Brighton & Hove City Plan Examination 2013
Hearing Session: 23 / 24 October 2013 (AM/PM)
STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO Matter 3a: Development Areas: DA1- DA4
BY BRIGHTON & HOVE CITY COUNCIL
Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
List of Abbreviations
AMEX American Express BACA Brighton Aldridge Community Academy BCEC Bridge Community Education Centre CDIT Creative, Digital and Information Technology CIL Community Infrastructure Levy CPVS Combine Policy Viability Study DA Development Area DPD Development Plan Document DA Development Area ELS Employment Land Study Review 2012 HEIA Health and Equalities Impact Assessment HDtCS Housing Study Duty to Co-Operate May 2013 IDP Infrastructure Delivery Plan LDF Local Development Framework LDS Local Development Scheme LDD Local Development Documents LEP Local Enterprise Partnership NPPF National Planning Policy Framework SA Sustainability Appraisal SDNP South Downs National Park SECAmb South East Ambulance Foundation Trust SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment SO strategic objective SPABDB South Portslade and Aldrington Basin Development Brief StA Strategic Allocation VTBP Viability Technical Background Paper VTSS Viability Testing Strategic Sites
2 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
Index:
Page
Introduction 4
Matter 3a Questions:
Matter 3a question i) 4
Matter 3a question ii) 8
Matter 3a question iii) 11
Appendices:
Appendix 1: 13 List of Key Background Documents
Appendix 2: 14 Respondents and summary of comments
Appendix 3: 19 The Strategic Objectives each Development Area will help to directly meet
Appendix 4: 20 Site specific justification for each Strategic Allocations within DA1-DA4
Appendix 5: 23 References
Appendix 6: 27 Brighton Marina Inner Harbour Capacity Assessment
Appendix 7: English Heritage Statement
3 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
Introduction
1. This statement presents the Council’s evidence in relation to the key issues raised by the Inspector concerning Development Areas; DA1 – DA4. The endnote references are provided in Appendix 5.
2. The council’s evidence regarding the DAs is included fundamentally in all the Core Documents however the most notable documents are listed in appendix 1.
3. A list of respondents and key points/objections raised are provided in appendix 2.
Matter 3a.i) Is the scale and mix of development proposed for the Development Areas (DA1 – DA4) appropriate to those areas and will the proposals assist in meeting the strategic objectives of the City Plan?
Overview 4. The Area Assessments (June 2008)1 provide the background and initial justification for the approach taken to the DAs. Early considerations included accessibility2, urban character and regeneration. As a result the DAs are located within accessible areas with a potential for additional development/regeneration3. The assessments were informed by other evidence including the Tall Building Study 20034, which identifies the urban DAs as being suitable for taller/higher density development. Though evidence underpinning these studies is pre 2008 or has been updated, the basis for identifying the DAs and key priorities for the areas remain fundamentally unchanged.
5. The Council’s Matter 2 Statement : Overall Spatial Vision addresses the evolution of the DAs in relation to the overall spatial strategy and highlights the key documents5 which justify how the DAs have evolved since the initial area assessments.
6. The scale and mix of development within the DAs has been informed by the evidence/documents outlined above and has taken account of : the existing uses within and key characteristics/priorities of an area (as detailed in the policy); the objectively assessed needs of the city (e.g. Employment6, Retail7, Housing8, Open Space9); development briefs10 which engaged the landowner/development in their preparation; Planning Applications; Urban Characterisation Study11 , capacity12 and viability13 assessments; engagement with land owners, developers, stakeholders and residents; and
4 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
Annual SHLAA14 updates – these have identified sites with housing potential and assessed when they are likely to be delivered over the plan timescale and have informed the overall residential capacity of the DAs.
7. The city wide policies apply to all development proposals including those in the DAs. It is therefore considered a general reference within the DAs to affordable housing, housing mix, flood risk, protection of heritage assets etc is only required if there is a site specific exception.
8. The DA proposals are key to meeting the Plan’s strategic objectives (SOs) directly as outlined in Appendix 3.
9. The Council’s response statement to Matters 4, 5 and 6 provide further evidence in relation to the DAs. The following paragraphs address specific issues relating to the scale and mix proposed for DA1-DA4.
DA1
10. DA1 seeks the replacement of the Brighton Conference Centre and allows for the redevelopment of Churchill Square. It is a key priority of the council that this site is redeveloped15.
11. The area is in need of regeneration. The scale and mix of development proposed for the area reflects the considerations/documents detailed above (paragraphs 4-9) and the Retail Studies 200616 and 201117 which identify this area as a focus for directing additional retail capacity.
12. Representations requested a number of detailed wording changes. The council has published modifications to address some of the points made by Standard Life. Representations made in respect of policy CP4 are also relevant (see Council’s Matter Statement 6: Retail).
DA2
13. A key objective of DA2 is the comprehensive regeneration of Brighton Marina, with significant improvements in the transport infrastructure and public realm. The development area will make an important contribution towards addressing the city’s assessed housing, employment, retail, leisure and tourism needs18.
14. The scale and mix of proposed development reflects the area masterplan and other background evidence19 which has identified the Marina and wider area as a suitable location for significant mixed-use, higher density development. Additional technical work on the capacity of Brighton Marina Inner Harbour area (see appendix 6) has been undertaken in response to comments made by respondents. It indicates that there is
5 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
sufficient capacity for 1000 residential units below the cliff height within the Inner Harbour Area. A statement of common ground has been prepared by X Leisure and agreed by the City Council and includes some main modifications to DA2 to resolve areas of difference. An area of disagreement remains the restriction of development below the cliff height. The city council considers this should be retained to protect the historic environment of Kemp Town and Kings Cliffe; and to protect views from the SDNP. See the proof of evidence relating to design presented on behalf of the council to the planning inquiry (Sept 2009 ) relating to the proposed development at Brighton Marina (appendix 7, p 29)
15. Whilst two respondents20 concerning the Gas Works site, seek the inclusion of retail within the specified mix for the Gas Works site, this is contrary to the NPPF, would be contrary to the City Plan’s retail strategy (informed by the Retail Study21), has not been justified (in terms of impact on local and district centres) and would undermine the employment role of the area22.
16. One respondent23 has challenged whether the Black Rock site has the capacity to accommodate 7,000 sq m of leisure and recreation related uses within the boundary of the strategic allocation. However, the council has evidence relating to a previous proposal for the site24 which demonstrates that the site does have capacity for the scale and mix of development proposed.
17. Representations on DA2 requested a number of detailed wording changes. The council has published modifications MM7 to address some of these points. Further proposed modifications are summarised in the Statement of Common Ground with X-Leisure.
DA3
18. The strategy for DA3 Lewes Road is to consolidate and expand the area’s status as an academic corridor; enable sustainable development that supports the growth of the city’s universities; and improve sustainable transport links and the public realm along Lewes Road.
19. The scale and mix of development proposed for the area reflects the considerations/documents detailed above (paragraphs 4-9), viability work on the Preston Barracks Site (leading to changes), the planning brief for Preston Barracks/University of Brighton25 and student housing reports26.
20. MM8 clarifies the suitability of all B1 uses for Woollards Field, in response to the representation by SECAmb27.
21. Falmer Released Land is suitable for a range of uses, and the policy ensures that redevelopment would provide permanent accommodation for community uses and parking related to the Community Stadium. Representations have been made by The Community Stadium Ltd
6 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
seeking rteference to a hotel use in DA3 and clarification on uses of the Falmer Released Land28. MM78 clarifies that the range of uses does not need to be met in its entirety. CP6 on visitor accommodation at paragraph 4.62 acknowledges that there may be potential to locate new hotel development outside Brighton, either for a destination offer or to serve a particular market, but any such application would need to demonstrate that there are not more suitably located opportunities in Central Brighton first.
DA4
22. The strategy for this DA is the provision of high quality business accommodation along with revitalisation of London Road town centre.
23. The scale and mix of development29 set out in DA4.B reflects that this is a well established mixed use area particularly well placed in terms of transport links, its close proximity to Brighton Station (and the successful Brighton Station redevelopment) and the retail and commercial core of the city. The area already benefits from having an established office and creative industries cluster and the sites identified provide an opportunity for the continued regeneration of the area.
24. The employment sites have been assessed in accordance with NPPF guidance and no sites were identified for release30. The allocations at DA4.C.1 do not restrict redevelopment to B Class uses only. These sites are also allocated for residential use as well as a mix of uses at the ground floor. Given the quantitative scale of office needs and clear market demand for modern office development31 it is important that the minimum employment floorspace figures are set out at DA4. C. 1 New England Quarter and London Road Area.
25. The scale of housing development identified in the DA is expressed as a minimum and reflects the SHLAA assessments. The council is proposing main modifications (MM70) to the housing figure in DA4 to reflect that a number of identified key housing sites within the area have been lost to student accommodation32.
26. Two of the respondents indicate that student accommodation should be included in the mix of uses allowed for on sites identified under DA4.C.1. The City Plan seeks to balance the competing demands on scarce sites and has set out the approach to new purpose built student accommodation in CP21. The figure for 300 student rooms reflects the potential for student accommodation as part of the redevelopment of the City College campus - further loss of employment/housing sites to student housing would not be sustainable. The City Plan has addressed non B class uses and this is detailed in the Council’s Matter Statement 5: Employment.
7 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
Matter 3a.ii) Is there clear evidence that the proposals are viable and deliverable?
Overview 27. It is considered that there is clear evidence33 to demonstrate the proposals and strategic allocations within the DAs are viable and deliverable.
28. The Viability Testing – Strategic Sites Study (VTSS)34 provides evidence on viability on a number of key sites. The sites assessed in the Study were identified on : the basis of concerns regarding viability (including those raised by landowners and developers); there being no previous viability work undertaken; and, prioritising non council-owned sites and sites for early delivery.
29. The findings have led to changes to allocations to take account of viability and these changes are detailed in the Viability Technical Background Paper (VTBP)35. The amounts of development set out in the strategic allocations are required to achieve the targets and objectives in the city plan, however they, will be applied with a degree of flexibility. A minimum amount is stated, in some cases, where a development is expected to deliver more development. All proposals will be subject to a full assessment through the planning application process.
30. The Combined Policy Viability Study (CPVS)36 provides further evidence to demonstrate that cumulatively the policies in the Plan are deliverable and flexible. This is helped by the interim recession measures in place in the city to reduce the burden of developer contributions on development (see VTBP, 8.7, p.32). This will ensure development can be delivered throughout the economic cycle in accordance with paragraphs 173 and 174 of the NPPF. The city council will give careful consideration to introducing a CIL and its effect on development viability (see Matter 7 Paper and section 8 of VBTP).
31. In terms of broad, as well as specific deliverability issues on key sites, the city council proactively supports, intervenes and promotes development through specialised teams in the council (see part 5 VTBP), by securing funding, sub regional work (LEP) and Duty to Cooperate. Part of this work is to work in partnership with landowners and developers in the city to bring sites forward and remove the barriers to development.
32. Deliverability is the subject of individual site characteristics as well as the broader viability issues and these are addressed below.
33. The Council’s response statement to Matter 7 and also Matters 4, 5 and 6 provide further evidence in relation to the DAs.
8 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
DA1
34. The proposed scale and mix of the development proposed allows for the redevelopment of Churchill Square whilst enabling the provision of a replacement conference facility for the city. The redevelopment of this area is a priority for the city council and the developer. Partnership work will continue to ensure the delivery of development on this site.
