Agenda - Arun District Council

Transcription


Arun District Council
Civic Centre
Maltravers Road
Littlehampton
West Sussex
BN17 5LF
Tel: (01903) 737500
Fax: (01903) 730442
DX: 57406 Littlehampton
Minicom: 01903 732765
e-mail: [email protected]
Committee Manager : Carrie O’Connor (Ext 37614)
17 March 2016
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
A Special meeting of this Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Arun Civic
Centre, Maltravers Road, Littlehampton, on Wednesday 30 March 2016 at 12.30 p.m. and
you are requested to attend.
Members :
Councillors Haymes (Chairman), Mrs Hall (Vice-Chairman), Mrs Bower,
Bower, Brooks, Charles, Dillon, Gammon, Mrs Maconachie, Maconachie, Mrs
Oakley, Mrs Pendleton, Miss Rhodes, Mrs Stainton and Wells
PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT PLANS OF THE APPLICATIONS DETAILED IN THE
AGENDA ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT THE COUNCIL’S PLANNING
RECEPTION AT THE CIVIC CENTRE AND/OR ON LINE AT www.arun.gov.uk/planning
AGENDA
1.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members and Officers are reminded to make any declarations of personal and/or
prejudicial/pecuniary interests that they may have in relation to items on this
agenda.
You should declare your interest by stating :
a) the application you have the interest in
b) whether it is a personal interest and the nature of the interest
c) whether it is also a prejudicial/pecuniary interest
d) if it is a prejudicial/pecuniary interest, whether you will be exercising your right
to speak at the application
You then need to re-declare your prejudicial/pecuniary interest and the nature of the
interest at the commencement of the application or when the interest becomes
apparent.
1
Arun District Council DEVELOPMENT CONTROL-31/03/2016
3.
VOTING PROCEDURES
Members and Officers are reminded that voting at this Committee will operate in
accordance with the Committee Process Procedure as laid down in the Council’s
adopted Local Code of Conduct for Members/Officers dealing with planning matters.
A copy of the Local Code of Conduct can be obtained from Planning Services’
Reception and is available for inspection in the Members’ Room.
4.
*BR/26/15/PL – REDEVELOPMENT AT THE REGIS CENTRE, CAR PARK &
PLACE ST MAUR DES FOSSE; BELMONT ROAD CAR PARK AT QUEENSWAY;
3 KIOSKS, THE ESPLANADE; AREA OF LAND WEST OF PIER; LAND EAST OF
ROCK GARDENS, BOGNOR REGIS
To consider the attached report.
Background Papers
In the case of each report relating to a planning application, or related matter, the
background papers are contained in the planning application file. Such files are available
for inspection/discussion with officers by arrangement prior to the meeting.
Members and the public are reminded that the plans printed in the Agenda are purely for
the purpose of locating the site and do not form part of the application submitted.
Contact Officers :
Neil Crowther
(Ext 37839)
Note: *Indicates report is attached for Members of the Development Control Committee
only and the press (excluding exempt items). Copies of reports can be obtained on
request from the Committee Manager or accessed via the website at
www.arun.gov.uk.
.
Note: Members are reminded that if they have any detailed questions would they please
inform the Chairman and/or the Head of Planning Development Control, in advance
of the meeting. This is to ensure that officers can provide the best possible advice
to Members during the meeting.
2
BR/26/15/PL
PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT
REF NO:
BR/26/15/PL
LOCATION:
Regis Centre, Car park & Place St Maur
Car park at Queensway, 3 Kiosks, The E
Area of land West of Pier, Land East of
Bognor Regis
PO21 1BL
PROPOSAL:
Redevelopment of the Bognor Regis Centre to provide 3753sqm of
commercial space, (Use Class A1,A3/A4,B1a D2) a 59 room hotel, (Use Class
C1) 191 apartments (Use Class C3)25% of which are 1bed & 75% 2bed, &
providing 15% Affordable Housing units on site. Car parking for 307 spaces
& a revised access arrangement. Soft & hard landscaping on the Place St
Maur des Fosse, including a new childrens play area. A new boardwalk
facing the Esplanade. Redevelopment of the Hothampton car park to
provide a 1100 seat theatre (Sui Generis), with 48bed hotel above (Use
Class C1), car parking, relocation of existing children's play area &
landscaping and associated works. Provision of a Destination restaurant on
the Esplanade Theatre Site for 200 covers (Use Class A3) & the relocation
of the existing skate park adjacent to the pier & upgrade the facility.
Replacement of 3 existing kiosks along the promenade (Use Class A1,A3
and A4). Rearrangement of car parking provision along the Esplanade &
associated landscaping of the Public Realm. The site adj to the Pier may
affect the character & appearance of The Steyne, Bognor Regis
Conservation Area. This application affects the setting of Listed Buildings.
SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION
Site A - The Regis Centre
It is proposed to demolish the Bognor Regis Centre,
including Alexandra Theatre, and provide 191 residential
units (apartments), a 59 bedroom hotel, a pub/restaurant,
spa/swimming pool/gym, cafe, 1,200m2 of retail space
and 271m2 of office space. The total area of the building
covers over 37,381m².
The existing Regis Centre and old fire station extension to
the Town Hall would be demolished, followed by the
erection of a six storey building and a three storey building
which are intended to include the following:
- 191 apartments 1 and 2 bedroom apartments
- 59 room hotel
- 12 retail units
- 2 offices
- 1 pub/restaurant
- 1 cafe
- 1 spa/swimming pool/gym
- Basement parking
3
BR/26/15/PL
The proposed building includes frontages on all four sides.
The principal elevation would face the seafront and
promenade extending over 150m in length. The ground
floor comprises a mix of commercial uses with residential
apartments above. The elevation facing Place St Maur
would take on a similar design, extending 70m in length.
The elevation facing Alexandra Terrace would also extend
70m in length. The design takes inspiration from Victorian,
Regency and Post-Regency architecture, intended to
reflect the history of Bognor Regis, albeit in a more
contemporary way.
The proposed northern elevation facing Belmont Street
comprises a hotel which is 3 storeys in height with a
similar architectural style to the main building. This would
be detached from the main building, sitting centrally on the
northern elevation. It includes a centrally positioned dome.
The scheme includes provision for 307 car parking
spaces, most of which would be provided underground.
Alterations to the Esplanade would facilitate additional on
street parking.
Immediately to the west of the building lies an area of open
space within the Place St Maur. The surface would
constitute resin bounded gravel. Within this space would
be a raised lawn/seating area with limited planting. On the
edge of the public realm would be children's play area with
some seating provision.
A plaza/landscaped area is proposed centrally within the
courtyard area of the main building. This would contain
paths, benches, landscaping and would be accessible to
members of the public and users of the proposed main
building.
It is also proposed to construct a boardwalk in front of the
main building in order to establish a pedestrian link
between the development proposal and the Esplanade and
promenade. The boardwalk would be constructed of either
wood or concrete and run the full length of the building,
linking with the open space in the Place St Maur.
Access to the underground car park would be taken from
two new access points off Alexandra Terrace and Belmont
Street. A further service vehicle access would be provided
off Alexandra Terrace.
Site B - Hothamton Car Park
The proposal involves the comprehensive redevelopment
4
BR/26/15/PL
of the existing car park to provide a theatre and hotel. The
proposed theatre includes 1,100 seats, complete with
associated theatre provisions (dressing rooms, toilets, bar
facilities etc) which would be located at ground floor level.
A 48 bed hotel and facilities would sit alongside the theatre
at ground floor level, with rooms, and other provisions,
being located above. The upper floors would contain
balconies looking to the north and south. The building
would also contain a restaurant which would be part of the
theatre and hotel offering.
The proposed main theatre and hotel building face a
southerly direction towards Hothamton Gardens. The
height of the proposed building is approximately 30m set
over 8 storeys. The hotel rooms include balconies which
would face the north and south. The layout proposes a
foyer to the front which would include a drop-off point and a
one-way internal access off an existing access which runs
off Queensway to the north. The theatre includes a roof
terrace which would be accessible to the public.
To the north (rear) facing Queensway the theatre element
closest to the road would be three storeys in height with a
flat roof. The boundary of the site with Queensway would
include a landscaping strip.
To the east of the site there is a large parking area
proposed which extends above ground to three storeys. It
would also include basement parking, some of which
would be located under the proposed theatre.
Within the existing park to the south of the theatre (Sunken
Gardens) it is proposed to make aesthetic changes,
including the replacement and removal of the existing
children's play area to the west of the park. The applicant
intends to improve the Sunken Gardens through the
provision of a new play area and other aesthetic changes.
Site C - Former Esplanade Theatre Site (now a skate park
and greenspace area)
This site is listed as the 'Rock Gardens' within the Bognor
Regis Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal on this site
involves the erection of a circular restaurant with 200
covers. The restaurant is proposed on the western portion
of the site and includes a pathway and landscaping to the
east which leads on to the promenade. The restaurant
would be accessible through the Rock Gardens, and the
scheme includes alterations and improvements to the
Rock Gardens.
5
BR/26/15/PL
The restaurant would replace the existing skate park which
is proposed for re-siting (see site D).
The proposed restaurant building has a domed
appearance and includes extensive glazing. It includes
both traditional and contemporary architectural detailing.
To the north of the site 18 car parking spaces are
proposed which would be directly accessible from Aldwick
Road. No parking is proposed on the site.
Sites D - Promenade
This element of the proposal primarily involves the
provision of 3x kiosks set at approximately equal distance
from each other along the promenade/Esplanade. Each of
the kiosks would include a small retail element and toilet
facilities. The proposed kiosks take on a Victorian design.
The proposal also involves a new skate park which is
proposed immediately to the west along the existing
promenade.
Non-domestic buildings would aim to achieve BREEAM
'Excellent' and at least achieve 'Very Good'.
The domestic element is intended to achieve at least Code
Level 4, targeting Code Level 6.
Highways alterations
In addition to the proposals set out above, the application
includes comprehensive highway works including, but not
limited to:
- The introduction of a one way system (to run west to
east) along the Esplanade between Waterloo Square and
Clarence Road.
- The introduction of echelon, single-bay parking along the
Esplanade comprising 232 spaces.
- The provision of access points from the parking bays on
the Esplanade leading to the promenade.
Phasing Arrangement
The application is submitted with a phasing arrangement:
- Phase 1 - The demolition of the Regis Centre (including
the Alexandra Theatre) and the proposed redevelopment of
that site.
- Phase 2 - The construction of the theatre and hotel on the
6
BR/26/15/PL
Hothamton site.
- Phase 3 - The construction of the restaurant at the
Esplanade theatre site.
- Phase 4 - The construction of the seafront kiosk units.
The application proposes interim theatre provision in
between phases 1 and 2, at a location to be confirmed, in
order to ensure that there is a continuous theatre presence
within the town centre. However, no specific provision has
been identified at this stage.
Phase 2 concerns the clearance of the site, followed by
the erection of a large theatre with a hotel incorporated in
the building. Adjacent to the proposed theatre it is
proposed to erect a multi-storey car park.
Phase 3 concerns the removal of the existing skate park
on the former Esplanade theatre site, to be replaced by a
circular restaurant with 200 seats.
Phase 4 involves the provision of a replacement skate park
on the Esplanade (adjacent to the pier), and the provision
of 3no kiosks. The kiosks would be positioned at
approximately equal distance along the promenade,
replacing existing kiosks.
This phasing arrangement could be secured by a planning
condition.
The applicant intends to provide assurances (by way of a
legal agreement) that the theatre would be built. However,
at this stage, no agreement has been put forward to
consider.
SITE AREA
Site A (Regis Centre - Residential Proposal) - 1.65ha
Site B (Hothamton - Theatre/Hotel Proposal) - 0.75ha
Site C (Restaurant Proposal) - 0.27ha
Site D (Proposed Skate Park and Kiosks) - 0.08ha
Total Site Area - 2.76ha.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DENSITY
115 units/ha in respect of Site 1 (Regis Centre)
TOPOGRAPHY
Site A - The site is relatively flat but includes a slightly
raised area of greenspace/landscaping which abuts the
Esplanade to the south.
Site B - The site is relatively flat.
7
BR/26/15/PL
Site C - The site is relatively flat.
Sites D - The proposed skate park lies on tarmac which
slopes slightly from east to west.
Two of the kiosks are proposed on the upper part of the
shingle beach. One other kiosk is proposed on the
promenade. All the sites are relatively flat.
TREES
Site A - There are 8 trees on the land to the south and
surrounding the Regis Centre. The most notable tree
within this area comprises a mature Ash tree. However,
there are also 7 Sycamores within the site boundary.
There is some ornamental hedge planting.
Site B - There are 39 trees around the Hothamton car park
site. All trees are classified as category C. However, there
is a mature Horse Chestnut of moderate quality with
amenity value which lies on the site boundary. The
remaining trees comprise Lime, Ash, Birch, Hawthorn,
Plane, Ornamental Cherry and Holly. There is some
ornamental hedge planting.
Site C - The existing skate park/park site includes low
growing ornamental ground cover with cabbage palms.
Sites D - There are no trees within proximity of these sites.
BOUNDARY TREATMENT
Site A - The site is bounded by residential streets to the
north and south and these respective boundaries are
relatively open. There is a mix of trees and vegetation on
the southern boundary of the existing car park. There is
limited hedgerow coverage on the northern boundary. No
boundary treatment exists along the east and west
boundaries.
Site B - Boundary treatment on the north and western
boundaries comprises a mix of low level timber fencing
and vegetation, but it appears mainly open.
The boundary of the site closest to the residential
properties on Steyne Street includes tree vegetation
screening. There are trees along the boundary with the
health centre and vegetation and trees screening the site
from Hothamton Park (Sunken Gardens).
Site C - The site is mainly bounded by hedgerow and/or
low-set walls.
Sites D - The proposed kiosks sites are mainly open, being
positioned adjacent to the beach. The kiosk and skate park
proposed along the promenade are located adjacent to a
8
BR/26/15/PL
retaining wall on the southern side.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site A - The roughly rectangular site is currently occupied
by a large, two storey mezzanine building, which overlooks
the seafront and sits on the western portion of the site. The
building houses the Alexandra Theatre, which is accessed
from the Place St Maur, an area of open space/public
realm which is also a pedestrian thoroughfare between
The Esplanade (to the south) and Belmont Street (to the
north). The Regis Centre also hosts a public
house/restaurant which fronts the Esplanade.
The eastern portion of the site is primarily occupied by a
tarmac surface public car park. In the north east corner of
the site is a three storey building comprising the town hall.
There is a single storey element attached to the side of the
Town Hall which comprises a former fire station. This
building extends along Clarence Street as a single-storey
entity.
Beyond the eastern boundary, on the opposite side of
Alexandra Terrace, lie residential units set over 5 storeys
arranged in a linear layout (Berkeley Court). To the south
the site abuts the Esplanade. To the north lies Belmont
Street, the opposite side of which is occupied by a range of
commercial uses and semi-detached dwellings.
To the west of the site lies Mountbatton Court which is a
residential block set over 5 storeys. Mountbatton Court
fronts the Esplanade and wraps around the western edge
of the Place St Maur and faces the Regis centre building at
an oblique angle.
Site B - The site is located to the north west of the Regis
Centre, within the town centre and adjacent to the
Queensway shopping area. The site comprises a public
surface car park. Part of the east of the site is faced by
Fitzfleet House which is a residential complex 16 storeys
in height.
The site is bound to the north and east by Queensway
(road) which includes a number of commercial and
residential units ranging between two and five storeys in
height. The units to the east form part of Queenways
Shopping Centre, within close proximity of which is a large
food store. To the west in close proximity of the site is a
health centre. Immediately to the south lies a park, known
as the Sunken Gardens, which includes a play area,
landscaping and seating.
Site C - The former Esplanade Theatre Site lies to the
southwest of the Hothamton site and is situated within the
9
BR/26/15/PL
promenade setting. The site is currently occupied by a
skate park and includes a landscaped area of green space
to the east. To the north of the site, at a distance of
approximately 40m, is the Royal Norfolk Hotel which is
Grade II listed.
Sites D - The site of the proposed kiosks are positioned
adjacent to the beach. One of the proposed kiosks lies to
the west of the existing pier which is Grade II listed.
The site of the skate park is located on part of the
promenade, adjacent to the pier and beach. To the north
of the proposed skate park is additional promenade space.
CHARACTER OF LOCALITY
The application is set in the heart of urban Bognor Regis.
The sites along the promenade have a distinctly coastal
feel due to open views out over the beach and sea. The
Hothamton site is more contained due to its location away
from the seafront and the proximity of commercial and high
rise residential units.
Along the northern side of the Esplanade there are a range
of properties generally four storeys or more in height. The
design ranges from Regency inspired architecture to less
characterful building examples from the latter part of the
20th Century. The southern side of the Esplanade is
relatively free from buildings and structures and mainly
comprises an open promenade raised slightly above the
highway. Heading west along the Esplanade is the Bognor
Regis (The Steyne) Conservation Area. This incorporates
the Grade II Listed pier, and abuts the Hothamton site to
the north, and the proposed restaurant site to the west.
The Regis Centre, restaurant, skate park and kiosk
proposals occupy seafront locations whereas the
Hothamton site is set back from the Esplanade and there
are no views of the sea from ground level. The site is
dominated by a public car park which serves the nearby
Queensway shopping area, the seafront, and the town
centre. The area is characterised by a mix of residential
and commercial uses built during the latter part of the 20th
Century.
RELEVANT SITE HISTORY
The main relevant history is contained in the preamble.
REPRESENTATIONS
REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED:
Bognor Regis Town Council
Bognor Regis Town Council - Objects. "Although the Committee supports aspects of the
10
BR/26/15/PL
Planning Application because the application features a number of sites and elements, the
Committee has no option but to object to the application overall.
Regis Centre Site
Design - Members approve of the Georgian design which they feel is of a high quality as
detailed in the Bognor Regis Neighbourhood Plan Policy 8a (Design Excellence), although
concern was expressed over whether one bedroom flats combined with affordable housing
would be in contradiction to this.
Mixed Use: Leisure, Culture, Entertainment - It was felt that the proposal complies with the
Neighbourhood Plan, Policy 8f (Regis Centre & Mountbatten Court site) in terms of mixed use,
retail provision on the ground floor, the link of the Arcade Chambers with the Esplanade and
the open space retained. Members approve of these elements.
Members reaffirmed their support of the Neighbourhood Plan Policy 8f (b, c) and felt that the
proposals do not reflect all the aspirations of this Policy. Members would seek to see the
addition or retention of cultural provision on this site, more pedestrian space along the
boardwalk and step free access to the foreshore. The Planning Application does not reflect
the Neighbourhood Plan Policy 8f (h, i) and the Committee objects to the proposed demolition
of the Theatre and the significant residential proposed for this site. The Committee would like
to call for a National Design review as detailed within this policy.
Parking - This Planning application goes against the Neighbourhood Plan Policy 8b (Car
Parking) and therefore the Committee objects to this. The Committee feels there will be
substantial loss of public parking and they have concerns over safety in particular over the
proposed chevron parking along the Esplanade. Members would like to see a full and robust
Transport Assessment and Travel Plan, by an Independent body before the plans proceed any
further.
Skateboard Park
This site is not included within the Neighbourhood Plan, and the Committee does not object to
its relocation but objects to the site being proposed as it will impact on the Conservation Area
and may be out of keeping with the seaside identity as detailed under Neighbourhood Plan
Policy 2 (Promoting the Seaside Identity).
3 Kiosks
Although there were no details of the proposed kiosks, the Committee does not object to the
concept of the kiosks, but more detailed plans would be necessary.
Hothamton Car Park
The proposals for this site go against the Neighbourhood Plan Policy 8g (Hothamton Car Park
site, Queensway) and the Committee therefore objects to the proposals for this site. In
addition the Committee feels that building is over intensive and inappropriate in its size and
location. Members are concerned over the significant reduction in daylight this building will
cause to adjacent neighbouring properties.
Parking - In addition the Committee objects to what they feel is insufficient public parking since
all the spaces are pre allocated, with few spaces available for public use. This Planning
application goes against the Neighbourhood Plan, Policy 8b (Car Parking)."
11
BR/26/15/PL
The application has received a total of 46 objections and 4 letters of support. The
representations can be summarised as follows:
Objection to Regis Centre Site
- Too many houses/flats proposed
- Loss of greenspace area to the front of the site
- Insufficient parking provision
- Traffic congestion and parking issues associated with the proposed development
- Open space proposed only to be used in association with flats and not for general public
- Swimming pool proposed would be in private use
- 191 flats and scale of building represents overdevelopment
- Scale of flats could lead to wind funnelling and would also dominate surrounding properties
- Application is premature as a separate consultation exercise has been undertaken
- Poor location for flats as these do not lead to regeneration. New theatre should be on this
site
- Public realm proposed no better than existing
- Lack of sewer capacity
- Proposal does not offer a real mix of uses
- Is there really any office demand?
- A retail assessment should accompany the application
- Alexandra theatre should not be demolished. Do not need a bigger theatre subsidised by
Council
Objection to Hothamton Theatre Site
- Loss of green space on site
- Theatre will block out light
- Theatre has no frontage with the highway and significant massing. Poor elevation treatment
- No need for a theatre on this scale
Other Sites
- Skate park should not be closed
- Relocated skate park is too close to the pier and would impact on the Conservation Area
- New skate park would conflict with pedestrians
- Loss of green space and gardens to make way for restaurant
- Noise from restaurant affecting residential properties
In addition to the above, the applicant has submitted 204 representations in support of the
application. However, these constitute questionnaire responses, the consultation exercise
was facilitated by the applicant, and this was carried out before the application was submitted.
They do not constitute a formal response to the development hereby proposed. However,
they do evidence that the applicant carried out a consultation exercise prior to the submission
of this application.
COMMENTS ON REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED:
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency
Highways England
12
BR/26/15/PL
Southern Water Planning
Natural England
Engineering Services Manager
Building Control
Conservation Officer
Env. Amenities & Comm. Safety
Ecology Advisor
Environmental Health
Arboriculturist
Economic Regeneration
Engineers (Coastal Protection)
Engineers (Fluvial Flooding)
Planning and Housing Strategy
Parks and Landscapes
WSCC Strategic Planning
The Theatres Trust
Estates Manager
Sussex Police-Community Safety
Surface Water Drainage Team
Head of Planning Policy & Cons
West Sussex -Landscape/Ecology
West Sussex Fire Brigade
West Sussex - Waste Disposal
Sussex Police-Community Safety
Arboriculturist
CONSULTATION RESPONSES RECEIVED:
WSCC Highway - Having reviewed the technical documents submitted in support of the
application, the LHA raises an objection to the proposed development on the following grounds:
The application fails to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have a 'severe'
impact on the operation of the highway network, contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF.
The application fails to demonstrate that the proposed development provides safe and suitable
access for all users, contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF.
Full details are set out in the relevant section of this report.
Highways England - No objection. Our concern would be the safe and efficient operation of the
A27 trunk road and particularly the Bognor Road roundabout and the A27/A29 Fontwell
roundabout...I am satisfied that the impacts on our network are minimal.
Parks and Landscape - No objection to the overview of the landscaping details proposed. They
are broadly adequate for the location. As with any scheme and particularly such a large and
varied application, we would recommend that as details become more formalised/amendments
made then further detail will be required to be tailored to that aspect.
Sussex Police - No objection. "Site A - The applicant should be directed to the Secured by
13
BR/26/15/PL
Design website (www.securedbydesign.com) which includes the Commercial Development
2015 document.
Accredited products that are fit for purpose and appropriate along with natural surveillance,
access control will assist the development in creating a safe and secure environment in which to
partake in leisure and retail activities.
Information on lighting can be found within the SBD commercial document.
For the residential apartment I direct the applicant to SBD New Homes 2014.
Site B - Access control will be the key to the hotel's security and I am confident that the end user
will be a reputable hotel chain with previous experience of hotel security. I recommend that Park
Mark accreditation is sought to ensure car park security and safety of the users.
I see no evidence of the children's play area shown on the Theatre Site plan; therefore, I have no
comments to make at this time.
Site C - Fit for purpose appropriate doors and windows will be required in order to secure the
proposed restaurant. Further internal security measures may be necessary to protect areas like
cash office, food store and items that are attractive and valuable. Access control can limit
authorisation to authorised staff members where appropriate.
The landscaped garden's planting scheme is to be maintained in order to provide good natural
surveillance across the development, with ground planting no more than 1m in height and tree
canopies no lower than 3m. This arrangement provides a window of observation throughout the
development.
Sites D - Fit for purpose appropriate doors and windows will be required in order to secure the
kiosk. Intrusion resistance to remove unauthorised entry into the retail unit to protect areas like
cash, tills and stock that also includes items deemed as attractive and valuable. A management
plan will have to be formalised that allows for the locking and unlocking of public toilets. Clear
legible signage indicating opening times and a point of contact to report concerns or damage is
to be available."
Environmental Health - I am satisfied that the AQ assessment is sufficient, provided that the
mitigation measures detailed in Section 7 are implemented, and that a Dust Management Plan is
provided. This element could be conditioned.
Contamination comments - The desk studies for the Regis Centre and Queensway suggest a
sampling regime based around geotechnical investigation due to low level risk from the site. The
skate park will only require a watching brief. Please apply standard conditions ENV 3, 5 and 6.
Southern Water - No objection subject to conditions.
It might be possible to divert the 450mm surface water sewer and 100mm public foul sewer
within the Regis Centre, so long as it would result in no unacceptable impact of hydraulic
capacity, and the work was carried out at the Developer's expense.
Should the applicant with to divert the apparatus:
1. The 450mm surface water sewer within Regis centre site requires a clearance of 3.5 metres
14
BR/26/15/PL
either side of the sewers to protect it from construction works and allow for future access
maintenance.
2. The 100mm foul sewer, 300mm surface water sewer within Regis centre site require a
clearance of 3m either side of the sewers to protect it from construction works and allow for
future access maintenance.
3. The 150mm and 225mm surface water sewer within the Hothamton Theatre Site requires a
clearance of 3m either side of the sewers to protect it from construction works and allow for
future access maintenance.
4. The 600mm foul rising within restaurant site requires a clearance of 3.5m either side of the
sewer to protect it from construction works and works and allow for future access maintenance.
5. No development or new tree planting should be located within 3.5 and 3m either side of the
centreline of the public sewer.
6. No new soakaways should be located within 5m of a public sewer.
7. All other existing infrastructure should be protected during the course of the construction
works.
Alternatively, the applicant may wish to amend the site layout, or combine a diversion with
amendment of the site layout. If the application would prefer to advance these options, items (1) (4) above also apply.
Please note there is an easement for 600mm surface water sewer within the kiosk site.
In order to protect drainage apparatus, Southern Water requests that if consent is granted, a
condition is attached requiring the Developer to inform Southern Water of any remedial works.
Affordable Housing Officer - Objects.
"Scheme viability
The applicants have not adhered to the Interim Affordable Housing Policy adopted by the Council
on 18 August 2010. This requires that from developments of 15 or more units an affordable
housing provision of 30% across the board should be required of developments.
As part of their viability appraisal, the applicants have proposed that just 14% (27) of the
dwellings should be affordable homes and that these properties will all be for intermediate
housing (shared ownership). The Council's generally seeks a tenure split consisting of 50% rent
and 50% intermediate housing.
The National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 173 states 'Pursuing sustainable
development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking.
Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and scale of development identified in the plan
should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be
developed viability is threatened.
To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as
requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other
requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation,
provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the
development to be deliverable'.
The Council has requested a viability report which shows the scheme as policy compliant in
accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). In respect of this application it has not been possible to
15
BR/26/15/PL
undertake comprehensive assessment of the scheme viability because the applicants have not
provided a policy compliant appraisal showing the full impact of the Council's affordable housing
policy requirements.
We have only received appraisal reports which show the position with no (nil) affordable housing
and 14% affordable housing. Whilst these reports do give information on scheme build costs for
both the Regis Centre and Hothampton sites, they do not set out what the Council specifically
requested which is an appraisal in accordance with both Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) para
23 (a) and NPPF para 173 (Ensuring viability and deliverability) as below.
PPG para 23 (a) requires that site value should reflect policy requirements and planning
obligations, in this case the Council's Affordable Housing Policy requirements for 30% affordable
housing on-site as part of the overall development, alternatively the appraisal could show how the
30% affordable housing can be provided elsewhere in the Arun District.
NPPF para 173 states 'To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to
development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure
contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of
development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing
developer to enable the development to be deliverable'.
Further, the applicants have declined the Council's request that the District Valuation Service
(DVS) independently review their viability reports.
The applicants' viability reports make the following assumptions;
Residential Sales values: These have been produced by Pegasus Properties in Arundel and are
very much at the high end of their present thinking for achievable values for a sea-front
development in this location. Values have been assessed on a floor by floor basis with regard to
the units' siting therein. These values have then been averaged across each floor at a £/sq.ft.
rate. No ground rent income is considered however, anything received in this regard would be
passed to the Council.
Council opinion - sales values as quoted are within a reasonable range but it would be helpful to
have these independently reviewed and justified in light of current values in the Bognor Regis
area.
Commercial Sales Values/Income: The applicant has assessed the values of the leisure, retail
and office uses by reference to the rates advised in the viability. There is no income received
from the new theatre.
Council opinion - without the opportunity to have these sales and incomes independently
reviewed it is not possible for the Council to comment on the reasonableness of the assumptions
made on the viability appraisal.
There is however, a very significant assumption included in the appraisal reports that the Council
is prepared to release all of land for the project on a zero land value basis (or peppercorn lease).
It should be noted that the Council has not agreed this and no discussions have been held with
the applicant on this specific matter. Should planning permission be agreed for the application
the Council is under no legal obligation to grant a lease for this development proposal on its own
land.
16
BR/26/15/PL
Construction Costs: These have been produced by a chartered quantity surveyor on behalf of the
applicant. The rate utilised for the residential element (£1275/sq.m) falls well below the median
quartile for apartments of this nature as detailed in the BCIS of June 2015 (£1656/sq.m).
The development of the new theatre and associated uses on the Hothampton site carries a cost
in excess of £25M with barely 10% of this recovered through the income derived thereon.
Council opinion - the residential costs appear to be within expected levels. The Council would
welcome the opportunity to have the non-residential construction costs independently reviewed
before offering comment. This is particularly relevant in respect of the assumed £25M
construction costs for the theatre. The primary reason stated by the applicants for being unable
to meet the Council's Affordable Housing Policy requirements is the construction costs for the
theatre.
Sales and Marketing Cost: The applicants have allowed a 2.5% cost across the turnover on the
scheme. The residential alone would derive a higher percentage in its own right but they have
reduced the rate to reflect the other uses. They expect to address legal costs for both site
acquisition and sales within this allowance.
Council opinion - the assumption made for these costs appear reasonable.
Land Value: The viabilities are all driven by there being a zero land cost. The exercise undertaken
bears this assumption out as being the only way the regeneration scheme can be successfully
delivered.
Council opinion - no agreement has been reached with the applicants in respect of the land value
or leasehold arrangements for any development on land owned by the Council. The applicants
are making a very significant assumption in respect of land value. If the scheme is only viable
with a nil land value, the Council has serious doubts as to whether the scheme is actually
deliverable on these terms. At present it is not possible to comment on whether there are any
restricted covenants in respect of the Council owned land title. Any such covenants may restrict
the use of the land, and if lifted it is reasonable to assume there would be a cost attached to this
change of use.
Build costs:
The appraisal documents also include a schedule of the build costs covering the Regis Centre
and Hothampton sites which are based on the following assumptions;
- Based on ADP architects drawings;
- Design and build contract procurement;
- Provisional allowances for professional and statutory fees;
- Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 for all residential apartments;
- Natural ventilation only to basement;
And importantly the following exclusions;
- Purchase of land and associated legal and boundary agreement costs;
- Cost of project finance;
- VAT;
- Abnormal ground conditions;
- All loose fittings, fixtures and fittings;
17
BR/26/15/PL
- Any work to buildings outside of the site boundary other that where expressly stated;
- Inflation beyond end of Q1 2016 for Regis Centre site and Q3 2017 for all other costs;
- Major upgrading of existing gas, water and drainage infrastructure;
- Asbestos removal;
- BREEAM requirements;
Council opinion - whilst the majority of the overall build costs appear reasonable for the nonresidential elements of the development the Council has serious concerns about the credibility
and viability of the build costs as presented by the developer. Of particular concern is the issue
that the land purchase costs or any nominal figure for the lease ground rent has not been
factored into the financial model. Also, a total absence of the project finance costs, no VAT, no
abnormal ground costs, and no provision for inflation makes the build costs estimates
challengeable.
In respect of the revenue elements for affordable housing, the viability appraisal correctly
assumes that nil grant will be forthcoming, for any Affordable Housing Provider (AHP), from the
Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) for shared ownership housing. As the applicants are
presenting an appraisal for shared ownership housing only the Council would assume that the
price paid, by an AHP, will include reasonable assumptions about the likely value of homes and
the initial share at 55% being offered.
Affordability of the shared ownership housing offer
The NPPF Annex 2 defines Affordable Housing as: 'Social rented, affordable rented and
intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market.
Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Affordable housing
should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the
subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.
Intermediate housing (as being offered by the applicants) is homes for sale and rent provided at a
cost above social rent, but below market levels subject to the criteria in the Affordable Housing
definition above. These homes can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans),
other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent, but not affordable rented housing. Homes
that do not meet the above definition of affordable housing, such as "low cost market" housing,
may not be considered as affordable housing for planning purposes.
The applicants propose to provide a shared ownership housing product at an equity share of
55% which meets the NPPF definition for intermediate housing and which will contain provisions
to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households.
The mean annual earnings in the Arun district in 2014 were £22,700 and £26,960 for the wider
West Sussex area. The mean household income in the Arun district for 2014 was £34,700. The
affordability of the shared ownership offer from the applicants needs to be viewed in the context
of these salary levels for affordability purposes.
The following market values are taken from the schedules and figures provided by the applicant's
agent:
Studio Apartment (1st floor) @ 350sq.ft. Market value of £157,500 and 55% shared ownership
(no rent) sale price of £86,625.
Allowing for a 10% deposit (£8,882) this leaves a mortgage of circa £78,000 and a monthly cost
of circa £293.
18
BR/26/15/PL
Assuming a service charge of £60 pcm will see an overall monthly cost of £353 and an annual
housing cost of £4,236.
Extrapolate this to represent 30% of nett household income (assuming nett income is 80% of
gross) these units should be affordable to those earning circa £17,650 pa.
Council opinion - this product is generally affordable to households in the Arun district and the
wider West Sussex area but probably not to those on the Council's housing register.
1 Bedroom Apartment (Ground floor) @ 500sq.ft. Market value of £212,500 and 55% shared
ownership (no rent) sale price of £116,875.
Allowing for a 10% deposit (£11,687) this leaves a mortgage of circa £105,000 and a monthly
cost of circa £394.
Extrapolating this to represent 30% of nett household income (assuming nett income is 80% of
gross) will allows access to these units to those earning circa £23,500 pa.
Council opinion - this product is generally affordable to households in the Arun district and wider
West Sussex area but not to those on the Council's housing register.
2 Bedroom Apartment (Ground floor) @ 700sq.ft. Market value of £297,500 and 55% shared
