Agenda item - BH2020/00442 - Black Rock Site and Surroundings, Madeira Drive, Brighton - Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2020/00442 - Black Rock Site and Surroundings, Madeira Drive, Brighton - Full Planning

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

Minutes:

1.      Wayne Nee (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report and informed the committee that following finalising of the report, the Environment Agency (AE) had submitted further comments and further letters of objection had been received relating to highway issues. Some minor changes to the conditions have been made available to the committee via addendum to the agenda. The officer commented that the PowerPoint presentation slides 4, 5 and 6 showed the proposed block plan not the existing. The AE comments related to the sea wall design. The County Ecologist comments agreed with the table top assessment that had already taken place. The letters of objection expressed concerns the proposed access to Black Rock via the marina would encourage access to the ASDA car park.

 

2.      It was noted that an in-depth presentation had been provided by officers in advance of the meeting and was included on the council website detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs which also showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development. The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of development, and the impact on the visual amenities of the public areas, the listed buildings, the street scene and the wider Conservation Areas, as well as the setting of listed buildings within the locality of the site. Other main considerations include the impact on highways, changes of use, ecology, trees, neighbouring amenity, and sustainable drainage.

 

Questions for Officers

 

3.    Councillor Littman was informed that the new conditions related to the sea wall design. The Reading Rooms use will be flexible with further clarification coming from the applicant. The consideration of the wildlife site formed a significant part of the decision process. The loss of the Local Wildlife Site (LWS) is an issue and extensive discussions were held at the pre-application stage. A very thorough assessment was held. The replacement site was considered on balance to be acceptable. The LWS will be supported in the new location. Condition 9 of the report relates to the submission of a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP), with condition 8 relating to the need for a Ecological Design Strategy assessment.

 

4.      David Farnham (Development and Transport Assessment Manager) informed Councillor Littman that the Black Rock design team has submitted an Approval In Principle (AIP) document to the Council’s Highways Structures team to agree on the results of the assessment and any remedial works going forward. This has been submitted and is being looked at. No conclusions or adoptions have been reached.

 

5.      Councillor Theobald was informed that the Volks railway being extended into the Marina did not form part of the scheme. The improvements to access would be for pedestrians and cyclists. The application allows Black Rock to be used for temporary events and changes to the coach parking are not proposed. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager stated that changes may come at a later date in order to allow safe crossing points for pedestrians. It was also confirmed by the case officer that the Kemptown slopes would have improved landscaping as part of the proposed scheme.

 

6.      Councillor Fishleigh was informed that cost of the new nature area did not form part of the application as it was not a planning consideration. The case officer commented that the landscaping conditions 8 & 9 covered this important element of the scheme. It was also noted that the multi use games area included in the scheme will be temporary to start with. The Development and Transport Manager informed the Councillor that the construction traffic routes to and from the site have not been agreed yet. They commented that under Condition 3 no development, including demolition, shall take place until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP will need to include construction traffic movements.

 

7.      Councillor Janio was informed by the Development and Transport Manager that the information provided by an applicant needed to be proportionate to the scheme submitted. For this application this did not include a model for the all the traffic issues created by developments across the city. The scheme has submitted information relating to traffic issues around Dukes Mound junction with A259 only.

 

8.      Councillor Osborne was informed that the late list conditions included a scoping report submitted to the Environment Agency (EA). The applicant’s agent, Alex Williams, stated that the sea wall condition in the late list related to how the wall would be set back on the beach. They also stated that the Water Framework Directive (WFD) assessment was not needed. The case officer confirmed that the EA had no further comments as the assessment was not needed.

 

Debate

 

9.      Councillor Janio commented that the Council should look at all the traffic and transport issues across the city. The Councillor stated they supported the scheme.

 

10.   Councillor Fishleigh expressed concerns regarding the effects of scheme on the traffic on A259, as previous and ongoing construction works have had a big impact on the city. The Councillor proposed two conditions be included in the recommendation: 1. Any changes to the A259 road layout would require traffic lights and 2. Construction traffic routes should not be through the city centre.

 

11.   The Planning Manager stated that with regard to No.2, the issues were already covered in the conditions of the officer recommendation. For No.1 the Members should consider the application before them. The Senior Solicitor agreed with the comments made by the Planning Manager and confirmed that an informative regarding construction traffic not going through the city centre was possible if the committee wished.

 

12.   Councillor Fishleigh noted the comments and expressed further concerns as the A259 Action Group were worried about the impact of construction traffic on the road.

 

13.   Councillor Miller supported Councillor Fishleigh’s comments regarding highways. Councillor Miller also felt that the proposed development was a great scheme and a good investment in the city as the site had been empty a long time. The committee were asked to support the proposal and to be careful of temporary uses suggested in the scheme.

 

14.   Councillor Theobald felt the scheme was complicated and it was a shame that the Volks railway would not be extended. The improvements to pedestrian and cycle ways were welcomed. Overall a good scheme for the Black Rock area.

 

15.   Councillor Shanks did not feel a condition relating to highways was necessary and wished the scheme to voted on as it stood.

 

16.   Councillor Hill requested a proposer and seconder for an informative relating to highways.

 

17.   Councillor Fishleigh proposed an informative to the scheme stating that construction traffic should not pass through Brighton city centre.

 

18.   Councillor Miller seconded the proposal.

 

19.   The Chair invited the committee to vote on the proposal and by a vote of 5 to 2, with 3 abstentions the new informative was agreed.

 

20.   The Chair invited the committee to vote on the application with the additional informative and by a unanimous vote planning permission was granted.

 

21.   Resolved: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the officer’s report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a Unilateral Undertaking and the Conditions and Informatives laid out in the officer’s report, SAVE THAT should the Unilateral Undertaking Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 2nd September 2020 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in Section 11 of the report.

 

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints