Venue: Council Chamber, Hove Town Hall. View directions
Contact: Penny JenningsItems No. Item
1A. Declarations of Substitutes
1.1 Councillors Cobb and Simson attended as substitute Members for Councillors Barnett and K Norman respectively.
1B. Declarations of Interest
1.2 There were none.
1C. Exclusion of Press and Public
1.3 The Committee considered whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of any items contained in the agenda, having regard to the nature of the business to be transacted and the nature of the proceedings and the likelihood as to whether, if members of the press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of confidential or exempt information as defined in Section 100A(3) or 100(1) of the Local Government Act 1972.
1.4 RESOLVED - That the press and public be not excluded from the meeting during consideration of any items on the agenda.
2.1 The Chairman explained that following a “soft” launch meetings of the Planning Committee were to be webcast live including that afternoon’s special meeting. Planning Committee meetings were to be filmed as part of a pilot project along with meetings of full Council, Cabinet and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The pilot project was set to run until June 2009. Members were reminded to speak directly into their microphones and to switch them off when they had finished speaking in order to ensure that they could be heard clearly both within the Council Chamber and the Public Gallery above. The Chairman also explained that she fully understood that the application to be considered that afternoon was a controversial one and that a number of people present had contrasting views either in terms of opposition or support, however undue disruption of the meeting by any party present would not be tolerated. If such behaviour were to occur the meeting would be adjourned whilst the perpetrators were removed from the building.
2.2 The Clerk to the Committee explained that correspondence sent to those wishing to make representations at the meeting had included information to ensure that they were aware that the meeting was to be web-cast. Guidance had also been given relative to use of equipment available in the meeting room including operating instructions for the microphones.
To receive any Petitions in respect of planning application BH2007/03544, Land at Brighton Marina Including Inner Harbour and Adjacent Sites
No petitions had been received by the date of publication of the agenda.
3.1 Councillor Smith presented a petition in his capacity as one of the Local Ward Councillors. The petition was set out in the following terms:
“We the undersigned object in the strongest possible manner to the Explore Living Application for Brighton Marina (BH2007/03454) the development represents:
gross overdevelopment. It is alien and out of character. It is ugly. The Brighton Marina Act 1968 and height restriction must be observed. Has an unacceptable impact on Conservation Areas and Kemptown. There is an unacceptable loss of important strategic views and cliff views.
The development is not permeable. It is at too high a density. It is an unsustainable development. There is not enough open space, green space and public realm. The Marina is a unique natural environment, surrounded by sea, beach and cliffs, designated a site of special scientific interest. Development will harm the environment and ecology. The development does not respect the character or setting of the Marina site. The infrastructure is unable to cope. There would be an unacceptable loss of parking in the multi-storey car park.
There should be no more development in flood risk areas given rising sea levels and the increasing prevalence of violent storms. This is a missed opportunity for an imaginative and sensitive approach to development to further enhance the Brighton Marina.
We urge the Council to refuse the planning application (2,065 signatures)
3.2 RESOLVED - That the contents of the petition be received and noted.
- Apdx 1 - drawings version 2, item 4. PDF 140 KB
- Apdx 2a Land at Brighton Marina site plan, item 4. PDF 1 MB
- Apdx 2b Brighton Marina block plan, item 4. PDF 1 MB
- Apdx 3 marina history, item 4. PDF 43 KB
- Apdx 4 and 5 BH2007-03454 - Bton Marina, item 4. PDF 145 KB
- Apdx 6 Conformity Table, item 4. PDF 203 KB
- Apdx 7 Marina scan, item 4. PDF 4 MB
4.1 Application BH2007/O3454, Land at Brighton Marina including inner harbour and adjacent sites- Demolition of Asda superstore to create 3 – 10 storey building with enlarged store (3112sqm increase) and 2,025 sqm of other Class A1-A5 (retail/restaurant/drinking) uses on ground floor with 779 residential units above and community hall and new pedestrian/cyclist bridge link from cliff to roof of building and associated engineering works. Demolition of petrol filling station to create 28 storey building with 182sqm of Class A uses at ground floor and 148 residential units above. Demolition of McDonalds restaurant to create 5-16 storey building with enlarged drive-thru restaurant (285sqm increase) and 131sqm of other Class A uses and 222 residential units above. Demolition of the estates office to create 3-4 storey building of 35 residential units. The demolition of the western end of the multi storey car park to create 6-11 storey building adjacent to western breakwater of 117 residential units with stair access from the breakwater to Park Square. Demolition of part of the eastern end of multi-storey car park to create single storey petrol filling station, pedestrian footbridge and new lift and stair access. Total1301 residential units associated car parking spaces (805 residential, 666 commercial), cycle parking (1907 residential, 314 in public realm), servicing, plant, refuse, CHP unit, public and private amenity space, hard and soft landscaping and outdoor recreation areas. Change of use of two A1retail units (524sqm) within Octagon to medical use (Class D1). Alterations to vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist access and circulation, including new roundabout and transport interchange behind waterfront.
