Agenda item - BH2015/03285 - Land Adjacent to the American Express Community Stadium, Village Way, Brighton - Full Planning

Construction of a 3no storey plus basement building comprising of a hotel at ground and upper floors (C1) providing total of 150no bedrooms, restaurant, bar, reception, gymnasium, meeting room, lounge and plant facilities and provision of Stereotactic Radiotherapy Unit (D1) at basement level, incorporating hard and soft landscaping, creation of new access, provision of 62no car parking spaces and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Construction of a 3no storey plus basement building comprising of a hotel at ground and upper floors (C1) providing total of 150no bedrooms, restaurant, bar, reception, gymnasium, meeting room, lounge and plant facilities and provision of Stereotactic Radiotherapy Unit (D1) at basement level, incorporating hard and soft landscaping, creation of new access, provision of 62no car parking spaces and other associated works.

 

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

 

Officer Presentation

 

2)               The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings; attention was also drawn to matters on the late list as well as a letter of support from two local MPs and additional information that had been sent to Committee Members from the applicant. The application sought permission for a three-storey, plus basement hotel; consisting of 150 bedrooms, 62 parking spaces and a radiotherapy unit. The site was adjacent to the north-east of the American Express Stadium and the site was located within the boundaries of both the city and the Lewes District Council; the District Council would also be required to determine the same application.

 

3)               In relation to design to the  stadium was the prominent feature of the area, and it was considered that proposed design of the hotel would lead to the loss of the ‘nestling’ effect; furthermore the loss of the green bund and the addition of the massing and linear form of the hotel would detract from the stadium. The proposed building would appear block-like from the front as the curved elements of the building were at the rear. The design issues had been highlighted to the applicant at both the pre-application stage with Members, and during the consideration of the application when the Case Officer had invited the applicant to present to an independent design panel, which they had declined to do. Concern had also been raised at the pre-application stage in relation to the lack of a green features. The South Downs National Park had also responded to suggest the building be more sculpted to better fit into its context.

 

4)               The applicant had also not been willing to agree to the proposed s106 contributions which had been identified for sustainable transport and sustainable employment, notwithstanding  these being reduced. The applicant had made an offer around sustainable transport the day before the Committee meeting, but with a caveat that was not considered acceptable to the Local Planning Authority. Where applicants disputed s106 contributions the usual practice was to involve the District Valuer to seek justification on the grounds of viability; however, in this instance this had not been done. The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

 

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

 

5)               Councillor Marsh spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor; she highlighted that she represented the views of the other two Councillors in her ward. She advocated strong support for the scheme as the stadium had been an important success, both within her ward and the city. The stadium had regionally important economic benefits, including the delivery of local jobs, and had international standing with events such as the Rugby World Cup. The proposed hotel would continue to build on this positive trend. The proposed design would complement the stadium, and would be modest in comparison to the stadium. The application had support from a range of stakeholders, as well local MPs. The Committee were invited to approve the application for the economic benefits to the local area.

 

6)               Councillor Marsh confirmed in response to the Chair that she had not attended the pre-application briefing for Members.

 

7)               Martin Perry spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant. He stated that the site was very constrained and triangular in shape; the applicant did not own the adjacent car park and therefore could not use or build on that site. The comments at the pre-application stage and had been considered; however, lowering the scale of the building would require an increase in the footprint. The proposals were designed by the same architect as the stadium and the ethos had been to enhance the stadium. Green walls and roofs were not considered appropriate, and would look out of place against the stadium. The applicant had also had advice that the views were not considered harmful to Stanmer Park. The application had overwhelming support, and the Committee were invited to consider if the harm would outweigh all the benefits of the scheme to the local area when balancing the decision before them.

 

8)               In response to the Chair the applicant explained when they were aware of the design concerns a report was produced to explain how the architects had reached the design that was being proposed. The option to go to an independent design panel was not considered worth pursuing due to the constrained nature of the site, and the applicant was of the view that their architects had fully explored all other design options.

 

9)               In response to Councillor Miller the applicant explained that a softer design had not been pursued as the design was considered to compliment the stadium and the addition of green features was not considered appropriate. In response to further queries from Councillor O’Quinn the applicant reiterated that the proposed design was considered appropriate given the setting, and would not lose the curved features of the stadium.