ownership (no rent) sale price of £163,625.
Allowing for a 10% deposit (£16,362) this leaves a mortgage of £147,263 and a monthly cost of
circa £551.
Extrapolating this to represent 30% of nett household income (assuming nett income is 80% of
gross) will allow access to those households earning circa £32,050 pa.
Council opinion - this product would only be affordable to households with around the mean
household income level of £34,700. It would generally not be affordable for single persons or
those on the Council's housing register.
Summary
- The applicants have failed to produce a development which complies with the requirements of
the Council's Affordable Housing Policy requirements for 30% affordable housing on-site;
- The applicants have argued the scheme is unviable if it is required to provide 30% affordable
housing but have not provided a policy compliant appraisal to justify this position;
- The offer of 14% (27) affordable dwellings are all offered as shared ownership;
- Whilst the shared ownership dwellings are affordable to many households in the Arun and wider
West Sussex area, they are generally not affordable to households on the Council's housing
register;
- The scheme offers no affordable rented housing to those on the Council's housing register;
- The build costs for the full development as presented by the applicant are not credible;
- The applicants have failed to address in the appraisal even a nominal figure for the land costs
as required in a policy compliant appraisal;
- The appraisal documentation provided by the applicants does not comply to the requirements of
19
BR/26/15/PL
the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) para 23 (a);
- The appraisal does comply with the National Planning Policy Framework para 173;
- The applicants have refused the Council's request for the appraisal documentation to be
reviewed by an independent third party the DVS;
Taking account of all of the above matters, I object to the application as presented by the
applicants."
WSCC Flood Risk Management Team - "The site does not have any known surface water flood
risk issues from historic events, or highways flooding. Surface water flood modelling does
indicate some localised risk of surface water flooding on the roads adjacent to some of the sites.
This does not mean that the sites will flood but just that it is indicated as being susceptible by the
data we hold.
Groundwater Risk
The site is indicated to be at low risk from groundwater flood risk according to the risk
susceptibility mapping we hold. This is based on topography, geology and historic groundwater
data and does not represented any detailed site specific investigations. Use of underground car
parks on the site will dramatically increase the risk of groundwater flooding below ground level
and this should be considered in the design.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs)
The detailed designs of the proposed surface water drainage systems have not been included
with this application. However assuming the surface water drainage will be managed as
indicated in the submitted proposed surface water management strategy this would meet the
basic requirements of the NPPF, PPG and associated guidance documents as it retains the
current runoff rates and discharges to surface water sewer.
However following the SuDS hierarchy and the spirit of SuDS implementation, betterment for
surface water systems on the new developments should be sought. This could include retention
at source through green roofs and attenuation prior to disposal to reduce peak flows. Green
roofs, or other associated SuDS landscaping, could significantly improve the local green
infrastructure provision and biodiversity impact of the developments whilst having surface water
benefits too.
Thought should also be given to the reduction in infiltration area associated with the underground
elements of the proposal (especially car parks) and potential implications from groundwater
interactions.
ADC Drainage - The applicant states that the majority of surface water will be discharged to
surface water sewers at no greater than pre-development run-off rates. Prior to considering
discharging to the surface water sewer, a SuDS system (Sustainable Urban Drainage System)
must be investigated for surface water disposal, ie. soakage structures. Infiltration structures
should be positioned at least 5 metres from building and other infrastructure. Basements should
be suitably tanked where proposed, due to proximity to the sea and general high groundwater.
Areas of green space can be utilised for surface SuDS features.
Please apply standard conditions ENGD2A.
Infiltration rates for soakage structures are to be based on percolation tests undertaking in the
winter period at the location and depth of the proposed structures. Percolation tests must be
carried out in accordance with BRE365, CIRIA R156 or similar approved method and cater for
20
BR/26/15/PL
the 1 in 10 year storm between the invert of the entry pipe to the soakaway, and the base of the
structure. It must also have provision to ensure that there is capacity in the system to contain
below ground level the 1 in 100 year event plus 30% on stored volumes, as an allowance for
climate change. Adequate freeboard must be provided between the base of the soakaway
structure and the highest recorded annual groundwater level identified in that location.
Any SuDS or soakaway design must include adequate groundwater monitoring data to determine
the highest winter groundwater table in support of the design."
ADC Tree Officer - No objection.
As the proposed trees for removal do not have the attributes to warrant TPO orders, I would have
no objection to their proposed removal.
The following conditions are to be adhered to when completing the proposed development; TPO
worthiness - none had the attributes to warrant a TPO orders.
I therefore have no objection to the felling of these trees. The applicant has also suggested
transplanting T4-T6 to another part of the site - again I have no objection to this proposal.
Conditions:
All proposed works to take place within the Root Protection Areas are to follow the submitted
Method statements. This includes hard surface removal (as described in section 11 of the
submitted Arboricultural Method statement), and also with the installation of no-dig road surface
(section 12 of the submitted Arboricultural Method statement).
All proposed protective fencing (meeting the BS 5837 standard) must be erected before any site
works begin. Equally all protective fencing must be kept in place until the completion of the
proposed development, as specified in section 6 of the Arboricultural Method statement.
Any further pruning works (as suggested to prune T34 and T35), are highlighted to myself for
comment before the pruning works commence.
Natural England - No objection. This application is in close proximity to the Bognor Reef Site of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development
being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not
damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified.
Ecologist - Chichester District Council and Arun District Council have been working on a
strategic scheme of avoidance for new developments within 5km zone of influence around
Pagham Harbour SPA. In this case, the proposed development requires a financial contribution
to mitigate harm.
Bats
As a precautionary approach demolition of the buildings should be undertaken by hand with
careful stripping of the internal and external roof space in the presence of a suitably qualified
ecologist. If a bat is found all works must stop and Natural England consulted. This work should
only take place between October and March
The lighting scheme for the site will need to take into consideration the presence of bats in the
21
BR/26/15/PL
local area and the scheme should minimise potential impacts to any bats using the trees,
hedgerows and buildings by avoiding unnecessary artificial light spill through the use of
directional light sources and shielding.
Birds
Any works to the trees or vegetation clearance on the site should only be undertaken outside of
the bird breeding season which takes place between 1st March - 1st October. If works are
required within this time an ecologist will need to check the site before any works take place.
Enhancements
We would expect to see a number of enhancements onsite due to the scale of the development.
These should include:
- Bat and bird boxes installed
- Native planting used within landscaping schemes
- Wildflower seed mix used within open space areas.
Property and Estates - The land edged red appears to be within the Council's ownership.
Theatres Trust - Advice: The Theatres Trust's initial submission (dated 9th July 2015) welcomed
the proposal to construct a new 1,100 seat theatre. However, we outlined a number of issues
and concerns about the design, viability, and loss of the Alexandra Theatre. We note that the
amended plans to address a number of our concerns, including the provision of additional stairs
linking the foyers, adjusting bar provision, changing the car park entrance, and provided more
detailed plans about the location and access of the grid and lighting bridges. However, I do refer
to our initial comments regarding viability, management and the future of small scale community
theatre as these issues remain valid concerns and need to be addressed.
Noise and Vibration: With the integration of both a hotel and theatre in one building, noise and
vibration mitigation needs to be carefully considered as both uses are sensitive to noise transfer.
Viability: Whilst a considerable amount of work has gone into developing a feasibility study to
determine there is capacity for a large theatre in Bognor Regis, there is considerable emphasis
on attracting a tourist audience rather than a local audience to justify the size of the theatre. As
the study notes, a significant amount of work is still needed to move from the feasibility stage to
creating a viable business plan and to actually attract and develop an audience for the proposed
theatre. As the report acknowledges, the theatre must be able to sustain itself without the need
for public funding and grants. The Trust would be pleased to comment on the business plan as it
developed.
Alexandra Theatre: We are concerned about the future of Alexandra Theatre in the Regis Centre
which is current operated by a volunteer run trust. The Alexandra Theatre provides a small 360
seat venue that serves a clear role in the town and it is unclear how this organisation and other
community organisations will be included in the new theatre. The 1100 seat auditorium will not
provide the type of venue needed for small scale theatre, nor is it likely to be affordable or
accessible to the performers and users of the Alexandra Theatre.
The NPPF includes extensive directions and guidance on the importance of cultural assets.
Notably, paragraph 70 states that 'in promoting healthy communities', planning decisions should
'plan positively for cultural buildings' and 'guard against the loss of cultural facilities and services'.
22
BR/26/15/PL
Further work will be needed to ensure that the existing users of Alexandra Theatre will be
adequately catered for in Bognor Regis as the loss of a small scale theatre that is valued by the
community would be contrary to the Framework.
The Trust also strongly recommends that the new theatre is built before the existing theatre is
demolished to ensure that the existing theatre audience in Bognor Regis is maintained. It is
extremely difficult to rebuild a theatre audience once it has been lost, particularly where the
proposed theatre needs to triple existing audience numbers.
Management: We would also like to highlight potential management issues if the theatre and
hotel are to be managed by separate organisations. We recommend that you consider the
implications of Birmingham City Council's recently announced proposals concerning the new
Birmingham Library development which also includes a new shared foyer and box office space
with the adjacent Birmingham Rep Theatre. In December 2014 the Council announced plans to
halve the number of staff in the Library and reduce the opening hours from 70 to 40 hours per
week, which obviously had implications for how the theatre would then be managed. To avoid
any negative impacts on the future viability and operations of the theatre we recommend that
prior to approval there is clarification on how the shared spaces will be jointly managed, and that
the theatre will not be limited in its operation in any way by the management of the hotel.
Following the submission of additional information by the applicant, the Theatres Trust made the
following comments on the scheme:
The Trust does support the development of the theatre and increasing opportunities for the local
community to participate in cultural activities, either as an audience member or by being involved
in the production or educational side of theatre. However, we have had hesitations because
building audiences is a difficult process for most theatres, particularly when audience numbers
are expected to triple (comparing capacity of the existing theatre and that in the new theatre). It
will be even more difficult if there is no theatre provision for an extended period of construction
and audiences find other locations or activities to provide entertainment. It is important to
maintain links between theatre and arts provision and the local community. This is why we have
emphasised the need to make sure the theatre is viable, as per our remit to safeguard theatre
use.
Nevertheless, we do know Mr Holden well and he is very experienced in developing successful
theatre strategies, and the partnership with the University of Chichester is certainly positive and
will make a great contribution to establishing the theatre.
Just to clarify, Birmingham City Library was to have similar opening hours as the Birmingham
Rep Theatre when the joint development opened, however, cuts to local authorities meant 90
library staff were cut and hours were reduced from 70 a week to around 40, and this caused
issues with managing the shared spaces, since resolved. If management of the theatre and
hotel is maintained as a single entity, then we agree that our concern about governance is
unlikely to be an issue, given the interdependence of the two facilities.
Economic Regeneration 1. General
This is a confused, confusing and contradictory application with missing information.
Some examples of the many issues are:
- There are two separate and different landscape/public realm designs/plans
23
BR/26/15/PL
- The Hothamton hotel bedroom numbers vary between 48 and 55
- There is a stated intention to relocate the skate park from its existing site to "the west of the
pier", but there are no drawings or plans of where this would be.
2. Masterplan
The application does not meet the requirements for the "ingredients" for both Regis and
Hothamton sites stipulated in the adopted Bognor Regis Masterplan. While the Masterplan is
mentioned within the application (i.e. in the Design and Access Statement and the Project
Details), the relevant sections of the Masterplan regarding the "Leisure Heart" are not quoted or
included within the application. They are reproduced here for information.
Leisure Heart: 'a mixed use development with a focus of family-led leisure' and "The Regis
Centre site is the 'jewel in the crown'. Development on this site is pivotal to the long-term future
of the town. There is a shared vision that development on this site should consist of activities that
attract visitors to the town, and these must be housed within a first class building and public
realm.
Character: The predominant requirement is for a family-led leisure/entertainment/cultural centre
to replace the existing complex, and of sufficient critical mass to make the seafront a vibrant
location. The linkage between the Town Centre and seafront will be reinforced. There is also the
potential to close the Esplanade adjacent to the site as part of an overall development scheme
dependent on a satisfactory Transport Assessment being made. The uses within the
development are likely to be a mix of commercial and non-commercial, with active leisure related
uses such as cafe's, bars, clubs on the ground and first floors, with the option of residential
development on the upper storeys if needed to make the development financially viable. The
Town Hall will remain in civic use in an enhanced setting.
From an Economic Regeneration perspective, the Regis site in particular is a key site to deliver
new, quality visitor attractions, especially those for rainy days and for families, the main visitor
client for Bognor Regis. The application does not provide any visitor attractions, weakening the
town's ability to attract new visitors, and create longer dwell times. The sustainability of the 11
new retail units within the scheme is questionable as there are c 25 empty retail units in the town.
There is a single pub/restaurant and a single cafÃ© included which will not help to bump-start an
evening economy in the town.
The Retail Impact Assessment is inaccurate and incorrect in its portrayal of the existing retail
offer in that it indicates that it is heavily seasonal; footfall figures indicate this is incorrect. It also
quotes a different square meterage of retail - 2400m² as opposed to the Design and Access
Statement which quotes 1271m². The hotel would be welcomed as there is a well-evidenced
shortage of hotel capacity in the town.
For the Hothamton site, a Theatre Tourism Impact study is included with the application.
However, it concludes that the theatre would not have an impact on the visitor economy. The
study is also of a very poor quality; much of the stated data is incorrect and/or many years out of
date, and many of the assertions made are factually wrong. Examples include quoting TSE 2009
data, the statement about "reversing the tourism decline" when TSE figures show a year on year
increase in visits, visitors and visitor spend, the statement "At present Bognor Regis is not
marketed as a destination" - the council's own website is www.sussexbythesea.com and there
are many other sites, not least Butlin's own that do exactly that. The list of accommodation
providers in Appendix 1 is inaccurate. Some of the statements made require strong evidence for example - "Arundel visitors will come to Bognor for a night at the theatre". No evidence is
provided of this assertion. Arundel has a flourishing heritage and culture scene of its own which
24
BR/26/15/PL
attracts visitors (not so much for outdoor pursuits as stated) and anecdotal experience shows
they would be very much more likely to go to Chichester for an evening out than Bognor Regis.
There is also a statement made that "Retail has turned into offices for estate agents, solicitors
etc, and will turn back to retail with increased tourism". Evidence and examples of this reversal
are required as it is a fact that retail is contracting nationally, and other uses are being actively
encouraged to come into town centres to retain vibrancy and footfall.
If the study is to be included within the application, it requires an extensive re-write to be
considered as evidence for the application.
3. Quality.
The Masterplan stipulates "quality of architecture" and "first class building and public realm". This
is key to raising the quality of the offer for both residents and visitors to attract higher spending
visitors, and encourage them to stay longer and spend more. The designs are disappointing and
lack the quality and innovation that would achieve this.
4. Parking.
The public parking currently available on the Regis site (187 spaces of which 12 are designated
Blue Badge) will be entirely lost, even for Blue Badge drivers. Some will be replaced on the
Esplanade if it is possible to make the traffic one way, however there are no car parking spaces
allocated to the new gym, pub/cafe or shops which will create new parking demand. The Regis
car park is one of the most heavily-used car parks in Arun, particularly by visitors in the holiday
season, and the loss of the public parking will clearly have a negative impact on trade for local
businesses both in the town and on the seafront. If people have a poor parking experience such
as having to drive round and round searching for a space, it will also deter them from coming
back, reducing the visitor numbers coming to the town. The application claims that other town
centre car parks will cater for the loss of public parking on this
Conservation Area Committee - No comments received.
WSCC Fire Service - No comments received, although they provided details of financial
contribution requirements which are set out at the end of this report.
Arun Waste Management - No objection.
WSCC Infrastructure - The following contributions are required:
Primary Education - £132,943
Secondary Education - £143,077
6th Form - £33,518
Bognor Regis Library - £41,044
Fire and Rescue Southern Service Division - £4,343
Further details in respect of contribution requirements are set out in the remainder of this report.
COMMENTS ON CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Comments from consultees are dealt with in the main body of this report.
POLICY CONTEXT
Designations applicable to site:
25
BR/26/15/PL
Local Plan (2003)
Bognor Regis Town Centre Regeneration Area Policy SITE 2 - Site A, B and C
Policy Area 5 (Protection of Open Space) - Site A, B and C
Policy Area 7 (Public Car Parks) - Site A and B
Emerging Local Plan
Town Centre - Site A, B and C
Existing Open Space - Site A, B and C
Economic Growth Area - Site A and B
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
Arun District Local Plan:
AREA5
AREA7
DEV17
DEV34
DEV35
GEN11
GEN12
GEN18
GEN2
GEN20
GEN29
GEN3
GEN32
GEN34
GEN5
GEN7
GEN8
GEN9
SITE2
Publication Version of the
Local Plan (October 2014):
Protection of Open Space
Public Car Parks
Affordable Housing
Tourist Accommodation and Attractions
Tourism Development Requiring a Coastal
Location
Inland Flooding
Parking in New Development
