Agenda item - BH2021/01845 - Brighton College, Eastern Road, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The Planning Manager introduced the report to the committee.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

2.    Councillor Moonan was informed that the application has been deferred to gain more accessibility information and that Historic England had looked at the balance of scale and reported no issues. Access to the first floor for wheelchair users would have increased the height of the building which was not possible. It was noted that wheelchair access was extensive along with hearing impaired assistance. The development included 8 wheelchair accessible viewing places and toilets. It was noted that 20 other schools would have access to the facility without charge, including 3 local primary schools. The names of the schools was noted to be in the report, as was the landscaping scheme which includes tree planting.

3.    Councillor Yates was informed that the current science block was larger than the proposed replacement theatre building, and this would create space between the buildings allowing views across the area of the listed building. The development improves the link between the existing buildings with greater circulation spaces around the buildings. It was noted that the application was for a theatre in a school and would form part of the education facilities within the performing arts programme. The councillor was informed by Paul Westbrook of Brighton College that the college was happy to share the accessibility policy with the committee Members. The architect, Michael Brennan stated that the technical box located on the lower level would allow operation of all lighting etc and would be accessible to all users. Steve Patton of Brighton College noted that all the lighting and flying bars can be dropped to stage level and thereby accessed by all users.

4.    Councillor Shanks was informed that there would be provision for accessible toilets on both levels of the theatre and the dimensions would be agreed by Building Control. It was noted that access would be for students and visitors.

5.    The Senior Solicitor stated that the Building Regulations were separate legislation to planning and committee Members should only take material considerations into account.

6.    Councillor Littman stated they supported Changing Places Toilet. The councillor was informed that the impact on Heritage was considered acceptable. It was noted that if the development did not meet Building Regulations the scheme would need to return to Planning committee.

Debate

7.     Councillor Yates stated they understood the relative benefits of the scheme and noted that the design was not an issue, however, they struggled to see how this would improve the listed building. It was noted that the local school’s opportunity to use the building would amount to less than one night per year. The councillor was much happier about the accessibility in the scheme and supported the application.

8.    Councillor Theobald stated they were happy with the accessibility and toilet arrangements and noted that both Heritage and Theatre organisations supported the scheme and considered there were lots of benefits to the development. The councillor supported the application.

9.    Councillor Moonan stated they were satisfied on most queries and they liked the design, however they considered a better balance of scale could be achieved, and smaller would be better. On balance the councillor supported the application.

10.Councillor Shanks considered there was a balance between theatre and school building for educational purposes. The councillor considered the access to be acceptable and supported the application.

Vote

11.A vote was taken, and the committee agreed by 6 to 1 to grant Planning permission. (Councillor Fishleigh took no part in the discussions or decision making process)

12.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 on the Heads of Terms set out in the report and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 23 February 2022 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse Planning permission for the reasons set out in section 11 of the report.