Agenda item - BH2012/04048 - Land at Brighton Marina comprising Outer Harbour West Quay and adjoining land - Removal or Variation of Condition

Application for variation of condition 70 of application BH2006/01124 as amended by BH2012/00042 (Major mixed use development comprising new engineered basement structure to create platform on Spending Beach and West Quay, 853 residential units in 11 buildings ranging from 6-40 storeys, Class A, D1, D2 and B1 uses, Lifeboat Station, 496 parking spaces, alterations to pontoons and moorings, new bridges, informal and formal recreation space and alterations to access arrangements) to allow revisions to basement structures over Spending Beach and West Quay with associated landscaping and engineering works to accommodate revised car parking layout.  Total number of car parking spaces and main access point to remain unchanged.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Application for variation of condition 70 of application BH2006/01124 as amended by BH2012/00042 (Major mixed use development comprising new engineered basement structure to create platform on Spending Beach and West Quay, 853 residential units in 11 buildings ranging from 6-40 storeys, Class A, D1, D2 and B1 uses, Lifeboat Station, 496 parking spaces, alterations to pontoons and moorings, new bridges, informal and formal recreation space and alterations to access arrangements) to allow revisions to basement structures over Spending Beach and West Quay with associated landscaping and engineering works to accommodate revised car parking layout.  Total number of car parking spaces and main access point to remain unchanged.

(1)                   It was noted that this application had the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

Introduction from Officer(s)

(2)                   The Major Projects Officer, Maria Seale, introduced this application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings; attention was also drawn to matters listed on the Late List. Since the closure of the Late List 9 additional letters of objection had been received, and 1 from the Brighton Marina Residents Association withdrawing their objection; no new material matters had been raised. In 2006 permission was granted for a major mixed use scheme comprising 853 residential units and a 40 storey tower; the permission had commenced in 2008 and was currently live. The original scheme involved two platforms to be constructed; one over the spending beach and one to the south of the West Quay public house. Three layers of car park had originally been proposed under the spending beach, and this structure involved wave chambers. The current application proposed the relocation of the parking from under the spending beach to the development to the south of the West Quay public house and the creation of 3 new levels of basement parking. The access point to the parking and overall number of parking spaces would remain the same.

(3)                   A new pile structure over the Spending Beach was now proposed, and the application was considered a minor material amendment to a major scheme. The amendment did not alter the size or scale of the scheme, and in making a decision the principle of the original development could not be revisited. The Case Officer had requested some new plans, but these largely related to matters of clarification. The primary reason for the application was to make the first phase of the development more viable by providing the parking upfront without the need to provide temporary measures, and the use of piling would be less complex. Revised environmental assessments had been undertaken, and all expert consultees had responded without raising any concerns. Members were also made aware that an almost identical scheme was granted permission in 2007 – although this had now lapsed. The application was a minor amendment to help bring forward a major mixed scheme. The application was recommended to be minded to grant for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speakers and Questions

(4)                   Mr Powell and Professor Watts spoke in objection to the application in their capacity as local residents. They stated that the car parks would be in the wrong place, and some residents would have to walk approximately 250 metres. The ecology of the Marina would also be destroyed, and access for the disabled would not work, and residents would be disturbed continuously by noise. The scheme was not sustainable, and the provision of photovoltaic panels had been removed from the application. The 40 storey building would tower over the Marina and the application would mean the loss of 80 berths. The original 2006 permission was not considered of a high enough standard, and the situation had changed affecting the engineering – this could leave the wave wall vulnerable. Questions were raised in relation to the Council’s powers to determine planning matters at the Marina.

(5)                   Councillor Davey asked for more information on what had changed that might affect the engineering. In response Professor Watts explained that the traffic was extremely congested, and the ramps were not adequate for this. Councillor Davey went on to ask about the risk to ecology, and it was explained that there were starlings that roosted under the West Quay public house that would be affected; as well as cockles and sand shrimp. The ecology of the inner harbour was also at risk as the changes could affect the sluice gates and consequently if they became blocked the anaerobic conditions in the inner harbour could change encouraging the growth of algae, and potential increase in bad odours.

