RM

DECISION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)

The Planning Committee had visited the site which was for the demolition of two existing villa buildings, existing offices and outbuildings to the rear of the site; construction of a new Rother District Council building to serve the Council, associated public sector services, creation of market rental office space, civic and event space, a café, refurbishment of the existing Town Hall (TH) and Council Chamber (internal and external remedial works); create public landscaped courtyard to rear; improvements to hard standing to front of the building facing the Memorial Gardens; and associated infrastructure works.  The key consideration was whether the proposed development would substantially harm the setting of the retained TH (heritage asset) and that the cumulative impact would not materially affect the key element for which the TH attained/retained its heritage value and that the public benefits outweighed such affect as to be supported in planning policy.  The officer’s opinion was that the public benefits outweighed any heritage harm and would support the Council’s objective to deliver a ‘low carbon future’.  The Applicant had been asked to resubmit an amended landscape masterplan and fourth floor plan to ensure the creation of a high-quality public realm and landscape setting in accordance with Policies OSS4(iii) and EN3 and EN5(x) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

The site was situated within the heart of Bexhill Town Centre (BTC) and formed an architectural, cultural and community centre-point to the Town Centre and the District.  The site was not a designated Archaeological Notification Area, not part of BTC Conservation Area and had no identified designated heritage assets.  Members were advised that some of the buildings were subject to an application for statutory ‘Listing’.  The site was accessible by public transport e.g. bus and train.

The Planning Committee heard from a spokesperson from Bexhill Heritage who was not supportive of the scheme, the Applicant’s Agent, Architect and Sustainability Consultant who provided answers to a number of technical and general questions, as well as both local Ward Members.  Consideration was also given to the comments made by the statutory and non-statutory bodies as detailed within the report.

Members asked a series of questions in relation to several issues and the following salient points were noted:

·         Design: Concern was raised and mixed views expressed regarding the size and bulk of the proposed development and whether a fourth floor was necessary.  Consideration was also given to the modern design (“box-like” structure and materials proposed) of the new development and whether it complemented the existing TH.  It was agreed that this could be subjective, as what was considered acceptable “beautiful” to someone was not necessarily acceptable “beautiful” to another.  It was clarified that details of the design of the “bolt-on” fourth floor were still awaited; it was not clear at this stage what plant equipment would be located on that floor.  It was clarified that the size of the building was appropriate for the BTC location.

·         Position: The frontage of the new development was further forward than the existing TH, therefore making it seem overbearing “dwarf the heritage asset”.  It was clarified that the frontage followed the existing line of the current villa buildings.

·         Courtyard Garden: Concern was raised regarding the design of the courtyard garden and whether there would be sufficient daylight (sunshine) within this area. 

·         Car Parking: A significant reduction of car parking spaces (currently 144 down to 48); concern was raised that the lack of parking (and disabled parking) would cause displacement in the surrounding residential roads.  Alternative parking was available in Wainwright Road car park (approximately 52 spaces).  Staff / residents would be encouraged to use other forms of transport to travel to the TH.  Pool car options would be considered.  It was suggested that TH forecourt be redesigned to provide additional parking.  Members were reminded that East Sussex County Council (ESCC) offered ‘NO OBJECTION’ to the reduction of parking and that this would be addressed by a Travel Plan which was also included within the Conditions (No. 41).

·         Public Transport: It was considered important that a robust (fluid) Travel Plan be facilitated by ESCC, particularly as there were limited public transport services from the rural areas of the District to Bexhill.

·         Office Accommodation: It was important that appropriate, high quality comfortable office accommodation was provided for the Council staff.  A suggestion was proposed that office space be built over the car parking area.  It was clarified that this would not be sustainable as it would spread the building over a larger area; plus there would be “overlooking” issues with neighbouring residential properties.

·         Town Hall Building: It was clarified that the existing radiators in the TH building would be kept and a back-up gas boiler required.  It was requested that consideration be given to using hydrogen fuel rather than natural gas products.

·         Construction Materials: Clarity was sought on the construction materials to be used, whether they were energy efficient / carbon neutral e.g. timber would be preferable as opposed to concrete, and lifetime costings.  It was confirmed that concrete would be used for the foundations and thin flat steel for the fourth floor balcony barrier.

·         Public Consultation: Concern was raised that public consultation had been limited / insufficient.

·         Economic Benefits: Potential to elevate economic benefits to BTC by creating a civic community hub with additional rentable office space and joined-up services for the District.

·         Memorial Gardens: Varity of options had been proposed for the forecourt / Memorial Gardens; plans and a decision were still awaited from ESCC.

·         Environment Gain: The new building would be highly efficient, significantly reduce energy demand by up to 50% or more, maximise daylight and heat (e.g. south / southwest facing walls would be glazed) and solar panels used, where appropriate.

·         Carbon Footprint: The development supported the Council’s commitment to be carbon neutral by 2030.

During deliberation, Councillor Prochak proposed deferral subject to final drawings being received from the Architects on the fourth floor designs and a decision as well as a landscaping masterplan for the frontage of the site.  This was seconded by Councillor Byrne.  Members were advised that should the motion be passed, then the Planning Committee would be agreeing to the overall application and that only the deferred items would be brought back for further consideration.  The motion was declared LOST (3 for / 10 against / 1 abstention).

After further deliberation, the Planning Committee felt that the new design would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character, appearance and setting of the existing TH, a non-designated heritage asset and detract from the character and appearance of the wider surrounding area which would outweigh the public benefits of the scheme, which would be contrary to Policies OSS4, EN2 and EN3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Paragraphs 139, 130, 199, 203 and 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Councillor J. Barnes moved the motion to REFUSE (Full Planning) and this was seconded by Councillor Drayson.  The motion was declared CARRIED (7 for / 6 against / 1 abstention).

REASON FOR REFUSAL:

1.    The proposed new town hall extension by way of its design would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character, appearance and setting of the existing Town Hall a non-designated heritage asset and detract from the character and appearance of the wider surrounding area which would outweigh the public benefits of the scheme.  Accordingly, it is considered to depart from Policies OSS4, EN2 and EN3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Paragraphs 139, 130, 199,203 and 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK:  In accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 38) and with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and negotiating, with the Applicant, amendments to the proposal to attempt to address those concerns. Unfortunately, this was not sufficient to overcome the objections but the reasons for refusal were clearly set out thereby allowing the Applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied as part of a revised scheme.

(Councillors Bayliss, Drayson and Gray each declared a Personal Interest in this matter as they were members of Bexhill Heritage and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the room during the consideration thereof).

(When it first became apparent, Councillor Field declared a Personal Interest in this matter as a Member of East Sussex County Council and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the room during the consideration thereof).

(Councillor Madeley declared a Personal Interest in this matter as an officer of Bexhill Heritage and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the room during the consideration thereof).

(When it first became apparent, Councillor Maynard declared a Personal Interest in this matter as an Executive Member of East Sussex County Council and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the room during the consideration thereof).

The above minute was amended at the subsequent Planning Committee meeting held on 10 November 2022.