Crime Prevention
Built-up Area Boundary
Provision of Public Open Space within New
Development
Nature and Conservation Across the
District
Protection of the Countryside
Noise Pollution
Air Pollution
Provision of New Residential Development
The Form of New Development
Development and the Provision of
Infrastructure
Foul and Surface Water Drainage
Bognor Regis Town Centre Regeneration
C SP1 Countryside
D DM1 Aspects of Form and Design Quality
D DM2 Internal Space Standards
D DM3 External Space Standards
D SP1 Design
ECC SP2 Energy and climate change mitigation
ENV DM2 Pagham Harbour
ENV DM4 Protection of Trees
ENV DM5 Development and Biodiversity
ENV SP1 Natural Environment
GI SP1 Green Infrastructure and Development
H DM1 Housing Mix
HER DM1 Listed Buildings
26
BR/26/15/PL
HER SP1 The Historic Environment
H SP2 Affordable Housing
OSR DM1 Open Space, Sport and Recreation
QE DM1 Noise Pollution
QE DM2 Light Pollution
QE DM3 Air Pollution
RET DM1 Retail Development
SD SP2 Built-Up Area Boundary
SKILLS SP1 Employment and Skills
T DM2 Public car parks
TOU DM1 Tourism Related Development
TOU SP1 Sustainable tourism and the visitor economy
T SP1 Transport and Development
Bognor Regis Neighbourhood Plan 2015 Policy 1
Delivery of the Vision
Promoting the Seaside Indentity
Old Town Restaurant and Cultural Quarter
Key gateways and promotion of sustainable
travel
Bognor Regis Neighbourhood Plan 2015 Policy 7 Promotion of tourism and beach service points
Bognor Regis Neighbourhood Plan 2015 Policy 8A Design Excellence
Bognor Regis Neighbourhood Plan 2015 Policy
Car Parking
8B
The Pier
8C
Bognor Regis Neighbourhood Plan 2015 Policy 8F Regis Centre & Mountbatten Court Site
Hothamton Car park site, Queensway
8G
Bognor Regis Neighbourhood Plan 2015 Policy 9 Local Green Space Designations
PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE
NPPF
NPPG
National Planning Policy Framework
National Planning Practice Guidance
POLICY COMMENTARY
The Development Plan consists of the Arun District Local Plan 2003, West Sussex County
Council's Waste and Minerals Plans and Made Neighbourhood Development Plans.
Arun District Council's Development Plans:
Paragraph 215 of the NPPF ensures that specific policies in Arun District Local Plan 2003 can
carry weight. The weight afforded to the policies with Local Plan policies can be assessed
according to their level of consistency of the various policies with the National Planning Policy
Framework.
Paragraph 216 of the NPPF confirms that weight can be given to policies in emerging plans from
the day of publication. The Council resolved that the policies and maps in the Publication Version of
the Local Plan be used in the determination of this planning application. Following 'publication' of
the Local Plan a formal public consultation, examination and adoption process takes place.
The policies are published under Regulations 19 and 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Local
27
BR/26/15/PL
Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.
The Neighbourhood Development Plan
Where applicable, Neighbourhood Development Plan's (more commonly known as a
neighbourhood plan or NDP), once made by Arun District Council, will form part of the statutory
local development plan for the relevant designated neighbourhood area and policies within them will
be considered in determining planning applications. Made NDP policies will be considered
alongside other development plan documents including Arun District Council's Local Plan. Whilst
an NDP is under preparation it will afford little weight in the determination of planning applications.
Its status will however gain more weight as a material consideration the closer it is towards it being
made. Arun District Council will make reference to an NDP when it has, by the close of planning
application consultation, been publicised for pre-submission consultation(Reg.14).
Made Plans in Arun District Council's Local Planning Authority Area are: Angmering; Arundel;
Barnham & Eastergate; Bersted; Bognor Regis; Clymping; East Preston; Felpham; Ferring;
Kingston; Littlehampton; Rustington; Yapton
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND/OR LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:"If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made
under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless
material considerations indicate otherwise."
The proposal is considered to comply with relevant Development Plan policies in that it proposes
town centre uses within an existing town centre. Whilst there is conflict with planning policies,
identified within the remainder of this report, the proposal is not considered to constitute a
Departure from the Development Plan.
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
It is considered that there are no other material considerations to warrant a decision otherwise than
in accordance with the Development Plan and/or legislative background.
CONCLUSIONS
PREAMBLE:
The proposal involves the development of three main sites under the ownership of Arun District
Council, two of which (The Regis Centre and Hothamton Car Park) formed part of regeneration
proposals involving a joint venture between the Council and a private developer, St Modwen's. In
2007 the Council entered into a Development Agreement with St Modwen's in order to develop the
two sites in accordance with details set out in the Town Centre Masterplan (2003). Subsequently,
despite considerable work being carried out by both parties, it was concluded that St Modwen's
could not prepare a planning application for the Regis Centre and Hothamton Car Park sites in
accordance with the terms of the Development Agreement. In 2014, St Modwen's and the Council
agreed to surrender the Development Agreement, this being an amicable resolution for both
parties.
Following this, and with the Council still keen to bring forward regeneration in accordance with the
2003 Masterplan, the Council recently invited the submission of ideas and initiatives for the
28
BR/26/15/PL
development of the two sites, as well as inviting the general public to give their views. In October
2015 an officer report to Full Council, which including consideration of the consultation exercise,
outlined a number of recommendations which the Council have agreed to. The recommendations
include general support for the continued evolution of schemes for the two sites with an intention to
present future options on the key constituent parts of any future development scheme for
consideration. Therefore, the Council are still keen to facilitate regeneration of the sites in
accordance with the Masterplan.
The current application, which includes two additional sites (the Promenade and the former
Esplanade Theatre Site (now skate park, also known as Rock Gardens) in addition to Hothamton
and Regis Centre), has been submitted independently of the above. The applicant has not
engaged in formal pre-application discussion with the Council with regards to this proposal.
However, the applicant states that their brief for the application was:
"...to take the St Modwen's proposals to inform the type of development that the Council and the
public wish to see on these sites as previously demonstrated, and to take the opportunity to further
enhance this by incorporating various other Council policies..."
The current application is submitted as a private, self-financing development proposal which would
not require any public sector funding.
Members should be aware that planning application decisions should be taken in accordance with
the development plan unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise. The
planning officer recommendation may, or may not, be in line with the Council's decision in terms of
occupation as landowner. It is important that the planning application is assessed on its own
individual planning merits.
The current application was screened for EIA in accordance with the Environmental Impact
Assessment Regulations (2011). It was concluded that this is not an EIA development.
PROPOSAL:
Policy Conclusions
Policy GEN2 of the Local Plan supports development within the built up areas, subject to other
policies in the plan. All the sites (apart from the proposed skate park and kiosks) lie within the SITE
2 boundary of the Local Plan:
Within the area defined on the Proposals Map, the Council will initiate, support and encourage
development proposals which will regenerate the town centre and introduce mixed use
developments/redevelopments comprising retail, leisure, residential, office and civic/community
uses subject to environmental enhancement schemes and integrated transport management and
accessibility strategies.
To be acceptable, all significant development proposals must demonstrate that they meet and/or
further the core regeneration aims for the town centre and their long term viability/sustainability.
The core aims are to:
- Improve the economic viability and vitality of the town centre by attracting new investment;
- Enhance the environmental/architectural quality of the townscape and public realm through
improvements to spaces, buildings and street works/furniture;
- Create and enhance the physical/visual linkages between the promenade/town centre;
29
BR/26/15/PL
- Improve the attractiveness of the retail environment to shoppers;
- Increase the attractiveness of the town as a holiday destination to visitors;
- Improve the accessibility of the town centre and effectively manage the movement of people and
vehicles within the town centre.
Proposals will be assessed by the Council against these core aims and opportunities will be
sought to negotiate (where appropriate) improvements so as to meet these core aims.
The Council will prepare Supplementary Planning Guidance which will amplify/interpret this policy
framework and identify development opportunities for key town centre sites and produce
Development Briefs for such sites so as to guide/co-ordinate development proposals. Planning
obligations and conditions will also be used to achieve the core aims where appropriate.
In addition to the above, sites 1, 2 and 3 are covered by a Town Centre Masterplan (2003), which
was accompanied by a Town Centre Masterplan Planning Policy Guidance (2004). The Town
Centre Masterplan is considered relevant as planning guidance as the subtext to Local Plan policy
SITE2 guides that the Masterplan guidance will be used to guide future development in accordance
with policy SITE2.
Taken in its broadest sense the Masterplan is also supportive of quality regeneration proposals
within the town centre. However, in terms of detail, the Masterplan promotes a coherent vision for
the long term development of the town centre. The key development principles identified for each of
the proposed development sites are:
Site A (Regis Centre)
- A landmark development of mixed uses
- Ground floor uses should provide active frontage and generate activity
- Optional residential development on upper floors
- Town Hall to be retained and enhanced
- Limited parking onsite
- Integration of seafront with town centre through pedestrian walkway
- Potential for pedestrianisation along esplanade frontage
- Offsite mitigation for highway impacts
Site B (Hothamton)
- Mixed use development
- Establish physical connections with the town centre, the railway station and seafront. Opportunity
for taller buildings subject to design
- Community uses on ground floor to provide active frontage onto Queensway and Steyne Street
- Retail units on the ground floor fronting on to Queensway
- Office accommodation for the County Council with potential for other users
- Provision of affordable housing
- Create green finger to seafront
Site C (Proposed Restaurant)
- Enhance the leisure experience along the promenade
- Compliment the setting of the Royal Norfolk Hotel
- Have direct pedestrian access to the promenade
- Must face seawards and The Esplanade. Both elevations must be of high quality.
30
BR/26/15/PL
- May be an independent leisure related facility or associated with other leisure facilities along the
promenade
- No on-site parking, only service access
In respect of the NPPF, the following policies are applicable to some or all of the constituent
elements of the development proposal.
Paragraph 14 - At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of
sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both planmaking and decision-taking.
Paragraph 23 states that planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centre
environments and set out policies for the management and growth of centres over the plan period.
In drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should:
- recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their
viability and vitality;
- define a network and hierarchy of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes;
- define the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas, based on a clear definition of
primary and secondary frontages in designated centres, and set policies that make clear which
uses will be permitted in such locations;
- promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer and
which reflect the individuality of town centres;
- retain and enhance existing markets and, where appropriate, re-introduce or create new ones,
ensuring that markets remain attractive and competitive;
- allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial, office,
tourism, cultural, community and residential development needed in town centres. It is important
that needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in full and are not
compromised by limited site availability. Local planning authorities should therefore undertake an
assessment of the need to expand town centres to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable sites;
- allocate appropriate edge of centre sites for main town centre uses that are well connected to the
town centre where suitable and viable town centre sites are not available. If sufficient edge of
centre sites cannot be identified, set policies for meeting the identified needs in other accessible
locations that are well connected to the town centre;
- set policies for the consideration of proposals for main town centre uses which cannot be
accommodated in or adjacent to town centres;
- recognise that residential development can play an important role in ensuring the vitality of
centres and set out policies to encourage residential development on appropriate sites; and
- where town centres are in decline, local planning authorities should plan positively for their future
to encourage economic activity.
Paragraph's 24 and 26 of the NPPF concern town centre viability and vitality.
31
BR/26/15/PL
Paragraph 49 concerns housing and states that they should be considered in the context of the
presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing
should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year
supply of deliverable housing sites.
Paragraph 56 concerns good design. The Government attaches great importance to the design of
the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from
good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.
Paragraph 57 - It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive
design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area
development schemes.
Paragraphs 59 - 61 relate to design. Paragraph 62 states that Local Planning Authorities should
have local design review arrangements in place to proved assessment and support to ensure high
standards of design.
Paragraph 63 - In determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or
innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in the area.
Paragraph 64 states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to
take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it
functions.
Paragraph 70 is intended to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the
community needs, planning policies and decisions by...guarding against the unnecessary loss of
valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community's ability to meet
its day-to-day needs....
Paragraphs 123 and 124 - relates to the potential for noise and air quality impacts.
Heritage Impacts are considered in paragraphs 126 - 141.
Paragraph 173 - Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs
in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale
of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy
burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any
requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing,
standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the
normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and
willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.
Paragraph 174 - Affordable Housing.
BOGNOR REGIS NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
The Bognor Regis Neighbourhood Plan (NP) was brought into legal force on 15th November 2015,
and now forms part of the statutory Development Plan for Arun District Council. The NP
compliments the NPPF, Arun District Local Plan and emerging Local Plan. It also makes reference
to the Town Centre Masterplan. Unlike the Town Centre Masterplan however, the NP forms part of
the Development Plan.
32
BR/26/15/PL
There are a number of policies within the NP which are applicable to the proposed development.
However, the following policies are considered to be of particular relevance in the determination of
this application:
"Policy 8a - Design Excellence:
Development Proposals for sites marked as Key Priority Sites (8c to 8j) and other forthcoming
Major Developments shall demonstrate 'excellence in design, especially design that will help
establish a strong sense of place and create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and
visit.' (NPPF, S58)
Development Proposals that fail to take the opportunities available for enhancing the local
character and quality of the area and the way it functions will not be (permitted) supported. A
central part of achieving excellence in design is responding to and integrating with local
surroundings landscape and context as well as the built environment through:
~Using good quality materials that complement the existing palette of materials used within the
area.
~Using planting (typical of the south coast) commonly found on the south coast for highway
boundaries wherever possible and in keeping with the existing streetscape
~Ensuring safe access for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists
~Providing adequate refuse and recycling storage incorporated into the scheme to minimise visual
impact innovative design that is sustainable in its design, construction and operation
~Promoting high quality spaces and light
~Adopting the principles of sustainable urban drainage, where appropriate."
"Policy 8f - Regis Centre and Mountbatten Site:
This Neighbourhood Plan promotes a high quality low carbon mixed use development that could
include leisure, culture and entertainment at this location. Development Proposals must
demonstrate and accomplish excellence in design and craftsmanship.
In addition to Neighbourhood Plan Policies 8, 8a and 8b Development Proposals are expected to
accommodate where possible all of the following:
a) Active ground floor/street level uses along a public space linking the Arcade Chambers with the
Esplanade as well as along the seafront side of the development
b) Generous pedestrian space
c) Consider the provision of a public and step free access route between The Promenade level
across to the sandy foreshore
d) Connectivity between the town centre and the sea
e) On-site retention of publically accessible Open Space
f) Plans submitted to convert existing ground floor flats to retail units, fronting the Regis Centre Site
and Esplanade, will be supported
g) Plans that retain, replace, enlarge or improve the existing theatre on the site will be supported
h) Residential development will be expected to be included in order to encourage use and
occupation of the site at all times and contribute to the provision of new homes
This part of the seafront has such great potential to contribute to Bognor Regis's identity as a 21st
century seaside town that the Local Planning Authority is strongly requested to call for a National
Design Review to help develop the expected exceptional design quality."
"Policy 8g - Hothamton Car Park Site, Queensway:
33
BR/26/15/PL
This Neighbourhood Plan supports a high quality low carbon predominately retail and B1 office led
development with a component of other employment generating uses at this location. This
Neighbourhood Plan supports the retention of Open Space with a public footpath through the park
The development should provide future access to the existing sewerage infrastructure as required
by the relevant authorities."
PUBLICATION VERSION LOCAL PLAN 2011-2031
The vision for Bognor Regis is to provide a new role for the town in the 21st Century. This new role
will build upon its assets and create a series of new attractions for residents and visitors alike. At
the heart of the vision will be a viable town centre with a richness of urban form and a quality of
architecture that will reposition Bognor Regis as a first class coastal destination.
Emerging policy EMP DM4 encourages the Council to work with partners to enhance opportunities
within the Economic Growth Areas. Knowledge and cultural based employment including retail,
leisure and office developments will be directed to the Economic Growth Areas to promote their
vitality, viability and regeneration.
Conclusions on Principle of Development
The proposed development lies within the existing urban area of Bognor Regis and proposes a
range of 'town-centre' uses. The main area of the proposed development, namely the proposed
redevelopment of the Regis Centre and new theatre provision on the Hothamton site, lies within the
town centre of Bognor Regis.
The proposed scheme on the Regis Centre site comprises a mix of residential, retail, hotel and
leisure uses. Broadly speaking the array of uses proposed is considered to comply with the
requirements of policy SITE 2 of the Local Plan. The general mix as proposed is also advocated by
