Agenda item - BH2024/03067 - Western Esplanade Pond, Fountain and Public Toilets, Western Esplanade, Hove - Full Planning

1.    The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.    Susan Howard addressed the committee as a resident and stated that local residents welcome the plans, however, they objected to the privatisation of the open space. The high fencing will destroy the setting, as will the proposed building, which is considered inappropriate. The development will be a step change in the landscape character. The committee were asked to remove the container building.

3.    Graeme Kerr addressed the committee as a resident and stated that the fencing at the café would be some 20m away from the sand courts and 2.4m in height and this was to keep people out of what was traditionally a public area. The fencing is too high. 2m in height in some places and 2.4m in others.

4.    Ward Councillor Cattell addressed the committee and stated that they considered the Hove Beach Park to be a success, the first new park in 100 years, which is supported by the West Hove group. It was noted that sports bring health benefits. The fencing is high. Against the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the development is considered to cause less than substantial harm, when weighed against the balance of harm. The committee were asked to agree with the officer recommendation to approve.

5.    Katie Mintram addressed the committee as the applicant and stated that they had been operating in the city for 18 years on the Brighton site. The design of the development was to connect the sand courts, seating and café. The venue would be intergenerational. The beach house would be used for school groups and pedestrians would be able to wander through the site. The gates would be open during opening hours. The courts would be pay-to-play. It was considered that children would be secure within the fencing, which is also to stop balls flying out of the site and people in. All state schools will receive 10 hours per week free. It will be a safe place to meet, safe and good for the community, where all generations are served.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.    Councillor Nann was informed that the site levels change and the sand was an asset worth some £38,000 on top of the sub-base. The sand will be topped up every one/two years. The fence height is to stop people getting in because sand tends to be more inviting than other areas such as tennis courts, and to keep balls getting out.

7.    Councillor Robinson was informed that Perspex fencing would require cleaning and is too expensive to use over such a large area. The applicant has looked at all sorts of designs and they want to keep the pond. The site needs to be secure for schools’ attendance. The beach house location could only move closer to the promenade if the pond were removed. The case officer noted that the northeast corner was the location that interrupted views least. It was note that boundary fencing details of materials and design will need to be submitted by condition. The posts have a metal core with a wooden surround.

8.    Councillor Thomson was informed that nursery groups will be able to use the site for free, and anyone can sit in the area without spending money. The beach house is an important part of the development and would be approximately 11 to 12% of the site. It was noted that the pond was historically a fountain, and this had fallen into disrepair. The applicant wishes to upgrade the fountain. The sand on the courts will exert strong pressure on the fence line, hence the large posts.

9.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the application was for the area covered by both the pond and the café. The café makes the application viable. It was noted that 6 sand courts were hoped for, but only three fit the site. Multiple sand sports would be possible.

10. Councillor Theobald was informed that the main public toilets were in the former bowls club building, now in use as a toilet, and an accessible toilet will be located in the café. There will be two within the sand courts area, in the beach house. The public toilets will be 115m metres from the site.

11. Toni Manuel (Seafront Development Manager) stated that the development responded to the needs for community and public consultation had taken place. Options using a single operator or in-house management had been looked at, and the decision was made to use an independent operator with the facility open to the community, not a private membership club.

12. Councillor Winder was informed that the trees located on other areas of the overall Kingsway-to-the-Sea development will be planted and maintained.

Debate

13. Councillor Nann considered the local business offer would revitalise the area and asked the committee to approve the application.

14. Councillor Shanks considered the application to detract from the area was not appropriate for the space.

15. Councillor Theobald stated they were annoyed at the closure of the current toilets. The councillor did consider that the applicant was doing a good job, and the beach house design looked great. The fencing did not offend. It was good to see sports, and this scheme would be a compliment to the seafront.

16. Councillor Thomson did not object to the overall scheme and felt it was great to be open to all. The councillor supported the application.

17. Councillor Robinson considered the fencing to be an issue and would like changes to be made.

18. Councillor Sheard considered the development well designed for the area and struggled to see the fencing as a major issue. The fencing needs to be in place to protect the investment and stop volleyballs flying high. In the context of the area the councillor considered the scheme the missing piece. The councillor supported the application.

19. Councillor Winder considered the balance of consideration: the sea front was a unique place; the fencing was a worry as it stopped views.

20. Councillor Earthey was not happy with the fencing but understood the need. The councillor considered the scheme to be the missing piece of the jigsaw and supported the application.

21. Councillor Loughran considered the application to be very difficult, they supported the use of the site, however, they were bothered by the intervisibility.

Vote

22. A vote was taken, and by 6 to 3 the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

23. 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.