Agenda item - Deputations from members of the public.

A list of deputations received by the due date of the 21 March 2013 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

100.1          The Mayor reported that one deputation had been received from members of the public and invited Professor Watts as the spokesperson for the deputation to come forward and address the council.

100.2          Professor Watts thanked the Mayor and stated that:

“This deputation is brought by the below named Societies and Associations on behalf of their members and by individuals in the public interest of all residents of Brighton who are concerned for the preservation and protection of the amenity provided by the Brighton Marina. The deputation is consequent upon amendments to planning permission BH2006/01124 sought by a current S73 planning application BH2012/04048.

               The Brighton and Hove City Council are the superior landlord and the freeholder of Brighton Marina and as such have Corporate Responsibility under the Brighton Marina Act 1968 Part V Section 58 (2) (b) for ensuring the safety of residents and users of Brighton Marina. This is separate to the granting of Planning Permission.

               1. Reference the entrance to the harbour and alterations to the Spending Beach. The Marina was designed as a safe harbour for all boats and sailors of professional and amateur ability. The Spending Beach is made up of two parts – the shingle and the armouring. The armouring at Brighton Marina is the ‘akmons’ – the strange shaped concrete blocks. This absorbs the energy of the waves and prevents the waves from reflecting back on each other and increasing their energy. The applicant in the 2006 planning application introduced ‘wave chambers’ to absorb the energy and removed the armouring and said this was the best solution. The Council approved the application. Now the same applicant is proposing to remove the wave chambers and introduce over 300 piles into the Spending Beach necessitating the removal of all of the armouring. The applicant now says this is the best solution but in truth does not know which is the best solution because there is insufficient evidence that a model has been tested in a marine laboratory with wave machine. In order to push the application through the planning process it appears the applicant is willing to put the lives of yachtsmen and other sailors at risk. Before the Marina was built (1971-1979) a model was tested for three and a half years in the largest marine laboratory in Europe under all climatic conditions and the result has stood the test of time. Past experience indicates that driving a huge number of piles into the Spending Beach will fracture the original sea bed under the Spending Beach and could in a worst case scenario destabilise the Western breakwater.

               2. The applicant seeks to put an underwater car park in the tidal harbour. It is a huge structure, three storeys high and the area of two football fields. It will displace an estimated 53,000 cubic metres of water and take up 12% of the Outer Harbour. It is proposed to drive sheet steel piles into the sea floor to form a coffer dam and to pump out water in order to construct the car park structure. This will fracture the chalk sea bed and could destabilise the wall that keeps the tidal water from the reclaimed land. It could be termed an underwater hazard under Section 24 of the Brighton Marina Act. The structure will reduce the efficiency of sluice gates that serve to change the water in the Inner Harbour and the anaerobic conditions in the inner harbour could become an environmental concern. Access for emergency services to the car park appears not to comply with Section 35 of the East Sussex Act 1981.

               3. The main drainage in the Marina is mainly gravity with three pumping chambers. The original design was for 850 dwellings, a hotel and retail etc. The standby capacity was 3.5 days. According to Southern Water the original pipes are now 40 years old and have been ‘sleeved’ twice reducing the size from 300mm to 200mm. Southern Water estimate the standby capacity is now 3.5 hours. Adding 192 dwellings to this is an environmental concern.

               4. The micro-climate at the base of the proposed F1/F2 towers will be unacceptable. The applicant admitted in 2006 that pedestrians would not be able to stand around. The ‘venturi’ effect between the blocks in a westerly gale could be dangerous and pedestrians caught by wind could be injured. It appears that this has never been tested using criteria taken from the ‘as built’ Marina. Wind data is from Shoreham Airport.

               The undersigned request that Brighton and Hove Council exercise their powers under the Brighton Marina Act 1968 Part V Section 58 (2) (b). We seek the Council’s reassurance that all points raised will be rigorously tested by independent experts before any further development is considered.”

100.3          Councillor Bowden replied,

               “I understand that the purpose of the deputation is to bring to the Council’s attention, non planning statutory provisions under the Brighton Marina act 1968 and the Marina and Coastal Access Act 2009.  Consistent with previous practice, I would not expect the Company to submit plans to the Council under the 1968 Act unless and until such time that planning permission has been obtained. In other words if planning permission is granted that is entirely without prejudice to the separate requirements of the 1968 Act.

               The Marine Management Organisation does not have any planning jurisdiction at the Marina but any additional requirements under the 2009 Act to have a license from the Marine Management Organisation will be dealt with by that body.”

100.4          The Mayor thanked Professor Watts for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation. He explained that the points had been noted and the deputation would be referred to the Economic Development & Culture Committee for consideration. The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.