4.2 It was noted that the application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.
4.3 The Assistant Director City Planner gave an introduction to the report setting out the context in which the proposal had been examined and outlining some of the key issues which had been addressed in detail.
4.4 The Assistant Director, City Planner also confirmed that the legal advice received in respect of the application had indicated very clearly that the planning process operated independently of the Brighton Marina Act and was not dependent upon that separate legislation. It was important to note that the proposal included buildings which would exceed the height of the cliffs. Accordingly, under the terms of the Brighton Marina Act 1968 if the Committee were minded to approve the application, it would be necessary for the Council to reach a decision on whether the Council acting corporately, would give consent for the scheme to proceed. It was noted that the comments of the legal adviser to the Committee were set out in Section 8 19 of the report.
4.5 The Assistant Director, City Planner emphasised that there was a robust planning framework in place to inform the Committee decision. He said that the applicant had responded positively to the challenges set by the Planning Advisory Note PAN04, notably around such aspects as the quality of the public realm and how it related to other parts of the Marina. In testing the infrastructure and many other aspects of the scheme, the applicant had had to take the cumulative impact of other schemes into account as far as these were known as well as its overall viability. Advice had been sought from the District Valuer in this respect, who had helped inform an understanding of the financial aspects of the application which in turn, had helped inform conclusions on the proposed contributions and benefits to be secured as part of a legal agreement.
4.6 The Assistant Director, City Planner commented on a number of other issues such as environmental sustainability; provision of sports and recreation facilities; emergency access; infrastructure and housing. He recognised that the application presented a number of complex challenges and raised many legitimate issues and concerns. He commended the applicant’s approach to communication and project management.
4.7 The Planning Projects Manager then gave a presentation setting out the policy framework within which the scheme needed to be considered. This included particular reference to the following policy documents and their relevance to Brighton Marina.
4.8 The Brighton & Hove Local Plan was part of the adopted development plan for the City. Policy SR5 included part of the Marina as a designated district centre. SPG20, Brighton Marina had been adopted as supplementary planning guidance in January 2003, covering the western commercial area of the marina (including the application site).This document focused on improving built environment and public realm and identified opportunities for new land uses and development including utilisation of underused space in the Merchants Quay (Village Square) area with new buildings, including the introduction of a bridge link from the clifftop; ;building a replacement Asda store on the site of the existing store and its car park, with housing provided above on a raised platform; improvement of the appearance of the leisure area, utilisation of underused space at the eastern and western ends with new buildings to provide views outwards to the marina and the sea as an important destination and landmark. This included proposals for Black Rock in accordance with the Black Rock SPG; opportunities for new development over the spending beach. In terms of the scale and density of new development, the SPG suggested a layout for future development including the demolition of one of the access ramps to improve both the appearance of the area and access through the site.SPG15 Tall Buildings, had been adopted as supplementary planning guidance in January 2004.This document had identified the Marina as a node suitable for taller development.
4.9 Brighton Marina Planning Advice Note (PAN04) had been prepared to take account of the Brunswick outer harbour planning permission; to address the issue of differing land ownership; to avoid the continued risk of incremental piecemeal development; and address the wider Marina area (not just the western commercial area as covered by SPG 20).The document collected together and explained existing planning guidance, policies and SPG’s within the context of the marina. It was approved by the Environment Committee in March 2008. Further work was in progress to upgrade the document to a supplementary planning document (SPD). The emerging Local Development Framework had given rise to a preferred options paper which had been the subject of public consultation in the summer of 2008 and had included a preferred option (DA2) in respect of Brighton Marina, with an expectation that the area would yield 2,000 additional units (including the Brunswick permission) over the plan period. The Planning Projects Manager concluded his presentation by clarifying the relative status of the above documents, with the Local Pan SPG’s constituting ”adopted” policy, and the PAN and LDF representing “emerging” policies.
