An architect wants the £65 million plans for the new King Alfred swimming pool and leisure centre to be “called in”.
Chris Roche has sent his request in writing to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner, whose Hove home is a short distance from the seafront site.
Mr Roche, who lives near the proposed King Alfred site himself, wrote: “I appreciate that call-in powers are exercised only in exceptional circumstances.
“However, I believe this proposal raises issues that extend well beyond local significance and merits independent consideration at national level.”
He said that Ms Rayner faced “a potential conflict of interest” because “the planning application has the potential to blight your Hove property”.
Mr Roche said that the King Alfred site was a nationally significant seafront location, occupying “one of the most prominent and sensitive stretches of the south coast”.
He wrote: “Development on this site will permanently alter the character of Brighton and Hove’s internationally recognised seafront and establish an important precedent for future redevelopment of comparable coastal locations elsewhere in England.
“The implications therefore extend beyond purely local planning considerations.”
He cited heritage concerns, saying: “The application affects the setting of numerous designated heritage assets, including nearby listed buildings and conservation areas that contribute significantly to the historic character of Hove seafront.
“I am concerned that the extent of harm to these heritage assets has not been properly balanced against the claimed public benefits in accordance with national planning policy.
“Given the national importance of conserving the historic environment, this issue warrants independent scrutiny.”
The “scale, height and townscape impact” were also a concern, he said: “The proposed development is of exceptional scale compared with its surrounding context.
“Its height, massing and visual prominence would fundamentally alter long-established views and the character of this important waterfront.
“Because of the landmark nature of the site, the decision will inevitably be regarded as establishing a precedent for future major developments along England’s historic coastline.”
There were, he said, potential conflicts with national planning policy, adding: “There is a strong argument that the proposal raises important questions regarding compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly in relation to
- achieving well-designed places
- conserving and enhancing the historic environment
- protecting local character
- sustainable development and
- ensuring that planning decisions properly balance public benefits against identified harm
“These are matters of national planning policy rather than merely local judgment.
Mr Roche cited the public interest, saying: “The application has generated exceptional public interest and extensive local engagement despite inadequate public consultation and notification of local residents, including yourself, who are likely to be adversely affected by construction traffic accessing the site via Medina Terrace for around five years which will likely result in the suspension of residents parking and significant noise and disruption.
“While public opposition alone is not a reason for intervention, the level of concern reflects the importance of the issues involved and reinforces the need for an independent examination where questions of national policy arise.”
Mr Roche also highlighted the importance of the decision, saying: “The redevelopment of the King Alfred site represents one of the most consequential planning decisions affecting Brighton and Hove for many years. Once implemented, the effects will be effectively irreversible.
“Given the strategic coastal location, the heritage implications, the scale of the proposal and its potential precedent-setting effect, I respectfully submit that this application raises issues that are of more than local importance and therefore falls within the circumstances in which the Secretary of State’s call-in powers exist.
“For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Secretary of State call in the application for determination following a public inquiry before an independent planning inspector.”
On Wednesday (29 July), Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee approved the planning application – submitted by the council itself – by eight votes to one.
This submission takes an unfortunate personal tone. It omits such telling detail as the loss of the largest part of the gym facilities. Fitlab is 1,160 sq metres – an amazing well-used space which the planning report prints as a mere 180 sq metres. To lose such an amount of fitness facilities goes against national guidance and calls into question the quality of the report set before the councillors.
Sounds like a half-baked argument coated with nonsense. It’s not significant as a building other than being an eyesore well past it’s use by date. Get it bulldozed. I live near this and cannot wait to see the back of it. And that car park…. It looks like something out of water world
Some weird responses to this. Council wants to replace a run down and literally collapsing site with something modern. And the NIMBYs still protest. It is like New England House. These places are past their time. Too expensive to maintain. And plain ugly. Just start again and stop wasting our council tax on the protestors.
You didn’t mention the 6 tower blocks
They never do. The planning committee were asked to vote on the leisure hub ONLY, while simultaneously being asked to vote for the leisure hub as the first step in a wider masterplan! This was putting committee members in an impossible position as they could not vote for two things simultaneously and had no details to approve part 1 of a wider masterplan, so what did they actually vote for? With an unexplained £65m price tag and rising, they were also putting their names to a project without full accounting available. No intelligent individual would have agreed to compromise themselves like this, yet not one question was raised about either of these elephants in the chamber. Perhaps this explains the absence of Cattell and Shanks, despite being on the attendee list as ‘expected’. They had spotted the risks of this application in a future JR, even if no one else had.
As previous, the Planning Committee can only consider the application in front of them.
But the scheme in front of them was improperly conflating two schemes and asking them to approve one to effectively progress the other while simultaneously instructing Committee Members to regard each of the two schemes as SEPARATE. This is a confliction and not legally possible.
Why are the council so determined to pretend the sports hub and the six tower blocks are two separate schemes, when they cannot even uphold this untruth in their own planning application?
Because, once again, personal incredulity isn’t evidence of an “untruth”.
Agree this project cannot be assessed seperately. The planning decision opens up the second part of the plan, 6 unaffordable tower blocks, dwarfing the seafront and all for a much smaller leisure centre, with a significant loss of facilities. The city and future generations are being stitched up. The issue of conservation is not nimbyissm its protecting our heritage for when we are long gone.
It at least provide a leisure centre that is suitable for this city with 50m pool and at least the same amount of facilities already provided. Why settle for anything less with such an important project.
It is an amateur scheme which is not even compliant with emergency and disability access requirements and urgently needs to go back to the drawing board.
So, my understanding of S.77 is that it needs to be done before a planning decision is made, and cannot be used to overrule a decision that has already been made. Because of this, Roche’s letter cannot be acted upon, making the action, unfortunately, pointless.
That’s not what the Planning Officer’s report says, Benjamin. It says;
‘That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for
the recommendation set out below and resolves to be MINDED TO
GRANT planning permission subject to the Secretary of State deciding not to call
in the application for determination and subject to the following Conditions
and Informatives as set out hereunder…’
Are you suggesting that the Council has behaved improperly in failing to consult the Secretary of State BEFORE seeking Planning Permission on an application which meets all the legal requirements for call in?
“On Wednesday (29 July), Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee approved the planning application.”
This article was posted on the 31st.
As per above, Benjamin. The Planning Officer’s report states; ‘That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out below and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the Secretary of State deciding not to call
in the application for determination and subject to the following Conditions and Informatives as set out hereunder…’
This the wrong way round. The council should have submitted this contentious planning application to the Secretary of State first, not in retrospect.
That’s why it’s at Planning Committee, James.
I see the report you’re referring to was published on the 22nd, which was week before and makes that recommendation; however, at the meeting on the 29th, the vote that was taken has no mention of SoS approval as a condition of permission.
This may be later clarified in the paperwork, but as it stands, I’m not reading any evidence that there was any condition was imposed as part of what was voted on.
Committees vote on the recommendation as printed in the officer’s report in front of them, and that report’s recommendation is worded exactly as JamesK quoted, minded to grant subject to the Secretary of State deciding not to call it in. The chair’s wording at the vote was simply ‘shall we go to the vote, all those in favour…that means the application is agreed.’ Agreeing to a recommendation means agreeing to it as written in the planning officers report, conditions included.
If you think the committee voted on different wording than what’s in the published report, that would be a significant procedural claim, so where’s your source for that?
That’s not how it works James.
The council cannot simply abrogate its responsibility as the local planning authority up to the SoS (but in practice the planning inspectorate).
If it did any difficult or contentious decision would just be moved up the chain and that’s not how the system works.
“Minded to grant” is a specific legal recommendation that the committee approves the application subject to legal agreements and conditions – including reference to call in.
In making the decision the council has done nothing wrong. People may disagree with the decision but from what I have read there was no legal error in the process. If people feel that there are legal errors then there specific actions they can take. Not liking it isn’t a legal ground nor is preferring another option.
There are probably the same amount of people for a refurb than there are against. But that wasn’t an option available to the planning committee.
You sound pleased to accept this substandard scheme for this city.
I’m pleased that we can finally move on from the deadlock that’s been going on for half a century with this positive scheme.
Conflict of interest for Angela to intervene… she has a home in Medina Villas
Ms Raynor can pass it to a colleague or a committee of civil servants without a conflict of interest, Simple.
On a local level Cllr Joy Robinson didn’t bother recusing herself from the King Alfred meeting Planning Committee, despite having multiple conflicts of interest, only one of which she declared.
She likely won’t even see the letter. Just because you write to the SoS doesn’t mean she’ll see it. She won’t be sat in her office opening envelopes out of a royal mail bag.
As she has property in the area another minister in the department will be the decision maker. And even then only after the Planning Inspectorate looks at it and makes a recommendation.
And all that depends on the referral being compliant and accepted – something officials will vet in the first place.
This guy… I bet he writes to the chief executive of the council if his bin is missed… Mate, get a hobby
The storming off after yelling into his muted microphone certainly endeared me to Mr Roche’s arguments.
I’m not sure “local crank writes letter” deserves quite as much coverage as you have given it here.
Indeed. I’m also not sure that asking AI to generate an image of how he’d prefer KA to look makes him an architect. Incidentally, the image he circulates shows a centre half the size – the entire 80s extension has been removed.