Agenda item - BH2020/01951 - Land to rear of Hilton Brighton Metropole, 106-121 Kings Road, Brighton

1.    The Planning Manager introduced the report to the committee. The presentation covered the two applications for the site: Planning application and the Listed Building Consent applications. The applications were taken together for the purposes of questions and debate. However, the items were voted on separately.

Questions for the officers

2.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the loss of exhibition space at the Metropole Hotel was acceptable as some 6,000sqm would still be available for conferences. The proposed hotel will also include conference rooms. Brighton and Hove tourism and venues were consulted and support the application. It was considered that there would be no loss of large conference facilities to the city. It was noted that the seven rooms to be lost were in a poor condition and had not been used in recent years. The loading bays and underground car park for the Metropole Hotel are to be retained. The entrance to the car park on St Margaret’s Place is to be retained also.

3.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed that the 2018 Brighton and Hove Visitor Accommodation Study Update in City Plan Part Two showed a shortage of accommodation of the standard proposed. It was noted that the development did not attract community infrastructure levy (CIL) as it fell outside of the charging schedule. The urban design officer comments have been addressed in the revised scheme with upper floors set back. The urban design and heritage officers agree that this scheme also picks up the rhythm of the listed frontage.

4.    Councillor Ebel was informed that it was considered that the scheme included sufficient indoor cycle parking. It was noted that conditions would require detailed information on the design and massing of the corner tower as well as the biodiversity of the scheme and public realm design.

5.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the artistic component of the scheme would be agreed with local groups and ward councillors and council colleagues and would need to be site specific and not form part of the seafront.

6.    Councillor Miller was informed that the listed frontage would have a smooth painted finish, with the new building having a smooth painted render on St Margaret’s Place and terracotta cladding on Canon Place. Materials will be submitted to the Chairs briefing for agreement. The mansard roof will be of a light zinc colour to give a natural integrated appearance.

Debate

7.    Councillor Fishleigh welcomed the new investment into the city and expressed some concerns regarding design values. The councillor felt the design details should relate more to the surrounding city and be more in keeping with the location.

8.    Councillor Miller considered to the design to be good, not too tall and a significant investment bringing overnight visitors to the city. The development is considered to cause some harm to St Margaret’s Place, however, the walk along Canon Place will be greatly improved. Bringing the listed frontage back to good repair is supported, as is the application.

9.    Councillor Henry liked the design as the current aspect is awful and the development will be a massive improvement. The money for public art should be considered to be spent on tourist signage for the immediate area to the development. The councillor supported the application.

10. Councillor Theobald did not consider the disabled parking at the nearby car park to be easy and expressed concerns about the future for conferencing. The councillor considered that the development would much improve Canon Place and existing listed facades. The councillor supported the application.

11. Councillor Ebel liked the design and considered the refurbishment of the listed frontage to be good. The development will create jobs and be a boost to local businesses. The councillor noted the development was in the core hotel zone, would be sustainable, may reduce to number of AirBnB properties in the city and that the disabled parking spaces in the nearby car park were bookable. The councillor supported the application.

12. Councillor Shanks considered the design to be good and supported the application.

13. Councillor Janio welcomed the investment and considered that the public art would be good for the city. The councillor expressed some concerns at the loss of smaller conference space.

14. Councillor Childs considered Canon Place to be an eyesore at the moment. The design was fine and the investment and jobs in the city was good. The councillor supported the application.

15. Councillor Littman considered the development to be a significant improvement on the existing building.

16. A vote was taken and the committee voted by 9 to 1 that planning permission be granted.

17. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out below and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement on the Heads of Terms set out below in the report and the Conditions and Informatives also as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 5 May 2021 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 9.7 of the report.