(6)                   Councillor Robins asked for more information in relation to a document shown in the objectors’ presentation. In response the Senior Solicitor explained that the Brighton Marina Act gave the Council reasonably to determine planning applications within the Marina; there were various other consents that the applicant would or may need to apply for, but a separation of the Council as the planning authority and the Council corporately were noted.

(7)                   Councillor Mears spoke in her capacity as the Local ward Councillor, and stated that permission had been granted in June 2006 at a special meeting of the then Planning Applications Sub-Committee. The application would create 3 levels of underground parking that would be visible at low-tide as a large concrete wall, and would not enhance the Marina. The report did also not address the changes to the sustainability measures and the removal of earlier features of the scheme that made it a ‘green project’. The scheme had also changed in terms of affordable housing and the 3 bed family units no longer formed part of the scheme. Councillor Mears concluded by stating that she did not consider this application to be a minor amendment.

(8)                   Mr Goodall and Mr Towner spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant. They stated that in 2007 an identical application had been approved, but this had lapsed in 2010; the application did not seek to introduce additional car parking or look different, but bought the car parking forward to make the scheme more viable. The whole scheme had been put on hold 5 years ago, and this would kick start it and deliver some of the s106 monies upfront. There had been work undertaken to look at both physical and mathematical models, and this had demonstrated that the piled structure on the spending beach was better as it was more porous and would create less wave deflection. It was also stated that the issues in relation to ecology highlighted by the objectors were incorrect.

(9)                   Councillor Hyde asked about the water circulation, and for further details to give assurance. In response Mr Towner explained that the coffer dams would not block any of the sluice gates; if there was water level difference water would flow into the inner harbour and ensure a flow of water; there would not be the changes to the conditions as suggested.

(10)               It was confirmed for Councillor Cobb that the applicants had called the piles ‘porous’ to mean the gaps between them, rather than the actual materials.

(11)               Councillor Davey asked how the application made the scheme more viable, and in response Mr Goodall explained that the units would be more marketable as they could be sold with the parking spaces. It was also highlighted that, following more tests and subject to approval of the scheme, the applicant would be ready to commence with the new permission in September 2013.

Questions for Officer and Decision Making Process

(12)               The Major Projects Officer highlighted that the amended plans were submitted at her request to help clarify some minor matters of discrepancy. The photovoltaic panels had been removed as they were no longer required to meet the sustainability standards. There would also be no loss of berths as they would be relocated where there was spare capacity.

(13)               Councillor Gilbey asked about different levels of traffic, and it was explained that the transport assessment had shown the proposed changes would lead to a reduction in the estimated use; monitoring had also been undertaken to provide evidence that traffic levels at the Marina had changed little in recent years.

(14)               In response to series of questions from Councillor Hyde the following response were given: there was no evidence to suggest that the harbour would need to be closed during construction, and this would be secured through a construction methodology condition. The Sustainability Officer was satisfied with the proposals in the report, starlings were not endangered by the scheme, and the construction was not under the West Quay public house where they nested. The Senior Solicitor covered the response in relation to Marina Management Organisation under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and explained that the two regimes operated in parallel and the applicant would need to apply to the MMO for a licence; this did not affect the powers of the Council in relation to the Town and Country Planning Act. Lastly in relation to concerns about the visible concrete wall it was acknowledged that this would be visible at lower tide, but it was considered acceptable in the context of the other visible concrete walls at the Marina.

(15)               It was confirmed for Councillor Cobb that there had been 4 deeds of variation to the s106 agreement since the 2006 permission; these had all been dealt with under delegated powers.

(16)               A vote was taken and planning permission was granted on a vote of 8 to 2 with 1 abstention.

192.2    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and the policies and guidance set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report.

Note: Councillor Bowden was not present during the consideration and vote on this application.