Agenda item - BH2023/02835 - Royal Pavilion Gardens, Pavilion Buildings, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The Case Officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.    Peter Wingate-Saul addressed the committee on behalf of Noth Laine Community Association and stated that they considered the 7 ft high railings an issue. 1.5m railings would be considered more appropriate by the association and The Regency Society. It is important that the railings can be seen over. The committee were requested to defer and adjust the height of the railings. The association understands the need to close the gardens on occasion, however, this would be best achieved by adding a condition or S106 agreement.

3.    John Tyler addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that they volunteer at the gardens and reported that there have been incidents at night in the gardens of plant vandalism and drug abuse. The public are vulnerable in the gardens at night. Please erect fences in line with Police recommendations.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.    Councillor Thomson was informed that the number of trees to be removed was 17. Previously it was 18, however one additional tree will now be retained. Conditions 6 and 7 relate to the retention of trees and condition 8 requires landscaping to be approved. The Arboricultural Officer was happy with the plans. It was noted that condition 14 dealt with railings and gates. The height of the railings, between 1.8m and 2.1m depended on the ground levels. It was noted by the Planning Manager that the Police were aware of ongoing issues in gardens. The Planning Team Leader stated the railings were to be restored where possible and replaced if not. The hooped railings are mid-20th century and not specific to the pavilion a grade I listed building.

5.    Councillor Theobald was informed by the Arboricultural Officer that no Elm trees were to be removed. The case officer noted that existing pedestrian access points were to be retained, details were to be provided by condition of the proposed gates either side of India Gate, the grass around the existing café was to be increased, the existing circular railings are to be removed and the existing roof light over the toilets is to be retained. The Planning Team Leader stated they understood both sides of the need for closure of the gardens and being open 24/7. The points on top the railings are an historic feature.

6.    Councillor Earthey was informed that a security report was undertaken which suggested higher railings, but it is considered that a lower hight of between 1.8m and 2.1m would be more appropriate and this would allow views and reduce impact.

7.    Councillor Nann was informed that the gardens will be open 24/7. The closure of the gardens will require separate agreement from the Council as the gates previously proposed have been removed from this application.

8.    Councillor Galvin was informed that a heritage crime risk assessment to consider security had been undertaken and that following review of the technical security across the site would include continued use of CCTV.

9.    Councillor Allen was informed that the toilets were being renovated, not rebuilt and they were under 200sqm, therefore did not require a BREEAM (sustainability) assessment.

Debate

10. Councillor Theobald considered there were a lot of trees to be lost, that most London parks close at night, and the railings were no good if the gardens stayed open 24/7. The councillor considered that those voting in favour of this application would need to take the blame for any incidents that occurred.

11. Councillor Nann considered that the gardens being open 24/7 did not cause crime.

12.Councillor Earthey considered that it was a pity about the loss of trees.

13.Councillor Thomson stated they were upset by the loss of trees, however, the arboriculturist had allayed their fears.

14.Councillor Cattell considered that every tree had been considered individually and noted there was ‘die off’ and disease. The heritage site needs to be protected. The councillor supported the application.

15.Councillor Sheard considered it a shame to lose the trees, however, they understood the reasons. The committee need to get the decision right for this symbol of the city. It was a shame the fencing needs to be so tall. The criminals were responsible for crime not the opening of the gardens.

16.Councillor Allen noted the prominent location in the city and considered the proposals to enhance the site, which needs to be accessible. They understood why the gates were removed as is the people’s Pavilion; however, the Police have noted the high levels of crime in the location, and it needs to be as safe as possible.

Vote

17. A vote was taken, and by 7 to 1 the committee agreed with the officer recommendation. (Councillor Shanks did not take part in the discussions or the decision-making process).

18. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives in the report.