 

10)            Councillor Miller asked a further question in relation to the loss of the green bund around the site, and the applicant explained that they were of the view the green bund had never been a natural addition to the site. The site already had landscaping to soften the impact, and the advice of their architects was that green features would look inappropriate against the backdrop of the stadium.

 

11)            In response to Councillor Barradell it was explained that the cancer treatment centre linked to other treatment facilities in the stadium; the funding was likely to be private, but the NHS would be able to buy into the service. In response to further queries from Councillor Bennett it was explained that the applicant was currently in talks with the NHS about the use of the facility.

 

12)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that the level of parking was considered sufficient for the size of the hotel and the provision of additional parking by excavating the basement was not considered necessary.

 

13)            In response to Councillor Wares the applicant explained that they had not been asked to enter into a dialogue with, or provide the Local Planning Authority information in relation to viability.

 

Questions for Officers

 

14)            In response to same matter raised by Councillor Wares in relation to viability Officers provided information in relation to the initial proposed level of s106, and the reduced level that the Local Planning Authority had put to the applicant. The Case Officer also confirmed that she had written to the applicant setting out there was an expectation to involve the District Valuer if the proposed s106 contributions were going to be disputed on the grounds of viability.

 

15)            In response to Councillor Miller the method used to clarify s106 contributions in relation to transport was clarified; in particular how this related to mitigation of impact. It was also clarified that the reduction in car parking spaces on the site for the stadium would be 156, but this loss had not been factored into the total s106 contributions.

 

16)            In response to a further question from Councillor Miller the Case Officer clarified that there was a light-well for the basement, but it was appropriate for the treatment rooms to be enclosed given their use. The distance from the hotel to the stadium was also clarified.

 

17)            In response to Councillor Barradell it was confirmed that the neighbouring car park was not owned by the applicant; the actual site that formed the application currently had consent for use as a car park. In relation to the cancer treatment centre; the Local Planning Authority had confirmation from the NHS that they would use the facility.

 

18)            In response to Councillor West it was clarified that the bund had not been built to the specification in the original consent; there had been a subsequent planning application to reduce the height and remove the planting; this application would completely remove the bund, replacing it with the hotel.

 

19)            The Case Officer confirmed to Councillor Wares that the initial request from the applicant to meet with the Local Planning Authority had been declined as no consultations responses had been received at that point and meeting would not otherwise be conducive; however, a meeting was offered by the Local Planning Authority later in the lifetime of the application, but no response was received.

 

20)            It was confirmed for Councillor Morris that management of the parking at the hotel site on match days would form part of the travel management plan were the application approved.

 

21)            It was confirmed for Councillor Barradell that the line of building closest to the stadium largely followed the line of stadium, though the curve reduced in places.

 

22)            It was confirmed for Councillor O’Quinn that the hotel would not be used for conferences.

 

23)            Officer explained, in response to the Chair, that the offer of s106 contributions from the applicant in relation to sustainable transport was not in line with standard procedure; which asked for the payment ahead of the scheme and the agreement was then for the authority to undertake the works.

 

Debate and Decision Making Process

 

24)            Councillor C. Theobald stated that, although she felt the design could be better, the scheme would blend well with the existing stadium and the form of building worked well the curves of the stadium. Whilst the loss of parking was regrettable, there were only two objections to the scheme and the benefits would outweigh the harm; the cancer treatment centre would also be a welcome addition.

 

25)            Councillor Miller noted the difficulty of the decision and recognised the economic and community benefits that the stadium and football club brought to the city. He went on to note that despite this the applicant had to be treated the same as for any other application, and he agreed with the position of Officers in relation to design which had been raised with the applicant at the pre-application stage. Given the level of proposed development in this area of the city it was important that the standard of design be good. He expressed concern in relation to the loss of parking and the potential impact this would have on match days. He added that the design did not complement the existing stadium and there was no mitigation for the loss of the green bund. For these reasons he would support the Officer recommendation.

