Issue - items at meetings - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

 

(a) Petitions: to receive any petitions presented by members of the public to full Council or at the meeting itself – Report of the Head of Law (copy attached);

 

(b) Written Questions: to receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on 12 September 2013;

 

(c) Deputations: to receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on 12 September 2013.

20a     Petitions

 

            Save Badgers Tennis Club

 

20.1    The Committee considered a report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services detailing a petition received and forwarded from the meeting of Council on 18 July 2013 in the following terms:

 

                  “We, the undersigned, including local residents and members of Badgers Tennis Club, call on Brighton and Hove City Council to retain the Badgers Tennis Club site in Church Place, Kemp Town as a site for leisure, recreation and sport and not to allow it to be developed for housing or any other use.”

 

                                                                                                                    (564 signatures)

 

20.2    Mrs Linda Miller , the lead petitioner spoke in support of the petition setting out the recent past history of the site and the current position., explaining that the present  position whereby the tennis club had been offered a longer tem lease which gave a measure of security to the tennis club had arisen as a direct result of the publicity generated by the petition. In reality however, it represented little more than a stay of execution.

 

20.3    The Chair, Councillor Bowden responded in the following terms:

 

            “To date no planning application has been received for development of this privately owned site. If and when an application is received it will be subject to the usual statutory publicity and any representations received in response will be considered as part of the determination process.

 

Planning policy in the Local Plan and the submission City Plan aims to protect sports facilities and places an onus on owners and potential developer to demonstrate that they have met the tests in the policy. The policy requires (amongst other things) that any developer demonstrates that the land is not important open space; that there is no local deficiency in outdoor recreation space; that the land can be retained for recreation if part of the site is developed or the land has been marketed at a price that reflects its use and condition for at least a year.”

 

20.4    RESOLVED – That the content of the petition and the Chair’s response be received and noted.

 

20b     Written Questions

 

            (i) Future Use – Hove Park Depot

 

20.5    The following written question had been submitted in advance of the meeting by Ms V Paynter:

 

            “The 26 April, 2010 Children & Young People Committee agenda, at 3.16 confirmed that Hove Park’s Depot enjoys protected use under covenant. There is an historic failed indoor bowls application for the site; and now seizure is sought for a Government –run, new build Free School. Adjacent on three sides are City Park, the only employment site in Hove to be given Article 4 protection, the 5 – times over Listed Engineerium and the Miniature Railway, with its leasehold control of that section of the park.

 

            Why has no planning brief ever been prepared for this important site and can we have one now?”

 

20.6    The Chair, Councillor Bowden responded in the following terms:

 

“Whilst acknowledging this is an important site, the priorities for production of briefs are set out in the business plan for the directorate. These are intended to facilitate appropriate development of sites critical to the strategy for development set out in the City Plan. It is essential that we produce these briefs for key sites such as Toads Hole Valley.

 

We will take into consideration the request for a brief for this site when prioritising the work14/15.”

 

 

20.7    Following the Chair’s response Ms Paynter stated that there were a number of sensitive sites around the city and enquired whether and what consideration would be given to seeking to protect these sites, citing the Sackville Estate as an example.

 

20.8    The Chair explained that this went beyond the subject of the original question, but noted what had been said by the Head of Planning and Public Protection in terms of a balance needing to be found when updating the City Plan. The Plan was due to be updated in 2014/15, further consideration would be given to sites to be included at that time.

 

20.9    RESOLVED – That the content of the question and the Chair’s response be received and noted.

 

            (ii) i360 – Progress

 

20.10  The following written question had been submitted in advance of the meeting by Mrs S Montford on behalf of the Brighton Society:

 

            “The area of the seafront opposite Regency Square is suffering from serious blight as a result of the failure of the i360 developers to start work on their scheme for an observation spire. How long does the Council intend to wait for developers to find the capital they need, and if they fail to start construction within that timescale, when and how does the Council expect the blight to be alleviated.”

 

20.11  The Chair, Councillor Bowden responded in the following terms:

 

“The area directly opposite Regency Square is land under the ownership of the West Pier Trust and is therefore not directly under council control.  The Council does own the land to either side, which is often referred to as the “old paddling pool site” (to the East) and “the old boating lake” (to the West).  The i360 project will incorporate hard landscaping to both of these areas but the i360 itself and the Heritage Centre will be erected on land which is retained by the West Pier Trust. 

 

Despite this situation, significant funding, is being allocated from the Council’s Local Transport Plan capital programme to undertake essential strengthening to support the promenade pavement and the road above it and this will enable the re-instatement of  the arches on both sides of the old West Pier site and allow them to be brought back into use. 

 

It is expected that the total cost of the works will be approximately £4 million by the time of final completion in 2014/15.   

           

While this work would have taken place in conjunction with the i360 building works, it will now be completed in advance.  Work to the western side has progressed significantly and the new arches which re-instate the original Victorian construction (but with a larger interior) will be marketed in the New Year to small businesses.