the development principles set out in the Masterplan. Whilst cultural provision currently offered by
the Alexandra Theatre would be lost, it would be replaced by a theatre on the Hothamton site. In
respect of policy 8f of the NP the scheme provides a mix of uses that includes leisure and
entertainment including bars, cafes, spa facilities and public realm. Further details have been
provided by the applicant demonstrating a boardwalk along the frontage which addresses some of
the concerns raised by the Town Council and further complies with the requirements of policy 8f.
In visual terms the theatre has limited aesthetic value (see relevant section of report), although it is
clear from the NP that any proposal to improve the Alexandra Theatre on the Regis Centre site
would be supported. There does not appear however, to be an absolute requirement within policy
SITE 2, the NP, or the emerging Local Plan, to retain theatre provision on the Regis Centre site.
The concerns raised by the Town Council in terms of the 'significant residential proposed for this
site' are echoed by a number of representatives. However, the principle of housing on this site is
not unacceptable as it is advocated as part of a mix of uses in Local Plan policy SITE 2 and the
NP. Policies place no 'limit' on housing numbers on this site and, in any event, the NPPF calls for
a significant boost to housing supply. Given that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing
land supply, the provision of 191 apartments is considered acceptable in principle - and is further
supported by national policy which seeks to boost housing numbers.
Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that the scheme is heavily reliant on residential development; it is
stated by the applicant that the residential development is required in part to fund the proposed
theatre development. Therefore , the proposal is not a family-led seafront facility as advocated by
34
BR/26/15/PL
the Town Centre Masterplan and to some extent by the NP. It is considered that the proposed
provision of retail units, residential units and commercial floorspace is unlikely to significantly
increase footfall to this part of the seafront and therefore, there are concerns that the retail and
commercial elements will not be sustainable in the long-term.
The uses within the building mainly comprise retail and whilst the green space within the 'courtyard'
area of the building would be accessible to the public, it would be more likely to attract occupiers of
the residential units, hotel guests, or customers of the cafe/restaurant. The green space is
particularly well hidden within the confines of the proposed development. Nevertheless, the
proposal does include public realm improvements within the Place St Maur in order to reinforce the
link between the town centre and the sea front, in accordance with NP policy 8f. The open space
could also be used to host events, as well as providing outdoor amenity space and a children's
play area. There is considered to be general conformity with most of the objectives set out in
policies and guidance in terms of principle uses and it is recognised that this is a component part
of a wider regeneration offering. Nevertheless, the lack of visitor attraction on this site represents a
significant lost opportunity.
The proposed development at the Hothamton site is more clearly in conflict with specific site
allocation policies set out in the NP. Policy 8g of the NP supports predominantly retail and B1
office led development, with a component of other employment generating uses. The Masterplan
supports a library/health centre and Council offices. The proposal on this site offers a mix of
theatre and hotel uses which conflicts with both the guidance and policy allocations. However, it
should be acknowledged that the proposed theatre (which includes hotel, art exhibition space and a
cafe/restaurant) is an ambitious and significant cultural facility. The application is intended to
address the loss of the Alexandra Theatre (site A) with a replacement theatre which is much larger,
forming a landmark development within the town centre. In this regard, the wider benefits of the
theatre have the potential to partly address the requirements of the Masterplan both in terms of site
specific requirements, and the wider town centre regeneration objectives and paragraph 70 of the
NPPF which advocates the provision of cultural facilities. Therefore, the potential regeneration
benefits should be considered in the round.
The proposed restaurant is located within an area of allocated greenspace known as the Rock
Gardens. The proposal involves the removal of the existing skate park. The proposal also includes
landscaping improvements to the Rock Gardens. The Masterplan advocates schemes which
enhance the leisure experience along the promenade, and those which do not include on-site
parking. In this case, the proposed development has the potential to satisfy the requirements of the
Masterplan and policy SITE2 of the Local Plan. Subject to finding alternative skate provision, and
retail impact considerations, the proposed restaurant is considered acceptable in principle, in
compliance with the objectives set out in policy SITE2 of the Local Plan.
The proposed kiosks are located along the promenade. Whilst the kiosks fall outside the town
centre boundary, they are not considered to be unacceptable in principle, subject to other issues
identified in this report. Similarly, the replacement skate park which is proposed along the
promenade is not necessarily unacceptable in principle in accordance with policy 2 of the NP,
subject to other material considerations.
The combined loss of green/open space has been assessed against the requirements of policies
AREA5 and GEN20 of the Local Plan and the NPPF. The Council's Greenspace officer is broadly
satisfied with the proposal, subject to conditions. Whilst the proposed development would lead to a
loss of greenspace on a number of the sites, the overall scheme is considered to provide sufficient
on-site open space provision to compensate for any loss. The amount of greenspace would not be
significantly reduced by the development.
35
BR/26/15/PL
In terms of land use principle, the scheme proposes a range of town centre uses. Town centre
regeneration proposals within this area for mixed use developments/redevelopments comprising
retail, leisure, residential, office and civic uses are supported by policy SITE2, subject to ensuring
that they meet the core regeneration aims for the town centre. In respect of site specific proposed
uses, there is some conflict with the aims of the Masterplan and the NP - particularly in respect of
the Hothamton site and the loss of the theatre provision on the Regis Centre site. However, the
uses proposed and considered as a complete package are not necessarily considered to be
unacceptable in principle. It is noted that the scheme as proposed comprises a range of town
centre uses (as defined by the NPPF) even where there is apparent conflict with the NP in respect
of allocations. It is important to consider the overall regeneration offering in deciding whether the
scheme complies with the wider objectives of town centre regeneration as set out in SITE2 of the
Local Plan and the NP.
Retail Impact
Sequential Approach:
Whilst there is no 'Town Centre Boundary' contained within the Arun Local Plan, the site does lie
within the Bognor Regis Town Centre Regeneration Area as detailed in policy SITE2. In the
emerging Local Plan a town centre boundary has been defined and sites A, B and C fall within this
boundary.
The NPPF provides different criteria for retail and non-retail town centre uses. Retail uses should
be located within or adjacent to the existing town centre, followed by edge of centre sites, before
less centrally located out of centre sites are considered. Edge of centre sites are those within
300m of the primary shopping area, with out of centre being those sites in excess of 300m. In
relation to other town centre uses, the sequential approach defines town centres as those within
town centre and edge of centre sites within 300m of the town centre boundary.
In respect of the Regis Centre site, this falls outside the town centre boundary as depicted by the
adopted Local Plan, at a distance of between 100m and 170m to the south-west of the primary
shopping area (High Street and Arcade). The Regis Centre proposes 1400m² gross internal area
(GIA) of retail floorspace, comprising 13 retail units, the average size of each unit being 90m². In
January 2015 the applicant states there were 33 vacant units within the town centre, 4 of which
were located in the primary shopping area. However, overall, there are not considered to be any
available town centre space that could accommodate the entirety of the floorspace proposed in this
application and there are no other available sites within the town centre. Therefore, the retail uses
proposed as part of the Regis Centre scheme, being edge of centre, are considered to be
sequentially acceptable. In terms of the proposed non-retail uses within the Regis Centre, these
are located edge of centre and therefore, address the sequential assessment requirements.
The proposed theatre, hotel and restaurant on the Hothamton site are located within the town
centre and therefore, comply with the sequential assessment requirement. The Arun District Retail
Study identifies a need for more mid to upper market restaurants in the town.
In terms of the proposed kiosks on the promenade (which include retail), they lie 370m from the
primary shopping area. However, the kiosks are proposed in a functional position, close to the sea
front in order to provide improved facilities to holiday makers and beach users. Therefore, the
proposed kiosks are considered acceptable in retail principle terms on the basis that the kiosks are
designed to improve the tourist offering and would not be in competition with town centre retail
provision.
36
BR/26/15/PL
Impact:
The Arun District Retail Study identifies the Hothamton and Regis Centre sites (along with others)
to potentially meet the requirement for new retail floorspace, albeit with a focus on a mix of uses on
the Regis Centre site. The proposed retail provision on the Regis Centre site is aimed at
complimenting tourist shopping needs, as opposed to competing or expanding the existing town
centre offering. The applicant also states that the units would largely be aimed at providing a more
seasonal offer, potentially attracting independent retailers. The Arun District Retail Study identifies
scope for a modest increase in comparison goods floorspace and indicates a capacity increase of
1500m² by 2017; the current application proposed 1400m².
The Retail Study report states, in respect of increasing comparison goods floorspace "...it will be
difficult to attract the investment to achieve this and it seems unlikely to occur without bold
initiatives from the Council..."
Considering the use, layout and location of the proposed Regis Centre scheme, it is considered
likely to enhance pedestrian links and increase movements between the seafront and the town
centre. The increase in retail provision is more likely to enhance the overall town centre offering
rather than adversely affect retail provision within the Arcade, High Street and London Road.
Furthermore, the proposed residential and leisure provision, and the development of the Hothamton
and Esplanade sites for leisure and restaurant purposes, would contribute to the vitality of the town
centre by potentially increasing visitor and residential numbers. The application is considered to
comply with the criteria set out in policy DEV27 of the Local Plan. There is no requirement in
national planning policy or emerging policy RET DM1 to demonstrate a need for retail
developments outside the principal shopping area, contrary to DEV27 of the ADLP. In addition, the
proposed units on the Esplanade would comprise a mix of A1, A3 and A4 uses. Whilst concerns
have been raised regarding the detail and conclusions of the submitted retail assessment, the site
is allocated for a mix of uses - including retail - in policy SITE2 of the Local Plan and the overall
retail impact on the town centre is considered acceptable.
Tourism Impact:
Whilst the impact on tourism numbers is debatable, it is considered an inevitable consequence
that, if delivered, the overall scheme would improve the tourism offering within Bognor Regis by
increasing the quality and variety of amenities and cultural provision within the town. However, the
overall scheme is considered to lack in leisure facilities which would likely attract tourists, and there
is a particular lack of tourist/leisure provision on the Regis Centre site. The focus of the scheme
centres largely on the regeneration potential of the theatre. The applicant has submitted a Tourism
Impact Study relating to the theatre, which concludes that the theatre itself would increase visitor
spending by approximately £2 million. Given that much of the product shown by the theatre would
be accessible at other theatres throughout the UK, there is unlikely to be a significant increase in
tourist numbers from the provision of a theatre alone. Nevertheless, the wider scheme as
proposed is likely to improve tourism potential over and above the existing offering, although this
may not be line with the more ambitious aims of the Masterplan or the Seafront Strategy. Emerging
local plan policy TOU DM1 aims to steer large scale tourism developments towards Economic
Growth Areas and, in this regard, the proposed theatre is considered compliant; with the overall
scheme offering tangible benefits which would improve the tourism potential.
Theatre proposal:
The theatre proposal forms an integral part of the overall application in respect of its regeneration,
cultural and tourism offering. The proposed theatre is much larger than the existing Alexandra
37
BR/26/15/PL
Theatre, proposing 1100 seats as opposed to circa 300. The theatre is intended to attract
audiences from Bognor, as well as audiences from further afield, particularly within a 30 minute
catchment. The evidence submitted with the application suggests that there is sufficient potential
audience to achieve an acceptable level of occupancy. In addition, the theatre offers flexibility as it
would be able to reduce capacity accordingly so that smaller productions are not played out in front
of a sparse audience.
The theatre would be accompanied by a hotel. The two uses would go hand in hand as the hotel
would benefit from potential theatre provisions (conference space etc) and the theatre would
benefit from having hotel accommodation. The University of Chichester has a major interest in the
opportunities the theatre would bring for its increasing student population in the music and drama
departments. It would also offer other opportunities for the performance training and practical
theatre experience.
Overall, the Theatres Trust supports the provision of a theatre in Bognor Regis. However, they
raise concerns regarding the building of audiences (which is notoriously difficult), and the fact that
there may be no theatre provision in the town while Alexandra Theatre is demolished and the new
theatre built.
The Arun Arts Trust is a charitable organisation that oversees the running of the Alexandra Theatre
at the Regis Centre. It is an important local group in respect of theatre provision within the town.
The applicant would offer facilities at the proposed theatre site including dance studio and
rehearsal space, art gallery, community facilities and other benefits at a heavily discounted rate.
The Theatres Trust has been consulted on the proposal. They initially raised concerns with the
scale of the theatre and its potential viability. Of paramount importance in this case is that the
theatre is intended to be self-funded both in terms of construction and ongoing running of the
theatre. The Theatres Trust and officers also have concerns regarding the loss of Alexandra
Theatre. The main concern centres on the temporary loss of theatre provision within the town. Due
to the proposed phasing of the development and viability issues, the applicant is apparently unable
to build the new theatre before the Alexandra Theatre is demolished and the Regis Centre site
largely developed. However, the applicant is committed to ensuring that there is theatre provision
within the town centre in the interim period, although no alternative provision has currently been
identified.
A number of representations also suggest that the location of the proposed theatre, being away
from the seafront, it not as attractive as the current seafront location of Alexandra Theatre.
Aesthetic considerations aside, there does not appear to be any evidence that the proposed
location of the theatre would diminish audience numbers. It is not a use that would greatly benefit
from passing trade; although proximity to the town centre is important and, in this regard, the
Hothamton site is in an accessible location both to the sea front and town centre.
The Council's Town Centre Masterplan and the NP acknowledge that the existing theatre provision
within the town centre is in need of improvement. The Theatres Trust is also generally supportive
of the scheme. The proposed theatre would result in a significantly larger and better equipped
cultural facility within Bognor Regis town centre. The provision of such a prestigious theatre facility
is supported by paragraph 70 of the NPPF and emerging policy EMP DM4. This is considered to
weigh heavily in favour of the scheme.
Affordable Housing:
The application does not adhere to the Council's Interim Affordable Housing policy. Policy requires
38
BR/26/15/PL
an affordable housing provision of 30% for developments on this scale. As part of their viability
appraisal, the applicant's have proposed that 14% (27 units) would be affordable homes, and that
these would all be for intermediate housing (shared ownership). Council policy seeks a tenure split
of 50% rent and 50% intermediate. On the face of it therefore, the application is non-compliant in
terms of tenure and on-site contribution required by policy. However, the applicant has submitted a
viability appraisal in order to demonstrate that only 14% affordable housing is deliverable.
There are significant concerns with the submitted report. The applicant has not provided any
information with regards land value (a valuer's report), nor has land value being assumed based on
comparable values in the local area. The applicant has assumed that the land will be released at
zero 'cost' or on a peppercorn rent. Officers are of the view that the assumed value of the land is
one of the key issues in deciding whether or not the development is viable in order to decide
whether affordable housing and other infrastructure requirements can be delivered. In that regard,
the Council as landowner are responsible for deciding what they want to achieve from their land
and the terms of any sale/transfer/lease. Ultimately, the value of the land would feed into any
lease/sale in future but in respect of the current planning application, it cannot be assumed that the
land does not carry any value as this is in not considered to be representative of the guidance
contained within the PPG, nor is it representative of a land value agreed with the Council (as
landowner) - the NPPF states that development should provide competitive returns to a willing
landowner. Therefore, the proposal does not comply with paragraph 23 of the PPG in that the land
or site value is not informed by comparable, market-based evidence. The details of the submitted
viability appraisal also raise the following concerns:
- The applicants have argued the scheme is unviable if it is required to provide 30% affordable
housing but have not provided a policy compliant appraisal to justify this position;
- The offer of 14% (27) affordable dwellings by the applicant are on the basis of shared ownership;
- Whilst the shared ownership dwellings are affordable to many households in the Arun and wider
West Sussex area, they are generally not affordable to households on the Council's housing
register;
- The scheme offers no affordable rented housing to those on the Council's housing register;
- The build costs for the full development as presented by the applicant are not credible;
- The applicants have failed to address in the appraisal even a nominal figure for the land costs as
required in a policy compliant appraisal;
- The appraisal documentation provided by the applicants does not comply to the requirements of
the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) para 23 (a);
- The appraisal does comply with the National Planning Policy Framework para 173.
Given the detail above and the comments received from the Strategic Housing Manager, there are
considerable doubts that the application would include any affordable housing provision and, on the
basis that is has not been demonstrated that the scheme is unviable, the application conflicts with
the Interim Affordable Housing policy, DEV17 of the UDP and emerging policy H SP2. The
applicant has not demonstrated a policy compliant viability appraisal, and their submission based
on 14% (27 affordable units) is not considered credible, or in compliance with paragraph 23 of the
NPPF.
Other Infrastructure:
The impact of development on local infrastructure is an important consideration in the
determination of planning applications. Developer contributions are often sought in order to ensure
that the additional demands placed on local infrastructure are mitigated, provided that such
contributions meet the test of being:
39
BR/26/15/PL
- Necessary
- Fair and reasonably related to the development
- Reasonable in all other respects
The NPPF guides that Local Planning Authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable
development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations
(paragraph 203).
From April 2015 the CIL Regulations prevent further contributions being collected by an authority for
