Agenda item - BH2023/01025 - Brighton i360, Kings Road Arches, Brighton - Full Planning

1.       The Case Officer introduced the application to the committee.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

2.       Councillor Allen was informed by the case officer that the impact on pedestrian use of the external stairs adjoining the i360 was acceptable.

3.       Councillor Loughran was informed by the Heritage Officer that the harm resulting from the development was considered less than substantial given it was for a temporary period, was not considered to interrupt the wider views of the sea front. It was noted that the decision regarding the balance of public benefit against heritage harm rested

with the case officer.

4.       Councillor Shanks was informed by the agent, Ben Barfield-Marks, that shipping containers were sustainable buildings, prefabricated off site and installed quickly. The exteriors would be timber clad with large windows. The black timber cladding was considered to be appropriate coastal architecture.

5.       Councillor Earthey was informed by the agent that there were no black timber buildings in the immediate location, however, other buildings along the south coast had won major awards.

6.       Councillor Loughran was informed by the agent that the cricket set up included a bowling machine and guests would hit balls at targets, with each player being scored. Nets would be installed to prevent balls escaping. The development would include two further bowling areas in the existing i360 building. The nets would take 6-8 people at one time. Booking would be through the i360 website.

7.       Councillor Nann was informed the costs of playing would be available on the i360 website.

8.       Councillor Loughran was informed by the agent that a fee would be paid to the i360 for the use of the site.

9.       Councillor Allen was informed by the agent that there would be a security presence on site.

Debate

10.      Councillor Hamilton considered the development would not be seen easily and noted it was an interesting activity. The councillor supported the application.

11.      Councillor Pumm considered the development to be an interesting addition to the sea front. The councillor supported the application.

12.      Councillor Shanks supported the application.

13.      Councillor Allen considered the temporary nature of the development outweighed any harm. The councillor supported the application.

14.      Councillor Earthey supported the application.

Vote

15.      A vote was taken, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.

16.      RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives in the report.