4.10 The Planning Officer then gave a detailed presentation including a fly through presentation containing 48 slides containing impressions of the site when viewed from key strategic and other locations across the City from the vicinity and in longer views. Besides showing the site as it was currently these perspectives sought to include the proposed development and how it would appear within the context of the “Brunswick” scheme for which planning permission had already been granted.
4.11 It was considered that the development would deliver key Local Plan objectives within a phased scheme. The Environmental Statement submitted with the application was robust and complied with the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations. The development would accord with central government advice and Local Plan Policies and the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Note for the Marina SPGBH20 and Pan 04 Brighton Marina Master Plan (2008). Elevational treatments, heights and footprints of the buildings had been amended in order to address design concerns, to preserve the setting of views of strategic importance and to help the development relate satisfactorily to existing and the approved Brunswick outer harbour development. The development was considered to be of a good quality design, would use high quality materials and the proposal would generally have an acceptable visual impact on the character and appearance of the locality and views of strategic importance including the setting of Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and gardens and the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It would incorporate satisfactory private amenity space to serve residents. It would meet the demand it created for infrastructure, including education, transport, health and community facilities and public art and; would enhance existing community recreation facilities in the Marina. It would not result in significant traffic generation or compromise highway safety. It would significantly enhance sustainable modes of transport and provide highway improvements and provide enhanced pedestrian cycle access. It would make effective and efficient use of land and would be sustainable; being energy efficient, generating renewable energy and incorporating sustainable building practices to a high standard. It would incorporate a public realm of high quality and would not create an adverse micro – climate. It would incorporate landmark architecture, including tall buildings. It would help regenerate the Marina and would provide jobs and training. It would meet a range of housing needs of people with disabilities and would enhance the role of the Marina as a district shopping centre and would not compromise the role of existing shopping centres in the city. The development would not harm sites of ecological importance and would enhance biodiversity and archaeology would not be adversely affected by the development. It would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing or present occupiers or compromise security for users of the development or the Marina. It would incorporate refuse and recycling storage. The development would not be at risk of flooding, provided the proposed sea wall upgrades were carried out. The submitted Environmental Statement was considered to be a self -contained document and was considered to be robust. All statutory consultations had been carried out in accordance with the appropriate regulations.
4.12 The Marina had been identified as a site which presented opportunities for development, enhancement and regeneration and would meet the key aims of the adopted Local Plan, PAN04 and the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Note for Brighton Marina (SPGBH20), in that it would enhance the Marina environmentally, visually, functionally and commercially.
4.13 The proposals were generally considered to have an acceptable visual impact on the character and appearance of the locality and views of strategic importance and would address some of the fundamental deficiencies in the current Marina and would raise its profile. It was considered acceptable in terms of its sustainability and, would create jobs and training opportunities and would support the Marina’s role as a District Shopping Centre. The scheme was welcomed by the South East England Development Agency and the Brighton & Hove Economic Partnership, whilst meeting regional planning objectives and Local Plan Policy. A significant increase in the city’s housing stock would arise from the development with a commitment to a 40% affordable housing provision.
4.14 A package of measures would be secured via the Section 106 Agreement which the applicant would be required to enter into and satisfy, this would meet the demands generated by the development and would serve to mitigate against any potential adverse effects. Legal implications including the Brighton Marina Act were set out in the report and it had been concluded that planning permission should not be withheld on the basis of it.
4.15 It was therefore concluded that the proposed development would provide the much needed regeneration of the Marina whilst addressing the current problems with the site identified in the Brighton Marina Supplementary Planning guidance Note on Brighton Marina (SPGBH 20) and the Council’s planning advice note PAN04, Brighton Marina Masterplan and within the report itself. The development both private and affordable would also provide a significant increase in housing for the city. The development was considered to be in broad accordance with the provisions of central government advice, policies in the Development Plan, SPG’s and PAN 04 and would meet their key objectives. It was therefore recommended that, subject to the measures to be secured by the Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions and informatives detailed in the report that minded to grant planning permission be approved.
4.16 Following the Officers presentation Members had the opportunity to see clarification and to ask questions relative to the constituent elements of the scheme. These are set out below and include the responses given by the relevant officers.
4.17 Councillor Kennedy requested to see sectional views across the Cliff into and from the site pre and post development from the East and West.
4.18 Councillor Davey sought clarification relative to access to the site from Black Rock and details as to how it would integrate with the proposed rapid transport system. The Principal Transport Planning Manager explained that the first line of the proposed rapid transport system would use the knock through from Madeira Drive proposed by the applicants.