the funding or provision of an infrastructure project, or type of infrastructure, once five or more such
contributions have been obtained by separate section 106 obligations made on or after 6th April
2010. This restriction applies to infrastructure of a kind which could be the subject of a community
infrastructure levy and therefore applies to tariff style contributions (with the exception of affordable
housing). If the Council has entered into more than five contributions towards a piece of
infrastructure, no further contributions can be pooled into that general infrastructure. The object of
the regulations is to encourage Council's to introduce charging through the adoption of a CIL
instead of imposing requirements for contributions through section 106 obligations. However, it
has been acknowledged that the pooling restriction should not prevent the delivery of infrastructure.
Contributions may therefore be sought for specific infrastructure projects if they meet the three
tests above.
In this case it is considered that the scheme would result in the following infrastructure pressures:
Education
The County Council Children and Young People's Services advises that the present
primary/secondary/further secondary schools within the catchment area of the proposal would not
currently have spare capacity to be able to accommodate the number of children generated by the
proposed residential development. Accordingly, contributions are required from the developer.
Paragraph 72 of the NPPF states that the Government attaches great importance to ensuring that
a sufficient choice of school places are available to meet the needs of existing and new
communities. WSCC advise that the following contributions are required:
- £132,943 - Primary Education
- £143,077 - Secondary Education
- £33,518 - 6th Form
Paragraph 70 of the NPPF requires that Local Planning Authorities plan positively for the provision
of facilities and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential
environments. Paragraph 72 also states that great weight should be given to the need to create,
expand or alter schools. In this instance, it is noted that the proposed residential development of
191 residential units would generate additional demand for primary, secondary and 6th form school
places within the local area.
Due to the lack of capacity in the existing primary and secondary and 6th form schools, the County
Council as Local Education Authority have requested that by way of financial contributions the
proposed development mitigates for this additional demand for by providing financial contributions
to be utilised towards providing additional education facilities at Primary and Secondary Schools
within the local area. It is considered that the provision of such additional education facilities would
be necessary in order to provide for sustainable communities and achieve the golden thread of
sustainable development running through the NPPF.
40
BR/26/15/PL
The necessary financial contributions have been calculated using a detailed and robust
methodology. It is considered that the financial contributions are reasonably necessary to enable
the development to proceed.
Libraries
The County Librarian advises that the proposed development would be within the area served by
Bognor Regis Library and that the library would not currently be able to adequately serve the
additional needs that the development would generate. Consequently, a financial contribution is
required. On the basis of the proposed development, approximately 10m² of additional floorspace
would be required which would equate to an approximate total of £41,044 from the proposed
development.
Fire Service Contributions
The proposed development would lead to a total contribution requirement of £4,343 to local fire
service provision.
Given that officers do not consider that the viability appraisal which underpins the affordable
housing calculations to be in accordance with the NPPF, in the absence of further viability
information, it also appears unlikely that the applicant would be able to make any of the required
financial contributions to infrastructure. This is on the basis that the submitted viability appraisal
does not factor in other infrastructure contributions as detailed above.
The applicant has stated that they are not undertaking any further viability appraisal work at this
stage because to add any additional contribution as suggested by WSCC would reduce the
potential to offer affordable housing. They also consider that the proposed scheme would save the
Council approximately £400,000 on the basis that the Council have made a number of separate
commitments in respect of town centre improvements which would be delivered as part of this
planning application. However, this is not considered to be justifiable grounds for non-compliance
with financial contribution requirements, nor does it negate the need for a policy compliant viability
appraisal.
Whilst it is accepted that the NPPF advocates a flexible approach in seeking levels of planning
obligations on brownfield sites, officers are of the view that fundamentally, there is insufficient
information to assess the application in respect of viability, thus the application is in conflict with
paragraph 173 of the NPPF.
Design and Impact on Character and Appearance
The design ethos is to create three iconic buildings in order to regenerate Bognor Regis, whilst
acknowledging the built environment of the town over the last 200 years. The 'dome' is a notable
architectural feature within the Regis Centre, Hothamton and proposed restaurant schemes. The
'dome' is representative of Sir Richard Hotham's designs; he is especially noted for inspiring the
development of Bognor Regis as a tourist destination.
Site A - Regis Centre
The site occupies a prominent position, being readily visible and accessible from the seafront. The
western portion of the site is occupied by the Alexandra theatre and a public house/restaurant. The
existing two storey building is devoid of architectural quality and the Esplanade is faced by
dominating roof slopes and a conservatory type front extension which hosts the Brewers Fayre pub
41
BR/26/15/PL
Views from Belmont Street are similarly uninspiring. In addition, the entrance to the theatre is
hidden away from the street and taken from the Place St Maur des Fosses. Whilst the eastern
portion of the site facing the Esplanade includes a small strip of green space and vegetation, to all
intents and purpose a large proportion of the site is used as a surface car park serving both the
theatre and the wider town centre and sea front. Overall, the site suffers from a lack of legibility and
insipid design, with the only feature of notable interest being the Grade II listed town hall on the
north eastern boundary.
The proposed main building has a distinctly Regency design. The building would front most of the
Esplanade, set over 6 storeys. The ground floor includes retail units, incorporating traditional timber
window frames, doors and reconstituted stone columns. The residential accommodation above
includes balconies which would protrude from the front facing elevation. The main facing elevations
would be rendered white and include subtle architectural detail such as stone cornice details,
traditional window frame styles and conservation style folding doors. The domes located on three
corners of the building include lead effect zinc roofing. Approximately centrally positioned would be
an arcade which would be accessed through a replica stone archway. The arcade would include
access to a number of commercial units and the greenspace located centrally within the site.
The proposal also includes a raised boardwalk which would run the full length of the building
adjacent to the Esplanade. It comprises a reinforced concrete balustrade typifying a traditional, yet
robust, design. The boardwalk would be accessible by steps opposite the proposed arcade, and by
ramp at either end. The boardwalk would improve connectivity between the seafront and the site,
and lead to general improvements to the character and appearance of the seafront.
Buildings located along the Esplanade/sea front comprise a mix of styles, the predominant height
of which is generally at least 4 storeys, with each building occupying a relatively large plot. The
variety of building styles is representative of development spanning different decades, and is fairly
typical of the seafront setting. The Esplanade Grande is a recent residential development located
along the Esplanade to the east and has a similar design to the proposed development. Given the
site context and the lack of prevailing character in the immediate area, the proposed development
is considered to represent a significant improvement on the existing urban fabric. Whilst the
proposed development is greater in scale than most of the neighbouring residential schemes, there
is considered to be sufficient space within the plot to accommodate the development without it
overwhelming the street.
Beyond the rear of the site the street is more contained. Existing properties are generally two
storeys in height fronting Belmont Street and the site. The proposed development responds to the
character of Belmont Street by ensuring that the detached hotel element is limited in height to three
storeys. Whilst the design is less elaborate than the main residential and commercial building, it
nevertheless follows the same design ethos. The hotel would sit centrally between the existing
town hall building and the side of the main proposed residential building. The proposed
development is considered to relate acceptably to its surroundings, and would improve the
character and appearance of the Belmont street scene.
Similarly, views of the scheme from Clarence Road would not be out of character with the
residential development on the opposite side of the road. Generally all proposed elevations include
fenestration and other architectural detailing which would assist in assimilating the large building
into the residential area.
The layout of the scheme encourages pedestrians to use the proposed boardwalk, and promotes
pedestrian flows through the Place St Maur. Whilst there is no direct access through the building
and courtyard, it is logical to encourage pedestrians to use the Place St Maur to the west and drive
42
BR/26/15/PL
pedestrians around the south and west of the site. The Council has already created a concept
public realm design for the town centre which runs from the railway station to the seafront. This
includes significant works and improvements to the Place St Maur. Nevertheless, the current
application should be assessed on its own merits and not in light of separate initiatives.
The application has paid attention to shop front detail within the town centre, and the proposed
retail units at ground floor level comprise a traditional design, incorporating facia boards, pilasters
and traditional materials. This contributes to the overall aesthetic appearance of the proposed
building, and ensure the development is in compliance with emerging policy RET DM1.
Overall, the redevelopment of the Regis Centre would deliver a high quality, mixed use scheme
which would retain the town hall and better integrate the seafront with the town centre. It would
create an attractive frontage to this part of the Esplanade. The proposal is considered to represent
a high quality design which would lead to significant improvements to the public realm and
appearance of the street scene over and above the appearance of the existing site. In this regard,
the proposed development is considered to comply with policies SITE2 of the Local Plan and NP
policies 2, 8a and 8f.
Site B - Hothamton
The site is currently a ground level car park which mainly serves the Queensway retail centre. A
large building associated with the NHS lies to the south west of the site. The site does not have any
significant amenity value, save for a number of trees.
The proposed theatre and hotel would occupy approximately half of the site, positioned immediately
in front of the Sunken Gardens. The general design approach is identical to the proposals on the
Regis Centre site, following a Regency/Georgian theme, and intended to reflect historic
developments within the town. The western portion of the site proposes a multi-storey car park.
The southern elevation, facing the seafront, would be particularly impressive providing an element
of grandeur when approached from the seafront. White rendered columns define the edges of the
proposed building with the rooms of the hotel on the upper floors set within white framed curtain
walling, instilling an element of contrast. The proposed hotel entrance is located to the side of the
theatre and is set over three storeys, heavily influenced by Georgian architectural detailing.
Views from the roads surrounding the site would be less welcoming. The consequence of facing
the theatre entrance and main elevation to the south is that the rear and side of the building, which
contains all the functional provisions required of the theatre, fronts the street to the north, east and
west. The resultant impact is particularly marked owing to the overall scale of the proposed building
relative to the size of the plot. Whilst the proposed building would be reduced to three storeys in
height along Queensway, the bulk of the theatre and hotel would be eminently present along
Queensway. From Steyne Street the bulk of the proposed development would be visible, along with
the proposed multi-storey car park. However, the applicant has softened the design of the car park
by proposing a living/green wall on the north and west elevation. In context, the street scene is
particularly varied in this area and is more heavily commercial in nature to the east, with properties
to the west (Steyne Street) having a much more characterful appearance. Properties to the north
of the site do not have a particularly strong relationship with the street.
A further consequence of the proposed siting and orientation of the building is a lack of interaction
with the street. There is no direct entrance to the theatre or hotel from the rear, despite its close
proximity to the footway. Furthermore, there is no direct access through the centre of the site from
Queensway. In respect of internal layout, pedestrians would be encouraged to walk from the
43
BR/26/15/PL
proposed car park, through the centre of the site, thus avoiding Queensway. Therefore, the
proposed layout is not considered to be particularly conducive to improving pedestrian flows along
the Queensway, instead encouraging pedestrians to walk towards the front of the theatre, thus
taking a less direct route for those wishing to access the Queensway shopping area.
Notwithstanding the concerns regarding the impact on the street scene, the proposed development
proposes quality materials and architectural detailing. Sash window frames would be set in deep
reveals and the lower portions of the walls would comprise rendered rustication reflecting Georgian
influence. In addition, to soften the impact of the development to the rear, the applicant proposes a
comprehensive landscaping scheme.
Given the close proximity of residential properties, the inviting location and setting of the Sunken
Gardens and seafront to the south; the rationale behind the proposed layout is understandable. The
buildings are considered to be of high quality in architectural terms. Whilst the relationship with
Queensway weighs against the overall design to an extent, the site is constrained by its size and
shape and the building would undoubtedly be seen as a landmark building within the town centre
and the overall design concept and improvements to the appearance of the existing car park site is
considered to outweigh any negative impacts.
Site C - Former Esplanade Theatre Site (now a skate park and greenspace area)
The proposed restaurant is intended to replicate the historic vernacular of Bognor Regis, mainly
with regards its notably domed appearance. The proposed building is set back towards the
western boundary, leaving the eastern boundary open and landscaped. The building essentially
comprises a large dome building with a lead effect roof. The elevations would be heavily glazed,
divided by white frames. Any walls would be rendered white. The proposed layout would take
advantage of sea views.
Views of the building would be experienced along the promenade, particularly to the east. There
would also be open views of the proposed building from the north. Obtainable views of the site
along the promenade to the west would be partially contained by intervening buildings.
Whilst this part of the promenade is open, existing buildings lie immediately to the west fronting the
promenade. The proposal is considered to make a positive contribution to the seafront, despite its
relatively large scale, owing to the use of complimentary materials and high quality design. In
respect of design, this element of the proposal is considered to comply with policy SITE2 and NP
policy 2. It is considered to make a positive contribution to the street scene and would not harm the
character and appearance of the area, or the seafront.
Sites D - Promenade
The proposed kiosks are intended to reflect a Victorian winter garden/conservatory theme. The
design incorporates lead appearance sheet roofing and intricate metal detailing. The units are
considered to make a positive contribution to the seafront and seaside identity. Whilst the units are
larger than the existing kiosks, the overall design is considered to accord with policy DEV 34 of the
Local Plan.
The proposed skate park is intended as a a replacement for existing provision with the town centre.
It is sited within close proximity of the pier and on a wide section of promenade which is not a
natural pedestrian route along the promenade. In visual terms, the skate park is unlikely to make a
significant visual contribution towards the sea front which, as it stands, is open. Furthermore, there
are concerns that it may conflict with the free flow of pedestrians along the promenade and the
44
BR/26/15/PL
quiet enjoyment of the beach. This element of the application is considered to conflict with
emerging policy OSR DM1 and there is conflict with policy GEN13 of the Local Plan. There is
insufficient information accompanying the application to demonstrate that this is the only suitable
location for this piece of Green Infrastructure, and that other more potentially suitable sites have
been considered. However, it is acknowledged that the provision of a skate park is important part of
the overall scheme, and that the loss of the existing facility would be unacceptable without finding a
suitable replacement. Consequently, the harm arising from the proposed location of the skate park
should be considered in the context of the wider town centre regeneration and therefore, weighed
in the balance.
Notwithstanding the comments above, policy 8f of the NP requests that the Council call for a
National Design Review for significant development of the Regis Centre Site, in order to achieve
exceptional design quality. Given the scale and significance of the proposed development, the
Council requested that the entire application be presented to the regional design panel (Design
South East). However, the applicant was not willing to present the application to a regional design
panel.
In the round it is considered that the design and layout of the scheme as a whole is of high quality,
which would improve connectivity between the town centre and seafront by introducing new
buildings of notable architectural quality. This is considered to outweigh the concerns detailed in
terms of layout and some visual impacts. The Regis Centre scheme would certainly improve this
part of the sea front, in accordance with NP policy 2, and there is an identified need for improved
theatre provision. The Hothamton scheme would improve the appearance of the existing car park
site, and lead to a new iconic cultural building within the town centre. The proposed restaurant
would improve the appearance of the seafront by providing a high quality, modern building with
quality traditional elements. The proposed kiosks would improve the character of the seafront
offering quality amenities for tourists and beach users. In respect of policy SITE2, the scheme is in
accordance as it is considered to enhance the environmental/architectural quality of the townscape
through improvements to buildings and spaces. It would also adhere to policy 8a of the NP in
respect of high quality design, albeit that there has been no formal design appraisal by an
independent panel.
Impact on Heritage Assets
There are a number of heritage assets within proximity of the sites, most notably the Grade II listed
buildings of Bognor Regis Town Hall, the Royal Norfolk Hotel and the Pier, as well as the Steyne
Conservation Area.
Site A - Regis Centre
Bognor Regis Town Hall (Grade II listed) lies to the north west of the Regis Centre site. The
building has its back to the site and has been designed to address the corner. A clock tower and
cupola are centrepieces of town hall. Whilst the proposal would close views of the town hall from
the Esplanade, historically the town hall was contained by Colebrook Terrace. The scale of the
building would also close views from the north and east. However, the town hall would still be
readily appreciated as a standalone building and any impact would be less than substantial.
The removal of the side extension would not harm the setting of the Town Hall building subject to
careful removal and restoration.
The proposal is not considered to harm the setting of the Grade II listed bandstand to the south
east of the site which sits on the promenade.
45
BR/26/15/PL
Site B - Hothamton
The proposed theatre would have some impact on views from the Bognor Regis - The Steyne
Conservation Area, and a number of the more characterful buildings within the Conservation Area.
The building lies at a distance of 80m to the north of the CA boundary. However, a large proportion
