Agenda item - BH2018/01973 -Former Peter Pan Playground, Madeira Drive, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of outdoor swimming pool (25m x 12.5m) and changing/plant rooms (D2 use), flexible events space (D2 use) and 1-3 storey relocatable modular buildings with first floor deck to provide mixed leisure/retail/food/drink/office uses (D2/A1/A3/A4/A5/B1 uses) including second floor place markers and lifeguard observation unit, with associated cycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping, boundary treatment and retractable beach mat. Temporary (meanwhile use) for 5 years.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Wards(s)Affected: East Brighton/ Queen’s Park

Erection of outdoor swimming pool (25m x 12.5m) and changing/plant rooms (D2 use), flexible events space (D2 use) and 1-3 storey relocatable modular buildings with first floor deck to provide mixed leisure/retail/food/drink/office uses (D2/A1/A3/A4/A5/B1 uses) including second floor place markers and lifeguard observation unit, with associated cycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping, boundary treatment and retractable beach mat. Temporary (meanwhile use) for 5 years.

 

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

 

              Officer Presentation

 

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Maria Seale introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, elevational drawings, photographs and photomontages setting out the site as currently and as envisaged should planning permission be granted for the proposed scheme. Reference was also made to representations set out in the Late/Additional Representations List.

 

(3)       It was explained that the site was in the council’s ownership and formed part of the former Peter Pan amusement site between Madeira Drive and the Volks Railway, just west of the Yellowave volleyball facility. The site comprised an area of hardstanding north of the Volks Railway and also part of the beach to the south of the railway and had had several temporary uses. The site lay in the East Cliff Conservation Area and within the setting of the Grade II Listed Madeira Terraces, Lift and Shelter Hall (Concorde 2). The site was also partly located within the Volks Railway Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). This application proposed the temporary uses set out in the report including an outdoor heated swimming pool with retractable cover, associated plant and changing facilities directly on the beach envisaging 7 users per hour for a temporary period of 5 years from date of first use. Whilst the application information suggested that a future application may be submitted for a permanent scheme, with an extended 50m pool, no further information relating to this had been submitted and this is did not form part of the current application.

 

(4)          The main considerations in the determining this application were:

 

              The principle of developing the open shingle beach

              The impact to ecology and biodiversity

              The principle of locating the proposed uses in this location

              The impact to local retail centres

              The impact to the setting of the special character and appearance of the East Cliff Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings

              The impact to tourism and the economy

              The contribution the development will make to sports provision in the city

              The demand for travel created by the development

              The impact to amenity

 

              The relevant policies under which the application had been considered were also set out and referred to in the report. Comments and concerns expressed by Historic England, the council’s own Heritage Team and local heritage societies were set out. Since the pre-application stage, the applicant had sought to reduce the overall scale and density and the amount of second/third floor levels and to introduce some gaps through the site all of which was seen as positive. The structures south of the railway had been kept to the minimum needed for the pool to operate in order to maintain a degree of openness, officers had also secured amendments to ensure  the structures and pool were located as far north as possible in order to lessen their impact.

 

(5)          The proposal and its “temporary” nature and appearance would not be considered acceptable as a permanent form of development given that it would prove counter-productive to the long term aspirations for the area. It was considered however, that in this exceptional case, significant weight should be given to the wider regenerative benefits of the scheme and the benefits of providing the sporting facility in particular, and to the fact that it was temporary only (and thus harm would be minimised and ultimately reversible). It was considered that there was clear and convincing justification for the scheme, as required by para 194 of the NPPF. It was also considered that the degree of harm caused would be less than substantial and that the positive public benefits of the scheme would outweigh the harm caused, as required by para 196 of the NPPF.

 

(6)          On balance the proposed development was considered to bring significant benefits to an area which was in decline. It would help regenerate the area and boost tourism and the wider economy. There was also an identified shortage of pool space in the city and the scheme would promote swimming and healthier life styles. The principle of locating the proposed ‘enabling’ commercial and sporting uses on this part of seafront was considered acceptable. There was a general presumption against development directly on the beach, outside of the previously developed site, however there were other such examples like Yellowave adjacent and on balance the wider benefits of the scheme were considered to outweigh the harm and loss of open space. The scheme would be built in an area of rare vegetated shingle habitat but would include satisfactory ecological mitigation and enhancement. Whilst there were concerns regarding the overall scale/density and appearance of the scheme the amount of development proposed was necessary to make the pool viable, and provision of this sporting facility was given significant weight. The scheme would cause harm to the special setting of listed buildings and the East Cliff Conservation Area, but this harm was exceptionally considered to be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme and the fact any impacts will be only temporary. The developer was trying to do something different and exciting here and, on balance, therefore, approval was recommended.

 

              Questions of Officers

 

(7)          Councillor Miller sought clarification regarding the figure proposed for sustainable transport and in respect of the overall figure required by the Section 106 Obligation. It was explained that the sum being sought reflected the mitigation measures included by the applicant and in order that the viability of the scheme would not be compromised.

 

(8)          Councillor C Theobald sought clarification regarding the size of the pool, the total number of units to be provided and the timeframe for provision of the pool facility. It was explained the pool would need to be provided within 12 months of any permission granted in order to avoid being in breach of planning conditions.

 

(9)          Councillor Hyde requested to see photographs of the existing buildings immediately adjacent to the site and sought further detail regarding the structures proposed which appeared to look like shipping containers. It was confirmed that they would not be shipping containers. Councillor Littman sought further clarification on this matter however, citing that in the report they were referred to as “modern container type structures.”