 

26)            Councillor West noted that the National Park had been created since the stadium had been built; the stadium itself was of significant architectural merit and any scheme needed to work with it. The visual impact on the national park was important as it surrounded the site and Stanmer Park had views onto it; the South Downs National Park had also expressed a view as a Planning Authority. The replacement of the green bund with the hotel was not considered acceptable, and, whilst, the economic and community benefits of the football club were recognised this not considered to outweigh issues around the design and the impact on the National Park. For these reasons he would support the Officer recommendation.

 

27)            Councillor Bennett stated that she did not feel the impact of the proposal would be significant given the setting against the stadium; whilst she felt the design could be better, she stated she would vote against the Officer recommendation.

 

28)            Councillor Barradell stated that she welcomed the principle of the development, but she felt the proposed design was not appropriate for the area. She expressed concern in relation to the position of the applicant around s106 contributions, and noted that the relationship between the applicant and the Local Planning Authority could have been better. She stated it was unlikely she would vote against the Officer recommendation.

 

29)            Councillor O’Quinn stated that she agreed with the comments made by Councillors Miller and West during the debate. She found the building to be stark, and didn’t believe it would fit in with the stadium. She felt more could have been done to soften the design; whilst she agreed with the principle of the development the design needed to be high quality due to the prominent position.

 

30)            Councillor Morris stated that the proposal was different from the stadium and the ‘starkness’ would not compliment it.

 

31)            Councillor Hamilton stated that he had sat on the Planning Committee that granted consent to the stadium; he did not accept that the proposal would harm views onto the National Park, and he felt the issues around s106 contributions could be overcome. For these reasons he would not support the Officer recommendation.

 

32)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that the relationship between the applicant and the Local Planning Authority was regrettable; however, he was of the view that the design was appropriate; it would match the stadium and be of the same standard. For this reason he would not support the Officer recommendation.

 

33)            Councillor Wares stated that he was indifferent to the proposed design, but did not feel it would be significantly harmful enough to refuse the scheme given the wider context of the area; he stated he could not support the Officer recommendation for the first reason in relation to design. He went on to add that were the Committee minded to grant the application then the full level of s106 contributions should be provided by the applicant unless they could prove a viability case to justify reduced contributions. Overall he stated that he would not support the Officer recommendation.

 

34)            In response to Councillor Barradell it was confirmed by Officers that were the Committee minded to grant the application the settlement  of the s106 could be delegated to Officers.

 

35)            At this point Councillors: West, Wares, Barradell, Morris and Inkpin-Leissner spoke again in the debate and reiterated their earlier points.

 

36)            The Chair stated that she agreed with the Officer recommendation. It was important  that the Committee consider the merits of the scheme before them regardless of who the applicant was; with this in mind it was important that anything built on the site be of appropriately high standard of design. She also agreed with the points raised by Councillor West in relation to the impact on the National Park. For these reasons she would support the Officer recommendation.

 

37)            A vote was taken of the eleven Members present; the vote was tied with 5 in support, 5 against and 1 abstention; the Officer recommendation to refuse was then carried on the Chair’s casting vote.

 

142.2    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

 

Reasons for Refusal:

 

1.    The proposed development, by reason of its design, detailing and form would fail to provide a suitable standard of design and appearance for new development, would relate poorly to the adjoining stadium development and would create a poor contrast with the stadium building and in addition would be architecturally inappropriate to the Downland setting and would adversely affect the setting of the listed Stanmer Park. As such the proposal is contrary to policies QD1, QD2, NC8 and HE11 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005 and policy SA5 of the emerging City Plan Part One.

 

2.    The application, in the absence of detailed measures to promote and encourage sustainable transport and provide a legal obligation for highway improvements, fails to provide for the travel demand it creates. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies TR1 and QD28 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and policy CP7 of the emerging City Plan Part One.

 

3.    The application, in the absence of detailed measures to promote and encourage sustainable economic development and provide a legal obligation for improved job opportunities for local residents, fails to provide for a sustainable economic development. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy QD28 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and policies CP2 and CP7 of the emerging City Plan Part One.

 

Informatives:

 

1.     In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible.

 

Note: Councillor Mac Cafferty was not present at the meeting.