4.19 Councillor Steedman requested details regarding the breakdown of the various sizes of unit, 1/2/3 bedroom, types of tenure and their location within the proposed development. He also wished to know whether the smallest units whilst not meeting the Council’s own recommended standards would comply with housing corporation standards. The Housing Development Manager confirmed that some of the units would be smaller than the Council’s or social housing recommended standards and that all would be located facing towards the cliff. Councillor Simson was shown visuals at her request indicating the location of the affordable units. The Housing Development Manager confirmed that in line with the Council’s preferred mix the scheme would provide 40% (208)1 bed, 50%(260)) 2 bed and 10% (55) 3 bed units. Whilst it was accepted that the unit sizes met Housing Corporation minimum requirements a significant number (212) out of 520 i.e. (41%) did not meet the Council’s internal space standards as set out in the Council’s affordable housing brief; and while it was accepted that the affordable homes were all located on the cliff site they would be evenly distributed across the cliff site. Windows would be located at a distance of between 20 / 40m.from the cliff face. In answer to further questions relative to the mix of 1/2 bedroom units it was explained that these had been provided based on the levels of need indicated by the Council’s own research.
4.20 Councillor Carden sought details regarding access arrangements for emergency service vehicles. The Development Control Manager explained that emergency service vehicles would obtain access under the flyover into the site; the applicant had worked closely with the emergency services none of whom had raised any objections. The precise arrangements put into place would need to meet building control regulations. Councillor Mrs Theobald sought confirmation as to whether or not a sprinkler system would be fitted and it was confirmed that it would.
4.21 Councillor Mrs Theobald also asked whether it was intended to extend the Volks Railway into the site. The Principal Transport Planning Officer explained that it was not, the Volks Railway was a slow moving form of transport and was considered to be primarily a tourist attraction.
4.22 Councillor Wells sought information regarding measures intended to be imposed in respect of the park and ride scheme and the location of visitor/short stay parking following loss of part of the existing multi storey car park. The Principal Transport Planning Officer Traffic Manager explained that commensurate with the new arrangements a new car park management plan would need to be approved by the Council and that this would be subject to periodic review. The manner in which car parking spaces would be allocated would also need to be approved by the Council. Councillor Mrs Theobald referred to parking provision for vehicles using the Casino. The Traffic Manager explained that it was intended that all existing parking rights would be respected in drawing up any new arrangements.
4.23 Councillor McCaffery referred to potential issues arising from the lack of natural daylight / ventilation to the kitchens and bathrooms of some of the units and it was explained that the applicant intended to revisit the internal layout of those units in order to provide mitigating measures. Councillor Davey referred to the limited amenity space which would be afforded to some units asking whether measures would also be undertaken in that respect. It was explained that in addition to providing as much private amenity space to individual flats as possible that communal areas had been woven into the scheme as well.
4.24 Mr Pennington, Brighton & Hove Federation of Disabled People wished to know how the sum of £70,000 requested towards a car club/shop mobility scheme would be split. The Principal Transport Planning Manager explained that the how this sum would be broken down would form the subject of further detailed negotiation. In answer to further questions by Mr Pennington, it was noted that the recommendation included provision for a small increase in disabled parking to be required by condition. However, dialogue had taken place with the Council’s Disabled Access Officer who was satisfied that the disabled parking proposed in the application for wheelchair accessible residential units was satisfactory It was confirmed that SPG 4 parking standards did not differentiate wheelchair using and ambulant disabled parking requirement. It was noted that at least 52 (10%) of the affordable units would be built for wheelchair users and required to comply with the Council’s wheelchair accessible standard.
4.25 In answer to questions of Councillor Cobb relative to allocation of Section 106 Agreement monies, the legal adviser explained that these were allocated in accordance with strict guidance approved by Central Government and were required to be set out in any agreed “Heads of Terms”. This had to be tied in specifically to the development. In answer to questions about proposed junction improvements, the Principal Transport Planning Officer explained that these were mainly proposed on the public transport links from the application site into the city centre. He also confirmed that the detailed arrangements for the bus interchange formed the subject of negotiations between all relevant parties including the applicants and the bus company.
