds.

(10)       Councillor Miller referred to the adjoining restaurant space which would be associated with the proposed use, seeking confirmation as to whether that use was contingent on this application being successful and it was confirmed that was the case. It was confirmed in answer to further questions that sliding doors would be fitted to the pods which would enable them to be fully enclosed in the event of inclement weather. Councillor Miller also sought confirmation regarding the width of the remaining walkway which would be available to pedestrians walking across the square and regarding the type of panelling proposed as the visuals provided seemed to indicate a heavy design. It was explained that the materials now proposed had been pared back and represented a simpler lighter design.

(11)       Councillor C Theobald enquired whether heaters would be used in cold weather and regarding the planting proposed. It was explained that artificial planting in pots was proposed and that arrangements for heating the space had yet to be determined.

(12)       Councillor Hyde enquired regarding the number of covers proposed and it was confirmed that would be 62 plus the additional areas provided by the pods. Councillor Hyde also asked for confirmation regarding the height of the pods and the distance between them at their highest point and the adjacent first floor balconies.

(13)       Councillor Mac Cafferty enquired regarding the applicants plans to encourage use of the space as a destination rather than as a cut-through. Councillor O’Quinn raised the same point stating that presently that part of the Lane’s was well provided with cafes/bars but that there were a number of empty shops which did not of itself encourage use other than for those eating/drinking. It was explained that it was anticipated that as a result of the greater connectivity which would result from completion of Hannington Lane that this would attract greater use as would provision of the all-weather pods which would provide protection in bad weather. The width of walkway provided would be wider than in some parts of the Lanes.

(14)       Councillor Miller referred to comments received from the Police and it was confirmed that the structure was considered to be suitably robust not to render it liable to vandalism or use by rough sleepers. It was intended that the pods would have a low level of internal illumination and would be locked outside of opening hours.

Questions for Officers

(15)       Councillor Morris asked whether the existing square was a privately owned open space and it was confirmed that it was. Also, in relation to the external awning which it was clarified would now be a lighter but of suitably strong construction. The flint faced pilasters in the square had been constructed in the 1960’s and were not a heritage feature.

(16)       Councillor Miller referred to the amendments referred to by the applicant’s representatives. The Chair, Councillor Cattell explained that these had been forwarded to Committee members a few days previously and did not represent formal amendments to the scheme on which officers had, had the opportunity to comment.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(17)       In answer to further questions by Councillors Gilbey and Miller regarding the status of the square it was confirmed that although the public were allowed access across the square it was not public highway, nor was it adopted. As it stood public access was given by the landowner. Councillor Morris referred to the Aquarium Terraces as an instance where after a suitable period of time it had been possible for a space to become adopted. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, explained that that whilst an application could be made regarding any highway status of the square that had not been done to date and that the current position was as stated.

(18)       Councillor Gilbey stated that she considered the scheme as presented was confusing. Notwithstanding that there would be continued access to the square as much of it would be enclosed and would appear to subsidiary to the restaurant she considered that it could deter that use.

(19)       Councillor C Theobald stated that in her view the square was currently something of a white elephant, very few people went there and she considered that the proposed scheme would be an attraction and would complement the nearby Hannington Lane development, therefore she supported the scheme.

(20)       Councillor Miller whilst noting the vision and hard work which had gone into this scheme could not support it. He considered that it would enclose the existing square to too great an extent and would seriously damage its permeability. The dolphin sculpture would be lost as the focus of the square and the structures whilst imaginative would be too cumbersome. The restaurant use would take up one entire side of the square added to which the pods would also provide further covers. He considered that the number of covers proposed was too great.

(21)       Councillor Hyde concurred in that view stating that she also considering that the hours of operation proposed 8.00am–11.00pm could be problematic in licensing terms although that fell under a different regulatory regime within the council. Councillor Hyde was agreement that the scheme was imaginative and had no doubt that it worked well in London, she did not however consider that it was appropriate in this location. It should also be borne in mind that there were also a number of residents living above the square at first floor level. The Chair, Councillor Cattell, agreed stating that the proposed scheme and potential number of covers could impact on residents’ amenity and that should also be considered.

(22)       Councillor Morgan stated that he was in agreement that this area of the Lanes had declined over recent years and that it was not been as well used as it might have been. The proposed scheme would fit well within the context of the Hannington Lane element of the Lanes redevelopment and could encourage more shops and greater footfall than currently and could help to re-invigorate this square which was not a public space and which was currently dull and tired. The remaining pedestrian access was of a similar width to the rest of the Lanes and he considered that was acceptable. On balance he considered that the scheme was acceptable and would be voting that planning permission be granted.

(23)       Councillor Morris stated that when this square had first opened it  had supported a variety of retail uses, including antique shops and jewellers, that was no longer the case. The position in relation to use of the space appeared to be potentially complicated and in his view it would be less welcoming as a space for use by the public, notwithstanding that they would still have access; he would therefore be voting in support of the officer recommendation that planning permission be refused.

(24)       Councillor O’Quinn stated that she shared Councillor Miller’s concerns regarding the large number of covers proposed in conjunction with the restaurant which would be accommodated along one side of the square. The pods would dominate the square and there would not be a clear unimpeded pedestrian access across the site and they would take away from the existing square. The dolphin fountain and statute which currently formed the focal point of the square would be lost. Whilst a more modest scheme with different access arrangements could be acceptable the one before Committee was not.

(25)       Councillor MacCafferty was of the view that whilst potentially an imaginative scheme he did not feel it was appropriate in this location, he would therefore be voting in support of the officer recommendation.

(26)       Councillor Littman concurred, the space was a private square to which the public had access, however the proposed scheme was of an inappropriate size within the square and would significantly reduce it as an open space. In purely planning terms he considered that the scheme was unacceptable.

(27)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell, stated that she concurred with the concerns voiced by other members considering that the role of the square was important as the narrower surrounding Lanes opened into it and created space, the scheme put forward would be detrimental to that rather than being place making, she supported the officer recommendation.

(28)       A vote was taken and the 10 Members present at the meeting voted on a vote of 7 to 3 that planning permission be refused.

6.7         RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the report.