of obtainable views would be of the front of the theatre; which would have a modern appearance
couched in Regency vernacular. In addition, the building would be positioned adjacent to Fitzfleet
House which is a large tower block. It is logical to assume that the theatre may divert the eye away
from Fitzfleet house. Overall it is not considered that the building would harm the setting of the CA.
Site C - Proposed Restaurant
The proposed restaurant, in terms of design, resonates with historical Bognor Regis. It lies
approximately 50m to the south of the Royal Norfolk Hotel which is Grade II listed. The setting of the
hotel is considered to include this site, as it was once part of the hotel. However, the hotel is
orientated towards the south east with the site being on the periphery of views from the hotel.
Given the complimentary design of the proposed building and the distance involved, it is not
considered to significantly affect the setting of the hotel.
The proposed restaurant is not considered to adversely affect the setting of Steyne Conservation
Area or any other notable buildings (listed or otherwise) within the Conservation Area.
Site D - Skate park and kiosks
Whilst there are separate concerns relating to the location of the proposed skate park, it is not
considered to affect the setting of the Royal Norfolk Hotel. The skate park would be relatively well
contained in context of the hotel and it is not considered that it would affect its setting. In addition,
despite its position adjacent to the grade II listed pier, there is sufficient space/gap between the
proposed skate park and pier so as not to adversely affect its setting. The proposed kiosks would
not adversely affect the setting of assets on the seafront, including the listed band stand.
The proposed development is not considered to give rise to any substantial impacts on heritage
assets. Any impact identified is considered to be less than substantial and therefore, in accordance
with the NPPF, this harm should be weighed against the wider benefits of the proposal.
Highways:
Development of the Regis Centre and Hothamton sites would lead to a loss of public car parking
provision, contrary to the requirements of AREA7 of the Local Plan. The applicant has submitted a
scheme which is intended to offset the loss of parking by providing on-street echelon parking which
would by facilitated by making part of the Esplanade a one-way street. The specific details of the
scheme are outlined below:
Site A (Regis Centre) - The site would be served by a 309 space underground car park. The car
park would be served by one access off Belmont Street and one access off Clarence Road. The
Belmont Street access is intended for residents of the apartments only, with the Clarence Road
access being for other users and the Town Hall. A total of 191 spaces would be allocated for
residents.
Access
Three points of access are proposed each taking the form of a simple priority junction. Submitted
46
BR/26/15/PL
tracking details demonstrate that the accesses are suitable to accommodate the manoeuvres of
vehicles in and out.
Visibility for the western most egress onto Belmont Street runs through both the drop off bay to the
east and the disabled parking area to the west, which would obstruct the view of emerging drivers.
Tracking of the delivery bay on the Esplanade appears to demonstrate that an articulated vehicle
would obstruct the free flow of traffic along the Esplanade when servicing the retail element of the
proposed development.
WSCC Highways considers that the application does not demonstrate that safe and suitable
access can be achieved, and therefore the proposals do not accord with paragraph 32 of the
National Planning Policy Framework.
Traffic Impact Assessment and Junction Capacity Testing
In accordance with the WSCC Transport Assessment Methodology, junction capacity testing is
required where a development leads to an increase of 30 or more movements during any hour.
However, no assessment or testing of the impact of the proposed development on the local
highway network has been undertaken. The extent of the assessment would also need to extend to
an assessment of the impact that the proposed alterations to the Esplanade would have on the
wider network given the alteration to one way traffic flows. This work would inform the operational
assessment of junctions and the impact that the development would have upon them; it may also
result in the need for junction mitigation to be identified to overcome any severe impact that the
development may have.
Paragraph 1.1.4 of the submitted Addendum Transport Assessment (ATA) sets out that agreement
has been reached between WSCC highways and the applicant for capacity and safety analysis to
be secured via condition for future consideration should permission be granted. This has not been
agreed. WSCC Highways agreed that the submission of such information could occur after the
submission of the planning application due to the need for assessment to occur in a neutral month
and to take account of the seasonal nature of the traffic visiting Bognor Regis.
In the absence of this information the WSCC Highways considers that the application does not
demonstrate that the development would not have a severe impact on the operation of the highway
network, and therefore the proposal is contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF.
Hothamton Car Park Site (Site B)
The applicant's submission anticipates that a full capacity event at the theatre would lead to parking
demand of approximately 336 vehicles. Based on anticipated theatre demand, and the spare
parking capacity within Bognor Regis as identified in the draft Bognor Regis Parking Strategy, and
the underutilisation of Hothamton car park, the proposal includes 324 parking spaces.
Access
Access to the main multi-story car park is proposed via a dual access serving both the service
area and the car park. Egress from the site is provided via a dedicated junction with Queensway.
The relocation of the existing bus stop is proposed to a position 55m to the east of its current
location. Plans setting out the geometry, vehicle tracking and visibility splays have been provided.
Visibility splays of 43m have been shown from the car park exit and this distance would be suitable
47
BR/26/15/PL
for recorded 85th percentile speeds of up to 30mph in accordance with Manual for Streets
parameters; whilst no speed survey data has been submitted it is recognised that speeds are likely
to be within this range given the proximity to the junction and the posted speed limit. However,
visibility to the east in the leading direction crosses both the site access (and it is unclear as to
whether vehicles will be queuing at this point while obtaining a ticket to enter the car park) and the
'small vehicle loading bay', both of which presents opportunity for the visibility splay to become
obscured, particularly at the loading bay where a large panel vehicle is shown to waiting parallel to
the kerb thus obscuring approaching vehicles.
It is unclear as to where the ticket barriers would be located or the extent of the queuing capacity
that is available; should insufficient clearance to the highway be provided then there is the
possibility of obstruction to Queensway, particularly at times of peak operation such as prior to an
event. This situation would be exacerbated given the presence of on-street carriageway parking
bays directly to the north of the access that minimises the room available to pass obstructing
vehicles. The tracking of a HGV into the service access indicates that it will be required to pass
through the car park lane; depending on where the ticket barriers are located and whether there is
sufficient space for waiting vehicles to queue, this could result in obstruction of the HGV entering
the site.
The bus stop has been relocated adjacent to the eastern service access and includes an overrunnable area. It does not appear that the bus operating company has been consulted on this
proposed alteration. It is unclear as to why the over-runnable area has been included as tracking
seems to indicate that manoeuvres out the junction can occur without overrunning, similarly,
movements into the bus stop can occur without the need for the over runnable area. This area
could result in conflict between vehicles approaching the give way line and vehicles approaching
the bus stop, where buses are directed through the mouth of the junction to cross the overrunnable area. Submitted tracking diagrams of the coach accessing this service road indicate that
the body of the vehicle will be brought into close proximity of the dropped kerb and tactile paving,
which may bring them into conflict with pedestrians waiting to cross.
Visibility for vehicles emerging from the eastern service road has been shown to the centre line in
the trailing direction. However, there is no physical restriction to vehicles moving into the opposing
lane to overtake, and are likely to do so at this location given the presence of demarcated on-street
parking.
A Road Safety Audit: Stage 1 would be required, in accordance with the WSCC Road Safety Audit
Policy, but this has not been submitted. In addition, junction capacity testing in accordance with the
WSCC Transport Assessment Methodology would be required where the junction is anticipated to
accommodate in excess of 30 movements per hour, however this has also not been undertaken.
WSCC highways considers that the proposals do not demonstrate that safe and suitable access
can be achieved, and therefore do not accord with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy
Framework. The impacts on the highway network are considered to be severe.
Parking and Esplanade Proposals (All sites)
The proposed redevelopment of existing public car parking facilities requires the consideration of
alternative provision across Bognor to provide capacity for displaced parking. The Applicant has
proposed the introduction of a one way system along the Esplanade as identified in the MVA
"Bognor Regis Parking Strategy" document (2012). It is understood that this document is still in a
draft status and that the proposed scheme was not adopted by either Arun or West Sussex
Councillors; in addition, it is understood that Arun District Council are looking to tender a new study
48
BR/26/15/PL
to evaluate the potential for a seasonal closing of the Esplanade.
Echelon bays are proposed in Belmont Street; however, these are in close proximity to a bus stop
and a waiting bus would obscure visibility for any vehicles reversing into the carriageway upon
exiting a space. A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit has not been submitted.
The alterations to the Esplanade are a key component of the proposed development, as the
scheme would look to replace the parking capacity lost elsewhere. During pre-application
correspondence it was set out that the applicant would need to undertake informal consultation in
accordance with Chapter 8 of the WSCC "Developer Guidance Note" to demonstrate that the
principal of the scheme is acceptable; this would involve the consultation of statutory consultees
such as emergency services, bus companies, local traders etc. This work has not been
undertaken and it has not been demonstrated that there is an in-principle support for the delivery of
such a scheme.
The proposal would have a significant impact on the traffic flows of the local network. As set out
earlier in this response, it was established that a traffic impact assessment, junction capacity
modelling would be required, which may result in the need for junction mitigation proposals to be
put forward. It was accepted that these could be undertaken after the submission of the planning
application as part of an addendum assessment, but given that the application looks to resolve
matters of access these would need to be provided prior to determination of access matters.
In accordance with the WSCC Road Safety Audit Policy, a Stage 1 audit would also be required on
both these proposals and any other alteration to the highway.
Given the significant deficiencies set out above, and the potential significant impact upon highway
safety, the application fails to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have a
'severe' impact on the operation of the highway network, contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF.
The applicant has attempted to address the initial highways concerns by submitting additional
plans and information. However, WSCC highways have assessed the additional information,
which included a Road Safety Audit. The primary concern is that there is no assessment of the
impact that the proposed alterations would have on the traffic flows in the area, which may in turn
lead to safety concerns.
The application fails to demonstrate that the proposed development provides safe and suitable
access for all users and fails to demonstrate safe and acceptable levels of parking provision,
contrary to paragraph 32 of the NPPF, policies 6 and 8b of the NP and GEN12 of the Local Plan.
The application also conflicts with policy AREA7 of the Local Plan in that the development would
lead to an unacceptable loss of public parking and policy TDM2 of the emerging Local Plan.
Biodiversity:
The application includes an assessment identifying species and habitats of potential conservation
concern. A bat emergence survey was carried out at the Regis Centre which concluded that there
was a likely absence of bat roosts in the building, but the building had moderate potential for bats.
The Council's ecologist raises no objections subject to the demolition of the building being
undertaken by hand to ensure no bats are present. The ecologist also recommends that bird and
bat boxes are installed, native planting is used in the landscaping scheme, and wildflower seed mix
used in the open space areas. There were no immediate ecological concerns in respect of the
other sites.
49
BR/26/15/PL
The proposed development lies, at its closest point, 3.5km from the Pagham Harbour SPA/Ramsar
Site. Given the distance between the proposed development and the SPA, the potential impacts
are considered to be indirect. These impacts revolve around a potential increase in visitor numbers
and potential for residents associated with the development to disturb the bird population of the
SPA. Policy ENV DM2 of the emerging Local Plan requires that developments within 5km of
Pagham Harbour make a contribution towards a joint strategic scheme of avoidance and mitigation
which is intended to provide mitigation such as a part-time warden, signage and interpretation, a
dog project and mitigation. A contribution of £1,100 per residential unit would be required as agreed
by the Council's Cabinet in July 2015.
Paragraph 119 of the NPPF identifies that the presumption in favour of sustainable development
does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats
Directive is being considered, planned and determined. In this case, the proposed development is
not considered to result in a significant adverse effect on the nearby SPA/Ramsar site either alone
or in combination with other plans or projects and, as such, the tests contained within Regulation
61(1) of the Habitats Regulations would not be failed. In this case there is considered to be no need
to undertake an Appropriate Assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directive.
Drainage:
The sites lie within Flood Zone 1 (low probability of flooding from the sea or rivers). The application
is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment. The schemes involve Sustainable Urban Drainage
techniques. There are no objections to the proposal from consultees, subject to appropriate
conditions. The applicant's FRA indicates that the development would reduce overall flood risk and
provides appropriate adaptation and mitigation measures in compliance with policies W DM2 and
W DM3 of the emerging Local Plan. The application is also considered to comply with policy GEN9
of the Arun District Local Plan.
Residential Amenity:
Policy GEN7 of the Local Plan dictates that regard should be had to the impact on neighbouring
properties and their respective amenity.
Site 1 - Regis Centre
The east facing elevation of the proposed development would face Berkeley Court, an
apartment/flat complex on the opposite side of Alexandra Terrace a distance of between 10m and
12.6m. Given that the proposed elevation would front the street and follow the general line of
development on this side of Alexandra Terrace, the proposal is not considered to represent an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers of these properties. The scale of the
proposed development is not dissimilar to the residential complex on the opposite side of
Alexandra Terrace and therefore, generally reflects the prevailing scale of development along this
stretch of Alexandra Terrace.
There would be a similar impact on the properties which lie on the northern side of Clarence Road
as the proposed development lies at a similar distance. However, the proposed hotel element is
only three storeys in height and overall, the development would not lead to a significant overbearing
impact or loss of privacy.
The western elevation which looks out onto the Place St Maur des Fosses would be at least 21m
from the residential complex at Mountbatten Court. Consequently, there is not considered to be a
significant impact on the occupiers of these properties.
50
BR/26/15/PL
In addition to the above, it is also necessary to assess the proposals against national guidance
relating to internal spacing standards. The proposal includes 1 and 2 bedroom flats/apartments.
The smallest 1 bed apartment would be approximately 60m² and the smallest 2 bed apartment
would be approximately 65m². All of the units proposed would exceed the requirements set out in
the Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described Space Standards.
In respect of external standards, policy D DM3 of the emerging local plan has been adopted for
development management purposes. In terms of private amenity space, 135 of the residential
units would have balconies. Within the courtyard area is green space and open space provision. In
addition, the site lies adjacent to the Esplanade and within close proximity of the beach and the
policy makes allowances for schemes in town centre areas where greater flexibility is required.
Overall amenity standards for the future occupiers of the scheme are considered acceptable and
the application is considered compliant with Local Plan policy GEN7 and emerging policy D DM3 in
this respect.
Site 2 - Hothamton
The site is surrounded by a number of residential properties to the north and west along the
Queensway and Steyne Street. The proposed theatre and hotel building is positioned
approximately 12.8m to the west of Fitzfleet House and within 30m of two properties to the west.
The application includes a sun-path analysis which demonstrates that the development would have
no impact on properties to the west or north during the daytime or evening. However, there is likely
to be a shadow cast on a number of the lower floor flats at Fitzfleet House, particularly during the
latter part of the afternoon and evening. The same flats are also likely to face relatively close up
views of the proposed building, although the proposed theatre and hotel would be located on the
opposite side of a road/access. Given the high density development associated with Fitzfleet
House, and the limited number of properties affected, any adverse impact would be limited to a
small number of properties and in context do not represent significant harm.
The proposed theatre includes a roof/garden terrace approximately 15m above the existing ground.
There would be obtainable views in an easterly and westerly direction. Merchant Cottage and
Seaway, two properties which face the site on Steyne Street, are considered to be sufficiently
screened from the site by existing vegetation and trees. Therefore, it is not considered that the use
of the terrace would lead to overlooking of these properties/gardens, especially considering that the
building is proposed 30m from the boundary of these gardens. In terms of the adjacent multistorey car park, the design has been amended so that the car park elevation facing the properties
does not contain any gaps - in order to ensure no significant noise impacts from cars moving with
the car park.
North facing balconies associated with the hotel would be sufficient distance from properties on
Queensway so as not to result in a loss of privacy.
Site 3 - Proposed Restaurant
The restaurant is proposed approximately 11m to the south east of the nearest residential
properties. It is considered that noise levels would be audible at the nearest residential property but
in the context of existing noise levels, predicted noise levels at the site and the nature of the area;
the noise levels would be acceptable to residents subject to mitigation measures and detailed
acoustic design of the restaurant. Subject to conditions, the application is considered to comply
with policy GEN32 of the Local Plan.
51
BR/26/15/PL
Site 4 - Promenade
The proposed kiosks would not result in a discernible impact on the amenity of occupiers given the
distance involved, and the uses proposed.
The skate park would be situated along the existing promenade, 25m from the nearest properties
to the north. The Esplanade lies in between the site and the nearest properties. The skate park is
unlikely to be used at unsociable hours. Any noise is unlikely to adversely affect the amenity of the
nearest occupiers. The proposal is considered to comply with GEN7 of the Local Plan.
Trees
The application has been accompanied by a tree survey which covers all the sites. All the trees
surveyed have been classified as category 'C' trees - these being trees that would not normally be
retained if they are constraint to development.
On the Regis Centre site, all trees and hedgerows are proposed for removal, subject to
replacement with new trees as part of a comprehensive landscaping scheme. This includes a