4.26 Councillor Wells sought confirmation regarding measures proposed to ensure the integrity of the cliffs as part of an area of AONB, bearing in mind that measures to underpin them had been required in the past. Councillor Wells also requested details to be taken to ensure run off of surface water and measures to ensure that on site drainage was able to cope with the additional waste water and sewage which would arise from an increase in the number dwellings and businesses proposed by the scheme. In response it was noted that English Nature had removed their objections and that Southern Water had raised no objections to the scheme.
4.27 Councillor Smart asked to see photographs of the sports areas which would be provided and details of the areas to be dedicated to different sporting activities He was mindful that it was intended that the areas under the existing ramps be used for this purpose and that a greater head height would be required for sports such as basketball or football. The Development Manager, Sports and Leisure Projects explained that it was intended that facilities would be provided in order to carry out a range of urban sports. Activities requiring a higher ceiling height would take place in the area to the south where there was a greater head height and the site was more sheltered.
4.28 Councillor Smart enquired regarding the new shared access arrangements in respect of the Harbour Square. It was explained that this would operate similarly to the existing scheme in New Road, Brighton, a form which had also been used at locations in London and elsewhere across the country.
4.29 Councillor Steedman referred to the fact that although some of the units would be occupied by families there were no schools within the immediate vicinity. He enquired whether as children would need to travel some distance to school by public transport or otherwise placing pressure on the traffic infrastructure, this would be mitigated against as a result of a contribution being made for education. It was explained that the number of children who might occupy the units and their need for primary or secondary education was difficult to quantify and would not of itself constitute grounds to refuse planning permission.
4.30 Councillor Simson asked for clarification regarding the cost of the units and level of deposit required in respect of the affordable units where in addition to the mortgage a rental contribution would also be required towards the shared equity element. It was explained that in order to purchase one of the 1bedroom with a 40% equity share an individual would need to have earnings of £18,000 and above. The salary levels required rose incrementally for the 2 bedroom units where a minimum salary range of between £22,000-£26,000 would be required. It was noted that at the present time the housing market was in a state of flux.
4.31 Councillor Smart referred to the fact that it was not proposed that the Octagon would be used as a doctor’s surgery because it was too small and enquired regarding its alternative use as a healthy living centre, and as to the facilities which would be available there. It was explained that a series of health professionals would work from the building such as practice nurses, other health workers and nutritionists.
Representations by Objectors
4.32 Following the Officers’ presentations representatives on behalf of those objecting to the scheme were permitted to speak for 30 minutes in total setting out the nature of their objections. The following individuals spoke on behalf of the various objectors groups.
Mr R Powell -For Marine Gate Action Group
Mr P Martin -Brighton Marina Residents Association
Mr P Phillips -Kemptown Society
Mr B Simpson -Save Brighton
4.33 Members were afforded the opportunity to ask questions or to seek clarification of any matter from objectors, but no questions were asked.
Mr Powell – Marine Gate Action Group
4.34 Mr Powell stated that as an architect he had examined the current proposals in depth. He referred to the original Brunswick scheme which had been refused on the grounds that it had been excessive and had lacked permeability. The same criticisms could be made in respect of the Explore Living scheme which would represent a high rise high density estate which failed to respect or recognise the marine environment into which it would be placed or to recognise the importance of views of the cliff both from within the immediate vicinity and in longer strategic views. This increased number of dwellings would destroy the identity of the Marina as a place primarily for boats and leisure and would create a residential suburb to meet central government targets. Overall the buildings proposed as part of the scheme were unremarkable (the tower building) and poorly designed buildings which would be bulky and out of scale with the cliffs, many of the apartments would be north facing with restricted views of the cliffs. It was considered that the sea wall building would provide a poor relationship to the Kemp Town Conservation Area. The overall sustainability of the scheme was in objectors’ view questionable and the level and quality of amenity space was considered to be unacceptable.
4.35 It was considered that the cliff building would create a canyon along the under cliff. Not only did it lack permeability it formed a physical barrier to connections from the under cliff path to the core of the Marina. Location of all of the affordable housing within that element of the scheme ran counter to good planning practice of “pepper potting”. The standard of accommodation to be provided would be very poor and could lead to a ghettoisation of this part of the development. Overall the camera angles chosen in preparing the fly through visuals which accompanied the application indicated that the effect of the proposed development would be benign. They did not accurately reflect the scheme as it would appear from inside the Marina or in its immediate vicinity in his view close examination of the photographs revealed a tendency to gloss over the negative aspects of the development. Having examined the proposals in depth objectors were of the view that the scheme as presented failed to meet more than 20 requirements set out in the Local Plan. In his view for a scheme to be acceptable the height of the tallest blocks needed to be reduced and permeability through the site as a whole needed to be improved.
