Agenda item - BH2019/00293 - Former Peter Pan Playground Site, 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 1-2 storey relocatable modular buildings with first floor deck to provide mixed leisure/retail/food/drink/office uses (D2/A1/A3/A4/A5/B1 uses) with associated cycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping, boundary treatment and retractable beach mat. Temporary (meanwhile use) for 5 years.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected:East Brighton

              Erection of outdoor swimming pool (25m x 12.5m) and changing/plant rooms (D2 use), flexible events space (D2 use) and 1-2 storey relocatable modular buildings with first floor deck to provide mixed leisure/retail/food/drink/office uses (D2/A1/A3/A4/A5/B1 uses) with associated cycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping, boundary treatment and retractable beach mat. Temporary (meanwhile use) for 5 years.

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

Officer Presentation

(2)             Assistant Planning Officer, Nick Eagle, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs, site plans elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme. The Committee were informed that additional representations had been received which had been referred to in the Late/Additional Representations List. These representations this did not introduce any new issues that had not already been referred to in the officer’s report.

(3)           It was noted that the main considerations in the determination of this application related to the:

·                          principle of developing the open shingle beach

·                          impact to ecology and biodiversity

·                          principle of locating the proposed uses in this location

·                          impact to local retail centres

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

·                          impact to tourism and the economy

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

·                          demand for travel created by the development

·                          impact to amenity

Questions of Officers

(3)          The Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) representative, Mr Gowans was informed that the proposals were single storey.

(4)         Councillor Theobald was informed that the materials included timber cladding for the external elevations.

(5)         Councillor Mac Cafferty was informed that S106 heads of terms covered the retention of the shingle vegetation. Although the management of the shingle is for 10 years, the five year temporary permission sought under this application will be covered. The proposed materials are to be approved by the authority and the viability statement is similar to the one previously submitted.

(6)         Councillor Littman was informed that the S106 heads of terms for ecology was for a management plan of 10 years, and the financial commitment was for the temporary period.

(7)         Councillor Miller was informed that the latest proposals were in line with the adjoining Yellowave volleyball site and that the swimming pool, to be constructed by 01 April 2020 along with the other elements of the proposed scheme, will be removed after five years and the shingle replaced and levelled to match the existing.

(8)         Councillor Moonan was informed that the previously proposed first floor has been removed from the scheme.

(9)         Councillor Gilbey was informed that the 5 year consent would start 01 April 2020.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)      Councillor Moonan considered the proposed colours to be fitting and expressed support for the multi use and regeneration of the area and Madeira Drive.

(11)      Councillor Hyde felt the latest submission was much improved from previous proposals with good design, improved views and is beach appropriate. The CAG comments are noted.

(12)      Councillor O’Quinn felt the scheme had been improved and supported the regeneration of the area.

(13)      Councillor Theobald supported the new colours and felt the proposals were good for the sea front area.

(14)      Councillor Littman felt the development was essential good, however, he expressed concerns regarding the protection of ecology on the site and would like to see a 25 year period of ecological maintenance.

(15)      Councillor Miller felt the scheme was good for the area and supported that materials should be submitted to the Chair’s Briefing for approval.

(16)      Mr Gowans, CAG commented that there are concerns regarding whether the design is in keeping, views across the beach are compromised, not all the materials are appropriate, and the public benefit was questioned as the pool is contrary to policy.

(17)      Councillor Cobb supported the scheme, however, not all the materials were considered appropriate.

(18)      Councillor Mac Caffertyexpressed concerns that permission would lead to infilling developments in the future, the ecology impact would be substantial and support for the nearby arches along Madeira Drive would have been liked.

(19)      Councillor Gilbey felt that the scheme had been improved and the pool was a good idea.

(20)      Councillor Cattell supported the scheme and felt the applicants had shown 100% commitment.

(12)     A vote was taken and on a vote of 6 to 4 the 10 Members who were present voted that the and for officers to determine an appropriately  revised financial contribution. A further vote was then taken in respect of the substantive recommendations and the 10 Members who were present voted unanimously that Minded to Grant planning approval be given.

134.2  RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement and the following Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 24^th July 2019 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 10 of the report.

            Note: Councillor Bennett was not present at the meeting during consideration of the above application.