Horse Chestnut in front of the Town Hall which is diseased.
On the Hothamton site it is recommended that the Purple Beech trees within the site are removed
and replanted within the new development. Most of other category C trees are recommended for
removal to make way for the development. There is one notable Horse Chestnut tree adjacent to
the cottages on Steyne Street. However, the Council's tree officer considers that this should be
removed due to disease.
The Regis Centre, Hothamton and proposed restaurant sites are subject to detailed landscaping
schemes, which could be conditioned. The submitted tree survey recommends that planting
involves robust species. The proposal includes Elm, Silver Birch, Field Maple, Ornamental Pear
and Rowan. Subject to landscaping details being secured through a planning condition, the
application is considered to comply with policy GEN28 of the Local Plan.
Other Issues
A number of other issues have been raised by representations received which have not been
addressed specifically in other sections of the report. These are:
Swimming pool would be in private use - The proposed swimming pool on the Regis Centre site
would be available for use by residents of the apartments, hotel users and the general public. It is
likely that it would be under private ownership and would be relatively small in comparison with
pools in leisure complexes.
Wind funnelling - The scale of the flats along the site frontage is similar to other nearby properties.
Along Alexandra Terrace the building would be six storeys in height but there would be more than a
street width distance from Berkeley Court, which itself is five storeys. As this is not a particularly
tall building, it is unlikely to result in significant wind funnelling effects.
Lack of sewer capacity - Southern Water has assessed the application and the potential impact on
sewer capacity and raise no objections, subject to conditions. The applicant may need to upgrade
the existing sewer under the Water Industry Act (1991) or ensure that the development does not
increase flows.
52
BR/26/15/PL
The hotel proposed as part of the Regis Centre should be on the seafront and not at the back of the
site - There is no planning policy reason why the hotel would need to be positioned on the seafront
as it comprises a town centre use within the town centre.
Loss of the 'mounds' along the Esplanade - the area of greenspace fronting the existing car park is
apparently used as an informal seating area. However, the aesthetic value of this green space is
not considered to be particularly high given the location directly adjacent to the promenade and car
park. The open space proposed as part of the Regis Centre scheme incorporates a large area
positioned centrally, surrounded by the building complex. This would potentially be a more
attractive area of greenspace, although it is accepted that it is not particularly visible from the
Esplanade. Therefore, there remains some doubt as to how much this space would get used.
However, given that the existing greenspace area appears to have limited recreational and
aesthetic value, the proposed greenspace should be considered as part of the wider regeneration
benefits associated with the overall scheme. This also includes improvements to the Place St
Maur des Fosses.
Loss of Play Areas - The play area closest to the Hothamton site is intended to be replaced by play
provision within the Sunken Gardens. As this provision would be outside the red-line boundary,
replacement of this play area would need to be secured by way of a Legal Agreement.
Play area provision on the Place St Maur des Fosses/Regis Centre would comprise two areas of
play, one being enclosed, immediately to the west of the public realm. Final specification could be
secured by planning condition.
The applicant intends to replace the skate park which would be lost to make way for the restaurant.
Full details could be secured by a Grampian style planning condition in order to ensure that an
acceptable location for the skate park is found.
The application proposes an element of public art which would comprise a stained glass window at
the end of the proposed arcade within the Regis Centre, and other art commissions as
appropriate. This could be conditioned in the event that permission is granted.
The application includes an Air Quality Assessment relating to the Hothamton Car Park site. This
includes a number of mitigation measures in order to mitigate the effects of emissions from the
proposed multi-storey car park. This element of the scheme could be conditioned and
Environmental Health raises no objections.
Conclusion
The application comprises a number of complimentary elements which are intended to provide a
comprehensive regeneration scheme. Policy SITE2 of the Local Plan contains a number of core
regeneration aims which are supported by specific detail contained within the guidance Masterplan.
More recently the Bognor Regis Neighbourhood Plan has been made. This document elaborates
on the Local Plan and provides more site specific direction for site development across the town
centre.
The proposal is considered to offer the following benefits:
· Improvement of the economic viability and vitality of the town centre by attracting new investment
(£80 million inward investment into Bognor by creating jobs during construction and post
construction, new leisure facilities, cultural facilities, pub and restaurants, residential, as well as
improved toilet and shower facilities along the Esplanade/beach).
53
BR/26/15/PL
· Enhancement of the environmental/architectural quality of the townscape thus attracting new
investors. This includes a high quality, mixed use seafront building and a state of the art theatre
complex, complete with restaurant and hotel.
· Enhancement of the physical/visual linkages between the promenade and town centre. Creation
of a high quality boardwalk, enhanced planting on Place St Maur and the design linkages which link
the sites from the High Street to seafront (Regis Centre and Esplanade Restaurant to the
shops/Theatre and the kiosks along the Esplanade).
· Improves attractiveness of the retail environment to shoppers - proposed retail units at the Regis
Centre site with cafes and restaurants. Cafe/hotel/restaurant facilities on the Hothamton and
former skate park sites.
· Increases the attractiveness of the town as a holiday destination for visitors - High quality new
commercial theatre, art gallery, new seafront cafes, small retail units, restaurant, new seafront
kiosks, toilets, showers, destination restaurant, proposed new boardwalk, new hotels.
These benefits are considered to comply with a number of objectives set out in the Local Plan and
the NP and attract significant weight in favour. It is considered that these elements of the scheme
have the potential to bring a renewed vitality to the seafront and town centre and reinvigorate
previously development land. The scheme also has the potential to increase tourist numbers
through the provision of new hotels (one of which is close to the seafront) and a quality restaurant
facility, both of which have been identified as lacking in Bognor Regis by the NP and the Arun
District Retail Study. Whilst there is some conflict with the specific site allocations identified in the
NP (particular in respect of the Hothamton development), and the scheme appears to lack in
providing quality family/leisure uses on the seafront as advocated by the TC Masterplan, the
quantum of uses proposed across the different sites is considered to provide a diverse range of
town centre uses.
Good design is crucial in making better places. In this case, the proposed development would
replace poor design, particularly in respect of the Regis Centre and Hothamton sites, with better
design. In addition, the appearance of the Regis Centre (site A), theatre/hotel (site B) and
restaurant (site C) proposals would lead to high quality, iconic buildings within the town centre and
along the seafront which would significantly uplift the character and appearance of the area.
Aesthetically, the proposals are considered to represent high quality design which would reinforce
the historic elements of Bognor Regis with a contemporary twist, improving the character of the
seafront. However, quality design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. It is also about ensuring
access needs are considered, safe environments are created and ensuring that an environment is
created where everyone can benefit from a full range of opportunities. In this regard, the applicant
has not referred the scheme to Design Panel South East, as requested by officers. Therefore, an
objective and robust design appraisal has not been undertaken. Given the significant scale and
significance of the scheme, this would add value to the proposal particular in respect of the finer
details and layout, thus ensuring the highest standards of design, in accordance with paragraph 62
of the NPPF. In terms of the overall design, it is considered that the proposed layout is deficient in
respect of improving pedestrian flows through the site and linking the town centre with the seafront.
In addition, the position of the proposed theatre means that it does not relate well to the
Queensway, in effect leading to a 'dead' elevation which fails to assimilate with the street.
Furthermore, whilst it is considered that the proposed Regis Centre redevelopment delivers a
comprehensive mixed use scheme; it does not represent a particularly imaginative in respect
range of leisure/family uses. It does not offer the same level of family/leisure uses envisaged by the
Masterplan or other Council documents such as the Seafront Strategy.
54
BR/26/15/PL
The proposed alterations to the Esplanade and other highway works are a crucial part of the
scheme. In part, alterations to the Esplanade would provide additional parking in order to offset
parking losses arising as a result of the development. In this case the proposed alterations have
not been underpinned by a robust assessment. No safety audit has been carried out for a number
of the proposed alterations and the applicant has failed to demonstrate that safe and suitable
access can be achieved at a number of the proposed access and egress points. In addition, no
junction capacity testing has been carried out. The proposal is considered to be severely deficient
in respect of content and therefore, in conflict with paragraph 32 of the NPPF, policies 6 and 8b of
the NP and policy GEN12 of the Local Plan. In addition, the scheme fails to address one of the core
aims of town centre regeneration set out in policy SITE2 of the Local Plan as it would fail to
improve accessibility of the town centre and effectively manage the movement of people and
vehicles. Therefore, this is both a reason for refusal in its own right, and significantly conflicts with
the wider regeneration objectives as set out in the NP and Local Plan.
When considered in the round therefore, the wider regeneration benefits associated with the
scheme and the identified compliance with a number of the core aims of town centre regeneration
set out in policy SITE2 of the Local Plan is not considered to outweigh the overall conflict with
policy SITE2. The scheme fails to improve accessibility of the town centre and effectively manage
the movement of people and vehicles, contrary to one of the core aims set out in policy SITE2 and
AREA7 of the Local Plan, and there are identified concerns with respect of the proposed layout and
the type of uses proposed on the seafront in attracting tourists which further weigh against the
requirements of policy SITE2. The proposed development also fails to take the opportunity to
enhance the local character and quality of the area and the way it functions, contrary to the
requirements of NP policy 8a. Furthermore, the scheme fails to address the requirements of NP
policy 8b and therefore, the overall benefits of the proposed scheme are not considered to
outweigh conflict with NP policies 8f, 8g and 9.
The application includes a significantly reduced affordable housing provision (14% as opposed to
30% as required by policy). The applicant has failed to provide a policy compliant viability appraisal
in respect of affordable housing and infrastructure requirements. The applicant is of the view that
the scheme would only be viable on the basis of 27 shared ownership affordable units. However,
this is on the basis of an unrealistic land value (assumed zero land value and no land purchasing
costs). This assumption has underpinned the affordable contribution calculations. Therefore, on
this basis, there are significant doubts that the scheme as proposed would provide any affordable
units. The application does not accord with affordable housing requirements as a) the viability
appraisal is not compliant with the requirements of the NPPF and b) The applicant claims they are
only able to provide 14% affordable housing, this being on the basis of a land value which is not in
accordance with the NPPF and NPPG. Therefore, it can only be concluded that the applicant has
not demonstrated that the scheme is unviable. The viability appraisal submission has not
addressed the requirements of the NPPF and policy DEV27 of the UDP and is therefore, in conflict.
In respect of other required infrastructure contributions, the submitted viability appraisal does not
cover these financial contribution requirements and these have not been factored into the viability of
the proposed 14% affordable housing put forward by the applicant. However, WSCC have clearly
set out a number of contributions which would be required in order to make the development
acceptable including education, libraries and fire service.
The applicant has stated that they are unable to provide the policy requirement of 30% affordable
housing on site due to viability concerns and therefore, they have not undertaken any further
viability work at this stage in the process, because to add any additional contribution as suggested
by WSCC, would only reduce the potential to provide affordable housing. Whilst it is accepted that
the NPPF advocates a flexible approach in seeking levels of planning obligations on brownfield
55
BR/26/15/PL
sites, officers are of the view that fundamentally there is insufficient information to assess the
application in respect of viability, thus the application conflicts with paragraph 173 of the NPPF.
In addition to the above, the applicant considers that the wider regeneration benefits associated
with scheme outweighs the potential impacts on infrastructure/affordable housing and therefore,
these benefits outweigh non-compliance with infrastructure contribution requirements. The
applicant states that they are prepared to offer 14% affordable housing out of good will. However,
as it has already been concluded that the proposed development is not in compliance with the
wider town centre regeneration objectives contained in policy SITE2, the wider regeneration
potential of the scheme is not considered to outweigh or negate the need for contribution
requirements.
There are issues in respect of the proposed theatre provision. As the application is divided into
phases, there is no assurance at this stage that the Alexandra Theatre (phase 1) would be
replaced by a new theatre on the Hothamton site (phase 2). There is no guarantee that all
elements of the scheme would come forward.
In terms of impact on residential amenity, the schemes are generally in compliance. There would
be some impact on the amenity of occupiers of Fitzfleet House within close proximity of the
Hothamton site but overall, the harm is considered to be relatively limited in context. All other
matters have been adequately addressed.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
The Council in making a decision, should be aware of and take into account any implications that
may arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority such
as Arun District Council to act in a manner, which is incompatible with the European Convention on
Human Rights.
Consideration has been specifically given to Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It
is not considered that the recommendation for refusal of permission in this case interferes with
applicant's right to respect for their private and family life and their home, except insofar as it is
necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of neighbours). The
Council is also permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and
the recommendation for refusal is considered to be a proportionate response to the submitted
application based on the considerations set out in this report.
DUTY UNDER THE EQUALITIES ACT 2010
Duty under the Equalities Act 2010
In assessing this proposal neutral have been identified upon those people with the following
protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership,
pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation).
SECTION 106 DETAILS
Proposed S106 requirements (needs amending)
In order to ensure that all the schemes were to come forward in an acceptable manner; the
applicant proposes to enter into a S106 agreement in order to:
56
BR/26/15/PL
- Ensure the complete package of development is brought forwards in a phased sequence. It is
acknowledged that the Council as landowner would likely seek to implement some control over
phasing if the land was released for future development;
- Ensure that theatre provision within the town centre is not lost. Interim theatre provision would
have to be provided whilst the existing theatre was demolished and the new theatre built.
- A package of measures to ensure Arun Arts Trust are fully involved in the theatre and Regis
Centre schemes, including:
1. Offer of discounted rates for use of the Regis Centre site in the same location as Arun Arts
trust currently area. The space includes dance studio and rehearsal space, art gallery,
community facilities.
2. Ensure Arun Arts Trust are represented on the board of the new theatre.
3. Allow sufficient stage time for Arun Arts Trust to run and present all their productions.
RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE
1
The application, which includes a range of alterations to the highway network, fails to
demonstrate that it would provide safe and suitable access for all users, fails to
demonstrate acceptable levels of parking provision, and fails to demonstrate that the
scheme would not have a severe impact on the operation of the highway network,
contrary to paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The application is
also contrary to policy 6 of the Bognor Regis Neighbourhood Plan and policy GEN12 of the
Local Plan. The application conflicts with policy AREA7 of the Local Plan and Bognor
Regis Neighbourhood Plan policy 8b in that the development would lead to an
unacceptable loss of public parking.
2
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development fails to meet the
core regeneration aims for the town centre included in policy SITE2 of the Arun District
Local Plan. The application fails to improve accessibility of the town centre and effectively
manage the movement of people and vehicles within the town centre. In addition, the
proposed uses do not comply with the site specific requirements and uses detailed in
policies 8f and 8g of the Bognor Regis Neighbourhood Plan and the Town Centre
Masterplan. The proposed development fails to take the opportunity to enhance the local
character and quality of the area and the way it functions and fails to display Design
Excellence, contrary to the requirements of Neighbourhood Plan policy 8a. The wider
benefits associated with the scheme are not considered to outweigh the identified conflict
with these policies and overall, the application is considered to conflict with policy SITE2 of
the Arun District Local Plan.
3
The proposal does not include an appropriate proportion and mix of affordable housing or
other infrastructure requirements and the submission does not adequately demonstrate
and verify that the viability of the development justifies a reduced contribution in lieu of onsite provision. Furthermore, the wider benefits associated with the scheme in respect of
the town centre regeneration benefits are not considered to outweigh the need to mitigate
the impact on local infrastructure in this case. The application is in conflict with the
Council's Interim Affordable Housing policy (2010), policies GEN8 and DEV17 of the Arun
District Local Plan.
4
The proposed development would place additional pressure on local infrastructure
including schools, libraries and Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area, which would be
unable to accommodate the additional demand that would be placed on local
infrastructure as a result of the additional residents and resulting increase in the local
57
BR/26/15/PL
population arising from the proposed development. The submission does not adequately
demonstrate and verify that the viability of the development justifies a reduced contribution.
Furthermore, the wider benefits associated with the scheme in respect of the town centre
regeneration benefits are not considered to outweigh the identified need to mitigate the
impact on local infrastructure in this case. Consequently the application is in conflict with
the National Planning Policy Framework and policy GEN8 of the Arun District Local Plan.
58
BR/26/15/PL
BR/26/15/PL Indicative Location Plan
(Do not Scale or Copy)
(All plans face north unless otherwise indicated with a north point)
Based on the Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's
Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright
and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Arun District Council 100018487.2015
59

Agenda - Arun District Council

Transcription

Similar documents

STEVEN SATER Music by DUNCAN SHEIK

Culture

1167096_1182921-centerstage jacket.indd

Touch

View Sample PDF - IRMA

FRIDAY, JUNE 10 World at One O`Clock

mala voadora - O Espaço do Tempo

For over 40 years, Piven Theatre Workshop has been training

Untitled

Ducky Camp 2016 Northville