 

(10)       Councillor Littman also referred to the fact that the proposed scheme would involve building out onto the shingle which formed part of the SNCI. He expressed concern regarding the level of mitigation measures proposed in relation to avoid destruction of what was acknowledged recognised as important habitat and to avoid encroaching onto a public beach. It was explained that the existing shingle mound would be capable of better management as a result of the proposed scheme and that it would provide better public orientation along that stretch of the beach.

 

(11)       Councillor Bennett asked regarding the size of the units to be provided and it was confirmed that they would be of differing sizes.

 

(12)       Councillor O’Quinn enquired in respect of arrangements for management of the site bearing in mind that there could be additional units providing alcohol close to/the licensing SSA. In the city centre and adjacent area the number of units supplying alcohol was already at saturation point and the Police already experienced difficulty on occasion in managing crime and violent or anti-social behaviour which could result from excessive alcohol consumption. She had concerns about the negative impact which could result from these proposals.

 

(13)       Councillor Hyde asked whether the timber would be painted a traditional “Brighton Blue” and it was confirmed that it would.

 

(14)       Councillor Mac Cafferty asked whether and where else elements of this scheme had been discussed, for example had it been discussed at Policy, Resources and Growth Committee, whether it had been considered in the context of a Master Plan for the area, its history and what negotiations/consultation process had been undertaken. He considered that a holistic approach was needed apropos anything proposed in this sensitive location; it was very important to avoid piece-meal development.

 

(15)       Councillor Mac Cafferty also referred to the robust comments made by Historic England and to the palette of materials and scale of other buildings along the seafront and to advice provided by the council’s own officers which did not appear to have been headed. Whilst noting that a number of conditions would be attached to any permission granted, that this would be a temporary permission, and that applicant had tried to adopt a bold approach, thought needed to be given to longer term use of the site.

 

(16)       Councillor Moonan referred to the fragility of the site considering that any conditions applied would need to be strenuous in protecting the existing marine plants etc., and ensuring that any additional planting provided would be sufficiently robust. Councillor Moonan also enquired whether it would be possible to offer the pool for wider community use. Councillor Gilbey concurred stating that use by 7 individuals an hour seemed very low, bearing in mind the potential harm and disruption and level of enabling development necessary. Councillor C Theobald asked whether the pool would provide a facility which would be capable of wider community use. It was explained that some of the areas referred to fell outside the boundaries of the site and that use of the pool could not be controlled.

 

(17)       Councillor Miller sought clarification regarding the precise area of beach to be used and the distances between the proposed structures and the nearest adjacent buildings.

 

              Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(18)       Councillor Morgan stated that the site fell within his ward, citing the importance of this part of the city as a tourist attraction and destination for a number of visitors. This site had been dilapidated and decaying for some time and this would provide the opportunity to return it to use and to enliven the surrounding area; he supported the scheme.

 

(19)       Councillor Moonan stated that she had listened very carefully to all that had been said and on balance was in agreement that this scheme could help to kick-start regeneration of this area of the seafront.

 

(20)       Councillor C Theobald was in agreement that the site had been empty for a long time and that a boost to that part of the seafront was needed and therefore supported the officer recommendation.

 

(21)       Councillor O’Quinn acknowledged that a number of benefits would accrue from the scheme but considered that the proposed pop up buildings would be garish and she remained to be convinced that they would encourage re-invigoration of the area as envisaged.

 

(22)       Councillor Miller stated that whilst acknowledging that revitalisation of the site was needed, he considered that much of the enabling development being provided in advance of delivery of the swimming pool did not stack up in his view. The level of harm to the heritage asset and neighbouring buildings would be too great and he considered the comments received from Heritage England were damning.

 

(23)       Councillor Littman concurred saying the amount of damage and harm which would be caused in order to provide temporary facilities was too high. The council had a responsibility to act as custodians of the natural and built environment.

 

(24)       Councillor Hyde agreed with all that had been said by Councillor Miller. She recognised that the arguments were finely balanced and that benefits would accrue, but in her view the damage which would result to the environment, character, setting of the listed buildings and detrimental visual impact would be too great and would be contrary to a number of local plan policies.

 

(25)       Mr Gowans, CAG referred to the comments submitted by CAG re-iterating their view that the proposed scheme was wholly unacceptable.

 

(26)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he considered that a fully worked up Master Plan for the whole area was essential. Whilst there was much he liked about the scheme there was also much he did not. Any development in this location should contribute to a strong sense of place and not sure that this did. The comments received from Historic England expressed their concerns and objections in very strong terms.

 

(27)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair acknowledged that the scheme was finely balanced and was of the view that in some cases temporary permissions were necessary in order to project schemes forward and to secure longer term protection of the site. She considered the scheme was acceptable and would be voting in support of it.

 

(28)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to 4- the application was not approved. Alternative recommendations were then sought and Councillor Littman proposed and Councillor Hyde seconded the proposal the that the application be refused. The reasons put forward for refusal were that the proposed scheme conflicted with plan policies in relation to building on the beach, ecological impact, harm to a heritage asset, design, density, height, colour and scale of the proposed form of development. The mitigation measures proposed by the applicant were considered to be insufficient/inappropriate. It was agreed that the final wording of the grounds of refusal would be prepared by officers in consultation with the proposer and seconder and that should the refusal be appealed the Committee agreed a s106 planning obligation on the heads of terms set out in the report

 

(29)       A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors, Gilbey, Mac Cafferty, Bennett, Hyde, Littman, Miller and O’Quinn voted that the application be refused. Councillors, Cattell, the Chair, C Theobald, Moonan and Morgan voted that Planning Permission be granted. Therefore on a vote of 7 to 4 Planning Permission was refused.

 

78.2       RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out above and authorises that should the refusal s subsequently agreed with be appealed that a s106 obligation be entered into on the heads of terms set out in the report.

 

              MINOR APPLICATIONS