Brighton hotel plans approved after revote by council planning commitee

6:24pm Wednesday 27th June 2012 in News By Tim Ridgway, Local government reporter

Hotel plans for a former ice rink have got the go-ahead – after a revote by councillors.

About 25 campaigners left Brighton and Hove City Council’s planning committee meeting yesterday thinking the proposal for a five-storey hotel in Queen Square, Brighton had been rejected.

However, after councillors could not agree on the reasons for rejecting expert officer’s advice to approve the scheme, a revote was taken where it was approved.

Residents have called the decision “shambolic” adding they will be questioning the legality of the outcome.

Brighton-based architects Conran and Partners are behind the plans to create The Light ApartHotel on the site near Brighton’s Clock Tower, which has been vacant since 2003.

It includes ground floor café and restaurants below four storeys of 56 apartments Up to 30 new jobs are expected to be created.

However locals were worried it was too tall believing this would have a negative impact on the nearby medieval St Nicholas’ church and the 19th Century row of houses known as Wykeham Terrace.

An initial vote saw five councillors vote for, five against and two abstentions.

It was rejected on the casting vote of planning committee chairman Christopher Hawtree.

However, after councillors could not agree the reasons to reject it in a closed room, a revote was taken which saw the decision reversed and the plans approved.

Mark Barrowcliffe, 47, of Wykeham Terrace, said: “It seems to have been completely shambolic.

“I will be calling for the chairman of the committee to resign and for exactly what was discussed in that room.

“We had already left the chamber and celebrating after the refusal.

“We’re going to be questioning the legality of the decision. The last thing Brighton needs is another party hotel.

After the meeting, Paul Zara, of Conran and Partners, said: “The Light will bring a different type of accommodation to Brighton and is aimed at both the business and the leisure traveller.

“We have created a stylish, modern building that will bring new activity to Queen Square, while respecting its location and the sensitivity of the churchyard to the north.

“We have also listened to and acted on the comments from local people during the design and the planning process.”

The Light concept is the brainchild of London-based company Stonehurst Estates, which operates a similar hotel in Manchester.

Comments(35)

John Fallon says...
7:06pm Wed 27 Jun 12

This is a shambles indeed. The overall scheme wasn't bad (and the fact it's a hotel is neither here nor there) but there were plenty of reasons for rejection. It really did need looking at again because it is far from perfect for the site. Taking a re-vote (that's hyphenated, by the way) behind closed doors is poor. Who changed their mind(s)? Was there officer pressure to do so?

Report this post »

BrightonArchitect says...
7:39pm Wed 27 Jun 12

No, the point is there weren't plenty of reasons for rejection. The planners supported it and the councillors could not agree any good enough reasons to object that would stand up at appeal. So no council tax wasted fighting an appeal that would fail. Well done councillors - a vote for common sense.

Report this post »

quedula says...
7:40pm Wed 27 Jun 12

The hotel itself is fine. One would have hoped it was rejected because of the failure to include a footpath through to the churchyard.

Report this post »

Reflect on your post says...
7:48pm Wed 27 Jun 12

If there is concern over the proximity to the church, why not demolish the church and extend the hotel further. I think you will find that more people will visit the hotel than the church.

Report this post »

pjwilk says...
7:50pm Wed 27 Jun 12

About time they built a new ice hockey rink,Brighton should be ashamed of itself.How many years have the people of Brighton been waiting 50year after a promise to replace the Sports Stadium,they just dont care about the people who pay their wages.

Report this post »

Morpheus says...
7:51pm Wed 27 Jun 12

First they vote against and don't know why, then they vote for and they don't seem to know why. What a council.

Report this post »

Fight Back says...
8:03pm Wed 27 Jun 12

Interesting the only item against in the posts above is a lack of a "footpath through the churchyard". Brighton NIMBYs at their best !!!!


So John Fallon - you fail to mention why you were against the approval ?

Report this post »

Maxwell's Ghost says...
8:10pm Wed 27 Jun 12

Dear oh dear oh dear. I have never, ever heard of such a shambolic way to conduct a vote.
While I have no comment on the proposal, the way in which the decision has been made is perhaps representative of the chaos inside the council.
What has happened to this town?