35. The owner of Churchill Square, Standard Life Investments, has raised concerns regarding the level of additional floorspace allowed in DA1 (20,000sqm) and that this is not viable. However, there is considered to be sufficient flexibility built into the policy as the floorspace is expressed as minimum. This will allow the developer to make the case for an increased floor area subject to viability and other planning considerations (e.g. transport and design issues). The findings of the Retail Study Update 2011 indicate capacity for additional comparison retail floorspace in the city and that the Regional Shopping Centre is the most appropriate location to direct this capacity too.
36. The Regional Centre is performing well in terms of its retail offer with lower than national average vacancies37. The conference centre also continues to be successful. It is considered that the area’s attractiveness to retailers and conference trade along with the proposed improvements will secure the viability of the area for the scale and mix of development proposed.
37. Delivery of a new conference facility and extension to Churchill Square will ensure that the city maintains and enhances its position as a leading conference destination and consolidates its role as a Regional Shopping Centre within the South East. New hotel and leisure facilities are also proposed. The Council have worked closely with the developer Standard Life and as the landowner of the sites, will continue to work in partnership to bring forward development on the site and ensure its deliverability.
DA2
38. In terms of the Inner Harbour, the council has assessed the evidence submitted by the landowner regarding the viability and deliverability of the StA through further technical work1 to test the viability of the strategic allocation. The evidence indicates that in the current market conditions, the site is likely to be unviable at 1000 residential units or less. The City Plan allocation for the Inner Harbour, however, allows for a ‘minimum of 1000 units’ within the Inner Harbour, below the cliff height, to allow for an increase to meet viability needs. The capacity assessment of the Inner Harbour StA (commissioned by the council - see appendix 6) indicates that 1000 units can be accommodated below the cliff height without including the Octagon/Merchants Quay part of the site. This remains available for development in the longer term subject to the resolution of leasehold ownership matters. The city council will continue to work with
9 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
the developer to facilitate the first phases of development coming forward in the 6 to 10 year period of the Plan.
39. Concern has also been expressed by a local resident’s group38 about the environmental impact of such a large amount of development within the Marina, which they maintain would breach cliff height and be contrary to the Brighton Marina Act. The environmental and/ or physical constraints of the Marina are acknowledged in the policy objectives as well as the supporting text. It is important to note that the provisions of the Brighton Marina Act do not necessarily preclude development coming forward which exceeds the cliff height39.
40. In recognition of the likely high abnormal costs (i.e. decontamination costs etc.) associated with bringing forward the redevelopment of the Gas Works Site, the target amount of employment floorspace has been reduced from 4,000 sq m in the Core Strategy to 2,000 sq m in the Submission City Plan40. The allocation allows for a higher land value use - residential (85 units expressed as a minimum) and some ancillary retail as part of the mix of land uses, to enable a viable scheme to come forward. No detailed evidence has been provided of the costs of decontamination.
41. The Black Rock site is allocated in the Submission City Plan for 7,000 sq m of leisure and recreation use, which is approximately half of the floorspace of a previous proposal for the site. The StA allows for enabling uses to support the delivery of a leisure and recreation facility, including higher land value uses such as residential development and minor retail uses. There is consequently enough flexibility in the wording of the allocation to deliver a viable scheme.
DA3
42. The Preston Barracks and Brighton University StA reflects the council’s partnership with Brighton University and the shared vision as set out in the planning brief41 for a high quality mixed use development. The council considers that partnership with the University of Brighton offers the best prospect of successful delivery. The mix of uses for the site reflects the planning brief42 Residential uses including student accommodation on the site will contribute to viability and help the city to meet its housing target.
43. The employment land study review43 found that the Woollards Field site continues to have potential for future employment development in the medium term. It has been assessed as both available and deliverable44. SECAmb has expressed an interest in the site for important sub-regional infrastructure for the Ambulance Service (Make Ready Centre). The allocation has been amended to allow for this.
10 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
44. Falmer Released Land has no obvious barriers to delivery45. Respondents (refs 38, 66 & 82) have raised concerns regarding the impact of sustainable building requirements on the viability of this site. Modifications are proposed to the strategic allocations in DA3 (MM76, MM77 & MM78) to make the sustainable building standards consistent with policy CP8. Viability matters relating to CP8 are covered under matters statement 7.
DA4
45. The StAs have been informed by the Employment Land Studies46, London Road Central SPD47, City Plan Employment Issues & Options paper (see site assessments in Appendix 1)48, Strategic Allocations Viability Assessments 201249, SHLAA 201250 and Site Capacity Assessments (2013)51. The Viability Technical Background Paper (June 2013)52 sets out at Appendix 1 part D how the proposals have been amended to take into account viability issues.
46. The Employment Land Supply Trajectory 2013 (TP/001) provides clear evidence that those sites with extant planning permission are available and deliverable in the 2014-2019 plan period with all but one of the other sites identified to be available and deliverable in the 2019-2024 time frame. It is recognised that there are a number of factors that have influenced lack of office delivery in recent years including development viability in the current economic climate compared with higher value uses53 however the council will continue to work proactively with developers/ owners to bring forward office delivery54.
Matter 3a.iii) Bearing in mind the advice in paragraphs 30 – 32 of the Inspectorate’s ‘Learning from Experience’ document, is there sufficient detail, for example in relation to infrastructure requirements, to justify the inclusion of the strategic allocations?
Overview 47. The boundaries of DAs and strategic allocations (StAs) are all clearly defined within the changes to the Policies Map55. As detailed in the City Plan, paragraph 2.210, the StAs are sites where regeneration / redevelopment are considered critical to the overall delivery of housing and employment growth over the plan period. The level of detail within each varies to reflect the priorities, the characteristics of the respective DA and site and when the site is expected to come forward. They also reflect the outcome of the plan-making process including engagement with partnerships, key stakeholders and residents and the recommendations from the SA and HEIA. Indeed, the responses to the Employment Options Paper 201156 supported including strategic employment allocations within DAs.
48. It is considered that appropriate and proportionate detail is provided for each DA and StAs including the essential infrastructure to enable
11 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
development and required by the city. The City Plan is supported by a comprehensive IDP57 and background evidence58. Further evidence on this is in the Council’s response to Matter 7.
49. All significant issues raised by utility/infrastructure providers in respect to the StAs have been addressed59. The DAs and StAs are in accessible locations where good links to sustainable transport either exist or can be improved. Those proposing significant new housing are near to existing large open spaces.
50. Site specific justification for each StA within DA1-DA4 is provided in appendix 4.
12 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
Appendix 1
List of Key Background Documents
The council’s evidence is provided in all the Core Documents however notably in the following documents:
BP/010 Consultation Statement June 2013 (Regulation 22) BP/013 Statement of Consultation February 2013 (Regulation 18) BP/014 Sustainability Appraisal February 2013 BP/017 Health and Equalities Impact Assessment (Nov 2012) BP/017a Health and Equalities Impact Assessment Addendum (February 2013) BP/031 Employment Options Paper (October 2011) BP/032 Housing Delivery Options Paper (October 2011) BP/033 Park and Ride Options Paper (October 2011) BP/034 Student Housing Options Paper (October 2011) TP/001 Employment Land Supply Trajectory 2013 TP/002 Housing Delivery Technical Background Paper June 2013 TP/005 Viability Technical Background Paper June 2013 TP/007 Difference made by the process of Sustainability Appraisal and Health and Equalities Impact Assessment (June 2013) TP/008 Policy Audit Trail Paper June 2013 EP/004 Capacity Assessments 2012 EP/010 Employment Land Study Review 2012 EP/011 Employment Skills Plan 2011-2014 EP/013 Energy Study 2012 EP/030 Retail Study 2006 EP/031 Retail Study Update 2011 EP/041 Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2008 EP/046 Tall Buildings Study 2003 EP/047 Transport Assessment 2012 EP/048 Urban Characterisation Study 2009 EP/049 Viability Testing – Strategic Sites Background Document 2012 EP/052 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2013 Update EP/0061 Combined Policy Viability Study (Sept 2013) (draft) EP/061a Combined Policy Viability Study (Sept 2013) (draft) WCS/021 Area Assessments (June 2008)
13 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
Appendix 2
Respondents and summary of comments
Representations concerning these matters have been received from: DA1 The Guinness Partnership (Rep/42) Standard Life (Rep/37) Brighton & Hove Friends of the Earth (Rep/67) Montpelier and Clifton Hill Association (Rep/34)
DA2 The Guinness Partnership (Rep/42) Standard Life (Rep/37) National Grid Property Holdings Ltd & Scotia Gas N (Rep/62) Scotia Gas Networks (SGN) (Rep/57) Marine Gate Action Group (Rep/84) X-Leisure (Rep/30)
DA3 The Guinness Partnership (Rep/42) Standard Life (Rep/37) Southern Water (Rep/61) University of Brighton (Rep/82) University of Sussex (Rep/71) South East Ambulance Foundation Trust (SECAmb) (Rep/66) Community Stadium Ltd (Rep/38) South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) (Rep/75)
DA4 The Guinness Partnership (Rep/42) Maplebright LLP and C Brewer & Sons Ltd (Rep/16) Urban Student Life (Rep/36)
These representations raised the following key points/objections (please note these are a précis of the summaries provided in the Consultation Statement [June 2013], section 4, pages 8 – 15)
DA1 – Brighton Centre and Churchill Square Area Conference Centre Allocation a) Suggestion of new wording to include exploring options for provision of a new conference on and off site b) Reference to the Brighton Centre SPD should be removed as this is substantially out of date. c) Delete paragraph about the Brighton Arena project as uncertain
14 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
Churchill Square Allocation a) 20,000sqm is too low and should be replaced - anchor store would account for 12-15,000 sqm gross which does not leave much residual space for large stores – would be unviable. Figure should be amended to 40-50,000 sqm allowing for demolitions. b) Table 3 is consistent with A3 of policy DA1. Figure in A3 described as minimum and figure in Table 3 is not.
Transport a) Reference to high quality and sustainable transport facilities to serve the new development is imprecise and should be explained. There does not appear to be an obvious means of achieving modal shift. b) No specific reference to car parking – which will be required approx 700 spaces.
Environmental a) Development needs to be justified by economic and environmental analysis to address short and long term changes in shopping patterns and implications of siting large high tech facility in this location. b) State a requirement for any applicant to produce and agree an energy strategy with the council
Other Issues raised: a) Study should be commissioned to address damage to heritage assets by the 1970s redevelopment.
DA2 – Brighton Marina, Gas Works and Black Rock Area Amounts of development a) DA2.C.2 – welcome the change in wording to say a minimum of 85 residential units but the target number of housing units should be increased to reflect the reduction in employment floorspace . b) DA2.C.2.a – welcome the reduction in employment floorspace from 4000 sq m to 2000 sq m but wording of policy is still too prescriptive and specifies too much employment provision. c) DA2.B and DA2.B.1 – based on previous representations, policy wording should be amended to state “a maximum of 5,000 sq m of retail development (A1-A5)”. The text should also be expanded to state that the DA2 area is not a preferred location for fashion orientated comparison goods retailers because of the negative impact on the regional shopping centre which would adversely effect the delivery of policy DA1. d) DA2.B – the provision of 1940 dwellings in the Marina is unsound because this quantum of residential development is impossible to achieve without breaching cliff height. e) DA2.C.1 – the proposed residential density for the Marina is too high and therefore should be lowered. f) DA2.B – the independent capacity/ feasibility assessment undertaken by NLP on behalf of X-Leisure has demonstrated that a minimum of 1000 residential units will breach cliff height. The policy wording is therefore contradictory and unsound.