 

Work to the eastern side will start this month.  This will provide new beach chalets to be let on a long lease.  Both of these important initiatives will bring a much needed boost to this area of the seafront.  They will also ensure there is activity and interest during the winter months. This will also assist businesses in the area who have more difficult trading conditions during the winter season.

 

In terms of the i360 project, there is work that could be further explored with the West Pier Trust if there is significant delay to the project.  Some of this has already commenced.  There is an initiative underway to resolve the appearance and dismantle the portacabin which is no longer being used by the West Pier Trust.  The Council is also informed that the Trust are planning re-decoration and some clearing of the site in the Autumn. They have informed the Council they will be calling upon their membership to assist with this and intend to launch this at their AGM in a few weeks time.”

 

20.12  RESOLVED – That the content of the question and the Chair’s response be received and noted.

 

Presentation by David Marks i360

 

            It was noted that the Schedule detailing current progress in respect of City Regeneration Projects (Item 28) included reference to the i360 project. The Chair explained that he was aware that Mr David Marks of Marks Barfield (the developers) was present at the meeting and considered that it was appropriate for him to address the Committee in respect of the current position.

 

20.13  Mr Marks stated that he was glad to be afforded the opportunity to speak and to describe the work that had been going on behind the scenes to secure delivery of the i360. Mr Marks explained that in July of the previous year in the wake of the continuing global financial crisis, the council had agreed to provide a loan, to help unlock the stalled i360 project, Marks Barfield had also put funding towards the scheme, as had an ethical venture capital firm and the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership.

 

20.14  Notwithstanding that the private sector investment partners had also remained committed to the scheme for a considerable period of time and had expressed their pleasure that a way forward had been found they had subsequently very reluctantly withdrawn within weeks of work due to start on site. They had explained that the reasons for that had more to do with the market and market sentiment for their funds than the project which was considered to be resilient and financially viable.

 

20.15  Having discussed the situation with council’s officers and the LEP, the developers had resolved to solve the problem by seeking other private sector investors to plug the gap. He wanted to re-iterate that the whole i360 team were committed to the project. A lot of work had taken place to secure another investor. this took time as once an investor had been identified and was interested in the project they would need to review and carry out due diligence on over 100 separate documents plus drawings and specifications before they could sign off internally on the  investment. After a slow down over the summer months he was pleased to be able to report that the developers were currently in discussion with 3 separate investor groups.

 

20.16  Councillor Hawtree stated that he considered it was important to clarify that the “loan” referred to would be secured by the Council by accessing borrowing externally at preferential rates and then passing it on at commercial rates to the developer. To date no funds had been drawn down under that arrangement and the Council had not applied its own funds either. To date there had been no cost or risk to Council taxpayers of Brighton and Hove.

 

20.17  Councillor Mears stated that notwithstanding all that had been said the Council had leant its support to the principal of the scheme over a number of years. There were on-going issues which needed to be resolved and there was an expectation that works should commence on site in the foreseeable future, with a reasonable timeframe for completion the scheme to be given. Councillor Cox concurred and enquired regarding the costs to the Council so far in renovating that area of the seafront to date including work to the arches and the total cost for completion of those works. It was explained that the works would cost £4m to complete and that a written breakdown would be provided for Councillor Cox and for Members of the Committee.

 

20.18  The Executive Director, Environment, Development and Housing stated that regular update meetings took place in order to ensure that the project moved forward and guidance was given as appropriate. Although concrete date(s) could not be given as yet preparatory works had been undertaken in anticipation of commencement of the main scheme.

 

20.19  RESOLVED – That the current position be noted.

 

20c     Deputations

 

            Medina House Planning Brief

 

20.20  A Deputation was presented by Mrs T Bahcheli in respect of the Planning Brief for Medina House. The Deputation was presented in the following terms:

           

 

“The deputation supports the planning brief in broad terms.  It will express support for the principle to retain and convert Medina House, and that any new building will not overpower Medina House.

 

It will express support for the recognition of the part Medina House plays in the character and appearance of the conservation area, as well as the qualities of the building itself.  

 

            It will support the work undertaken by the City Council and Cluttons on proving the viability of a scheme that maintains Medina House.

 

We will support the recognition given the protection of neighbour amenity at the site.

 

We raise the question of the policy context, and the replacement of Local Plan policies with City Plan policies, as and when they are adopted.  The brief relies on detailed Local Plan policies at present.”

 

20.21  The Chair, Councillor Bowden responded in the following  terms:

 

“The support given to the Medina House Planning Brief is welcomed.  The local plan policies that are referred to in the brief will indeed be replaced in due course when the Local Plan is superseded by the City Plan part 2 document. Work on the City Plan Part 2 is due to commence in 2016 and it is anticipated that Local Plan policies dealing with historic environment and design issues, such as those quoted in the brief, will be effectively transferred to the new City Plan Part 2.

 

The council is confident that there will not be a policy void and that Medina House will continue to benefit from appropriate policies during the future preparation of planning documents and the replacement of the Local Plan. “

 

20..22 RESOLVED – That the content of the Deputation and the Chair’s response be noted and received.