Report this post »

kerryfee says...
8:23pm Wed 27 Jun 12

There were lots of reasons to reject it, mainly how is the city centre going to deal with all the extra cars trying to drive to it, and don't say they will all come by train because we know they won't for the same reason the shoppers don't, people like to have their cars to hand. Well at least the council will make money on the car parking although I am sure all the extra traffic driving at 20mph will play havoc with the buses and their time tables. Maybe the Greens think all the party hotel guests will arrive on a white fluffy cloud, drink tea discuss the environment, upset no one and then go home. Me thinks some recycled brown paper bags may have been involved in this decision :)

Report this post »

jools80 says...
8:23pm Wed 27 Jun 12

John Fallon wrote:
This is a shambles indeed. The overall scheme wasn't bad (and the fact it's a hotel is neither here nor there) but there were plenty of reasons for rejection. It really did need looking at again because it is far from perfect for the site. Taking a re-vote (that's hyphenated, by the way) behind closed doors is poor. Who changed their mind(s)? Was there officer pressure to do so?
They didn't take the re-vote behind closed doors. The discussion about how to phrase the reasons for refusal was in closed session with a couple of cllrs, legal rep and officers. But the vote was taken in public. You can watch it on the council website.

Report this post »

Ligand Fields says...
8:27pm Wed 27 Jun 12

Didn't we have the objectors on here last year? A so-called conservation area "charity" who main "charitable activities" seem to be manipulating local property prices to boost values of house which they oh-so-coincidentally happen to own... plus the new hotel wouldn't even have been inside their 'conservation area' in the first place... but when this was pointed out they threw a wobbler and had the reader comments censored.

Report this post »

keswick says...
8:56pm Wed 27 Jun 12

pjwilk wrote:
About time they built a new ice hockey rink,Brighton should be ashamed of itself.How many years have the people of Brighton been waiting 50year after a promise to replace the Sports Stadium,they just dont care about the people who pay their wages.
The simple reason that one has been built is that there is insufficient demand and therefore would not be commercially viable as a stand alone facility. However this city sadly lacks sporting facilities of any kind.

Report this post »

keswick says...
8:59pm Wed 27 Jun 12

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Dear oh dear oh dear. I have never, ever heard of such a shambolic way to conduct a vote. While I have no comment on the proposal, the way in which the decision has been made is perhaps representative of the chaos inside the council. What has happened to this town?
The Green Party that's what.

Report this post »

bug eye says...
10:50pm Wed 27 Jun 12

the whole planning system and its policies are not fit for purpose, and as for the planning committee it is now proven it just down to personal opinion of the individual councillor not experience. it all gets very political, that is why there are so many expensive planning appeals in the city. the planning team and committee needs non political architects and other professionals involved not just pen pushers making up reasons to refuse because they do not like something. a friend in hove has spent years trying to get simple non committee planning consent and the planning team so far have only been unhelpful and obstructive.

Report this post »

mark by the sea says...
7:48am Thu 28 Jun 12

I was there, they did not grasp what they were voting for, not only on this issue but two others.. ignoring if the hotel is worthy or not, I heard one member say" I liked it, but for some reason did not fancy it"
on another matter the panel could not grasp voting to accept a issue ( which would refuse permission) simple English not understood!!!
These people are in control of this City!

Report this post »

young+angry says...
9:50am Thu 28 Jun 12

Nice piece of factually inaccurate journalism from the Argus as usual. "after councillors could not agree on the reasons for rejecting expert officer’s advice to refuse the scheme" - they advised to approve the scheme! Wasn't one of your 'journalists' there? Does he need lessons on how to use a notebook?

Report this post »

MarkLachlan says...
10:13am Thu 28 Jun 12

I was there too. The journalism is accurate. The councillors initially refused the scheme.
There seemed some confusion among the members as to what they were voting for. One spoke passionately against it and then voted for it. One appeared to nod off. Some of them seemed plain thick. The Greens were a disgrace in voting for such a big hotel - selling out their principles in a bid to balance their council budgets. I voted Green last time. Never again. Christopher Hawtree was clearly out of his depth. Charles Hawtree couldn't have made a bigger mess of it.