15 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013 g) DA2.B – the wording of the policy should be clarified by stating that the policy is seeking “net additional” floorspace rather than simply “additional” floorspace. This will meet the tests of soundness, by providing development targets in accordance with objectively assessed development needs. h) DA2. B – there is no evidence base for the inclusion of a primary school within the Marina, which would require at least 2 acres of land. Since the Marina is a highly constrained environment, the onsite provision of a primary school would directly compromise its future regeneration. The policy should simply state that developments should meet the demand they generate for education through S106 contributions or CIL as applicable. i) DA2. C.1 – it would be helpful if the wording of the policy made it clear that the allocation for the Inner Harbour site excludes the extant permission for 853 residential units granted for the Brunswick scheme. j) DA2 (2nd bullet point) – the restriction on building above the cliff height has not been justified and results in an undeliverable and unsound plan.
Flexibility with types of uses a) DA2.C.2 – there is considerable market interest from both food and non- food operators in developing the site for retail. The reference to “some ancillary retail development” is therefore too restrictive (National Grid –62 /1). b) DA2.C.2 – a blanket allocation of the site for employment use is inappropriate and falls foul of the tests set out in paragraph 22 of the NPPF. The site should be considered as white land which has the capacity to accommodate a wide range of uses. c) DA2.C.2 and DA2.C.2.a – the specification of B1a and B1c uses in the policy is too prescriptive and should be broadened out to encompass both B1 and B2 uses in order to provide greater flexibility in the market place. d) DA2.C.1 – the District Centre status of the Marina should be removed, retail is more suited to the city centre. e) DA2. A.6 – it has not been demonstrated that there is a market demand or an objectively assessed need for boating and surfing activities within the Marina and therefore, as guided by the NPPF, this element of the policy should be removed to ensure that development is not overburdened by this very specific policy expectation. f) DA2.C.3 – the allocation of 7,000 sq m of leisure and recreation use for the Black Rock site needs to be justified by a capacity assessment of the site. This is particularly relevant because the site is in a constrained location which is directly to the south of the Kemp Town Conservation Area and has only limited access via Madeira Drive only. The policy needs to make more explicit reference to these constraints to meet the tests of soundness.
Sustainability a) Policy DA2 5th bullet point – this bullet encourages the provision of sustainable heat and power for the district. However, the policy duplicates advice that is contained within policy CP8 which seeks an appropriate energy solution for each site, and should therefore be removed or more flexibly worded in accordance with CP8. b) DA2.A.12 and 13 – these local priorities should either be removed and replaced with a cross reference to meeting the requirements of CP8 or some
16 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013 additional text should be added to both bullet points stating that “unless it can be demonstrated that doing so is not technically feasible not practicable and/ or would make the scheme unviable”.
Viability a) DA2.C.2.a – the inclusion of the target figure of employment floorspace (2000 sq m) does not generate enough land value to overcome the constraints associated with the site (i.e. substantial remediation, decommissioning costs etc.) and would therefore be unviable/ undeliverable. b) DA2.C.2 – Not enough recognition in the policy of the viability implications of land contamination and transport infrastructure costs, and their subsequent impact on the type of uses to come forward on the Gas Works site. c) DA2.C.1 – the capacity/ feasibility assessment demonstrated that in order to provide the necessary infrastructure to overcome the current problems within the Marina, there is a need for circa 1300 residential units. In line with paragraph 173 of the NPPF which requires development plans to be viable and deliverable, the wording of the policy should not be unduly restrictive
Other issues raised: a) Existing infrastructure i.e. ramp and sewer capacity etc. in the Marina is insufficient to cope with proposed development b) The cumulative impact of other nearby development (i.e. the Royal Sussex County Hospital redevelopment) is likely to lead to more traffic congestion and local parking problems in Kemp Town. c) Rather than having a blanket cliff height restriction on development, it would be better for DA2 to strike a balance between achieving the challenging regenerative benefits of future development at the Marina and protecting key views of the cliff and the sea.
DA3 – Lewes Road Area Zero carbon requirements a) DA3.A.8 – evidence base does not justify this part of the policy – the implications in terms of feasibility and viability need to be considered and properly justified. b) DA3.C.1.c Preston Barracks - evidence base does not justify this part of the policy – the implications in terms of feasibility and viability need to be considered and properly justified. c) DA3.C.3 Falmer Released Land criterion d) – difficult to see how a zero carbon development could be achieved on a site proposed for partial use as car parking and would limit the sites development potential; criteria provides not justified; not clarified and provides no certainty to developers and in unnecessary given requirements in CP8; d) DA3.C.2.c Woollards Field south – requirement is neither justified (insufficient evidence for requirement on site) and exceeds what would reasonably be considered consistent with national policy; will render development schemes unviable and inconsistent with approach taken to other sites within DA3.
Amounts of development:
17 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013 a) DA3.c – The figures underestimate the scale of growth identified. Understand that the figures are minimum figures in each case. This should be confirmed in this section of the policy to avoid any uncertainty in the future and to assist in the University of Sussex’s long term planning of its campus and future development (schedule of Future Development at University Of Sussex Campus, Falmer provided). b) DA3.C.3 Falmer Released Land - Former Falmer High School – policy does not indicate the amount/ breakdown of space expected for each use. This leaves uncertainty for future developers with the regards the likely suitable development of this site. Should indicate either mixed use or single use development (which includes a car park related to Stadium and accommodation for BCEC and BACA).
Flexibility of types of uses a) Insufficient flexibility with proposed range of uses set out at DA3.C - along this sustainable transport corridor with links to community stadium and South Downs national park – suitability for hotel development. b) Woollards Field South – strategic allocation not justified, effective or consistent with NPPF. It should include greater recognition of the proposed SECAmb development with specific reference to it as a vital part of the City’s infrastructure needs. Not legally compliant to continue the allocation of 5,000 sq m of B1 office space; site has been surplus to requirements since 1990 but as yet remains undeveloped; office market is currently depressed and therefore policy should be more flexible and policy is less flexible than EM2 (B1 c and B2 uses. Contrary to paragraph 22 NPPF and 158.
Other Issues raised: a) Issue of groundwater protection at Woollards Field South and Former Famer High School sites – Southern Water missed these sites in their response to draft city plan when raising the issue of groundwater source protection zone. Request amendments to strategic allocations. b) DA3.A.9 – improve performance of Falmer Interchange trunk road junction should be deleted serves no useful purpose. It is not clear how this will be achieved. It is assumed that issues with the junction need to be resolved in order to accommodate development proposed by DA3. This should have been assessed and potential solutions identified as part of the evidence base used to prepare the plan with policies referring to implementation improvements required. c) Consideration should be given to the opportunity to use the existing parking for the AMEX Community Stadium or Falmer Released Land site for park and ride on non-match days. This would be consistent with the council’s sustainable transport policy. d) Confirm that the 2011 Planning Brief is consistent with Policy DA3.c.1 and provides more detailed guidance. e) Target for affordable housing provision should be set out within development area proposals/ strategic allocations.
18 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
Appendix 3
The Strategic Objectives each Development Area will help to directly meet.
Please note these are detailed in Annex 1 to the City Plan60 (in the monitoring table). It should also be noted that the DAs also indirectly help to meet the SOs due to the links to the wider spatial strategy (eg the proposed mix in DA2 Gas Works indirectly helps to deliver SO5 and SO18)
Development The DA will help meet the following Strategic Objectives Area DA1 SO1, SO3, SO5, SO7, SO8, SO9, SO11, SO12, SO13, SO16, SO17, SO18, SO23 DA2 SO1, SO2, SO3, SO4, SO7, SO8, SO9, SO10, SO11, SO12, SO13, SO17, SO18, SO19, SO21, SO22 DA3 SO1, SO2, SO3, SO4, SO7, SO8, SO9, SO10, SO11, SO12, SO15, SO18, SO19, SO20, SO21, SO22, SO23 DA4 SO1, SO2, SO3, SO4, SO7. SO8, SO9, SO10, SO11, SO12, SO13, SO16, SO18, SO19, SO20, SO21, SO22, SO23
19 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
Appendix 4
Site specific justification for each Strategic Allocation within DA1-DA4
DA Strategic Justification for Inclusion Ref Allocation Ref DA1 B1 New Delivery of a new conference facility and extension to Brighton Churchill Square to ensure that the city maintains and Centre and enhances its position as a leading conference expansion of destination and consolidates its role as a Regional Churchill Shopping Centre within the South East. New hotel and Square leisure facilities such as a cinema.
Transport infrastructure improvements are identified as a requirement which promote public and sustainable transport – as per policy CP9.
Area identified as a potential location for District Heating and public realm improvements.
The site is anticipated to come forward for development in the medium to long term stages of the City Plan. DA2 C1 Brighton The site is crucial to the delivery of a significant mixed Marina Inner use development comprising of a minimum of 1000 Harbour additional residential units, 5,000 sq m of net additional retail development, 3,500 sq m of leisure and recreation uses and community facilities, to enhance its performance as a marina and District Centre. Key objectives for the regeneration of this site are detailed in a Masterplan61.
Sustainable transport infrastructure is important for successful regeneration of the site. Community infrastructure improvements are identified as a requirement to support the proposed expansion of the resident and working population. The site is also a priority for townscape and public realm improvements. All this to be achieved through mechanisms associated with future planning applications i.e. phasing plans, planning conditions and legal agreements. DA2 C2 Gas The site represents a significant mixed use Works Site development opportunity in close proximity to Brighton Marina and Black Rock. The southern portion of the site (CP1 – housing) is cleared and could therefore come forward in the short to medium term. The northern part of the site (CP3 – Employment) requires the decommissioning and removal of the gas holders together with land remediation (planning application
20 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
DA Strategic Justification for Inclusion Ref Allocation Ref submitted October 2013) and is expected to come forward in the medium to long term62. DA2 C3 Black The site is identified for the development of a recreation Rock Site and leisure facility to provide modern, prestigious, good quality facilities in this part of the city. The provision of strong pedestrian and cycle link from the west of the city to the city centre and into the Marina (immediately east of the site) is a priority. Transport infrastructure, including improvements in public transport provision and accessibility, is a key component to unlocking the development potential of the site. These improvements will be realised through future planning applications associated with the site i.e. phasing plans, planning conditions and legal agreements. DA3 C1 Preston The site is crucial to the enhancement of the academic Barracks and potential in the city and the provision of student Brighton housing63, as well as improvements to the public realm University along Lewes Road. Detailed objectives for the site are covered by a planning brief64 DA3 C2 Woolards The site has potential to provide a significant quantum Field South of employment generating floorspace, which is expected to come forward in the 2019-2024 period or sooner. DA3 C3 Falmer The site is currently used for car parking in association Released with the Community Stadium and is not anticipated to Land, Former come forward for development in the early stages of the Falmer High City Plan. The range of indicative uses and level of School detail of the allocation is commensurate with the expected timeframe. DA4 C1 New As edge of centre locations with the potential to bring England forward 20,000 sq m of additional office floorspace the Quarter and sites identified have a critical role in the meeting the London Road objectively assessed need for employment floorspace Area over the plan period to ensure that the city’s economic potential is not constrained. Sites identified to come forward 2014-2019 benefit from extant planning consent and the council will continue to work proactively with developers/ owners to bring forward office delivery. DA4 C2 New The allocation safeguards New England House as it England contains a key cluster of CDIT businesses which have House been identified as a growth sector. The council is working in partnership with Wired Sussex and University of Sussex to upgrade and refurbish the building A Business Case65 has been prepared to
21 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
DA Strategic Justification for Inclusion Ref Allocation Ref indicate the options available to secure the refurbishment of the building and DA4.C.2.d) indicate the role of enabling development.
The provision of ultrafast broadband is a key infrastructure requirement to maintain and strengthen the CDIT cluster. The council has been successful in securing government funds to ensure this will be delivered by 201566. DA4 C3 125-163 In recognition that this area now functions as secondary Preston Road office location the allocation allows for the mixed use redevelopment of existing offices to bring forward housing to meet local housing targets and the retention of a minimum office floorspace. The level of detail within the allocation is commensurate with the expected delivery timeframe.
22 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
Appendix 5
REFERENCES
1 WCS/021 Area Assessments (June 2008) ; notably for : DA1 pages 2, 4, 24-41 + map; DA2 pages 2, 4-23; DA3 pages 2, 4, 69-86 + map; DA4 pages 2, 4, 87-108 + map 2 Accessibility considerations looked at access to sustainable transport links facilitating access to centres and services. 3 BP/001 City Plan Part 1, paragraphs 2.19-2.24 and respective DAs provide further information on this and the spatial distribution of development. 4 EP/046 Tall Buildings Study (2003) this details the areas in the city that are suitable for taller development which are - The London Road Corridor; The Lewes Road Corridor; Node surrounding Hove Station; Station Road/ Boundary Road Corridor; Eastern Road Corridor; Node to the East of Brighton Station; Shoreham Harbour; Kingsway / Western Seafront Corridor; Central Seafront; The Marina Area: 5 Key documents providing further information and justification regarding how the DAs have evolved are notably :The Policy Options Papers [BP/031 Employment Options Paper (October 2011); BP/032 Housing Delivery Options Paper (October 2011); BP/033 Park and Ride Options Paper (October 2011); BP/034 Student Housing Options Paper (October 2011)]; the Policy Audit Trail Paper June 2013 [TP/008 Policy Audit Trial Paper (June 2013) ; notably for DA1 pages 1-5, 20-24; DA2 pages 1-6, 20-23 and 25; DA3 pages 1-4, 6, 20-23, 26 and 27; DA4 pages 1-4,6, 7, 27-29]; Sustainability Appraisal [BP/014 Sustainability Appraisal February 2013 notably for all DA’s paragraphs 7.1-7.101, 8.1-8.21 and pages 327-332, 349-351, 353. In addition to this for DA1 paragraphs 8.41-8.413, pages 187,222-226, 333,348,349; DA2 paragraphs 8.42-8.423, pages 187, 188, 227-234; DA3 paragraphs 8.43-8.433, pages 188,189, 233-240, 334, 349; DA4 paragraphs 8.44-8.443, pages 189, 206, 207, 241-247, 334]; Consultation Statements [BP/010 Consultation Statement June 2013 (notably for DA1 pages 9-10; DA2 pages 10-12, DA3 pages 12-14, DA4 pages 14-15), BP/013 Consultation Statement February 2013 (notably for DA1 pages 16-18, DA2 pages 18-20, DA3 pages 20-22, DA4 pages 22-23), BP/013a, BP/27, WCS/007-WCS/012, WCS/017, WCS/018]; Health and Equalities Impact Assessment (HEIA) [BP/017 Health and Equalities Impact Assessment (November 2012) and BP/017a Health and Equalities Impact Assessment Addendum (February 2013)]; and the Technical Paper setting out the difference made by the SA and HEIA process [TP/007 Difference made by the process of Sustainability Appraisal and Health and Equalities Impact Assessment (June 2013)] 6 The objectively assessed employment needs are set out in TP/001 BHCC Employment Land Supply Delivery Trajectory Final Report (June 2013); EP/010 Employment Land Study Review 2012 and also regard is to be given to EP/011 Employment & Skills Plan 2011-2014; BP/031 Employment Options Paper (October 2011); SP009 Business Retention &
23 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
Inward Investment Strategy and Implementation Plan 2009; SP026 Economic Strategy 2008-2016; SP026a Economic Strategy Refresh 2013- 2018 and the City Council’s response statement to Matter 5 : Employment. 7 The objectively assessed retails needs are set out in EP/031 Retails Study 2006 and EP/031 Retail Study Update (2011) and also regard is to be given to the City Council’s response statement to Matter 6 : Retail and its appendix 1 “The CBRE Soundness Report on Retail Issues” 8 The objectively assessed housing needs are set out in EP/020 Housing Requirements Study Update (2012), TP/002 Housing Delivery Technical Background Paper (June 2013) which also sets out justification for the housing target. Regard should also be given to EP/051 Housing Study (Duty to Co-Operate) Sussex Coast HMA Partners (May 2013), SP/057 Student Housing Strategy 2009 and the City Council’s response statement to Matter 4a: Housing. 9 The objectively assessed needs for open space are set out in EP/025 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study 2008/9; EP/027 Open Space Study Update 2011 and EP/27a Open Space Study Update 2011 Appendices. 10 Key development briefs or similar for the respective Development Areas are as follows : DA1 – LGO004 SPD01 Brighton Centre : Area Planning and Urban Design Framework (2005); DA2 – LG017 SPGBH20 Brighton Marina : An Urban Design Analysis Volume 1 of 2(2003), LG018 SPGBH20 Brighton Marina : Development Brief Volume 2 of 2(2003), LG021 PAN04 Brighton Marina Masterplan (2008). 11 EP/048 Urban Characterisation Study (2009) 12 EP/004 Capacity Assessments 2012 and emerging development proposals for some of the areas. 13 EP/049 Viability Testing – Strategic Sites (2012), viability assessments and/or District Valuer reports submitted with individual development proposals. 14 The Latest SHLAA is EP/052 however previous versions are provided as EP/038, EP/039 EP/040 and EP/050 15 LG004 Brighton Centre and Churchill Square SPD 16 EP/030 Retail Study 2006 17 EP/031 Retail Study Update 2011 18 EP/010 Paragraphs: 3.17, Table 3.1, 5.30, Plan 5.1, Table 5.2, Table 7.1, 7.9, 8.24 (1i), Appendix 4 Assessments: Ref D1; EP/052 Table A, p10). 19 WCS/21 Area Assessments undertaken in support of the Core Strategy and the LG/021Masterplan for Brighton Marina (PAN04). 20 National Grid (Rep/62) and Scotia Gas (Rep/57). 21 EP/30 Retail Study 2006; EP/031 Retail Study Update (2011) and the Council’s Statement of Response to Matter 6: Retail (paragraphs 7 and 8). 22 EP/010 Employment Land Study Review 2012. 23 X-Leisure (Rep/30) 24 The BIA scheme – was the council’s preferred developer for the site and in 2007 reached RIBA Stage D. Documents relating to Stage D provide evidence that more than double the target figure of recreation and leisure use (i.e. 7,000 sq m) could be achieved on the site, despite the physical and environmental constraints of this sensitive location.
24 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
25 LG/015 Planning Brief – Lewes Road (Preston Barracks and University of Brighton (September 2011) 26 SP/057 Student Housing Strategy 2009-2014 (2009), BP/034 Student Housing Options Paper (2011), TP/004 Student Housing Technical Background Paper (2013), EP/042 Student Housing and Houses in Multiple Occupation Concentration Assessment (2011) 27 See Rep 66/1 (South East Ambulance Foundation Trust) 28 See Rep 38/1 (Community Stadium Ltd) 29 informed by Employment Land Studies (EP/007-EP/011), London Road Central SPD10 (LG/009), City Plan Employment Issues & Options paper (see site assessments in Appendix 1)(BP/031), Strategic Allocations Viability Assessments 2012 (EP/049), SHLAA Assessments (EP/038- EP/040, EP/050) and Site Capacity Assessments (2013) (EP/004) as well as by consultation responses (BP/010, BP/013, BP/013a, BP/27, WCS/007-WCS/012, WCS/017, WCS/018) 30 EP/010 Employment Land Study Review 2012, Paragraph 9.13 31 EP/010 Employment Land Study Review 2012 32 EP/052 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2013 Update 33 EP/049 Viability Testing – Strategic Sites (2012), viability assessments and/or District Valuer reports submitted with individual development proposals; TP/005 Viability Technical Background Paper 2013 and EP/004 Capacity Assessments 2012 addresses sites in DA4; EP061 Combined Policy Viability Study (Sept 2013) (draft), EP/061a Combined Policy Viability Study – Appendices (Sept 2013) (draft). 34 EP/049 Viability Testing – Strategic Sites (2012). As highlighted in the executive summary Part 1 - Deliverability is dependent on a number of considerations including market conditions and the willingness of financial institutions to lend. Given the challenging economic circumstances nationally, all the signs are that economic recovery may remain fragile for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, current market trends would suggest that because of its proximity to London, Brighton and Hove is being cushioned from the more extreme effects of the economic downturn and will be better poised for recovery than other areas of the South East when the economy recovers. When recovery is underway, the situation for the development proposals within the City Plan including the StAs is likely to be much improved, particularly where there is a significant housing element included in the scheme. 35 TP005 Viability Technical Background Paper 2013, Section 7, Table 4 36 EP061 Combined Policy Viability Study (Sept 2013) (draft), EP/061a Combined Policy Viability Study – Appendices (Sept 2013) (draft) 37 EP/031 Retail Study Update 2011, Paragraph 2.23 38 Marina Gate Action Group (Rep/82) 39 LG/021 Masterplan for Brighton Marina, PAN04, Section 15.2, p28 40 TP/005 Viability Technical Background paper June 2013, page 24 41 LG/015 Planning Brief – Lewes Road (Preston Barracks and University of Brighton (September 2011)
25 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
42 TP/005 Viability Technical Background paper June 2013, Appendix 1 indicates how the scale and mix of uses has changed since the Core Strategy. 43 EP/010 Employment Land Study Review 2012 44 TP/001 BHCC Employment Land Supply Delivery Trajectory Final Report (June 2013) 45 EP/010 Employment Land Study Review 2012 46 EP/010 Employment Land Study Review 2012, EP/007 Employment Land Study 2006, EP/009 Employment Land Study Update Addendum Report 2009 (regard also to EP/006, EP/011, EP/024 47 LG009 SPD10 London Road Central Masterpla 2009 48 BP/031 Employment Options Paper (October 2011) 49 EP/049 Viability Testing –Strategic Allocations (2012) 50 EP/040 Strategic Houisng Land Availability Assessment Update 2012 51 EP/004 Capacity Assessments 2012 (City Plan); 52 TP/005 Viability Technical Background Paper (June 2013) 53 EP/010 Employment Land Study Review 2012, paragraph 8.10 54 Recently the council was successful in accessing funding from the Coast to Capital LEP Growing Places fund to unlock the (extant planning permission) and delivery of a new flexible office/innovation centre to be operated by the Sussex Innovation Centre (part of the University of Sussex at Block J within the New England Quarter. 55 BP/003 Schedule of Changes to the Policies Map February 2013 56 BP/031 Employment Options Paper (October 2011) and BP/027 Statement of Consultation (May 2012) 57 BP/002 Submission City Plan Part One Annexes - The Infrastructure Delivery Plan is Annex 2 58 Please see the Core Documents list for the evidence (this includes evidence on the matters typically considered to be infrastructure – transport [eg TP/006, BP/033, EP/022, EP/O23, EP/047, SP/022, SP/033], education [eg SP047], health facilities [eg SP/014 BP/017, BP/017a, TP/OO7], open space/sports [eg EP/025, EP/026, EP/027, EP/027A, BP/16, EP/14, NO/001, SP/001, SP/002, SP/007, SP/012, SP/013, SP/023, SP/028, SP/037, SP/038, SP/040], public realm [eg EP/028, SP/045, SP/046, SP/056], culture [eg SP/021], Coastal Defence/Flood Management [eg SP/008, EP/032, EP/033, EP/36, EP/037, SP/041-SP/043, SP/049, SP/050, SP/058], energy [EP/013, SP/029], climate change [eg SP/015TP/003, SP/003-SP/005, SP/0071]; community level infrastructure [EP/003], Infrastructure capacity [eg EP/021], Biodiversity [eg SP/059, SP/060] etc). 59 The Highways Agency (Res/73) no longer has any outstanding objections; Modifications are proposed satisfying the concerns relating to StA raised by Southern Water (Res/72) 60 BP/002 Submission City Plan Part One Annexes February 2013 – the monitoring table in Annex 1, pages 5 - 10, sets out the DAs and the SOs they will help meet. 61 LG/021 Masterplan for Brighton Marina (PAN04).
26 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
62 The council approved 30th September 2013 a prior approval notification for demolition application for the removal of the two redundant gas holders and the application (BH2013/02188) indicates possible completion date of removal December 2014. 63 SP/070 University of Brighton Accommodation Strategy 64 LG/015 Planning Brief – Lewes Road (Preston Barracks and University of Brighton (September 2011) 65 EP/024 New England House, Digital Media Innovation & Enterprise Hub Joint Vehicle Business Case, 2010 66 BP/025 Annexe 2 Infrastructure Delivery Plan
27 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
Appendix 6
Brighton Marina Inner Harbour Capacity Assessment
❚❚Brighton Marina Inner Harbour ❚❚Capacity Assessment
Brighton Council sought a Capacity Assessment of the However, in the absence of scaled drawings of the proposals Brighton Marina Inner Harbour site. This assessment and not all facts being available, some assumptions have has been undertaken in response to the submission of a been made. These are: Capacity & Feasibility Study undertaken by the landowner, ■■ Size of the existing Asda store and the replacement store; X-Leisure. ■■ Number of car parking spaces that have to be reprovided Tibbalds has been appointed to test the Council’s policy for Asda as well as the existing multi-storey car park; DA2 C1 and advise the Council on the potential capacity of the site. The aim of the study is to test the given quantum of ■■ Distribution of land uses throughout the site. Detailed development without breaching the Cliff Height. assumptions are set out below.
This report is based on the information available and aims This study takes into consideration only the land that had to reflect the landowner’s proposals as close as possible. been proposed for development by X-Leisure and not the Information provided by NLP on behalf of X-Leisure is: whole of the strategic allocation. The following sites have been taken into account: ■■ Brighton Marina Capacity and Feasibility Study 2012 ■■ Cliff Site / Asda ■■ Brighton Marina GIA Area Schedule 11.07.13 ■■ South Site ■■ Schedule III - Details of Floor Areas and Uses ■■ Sea Wall Site ■■ Topo- Survey ■■ Petrol Filling Station Site / Marina Point ■■ Two images of Allies & Morrison showing a volumetric model (one with spot heights) ■■ Inner Harbour Site. Background Information
Policy background
■■ Brighton Marina Inner Harbour Strategic allocation (Policy DA2 C1 of the Submission City Plan)
■■ Masterplan for Brighton Marina (PAN04)
Policy (DA2 C1) Requirements:
Provision is made for a mixed use development comprising a minimum of 1,000 residential units, 5,000 sq m of retail development (A1-A5), 3,500 sq m of leisure and recreation use, community facilities (including health facility and community centre).
■■ Design – development should be of a high quality with excellent use of durable materials to reflect the unique location and surroundings of the Marina;
■■ Townscape and public realm – development should improve the legibility and quality of the townscape and public realm and should demonstrate good connectivity between buildings and spaces within the Marina and wider area;
■■ Housing mix – development should provide for a mix of dwelling type, tenure and size to cater for a range of housing requirements and to improve housing choice;
■■ Flood risk - development should demonstrate that the most vulnerable land uses will be located in areas of lowest flood risk in accordance with Brighton & Hove’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.
Image provided by NLP
Brighton Marina Inner Harbour Capacity Assessment ©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2013 2 The Brief
The capacity assessment is based on a Brief provided by the Council, together with some NLP information.
Lan Use Council Brief Tibbalds’ Assumptions
1000 additional residential units 13,500 sq m – 1 bed (30%) (40% affordable) 30,150 sq m – 2 bed (45%)
18,750 sq m – 3 bed (25%)
62,400 sq m – in total
New parking provision Residential: 1 parking space per Note: for this capacity assessment an residential unit. average of 17 sqm per space has been applied. Commercial/ Retail: 1 space per 22 sq m of gross floor space
Community: 1 space per 104 sq m of gross floor space
Additional retail space 5,000sq m
Additional community facilities 800 sq m (including a community centre and health facility)
Retention of existing leisure 15,290 sqm (GIA) - derived from the (Cineworld, Bowlplex, David Lloyd, information provided by NLP on behalf Casino, Pizza Hut) and recreation of X-Leisure in Brighton Marina GIA Area floorspace in the core area of the Schedule 11.07.13 site
Retention of the existing Asda Existing ASDA store is 3,871 sqm store and car parking spaces with around 300 car parking spaces - measured off plan. Additional area required to account for mezzanine floor.
Retention of the Petrol Station 85 sqm - derived from the information provided by NLP on behalf of X-Leisure in Schedule III
Retention of existing McDonalds 270 sqm - derived from the information provided by NLP on behalf of X-Leisure in Schedule III
Retention of existing parking 1500+ spaces in multi -storey car park - spaces in the multi-storey car park Information from public website and
©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2013 Capacity Assessment Brighton Marina Inner Harbour 3 Capacity Assessment
The Capacity Assessment is based on a design concept that The design concept maintains the key sea views from cliff aims to create clear pedestrian routes, lined by commercial level, allowing direct views from the cliff walk through the and retail uses. There are two key pedestrian routes: Brunswick development. The strong North-South route provides a direct visual connection on the marina from the ■■ East-West route through the Southern Site, linking the cliff face to the sea. beach to the existing Marina Waterfront walk to the east of the development area. This route runs at a podium level that ties in with the existing Marina Board walk. It is car free and lined by commercial, leisure and residential uses.
■■ North-South route connects the existing Cliff Walk to the sea. In the northern part of the site it will run at ground level, crossing beneath the existing ramps. It will then rise to podium level to tie in with the east-west route.
Residential blocks have access to semi private courtyard spaces to ensure an appropriate level of residential quality and open space.
The existing multi-storey car park has been partly wrapped in commercial and residential uses to animate its otherwise blank facades. Sketch view from cliff height towards sea.
Cliff Walk
Semi-private courtyards
Route at Marina Board Walk podium level
Semi-private courtyards
High level views from cliff height
View from cliff walk
Brighton Marina Inner Harbour Capacity Assessment ©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2013 4 Massing study
The image of the model provided by NLP served as starting point for the massing study that underpins this Capacity Assessment. We aimed to retain as many similarities as possible between the massing models to provide a comparable scheme and robust basis for discussion.
Replacement leisure and community uses
Parking on lower levels with public space and courtyards above
Residential
©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2013 Capacity Assessment Brighton Marina Inner Harbour 5 New retail/commercial uses along Existing multi-storey car park, partly side key pedestrian route on upper retained and with additional parking level levels above.
New and replacement leisure uses, two levels of car parking and residential above. C
D A B E
Replacement Asda store, two levels of car parking and residential above.
Replacement leisure and community uses
Replacement and new retail / commercial
Existing, replacement and new car parking
Residential
View from cliff between Brunswick towers
Sketch view illustrating that development remains below cliff height.
Brighton Marina Inner Harbour Capacity Assessment ©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2013 6 ©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2013 Capacity Assessment Brighton Marina Inner Harbour 7 Schedule of accommodation
These numbers are based on a broad brush massing study (image overleaf) and have not been tested in detail.
Block Storey Use Area (sqm) In summary the massing study accommodates the following heights floor in line with the brief set out by the Council:
A 6-9 Residential 11,870 Residential 62,530 sqm (1000 units) Asda store 8,000 Car parking 47,540 sqm (around 2750 Asda car park 5,100 (300 space) spaces) Residential 1,000 spaces Residential car 4,550 Replacement car park 1,500 spaces park New Retail 231 space B 5-10 Residential 16,540 Community Centre 8 spaces Replacement 5,140 leisure Replacement Leisure 15,520 sqm (including Mc Donald) Community 840 facilities New Retail 5,100 sqm
New Retail 410 Community facilities 840 sqm
Car park 12,700 Petrol Station 85 sqm
C 5-10 Residential 42,020
Replacement 10,380 leisure
Car park 25,195
New Retail 3,285
D 10 Residential 2,930
New Retail 1,305
E 4 Residential 320
New Retail 106
Brighton Marina Inner Harbour Capacity Assessment ©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2013 8 Summary
The Capacity Assessment has shown that it would be possible to accommodate the given brief below Cliff Height. Building heights would range from 5-10 storeys and car parking would mostly be accommodated in multi-storey car parks.
In the southern part of the site, the development would be raised with the groundfloor given to parking and servicing.
The massing study raises a number of design issues that may be able to be addressed at a more detailed stage :
■■ Limited areas of public open space;
■■ Treatment of frontages. In some situations car parking is located on ground, first and second floor, which potentially leads to blank frontages; and
■■ Quality of pedestrian / cycle routes.
It should be noted that this study doesn’t take into account the whole of the policy area. Therefore, there is an opportunity to consider redevelopment of the wider site, including the Quadrangle. We understand that the area south of Palm Drive is not as commercially successful as it could be and the area to the north has the potential to be redeveloped at higher densities. However, without viability advice it is not possible to say if the redevelopment of the wider site would be feasible.
Spatially, however, the redevelopment of the wider area may lead to a less dense scheme that allows for more public open space and a higher quality public realm.
©TIBBALDS OCTOBER 2013 Capacity Assessment Brighton Marina Inner Harbour 9 Matter 3a: Development Areas Statement by Brighton & Hove City Council 8th October 2013
Appendix 7
English Heritage Statement
PINS REF: APP/Q1445/A/09/2102048/NWF
LPA REF: BH2007/03454
PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF IGNATIUS FRONEMAN, BAS, AIFA
In respect of
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT BRIGHTON MARINA
On behalf of
BRIGHTON & HOVE CITY COUNCIL
CgMs Ref: IF/TB/11130
Date: September 2009
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
CONTENTS PAGE No.
1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 3 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 4 3.0 ASSESSMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE KEMP TOWN CONSERVATION AREA 5 4.0 THE POLICY BACKGROUND 8 5.0 THE CONSERVATION ISSUES 11 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 22
APPENDICES (bound separately)
Appendix 1: Detailed Assessment of Significance of Kemp Town and its Environs.
Appendix 2: Photos of views from some of the first floor rooms of Kemp Town houses Plates 1-4.
CgMs Ltd © 2 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
1.0 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
1.1 My name is Ignatius Froneman. I hold the degree of BA in Architecture and I have over seven years of professional experience of the historic built environment. I have experience of development affecting conservation areas and their settings, as well as other historic assets such as listed buildings in urban and rural locations, and registered parks and gardens.
1.2 I am a member of the Institute for Archaeologists (AIFA), and an Associate Director in the Historic Buildings team (London office) of CgMs Limited. In this capacity I have personally been involved with major developments affecting the historic environment throughout the UK, including nine proposed onshore wind farms. Five of these wind farm projects involved the preparation of Environmental Statements. Three were pre-scoping assessments. Another involved preparing a statement on the setting of listed buildings.
1.3 I have also assessed and given advice on the impacts of many other types of development affecting the historic environment, including: the Maze Prison and Long Kesh Internment Camp, near Lisburn, Northern Ireland (baseline recording and recommendations to the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister); 'One Tower Bridge' - the land opposite the Tower of London, in between the City Hall and Tower Bridge, in Southwark, London (baseline assessment, ES, supporting statement); and the Lafarge Cement works, Northfleet (baseline assessment and ES). Smaller projects include assessments of a number of listed and unlisted police buildings in London as part of CgMs' involvement as consultants to the Metropolitan Police.
1.4 Many of my company’s clients are developers in the private sector, but we also work for public bodies such as English Heritage, the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Office, and the Metropolitan Police, and for organisations such as the National Trust and British Waterways.
CgMs Ltd © 3 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
2.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
2.1 This proof of evidence addresses the impact of the appeal scheme on the Kemp Town Conservation Area, as set out in refusal reason 1 and amended by the Council's planning committee on 2 September 2009. It should be read in conjunction with the other evidence prepared on behalf of the Council.
2.2 I have focussed my evidence on issues relating to the appeal scheme's impacts on the setting of the Kemp Town Conservation Area in views from and of the conservation area, in accordance with reason for refusal 1 and the second issue as identified by Mr Goodwin. As this conservation area includes an unusually high proportion of Grade I listed buildings I have also included references to private views from within some of the Grade I listed buildings in the conservation area.
2.3 This proof falls into two main sections: an assessment of the importance of the Kemp Town Conservation Area, and then a consideration of the impacts of the appeal scheme on this importance (with particular reference to its setting and views into and out the conservation area). This first section (3.0) comprises an assessment of the significance of the Kemp Town Conservation Area, although in light of PINS Circular 01/2009, the detail relating to its historical development and character and appearance is contained in Appendix 1.
2.4 Section 4.0 provides a summary of the relevant Conservation policy and guidance at both national and local level. Section 5.0 examines the conservation area issues referred to above.
2.5 Finally, and in accordance with PINS Circular 01/2009, I confirm that the evidence I have prepared for this appeal is true, has been prepared and given in accordance with the guidance of my professional institutions and that the opinions expressed are my professional opinions.
CgMs Ltd © 4 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
3.0 ASSESSMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE KEMP TOWN CONSERVATION AREA
3.1 There is an unusually high number of Grade I listed buildings in the Kemp Town Conservation Area, both proportionally in terms of the quantity of buildings within the conservation area, and also in terms of the relatively small area of land that is covered by the conservation area (see Annex 1 of CD2/4.2 for the English Heritage/DCMS list descriptions).
3.2 According to paragraph 3.6 of PPG15, Grade I and II* listed buildings comprise 'a small proportion (about 6%) of all listed buildings' and they 'are of particularly great importance to the nation's built heritage: their significance will generally be beyond dispute.' The same paragraph states that these buildings are of 'outstanding architectural or historic interest'. In addition, the Kemp Town Conservation Area also includes an English Heritage Registered Park/Garden. These designations should be a material consideration in any assessment of the conservation area's overall significance.
3.3 The unusually high number of Grade I listed buildings, and the English Heritage Registered Park/Garden, clearly indicate that the Kemp Town Conservation Area is highly significant in terms of its historic built environment.
3.4 I also refer to English Heritage's comments regarding the significance of this conservation area, noted further on in this section of my proof. In essence, English Heritage describes the Kemp Town Conservation Area as 'one of the best set pieces in Brighton', noting in turn that Brighton and Hove's terraces are 'among the best of the Regency period in Britain.'
3.5 In light of the above, this conservation area is of the highest significance in the national context. Great weight must therefore be given to it when considering any proposals that may affect it.
3.6 Full and detailed descriptions of the conservation area, which was one of the earliest to be designated in Brighton, are available in a number of documents. These include the Council's 'Kemp Town Conservation Area Study and Enhancement Plan' (1992), which while it does not fully comply with the most recent English Heritage 'Guidance on Conservation Area Appraisals' (2006),
CgMs Ltd © 5 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
nevertheless provides a useful description of the area, the opportunities for enhancement and an overall assessment of its significance.
3.7 It is clear that both the Council and the residents of the Kemp Town estate attach considerable weight to maintaining and (where possible) enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area. This is reflected not only in the way in which individual buildings, the private communal gardens and the area as a whole is generally maintained to a high standard, but also in the existence of an Article 4 Direction governing paint colour on external elevations 'visible from Marine Parade, the gardens and Eastern Road'. There is also a Regulation 7 Direction, which relates to 'For Sale' advertising boards.
3.8 The Council's 'Kemp Town Conservation Area Study and Enhancement Plan' lists at Appendix 4 a number of features that are key to its character and appearance; they are cited with apparent approval at paragraph 7.2.11 of CD2/4.2. It is worth here drawing one specific item to the Inspector's attention, namely 'Visual and physical links with the sea and beaches'. This, it is stated, forms part of the conservation area's character. These visual links - that is, views out of, and views of, the conservation area - are of critical importance to my evidence. I return in Section 4.0 of this proof to the ways in which the appeal scheme would affect this characteristic.
3.9 Finally, reference should, of course, also be made to the English Heritage's comments on the importance of the conservation area, as well as significant and important aspects of it. I have not included their comments in full, but refer to Graham Steaggles' letter, dated 15 January 2008. I note the following:
i) 'The Kemp Town Terraces [...] are one of the best set pieces in Brighton. Perhaps after Regents Park, London and Bath, Brighton and Hove's terraces rank alongside Edinburgh and Cheltenham as among the best of the Regency period in Britain.'
ii) '... [they] arguably represent town planning at its most handsome'
iii) 'Brighton's is probably the most intact seafront of this period in the country'
iv) The esplanade '...besides being a viewing place, provided the ability to access the [Kemp Town] crescent as a formalised perambulation,
CgMs Ltd © 6 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
approaching from the east and west grand terraces, so that the views out were to [...] the cliffs and sea eastward, together with oblique views of the terraces.'
v) 'The [Kemp Town] terraces make a major contribution to the Brighton seafront set pieces.'
vi) 'They are also part of the overall seafront assemblage that sets Brighton apart from any other seaside town.'
vii) '... the existing views [from the esplanade, in easterly directions - such as view T30 of CD2/4.2] are not unlike those seen when the terraces were built. The existing 'corridor' views along the esplanade and the flanking Arundel and Chichester terraces are currently to the sea horizon to the east [...] although some interventions appear just above the cliff... '
CgMs Ltd © 7 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
4.0 THE POLICY BACKGROUND
4.1 It is not necessary here to set out the full policy background (this is included in the SOCG) but I have included a specific reference to guidance in PGG15 on development affecting conservation areas.
4.2 Section 72 of the 1990 Act states that in considering whether or not to grant planning permission for development which affects a conservation area, ‘special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.’ As far as the impact of the appeal scheme on the Kemp Town Conservation Area is concerned, paragraphs 4.14 to 4.20 of PPG 15 are, of course, highly relevant. In particular, paragraph 4.14 of PPG 15 makes clear that views into or out of the area, as well as land outside of the conservation area, can have an impact on the area. Accordingly, it is appropriate in this case for refusal reason 1 to refer to the adverse effect of the appeal scheme on the conservation area, even though the appeal scheme does not fall within the conservation area boundary.
4.3 I believe it is also useful to refer the Inspector to national guidance contained in the July 2009 consultation paper on a new PPS 15 and the accompanying 'English Heritage Practice Guide Living Draft 24 July 2009'. Although PGG15 remains in force for the time being, these publications give an indication of the direction of policy and English Heritage's approach to the consideration of heritage assets and their settings.
4.4 The apparently greater importance attached to formally planned settings implicit in paragraph 2.16 of PPG15 finds no place in the draft PPS. The accompanying 'English Heritage Practice Guide Living Draft 24 July 2009' comments (at paragraphs 50 to 53) on draft Policy HE11 that:
(50) The contribution made by setting to the significance of a heritage asset does not depend on whether it was designed specifically to complement the heritage asset (such as formal parkland around an historic house) or whether it has developed fortuitously (such as a multi-period townscape around a medieval church). Nor does it depend on the public's right or ability to gain access to that setting' (my emphasis).
CgMs Ltd © 8 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
(51) The setting of a heritage asset [including conservation areas] includes any parts of the asset's surroundings that have a relationship with it capable of affecting either its significance or people's ability to appreciate its significance. The extent of setting is not, therefore, fixed and will change as a heritage asset and its surrounding evolve.
(52) Setting includes, but is not restricted to, visual relationships and will normally be more extensive than curtilage. For example, buildings that are close by but not visible from each other may have a historic or aesthetic connection that amplifies the significance of each. This can apply to buildings or sites that currently share or used to share a function or purpose as well as those that were designed or built together.
(53) The ability to appreciate significance can be harmed, improved or left unaffected by changes in the setting. Again, this is perhaps most likely to be through the addition or removal of permanent visual intrusion, but noise and general activity, from traffic, for example, can have an impact. The ability to appreciate an asset can actually be part of its significance. Some buildings, townscapes and landscapes were designed to give a particular impression from certain viewpoints and loss or impairment of these can diminish that value' (my emphasis).
4.5 This clarification of the definition of the setting of 'historic assets' and guidance on 'understanding its importance' in the draft PPS 15 offers assistance in dealing with effects upon settings of heritage assets. My understanding of the draft PPS 15 is that it indicates the government's intention to increase the weight that should be attached to the significance of setting as a material consideration in determining planning applications.
4.6 Finally, although as stated at paragraph 3.1 above, there is no need to rehearse all of the relevant local policy in this section of the proof, brief clarification should be offered here on the status of ‘The Kemp Town Conservation Area Study and Enhancement Plan’ and the weight that should be attached to it at this inquiry.
4.7 First, the document may appear somewhat different to the many Conservation Area Character Appraisals produced in recent years (both by BHCC and others). This is a direct result of the fact that the document was the first of its kind to be
CgMs Ltd © 9 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
produced in Brighton - which is in itself an indication of the importance that the Council has always attached to the Kemp Town Conservation Area.
4.8 Despite the absence of colourful illustrations or striking graphic presentation, the aims of the document- ‘to identify those aspects which make up the special character of the conservation area, the threats to that character, the constraints on future change and development and to propose an Enhancement Plan of policies and projects which will both “preserve and enhance” the character of the conservation area’- remain as relevant today as they did in January 1992.
4.9 At that time, the document was subject to extensive public consultation with local residents, businesses, national and local amenity societies before adoption by the Council as Supplementary Planning Guidance. As such, and as an expression of the Council’s assessment of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and aspirations for its future, it remains directly relevant to this inquiry. It was produced as an objective appraisal of the character and appearance of the area, rather than in response to, or in anticipation of, a particular development proposal (however, the proposals for the Black Rock Swimming pool site at that time are noted in the document as a potential form of future development).
CgMs Ltd © 10 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
5.0 THE CONSERVATION ISSUES
5.1 As Section 2.0 of this proof made clear, the Kemp Town Conservation Area is of outstanding importance. Any development proposal that would affect the conservation area's character and appearance, its setting, or views into and out of it, must therefore be very carefully considered.
Key Features and Characteristic Elements of the Kemp Town Conservation Area
5.2 I have listed below some of the key features and characteristic elements of the Kemp Town Conservation Area that I believe are relevant to this inquiry:
i) The Kemp Town Conservation Area, although relatively small, is characterised by the following distinct elements:
a) Its built form (i.e. the buildings themselves, along with their plots and outbuildings - this includes their scale, architectural expression, materials, urban grain, form, detailing etc.). I do not discuss this in detail, other than to note the sea fronting orientation of many of the buildings, particularly those along Arundel Terrace and Chichester Terrace, and the deeper windows and balconies of their principal first floor rooms, which accentuate the outward views from within these principal rooms.
b) The 'internal' layout and street scenes, including on one hand the sense of enclosure resulting from the imposing building frontages (particularly along Lewes Crescent and Sussex Square), which is on the other hand relieved by the open spaces of the communal gardens and, perhaps more significantly, the 'opening up' of the development itself towards the sea (see below).
c) The elevated seafront esplanades and the extensive views afforded from here (views from the buildings that define the seafront element of the conservation area can be included). I do not suggest that the Kemp Town estate was planned to take account of deliberately planned views or sight lines, but it is nevertheless quite clear that views of the sea and the coastline influenced the layout and the design of the estate. Indeed, its elevated coastal position and gently sloping topography was one of the reasons why the estate was established here in the first place.
CgMs Ltd © 11 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
In terms of Kemp Town's layout, this opening up of the estate towards the seafront is quite clearly expressed by the crescent shape along Lewes Crescent, whilst the openness of the gardens perhaps more subtly ensures and directs sea views (albeit oblique) from the properties further inland. These sea views are accentuated from inside the more elevated principal rooms of the buildings at first floor level.
Despite the presence of traffic, the Marine Parade esplanade, like the slopes and the gardens (see below) readily lends itself to leisurely ambling - as has been the case almost since the construction of Kemp Town itself. Indeed, the idea of creating formal walks above the sea at the southern end of the Kemp Town estate was mooted at the first meeting of the Kemp Town Enclosures Committee in 1828, and construction started in the same year.
The opening of the development towards the south, and the far reaching views obtainable, are instantly appreciable. This is a particularly tangible characteristic along Chichester and Arundel Terraces respectively, but even more so along Marine Parade itself, where the eye is almost inevitably drawn towards the sea, and the coastline stretching out towards the west and the east.
Whilst the westerly views include the built form of the city, now encroached up to Kemp Town, the easterly views include, at sea level the modern marina, with the chalk cliffs and the largely undeveloped costal hinterland beyond. Whilst these views from and of the conservation area do not equate to deliberately planned views or vistas, their importance should not be under estimated. In particular, the easterly views contain the only appreciable remaining part of the conservation area's once undeveloped setting - another reasons for why the estate was established here in the first place. These views therefore play an important role in one's understanding and interpretation of the conservation area, and can be described as one of the conservation area's key characteristics. The significance of these easterly views is accentuated by the fact that they are the only views left to show the conservation area within this (apparently) undeveloped context. Indeed, English Heritage
CgMs Ltd © 12 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
describe these views as '...not unlike [...] when the terraces were built' (see point vii) of paragraph 3.6).
d) The open nature of the esplanades, the gardens and the slopes below which ultimately leads to the beach. This area is quite different in character to the built up part of Kemp Town. It is perhaps most strongly characterised by a sense of openness and as a result, one becomes very much aware of the views afforded from this part of the conservation area. That includes easterly and westerly views (discussed above), but also (depending on one's position) northerly views of the slopes and the gardens, along with the tunnel entrance, the reading room and the gardeners cottages, or southerly views over the esplanades and Volks Railway, with the beach and the sea beyond.
ii) Despite some development to the east (including the marina at sea level), the largely undeveloped costal hinterland of the Kemp Town Conservation Area is still evident in easterly views. Views from within the conservation area have been discussed above, but the largely undeveloped cliffs and hinterland is also apparent in views towards Kemp Town from the west. In such views it is likewise still possible to appreciate the conservation area as located at the edge of the city. As before, the appreciation of this part of the conservation area's setting is all the more significant in these views because they are the only views to feature this last surviving remnant of its original setting.
Other Factors
5.3 I do not dispute that the construction of the marina in the 1970s, and its subsequent development from the 1980s through to the present day, has significantly altered what might be called the 'setting' of the conservation area to the south-east, albeit at a much lower level than Kemp Town itself. I also recognize that other factors need to be taken into account, in particular the approved Brunswick proposal1, and that PAN04 acknowledges the principle of high density building and tall buildings to be acceptable at the western end of the marina.
1 Although the Brighton International Arena directly below the cliff edge is also shown in outline on the Appellant's cumulative photomontages (dated June 2008 - CD2/4.2), it has not been submitted as an application and is not a material consideration (see also paragraph 3.22 of the Statement of Common Ground).
CgMs Ltd © 13 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
PAN04 and the Principle and form of Marina Development
5.4 My concern, and that of the Council, is not the principle of development on the marina, or that tall buildings are proposed. With regards to the principle and form of acceptable marina development, it is relevant to examine what PAN04 actually stipulates. First, although it states (p.28) that 'the western, more commercial areas of the Marina may be more suitable for taller buildings than the eastern end of the Marina', it also defines a tall building as one of six storeys or more, or indeed a building which is simply 'significantly higher than the height of any existing adjacent buildings'.
5.5 The document then sets out the various criteria that any tall building in this area must satisfy. Notably, all must be 'informed' by SPG BH15 and English Heritage's/CABE's 'Guidance on Tall Buildings' (July 2007). I also draw the Inspector's attention to the PAN04 criteria for buildings 'which are six storeys or are significantly higher than the height of any existing adjacent buildings'. Points ii, iii and vii (see p.28) are particularly relevant to the issues considered in this proof.
5.6 Point ii notes the requirement for contextual relationships, including with (amongst others) the topography and the skyline. According to the aforementioned point iii, development proposals will need to ensure that that the building design allows for 'visual permeability through the development out to sea, the harbour area and views of the protected Black Rock Cliffs'. Point vii stipulates that development proposals will need to 'avoid harm to important views and [...] not detract from views from the AONB, the setting of the Kemp Town Conservation Area or listed buildings.' Certainly, there is no suggestion that any one criterion takes precedence over another. It follows that if any of the criteria are not successfully met, the development will not be considered appropriate. As will be clear from the following paragraphs, the appeal scheme does not, in my opinion, comply with these PAN04 criteria.
The Effects of the Appeal Scheme on the Kemp Town Conservation Area
5.7 Turning to the appeal scheme, I discuss below the elements which I consider would result in some harm to the Kemp Town Conservation Area by affecting important setting-related views from within the conservation area, and longer views of the conservation area in its setting.
CgMs Ltd © 14 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
5.8 Firstly, I consider the so-called Sea Wall (site 2). Neither I, nor the Council, have any specific objections to the architectural style and design of the buildings as they appear from the conservation area (fortunately, its rather uninspiring eastern elevation does not face the Kemp Town Conservation Area). I accept that this part of the appeal scheme would screen some of the existing buildings behind, which I consider to be architecturally bland and unexceptional (notably the David Lloyd and the two other 'sheds' behind it), from view.
5.9 Nevertheless, the proposed buildings are clearly of considerably greater size, massing and height than the sheds. As a result of the wave-like form of the sheds' roofs, and their limited height, they do at least permit views from Kemp Town into the harbour between the breakwaters and to the open sea beyond. In such views the buildings of the Brunswick scheme would be appreciable as a coherent cluster of marina buildings, clearly distinct and separate from the cliffs and the landmass to the north.
5.10 The Brunswick scheme would also allow uninterrupted easterly views of the cliffs (from within and the conservation area, and of it in longer views), along with views of the sea in between the landmass and the new development. In my opinion, this gap is of critical importance in terms of the Brunswick scheme's acceptability in setting-related easterly views from and of the Kemp Town Conservation Area. Significantly, it allows the viewer to still appreciate the sea, the cliffs and the downs in easterly views from or of the Kemp Town Conservation Area, regardless of the new development. It also serves to distinguish the new development as separate from the cliffs and instead as a distinct part of the modern marina.
5.11 However, the proposed buildings (i.e. those on the Sea Wall site, but also the Cliff Site and these two sites, 'cumulatively', with the Marina Point tower) would in effect introduce a sense of continuous development from the cliffs up to the Brunswick tower. The result of this is that the visual link between the Kemp Town Conservation Area and the harbour, the open sea beyond - but perhaps most importantly the hinterland to the east - would be lost. In effect the conservation area would be severed from its hinterland which, I believe, is important to one's appreciation and understanding of the only perceivable remaining part of its original setting (i.e. in easterly views both from within, and areas to the west of, the conservation area). Although this effect will be
CgMs Ltd © 15 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
compounded Brunswick scheme, the appeal scheme would have the same effect regardless of the Brunswick scheme.
5.12 The objection to the Sea Wall site is principally to its role in amalgamating or consolidating the Brunswick scheme, the Marina Point tower and the Cliff Site of the appeal scheme into one, apparently single mass of development when viewed from parts of Kemp Town or in longer views of it. That is well illustrated in images C4, C5, C6, C39 and C40, T30 and T42 of CD2/4.2. My other concern is the diminution of maritime context of the Kemp Town Conservation Area in easterly views. Again, this may not be wholly attributable to the Sea Wall site, but when it is seen together with the Cliff Site and the Marina Point tower (and cumulatively also with the Brunswick scheme), the effect is clear. That is also illustrated in images C4, C5, C6, C39 and C40, T30 and T42 of CD2/4.2. It should also be noted that these effects on views from within the Kemp Town Conservation Area becomes even more apparent when looking towards the appeal site from the first-floor windows and balconies of several of the (Grade I listed) houses (see plates 1-4, Appendix 2).
5.13 I also draw the Inspector's attention here to the 'kinetic' nature of the easterly views as one walks along Marine Parade. By this I mean one's experience and sense, or perception, of 'place' when taking in views along this part of the conservation area. Whilst the photomontages are undoubtedly useful in graphically illustrating the appearance of the proposals, they are also inherently limited by their very nature (i.e. they are inevitably static points with a predetermined and fixed arc of view). However accurate these viewpoints may be, one's actual experience of the views of the harbour, the sea, the cliffs and the landmass to the east of Kemp Town, when moving along Marine Parade, cannot be captured in this way.
5.14 For instance, when analysing a printed view, the cliffs might not appear to be a particularly striking feature or component of the view. However, as one moves along Marine Parade, my own experience is that in reality one becomes acutely aware of the cliffs and the downs beyond. The resulting impression or perception is that this area is effectively at the edge of the city. My concern is that this will no longer be the case if the appeal scheme was allowed. One's experience or perception of being at 'the edge' of the city will be lost; instead the perception will be that this area, now hemmed in by new development, is
CgMs Ltd © 16 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
part of a modern extension of the city. In my opinion that would not equate to mere erosion or encroachment on the conservation area's setting in such views, but in effect destruction of the last remnants of the original undeveloped setting of this significant conservation area.
5.15 The Cliff Site would have a similar impact, although again this effect will be compounded by the cumulative effect of the Sea Wall site, the Marina Point tower and the Brunswick scheme. Here, the issues with the appeal scheme are principally that the Cliff Site buildings will obscure the cliffs beyond them in easterly views, but also their contribution to one's sense of continuous development from the cliff edge up to the Brunswick tower. The views of the cliff and the downland beyond will be severed and, again, one's perception of being at 'the edge' of the city will be lost; instead the perception will be that this area is part of a modern extension of the city. This point is graphically illustrated in images C4, C5, C6, T30, C39 and 40. Again, I draw the Inspector's attention to the kinetic nature of such views. Although this effect will be compounded Brunswick scheme, the appeal scheme would have the same effect regardless of the Brunswick scheme; the Brunswick scheme, on its own, would not have the same effect.
5.16 The harmful impact of this change is, I think, particularly evident in C40 and perhaps even more so in T30. These photographs reveal the extent to which the historic setting of Kemp Town would be cut off in easterly views from its hinterland of sea, chalk cliff and downs to the east. The views quite clearly show that currently, this is not the case. In these views the Cliff Site would quite clearly consolidate the perception of a mass of built development, in effect almost continuous from cliff edge to the Brunswick tower. On p.170 of CD2/4.2 the appellants describe this as a fundamental change to this view, and add that 'the distant flat horizon' will be replaced with 'a complex of built forms'. The appellants curiously appear to suggest on the same page that view is not significant because it is not from the centre of the 'enclave'.
5.17 At present, on passing along Arundel Terrace and the section of Marine Parade in front of it the pedestrian, driver or bus passenger becomes aware, despite the presence of the marina to the south-east and some suburban development to the north-east, of the inviting prospect of coast and countryside opening up
CgMs Ltd © 17 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
beyond. Depending on the specific location, this would be wholly lost, compromised or changed.
5.18 This sense of anticipation is important and helps to emphasize the fact that Kemp Town is the historic end of Brighton (albeit originally separated from it). The importance of this part of Kemp Town's historic setting, particularly in easterly views, cannot be over-emphasised. Kemp Town's origin is inherently linked to its development as a separate entity from Brighton. Although that is clearly no longer the case, one's appreciation of its largely undeveloped costal hinterland, still evident in easterly views, unquestionably contributes to a significant degree to Kemp Town's character, and one's ability to appreciate its almost unchanged original setting in these views.
5.19 If these easterly views - the only views to still allude to Kemp Town's original undeveloped setting - are to be lost, one's understanding and appreciation of the conservation area as the 'edge' of the city (or indeed as a once separate entity from the city) will be irrevocably lost. Anything that is done to diminish this appreciation would, in my opinion, fail to preserve important conservation area setting-related views and should therefore be resisted. Significantly, the Brunswick scheme would not result in such harm, as in fact the appellants' own 'cumulative' images at T30 and C40 make clear.
5.20 In many ways the impact of the proposed Marina Point tower on the Kemp Town Conservation Area derives directly from the tower’s visual relationship with the Cliff Site buildings. In images C6, C39, C40, C42 and T30 for instance, it appears to rise out of the solid mass of the proposed Cliff Site buildings (discussed above), further emphasizing the landward extension of building from the approved Brunswick scheme.
5.21 While I do not believe that this tower has the same elegant architectural form or quality of the approved Brunswick tower, there is no objection to its architectural form per se. I accept that, because it is a relatively narrow building (particularly in comparison with the scale and massing of the Cliff Site buildings and the long western elevation of the Sea Wall), it does not intrude on the easterly views to the extent that both these latter elements of the proposals do.
CgMs Ltd © 18 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
5.22 I share the opinion of the Council's Design and Conservation Manager, and English Heritage, that the amendments to the tower's design have improved its appearance. I also, however, agree with the former's opinion that 'Whilst the tower may help mark the marina as a destination of urban significance, on balance, and in other respects its impact on the wider coastal cityscape is seen as moderately adverse; particularly since the tower's silhouette and sculptural qualities are features that may not be readily appreciated from this distance' (i.e. from the Palace Pier).
5.23 Both these points are clearly revealed in the appellants' image C4 in CD2/4.2, with the accompanying text (p.66) noting that the tower 'contribut(es) to the creation of a strong urban townscape at the east end of the city rather than a dwindling of built form towards the downland' and 'unfortunately obscur(es) a certain amount of cliff'.
5.24 I agree with both these statements. However, in the case of the first I believe this 'strong urban townscape', to use the appellant's own words, will undoubtedly have an adverse effect on the setting of the conservation area in easterly views for the reasons set out above. I consider this to apply just as much to middle distance as to closer views (i.e. views both towards the conservation area from the west with the appeal scheme in the same view, and from within the conservation area in the direction of the appeal scheme).
5.25 The second statement by the appellants on p.66 in CD2/4.2 (i.e. that a 'certain amount' of the cliffs would 'unfortunately' be obscured) appears to be a somewhat reluctant acknowledgement by the appellants that one's perception of the cliffs (but in my opinion also the downs, where perceivable) is an important feature in such views. It is stated on the same page that 'a substantial amount' of the cliffs will be obscured, but it is added that 'they can be seen to continue in the far distance'.
5.26 It is critical that the appellants' description of the loss of the cliffs and their assessment of the effect, however, discusses the view only in landscape and visual terms (see also image C4 in CD2/4.2, and the accompanying text on p.74). Their statement of the appeal scheme's effect appears to ignore the impacts that the appeal scheme would have on the only appreciable remaining
CgMs Ltd © 19 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
part of the conservation area's once undeveloped setting, and one's appreciation of it, in easterly views.
5.27 Almost inevitably the appellants claim landmark status for their scheme as a whole, and particularly the architectural merits of their tower. On this basis it is argued that the appeal scheme is 'redeemed' and should be seen as 'beneficial'. I do not dispute that the appeal scheme represents some form of landmark, or that in some views the buildings proposed would obscure existing buildings of arguably lesser architectural merit. Rather, my concern is that with the appeal scheme the relationship between the Kemp Town Conservation Area and its eastern hinterland will be lost - regardless of the appeal scheme's architectural merit, or whether it is considered a landmark in its own right.
5.28 The Brunswick scheme could likewise be considered a landmark of architectural merit, but as I have demonstrated, it would not cause the same harm to the conservation area setting in views as would be the case with the appeal scheme.
Effects of the Appeal Scheme on views from within the Kemp Town Conservation Area buildings
5.29 Finally, I draw the Inspector's attention to the views over the appeal site and its environs from the many Grade I buildings within the Kemp Town Conservation Area. I accept that the reasons for refusal do not specifically highlight the effects of the appeal scheme on listed buildings. I also accept that 'no-one has the right to a view', but in this instance the situation is not as simple as that: in my opinion these views are integral to the conservation area and, although private, can be described as important conservation area views in their own right.
5.30 These buildings, although individually of 'outstanding' interest (paragraph 2.6 of PPG15), also collectively make a substantial contribution to the character and the significance of the conservation area. Given their contribution to the conservation area, and that views from their first floor principal rooms are integral to their design (see Appendix 1), it follows that such views should, at the very least, also be considered when discussing significant conservation area views.
CgMs Ltd © 20 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
5.31 The appellants' CD2/4.2 and Design & Access statement contains numerous photographs from the Kemp Town estate, taken to support their assessment of the appeal scheme. However, these photographs are unsurprisingly all taken from the public realm. Some of these views from elevated positions take in much more than is the case looking in the same direction at ground level, where hedges, railings or even parked cars can severely impede the extent of the view (see for instance T26 to T29 in CD2/4.2). Certainly, the appellants' ground-level views compare unfavourably in their extent with views from the first floor- windows of houses in the immediate vicinity.
5.32 By way of illustrating this point, I have included in Appendix 2 photos of views from some of the first floor rooms of the following Kemp Town houses:
i) Fife House (No.1 Lewes Crescent) - plate 1;
ii) No.4 Lewes Crescent (Flat 2) - plate 2;
iii) No.4 Sussex Square (Flat 2) - plate 3; and
iv) No.6 Arundel Terrace - plate 4
5.33 In essence the effect on these views is similar to the effect on views discussed above. It can be summarised as:
i) amalgamating or consolidating the appeal scheme and the Brunswick scheme into one, apparently single mass of development (plates 1-4);
ii) the appeal scheme's 'hemming in effect' with the result that the area will in fact appear as part of a modern extension of the city, rather than the present sense of being at 'the edge' of the city (plates 1-3);
iii) a diminution of the Kemp Town Conservation Area's maritime context in such views (plates 1-4, but in particular plate 3)
5.34 I accordingly strongly urge the Inspector to see for himself these views (and those from any other properties he feels might be particularly relevant) during the course of the inquiry.
CgMs Ltd © 21 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 This proof of evidence has addressed the impact of the appeal scheme on the setting of the Kemp Town Conservation Area in views from and of the conservation area, as set out in refusal reason 1 and amended by the Council's planning committee on 2 September 2009.
6.2 The Kemp Town Conservation Area contains a very high proportion of listed buildings, most of them listed at Grade I, and also an English Heritage Registered Park/Garden. This conservation area is therefore of the highest significance in terms of its historic built environment; accordingly great weight must be given to it when considering any proposals that may affect it.
6.3 Paragraph 4.14 of PPG15 makes it clear that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. That includes its setting and views into or out of the area.
6.4 Some of the key features and characteristic elements of the Kemp Town Conservation Area are:
i) its built form;
ii) its 'internal' street scenes;
iii) the open seafront and the extensive views afforded from here; and
iv) the conservation area's relation with its largely undeveloped costal hinterland, which is still evident, and allows appreciation of the conservation area as part of the edge of the city.
6.5 The modern marina has significantly altered what might be called the 'setting' of the conservation area to the south-east at sea level. Despite this, in many views the relation between the conservation area and its open eastern hinterland is still evident.
6.6 The principle of high density building and tall buildings on the marina is set out in PAN04. My concern is not the principle of development on the marina, or that tall buildings are proposed. Rather, it is the specific impacts of the appeal
CgMs Ltd © 22 IF/TB/11130
Proof of Evidence Brighton Marina Brighton & Hove City Council
scheme on the Kemp Town Conservation Area and its setting in certain views, and also its non-conformance with PAN04.
6.7 Kemp Town's origin is inherently linked to its development as a separate entity from Brighton. Although that is no longer the case, one's appreciation of this largely undeveloped costal hinterland, still evident to the east in easterly views, unquestionably contributes to a significant degree to Kemp Town's character, and one's ability to appreciate its original setting in such views.
6.8 The sense of enclosure and continuous development from the cliffs, introduced by the appeal scheme, would significantly intrude in such views. As a result, Kemp Town would effectively be cut off from its hinterland of sea, chalk cliff and downs to the east. It would be hemmed in by new development, and appear to be part of a modern extension of the city, rather than at the edge of it. That does not represent partial erosion or small-scale encroachment on the conservation area's setting in such views, but in effect destruction of the last remnants of its original, largely undeveloped setting and an important aspect of its appreciation.
6.9 I have taken the approved Brunswick scheme into account in my evidence as a future proposal. I conclude that the Brunswick scheme would not have the same detrimental effect as the appeal scheme.
6.10 For these reasons, I believe that the appeal scheme would cause harm to the last appreciable remaining part of the Kemp Town Conservation Area's original setting in easterly views. Given the significance of this conservation area, I urge the Inspector to dismiss the appeals.
CgMs Ltd © 23 IF/TB/11130