Mr Martin - Marina Residents Association
4.36 Mr Martin spoke on behalf of the Marina Residents Association stating that it was considered that the current proposals represented a missed opportunity. It was recognised that the Marina was in need of redevelopment and development which would enhance the Marina would be welcomed. The scheme threatened to repeat the high rise housing disasters of the 1960’s and 1970’s by turning the Marina into a sprawling housing estate when primarily it should be retained as a Marina with moorings for boats. This scheme was completely out of keeping and represented over development pure and simple. Concerns had been expressed by the lifeboat service relative to their access arrangements in the event of an emergency and those concerns remained.
4.37 The affordable housing was considered to be too small and it was considered that key workers in the City deserved better accommodation than was offered up by this scheme. Over 100 apartments faced north directly onto the cliff face, that area of the scheme could easily become ghettoised and stigmatised.40 % of the units had a floor area below that recommended in the Council’s own guidance, a further 20 % would never receive direct sunlight. These apartments would have a restricted view of the lower part of the cliff face with bathrooms and kitchens which had no daylight and required mechanical ventilation. Many living and dining rooms would have limited views of the sky. It was difficult to see how these could be rated highly in terms of sustainability. The Square-about and bus interchange arrangements proposed would be hazardous, give rise to increased congestion, noise and pollution and would destroy the café culture they were designed to support. The children’s play area and other recreation facilities would be placed in dark and sunless areas of the site and would be largely unusable. Overall the scheme represented a failed concept.
Mr Phillips - Kemptown Society
4.38 Mr Phillips stated that notwithstanding that the application was thorough it had failed on many levels to meet the high standards required. In his view the scheme contravened the Council’s own guidance on tall buildings, the objections raised by local residents and conservation groups had been ignored and consultation had only taken place with “fringe” groups until such time as the scheme was well advanced. Sufficient account had not been taken of the effect of the proposals on the setting of the conservation area or of the fact that views through the site to the beach, from the beach towards the cliff and along the cliff from strategic locations should also be conserved. Important views would be blighted or lost altogether should the scheme proceed, and would result in mass obstruction, which was unacceptable.
4.39 Setting planning guidelines in respect of the site was insufficient and development of the site should be subject to an SPD rather than a PAN which carried less weight and could impact deleteriously on other development. For instance one of the proposed amenity spaces would restrict access to Black Rock. The western breakwater would become an area crammed with buildings.
Mr Simpson - Save Brighton
4.40 Mr Simpson Stated that the scheme in his view sought profit in everything and the value of nothing and would be grotesque. He referred to the views provided by the applicant stating that they were misleading and did not reflect views as they would actually appear to the naked eye or to the sense of enclosure which would result from the proposals. Referring to the northernmost block at the site he reiterated the comments made by earlier speakers that most of this building would be in permanent shadow. Elements of the scheme such as the tower had been manipulated to fit into the scheme and would not sit within the development in the same way that they appeared in the photographs. Importantly existing views through the site from the rear of the site to the beach and sea and back towards the cliff would be obscured or lost. A huge number of letters and e-mails had been sent in setting out detailed objections and it was not considered that the officers’ report accurately reflected them in their totality. Any scheme approved for this site would be a legacy for the city for years to come and would impact on its future. Plans for this monstrous and mediocre housing estate should be resisted. The primary function of the Marina and its relationship with the beach, sea and cliffs should be protected.
Submissions on Behalf of the Applicant/Agent
4.41 Following submissions by those speaking on behalf of the objectors a further 30 minute period was allowed for those speaking on behalf of the applicant/agent or in support of the scheme:
Rt. Hon John Gummer MP
Mr B Alllies / Mr J Dennis - Allies and Morrison
Mr B Stern - Owner of a boat moored at the Marina
Ms K Hogben - Nurse at Royal Sussex Hospital
Mr B Betts - Brighton Marina Car Wash Operator
4.42 Members had the opportunity to ask questions or to seek further information from those representing the applicant and where this was the case this is referred to in respect of the relevant individual(s).
Rt. Hon John Gummer MP
4.43 The Rt. Hon John Gummer MP spoke explaining that he knew Brighton well having had family ties with the City over a number of years. The scheme was ambitious and he accepted that courage and forward thinking were required in agreeing it. However, courage and foresight had been required too when structures which now ... view the full minutes text for item 4.