Report this post »

young+angry says...
10:26am Thu 28 Jun 12

MarkLachlan wrote:
I was there too. The journalism is accurate. The councillors initially refused the scheme.
There seemed some confusion among the members as to what they were voting for. One spoke passionately against it and then voted for it. One appeared to nod off. Some of them seemed plain thick. The Greens were a disgrace in voting for such a big hotel - selling out their principles in a bid to balance their council budgets. I voted Green last time. Never again. Christopher Hawtree was clearly out of his depth. Charles Hawtree couldn't have made a bigger mess of it.
The planning departments 'expert officer' recommended approval. I wasn't referring to the councilors, nor was the Argus.
The paragraph above should read 'However, after councillors could not agree on the reasons for rejecting expert officer’s advice to APPROVE the scheme, a revote was taken where it was approved.'
Yes it's pedantic, but it should be shouldn't it if you're meant to be relaying facts.

Report this post »

Ligand Fields says...
10:38am Thu 28 Jun 12

MarkLachlan wrote:
I was there too. The journalism is accurate. The councillors initially refused the scheme. There seemed some confusion among the members as to what they were voting for. One spoke passionately against it and then voted for it. One appeared to nod off. Some of them seemed plain thick. The Greens were a disgrace in voting for such a big hotel - selling out their principles in a bid to balance their council budgets. I voted Green last time. Never again. Christopher Hawtree was clearly out of his depth. Charles Hawtree couldn't have made a bigger mess of it.
Charlie Hawtree was a genius, he should've been running EVERYTHING!

Report this post »

Tim Ridgway says...
11:36am Thu 28 Jun 12

RE: initial officer's recommendation to approve - you are correct. In a haste to get this online I made a mistake. Now been ammended.
Thanks, Tim

Report this post »

John Fallon says...
11:40am Thu 28 Jun 12

jools80 wrote:
John Fallon wrote:
This is a shambles indeed. The overall scheme wasn't bad (and the fact it's a hotel is neither here nor there) but there were plenty of reasons for rejection. It really did need looking at again because it is far from perfect for the site. Taking a re-vote (that's hyphenated, by the way) behind closed doors is poor. Who changed their mind(s)? Was there officer pressure to do so?
They didn't take the re-vote behind closed doors. The discussion about how to phrase the reasons for refusal was in closed session with a couple of cllrs, legal rep and officers. But the vote was taken in public. You can watch it on the council website.
OK, tx for the clarification. The planning brief for the site was a structure four stories tall. This is a lot bigger and so dominates listed buildings next to the site. It also includes bedroom windows overlooking other's gardens, which is also usually a no-no. The plans needed adjusting. The scheme itself was not a bad one but should have fitted the brief, rather than stretched it.

Report this post »

bug eye says...
11:49am Thu 28 Jun 12

I was at one planning committee meeting some time ago when one councillor actually said she thought a particular development was too good for the area (hove). another said he was new and didnt know what he was supposed to do. shambolic. meanwhile many decisions do not go to committee and are decided by an individual planning officer with only their personal opinion and archaeic policy to decide the future of the city and developments, this is scandalous too. no contemporary improvements are allowed in the 21st century only tile hung dormers and rendered extensions, bland and regressive. the department is clearly not fit for purpose.

Report this post »

Ligand Fields says...
1:33pm Thu 28 Jun 12

Tim Ridgway wrote:
RE: initial officer's recommendation to approve - you are correct. In a haste to get this online I made a mistake. Now been ammended. Thanks, Tim
Is it true you Argus hacks have a daily or weekly word count to fulfil? And this prompts you to cut-and-paste a load of churnalistic crap most of the time?

Report this post »

Vvicky Feldwicke says...
4:43pm Sun 8 Jul 12

They should renervate and reopen the ice rink instead. A special place that was to many people

Report this post »

BrightonArchitect says...
5:55pm Sun 8 Jul 12

Are you kidding? Did you ever go there? I did. A tiny rink, totally unsuitable for the activity. This will improve the square and the graveyard, which if full of druggies and big dogs.

Report this post »

Leithcote says...
8:22pm Mon 16 Jul 12

BrightonArchitect wrote:
No, the point is there weren't plenty of reasons for rejection. The planners supported it and the councillors could not agree any good enough reasons to object that would stand up at appeal. So no council tax wasted fighting an appeal that would fail. Well done councillors - a vote for common sense.
This could be positively hilarious, if it wasn't for the fact that it'll directly impact one of the most historic areas of Brighton - the environs of the 11th century church St Michael's. The council originally voted to REFUSE the planning application - 5 votes for, 5 votes against plus 2 abstentions. The chair then used his casting vote to refuse permission. So far so good. Then, the council should have voted on the REASONS for refusal, which is where the confusion set in. Somehow they managed to reopen the vote as to whether planning permission should be granted (probably not legal) AGAIN, then voted this time to APPROVE it! Farcical. The council should rescind all persmissions, then put this important decision before a committee that actually know what they're doing!

Report this post »

Leithcote says...
8:24pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Or me - hoisted by my own petard - should of course read St Nicholas! Doh. Shame I wasn't on the committee eh?

Report this post »

BrightonArchitect says...
8:53pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Yes it will impact on an historic area of Brighton. That history includes drug related murders. I dare you to go to that corner of the churchyard after dark and then tell me change isn't needed

Report this post »

mimseycal says...
9:09pm Mon 16 Jul 12

BrightonArchitect wrote:
Yes it will impact on an historic area of Brighton. That history includes drug related murders. I dare you to go to that corner of the churchyard after dark and then tell me change isn't needed
If it comes to that, considering the history of this green isle, I doubt there are many corners of it where a violent/unpleasant death hasn't occurred at one time or another.

Report this post »

Leithcote says...
8:50am Tue 17 Jul 12

BrightonArchitect wrote:
Yes it will impact on an historic area of Brighton. That history includes drug related murders. I dare you to go to that corner of the churchyard after dark and then tell me change isn't needed
I don't quite follow how building an over-sized, inappropriate hotel in Queen Square will suddenly solve the drug problem of Brighton.

As for the 'corner of the churchyard' a simple light would suffice.

Report this post »

BrightonArchitect says...
9:05am Tue 17 Jul 12

There is a light there.

I didn't say it would solve Brighton's drug problem. Just maybe make that corner a bit less dangerous.

What would you build there?

Report this post »

quedula says...
9:06am Tue 17 Jul 12

Leithcote wrote:
BrightonArchitect wrote:
Yes it will impact on an historic area of Brighton. That history includes drug related murders. I dare you to go to that corner of the churchyard after dark and then tell me change isn't needed
I don't quite follow how building an over-sized, inappropriate hotel in Queen Square will suddenly solve the drug problem of Brighton.

As for the 'corner of the churchyard' a simple light would suffice.
An even better solution would have been to incorporate a footpath from Queen Square to increase the footfall.

Report this post »

BrightonArchitect says...
11:16am Tue 17 Jul 12

During public consultataion nobody at all wanted a footpath according to the planning committee report

Report this post »

Leithcote says...
10:46am Sat 21 Jul 12

I personally don't have a particular problem with anything being built on the site - hotel, cafe, restaurant, offices, accommodation etc., just as long as it respects its surroundings, which the current proposal simply doesn't. The alleged "5 storey" hotel, which is in fact 6 high, is over-bearing and dominant, and would be visible from Dyke Road, directly behind the Grade II listed building Wykeham Terrace. Knock two storeys off, and hey - build it.

Report this post »

quedula says...
1:22pm Sat 21 Jul 12

BrightonArchitect wrote:
During public consultataion nobody at all wanted a footpath according to the planning committee report
It depends what you mean by "public" consultation. I believe the idea was rejected very early on by a mere handful of individuals, perhaps only 2 or 3, and by the time of the full public consultation the idea had disappeared. . .

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree