LEWES MAGISTRATES’ COURT HTTP://PLANNINGPUBLICACCESS.SOUTHDOWNS.GOV.UK
The hard line I like to set is not always picked up by planning officers, although it is sometimes picked up by our members and the planning inspectorate. There were certain things at stake in this case:
SDNP/13/00492/PRE BACKGROUND
The Lewes Magistrates Court planning decision is important to document as it vividly exposes the ‘elephant in the room’ for community development. An anonymous source in the South Downs National Park Authority told me why the proposal was granted permission against public will: “That application has been with us for a fair amount of time. Part of the problem that I have is that it really down to the personality of the case officer as to how much weight they give to design options. We only have a hand full of planning officers; in my experience of planning officers the majority are quite pro-development, they are very happy to work with the applicant until a solution is reached. The case officer in question is very much like that. The application came forward at an early stage, we took it to the design review panel who said ‘you need to understand Lewes, you’ve got to assess the character of the High Street etc.’ Quora then did an assessment but their focus was on the wrong bit of Lewes. The case officer led the applicant on and never held the line by insisting they fulfilled this requirement.
2 The primary thing in everyone minds is ‘what’s going to happen at appeal’. Quora’s scheme had got to the stage where it would probably be granted on appeal so it was been desirable to keep the decision in house by regular deferrals. This could obviously only lead to one result. LOCATION
The South Downs Centre, Midhurst, West Sussex
MEETING
The following is a record of the South Downs National Park planning committee meeting in December 2014. Andrew Shaxson (Chairman): Right we have a number of public speakers. The first public speaker is speaking against the application on the behalf of Save Lewes Architecture. Could I remind Mr Curtis and every other speaker he has 3 minutes. The first 2.5 minutes will be indicated by a green light, on the traffic light system to his left. With 30 seconds to go it will go amber, and when the 3 minutes is up it will go red. Over to you. Mr Curtis: Good morning. Here we are again, exactly 12 months after you unanimously rejected Quora’s initial plans. Looking at the latest iteration, it has the same fundamental issues of poor design standard, it too large and in the wrong place. I agree with your design officers comments, namely the building is out of scale with the domestic terraces of Friar Walk and the Fitzroy Memorial Library. The only drawing to show the true mass is B1096 submitted by the developers in September, but emitted from the latest submission. None of the latest CAD sketches and artists impressions show the true relationship of the existing buildings to the proposal; if they did your decision to reject the application would be very clear.
1
Lewes Magistrates’ Court closed in January 2011. The Ministry of Justice Estates Department put the property and adjacent car park up for sale in March 2012, inviting offers in excess of £1m. The agents for the sales noted “where parties are looking to retain the building we anticipate that some re-configuration will be required. The bomb-proof structure features court rooms, office accommodation, meetings rooms, a reception and waiting area, staff and visitor facilities and cells”. Quora developers were given the sole option to buy and demolish the Magistrates’ Court to build a Premier Inn with commercial lettings on the ground floor. In addition to Quora’s proposal the Lewes Repertory Theatre submitted a bid backed by a local property developer Mr Gorringe to retain the existing building and convert the ground floor into part retail and a theatre and cultural centre with affordable flats for first time buyers above. Both schemes were given planning permission: Quora first in December 2014 and LRT in February 2015. This was too late for LRT as the Ministry of Justice had already signed a contract with Quora.
1 The application has been with the South Downs for a long time and if after 2 years they can’t get the application sufficiently improved and approved it looks incompetent.
2
One of the many SDNPA design criteria is that the building should not be excessive and should be in keeping with the architecture and tradition of the town. This proposal fails on both these accounts and demands rejection. Lewes Conservation Area Advisory Group claim that they are for the proposal, but closer inspection of their written submission reveals that they are ambivalent at best. They object to the excessive massing and they say that the design is simply not good enough. The survey carried out for the SDNPA in 2013 regarding visitors to the national park indicated that over 80% come by car, so it’s very likely that most of the people visiting this hotel will use their cars further aggravating the car parking problems in Lewes. Maybe the developers will buy the magistrates car park, but they must prove that guests and staff will use it not the public. The vast majority of local residents strongly object to the demolition and construction project. They would prefer the existing building to be reused. Over 80 people have written in and objected to the revised plans published less than a month ago. Hundreds have written since this started in 2013. You must listen to them. Many local people fought for Lewes to be included in the South Downs National Park to protect it from this type of vandalism, not to have it inflicted upon them. This development would dramatically change the character of the medieval town of Lewes, would this development be allowed in the centre of Midhurst? No evidence has been presented by the developer to demonstrate that the existing building cannot be reused, either as a hotel or for any other purpose. There should be an independent assessment into the condition of the building and the possibility of conversion. Fundamental issues have not changed: the building design is a poor, of a poor standard, too large and in the wrong place and therefore must be rejected again, just as the planning committee had the courage to do so twice before. Please support Lewes and reject this ill-conceived overdevelopment. Chairman: Thank you. The second public speaker is Ruth O’keefe who is also speaking against the application on her behalf as a resident. Ruth O’Keefe: Thank you. I feel that actually I am speaking on behalf of my residents, I am a councillor. Chairman: I beg your pardon, I wasn’t made aware you were a councillor.
Ruth O’Keefe: Thank you very much, yes. I have been since 1999. One of the questions I would like to ask is would we still be accepting the appearance of this development if it was for a residential development. It’s made itself look far more like it could be a residential development over the course of the application. But if this aimed to look like houses in the centre of the town would you feel the design was acceptable? I think that’s an important question to ask yourselves. I also need to talk about the relationship of this building, its design and the use of the building in the centre of town. One of the very important things touched upon by the previous speaker is the traffic and parking issues which it causes by its existence. You will have seen the town centre car park remarked upon quite a bit, and in the applicant’s site photographs that car park is always full, this is a very usual occurrence. In the applicants artists impression it has only two cars in the car park. Their trying to say something here. Finally, just to talk about archaeology. The remains under the building are caped at the present, and there is a substantial change to the foot print in the design that you see now. I haven’t seen anything that talks about how this would be dealt with, and I think more information is needed before any permission is given. Chairman: The third public speaker is Michael Parfitt speaking against the application on behalf of Keep Lewes Lewes. Michael Parfitt: I am the former chair of Lewes District Council planning committee and was previously borough Planning Officer for Surrey District Council. I speak from this professional background and also as an individual Lewes resident. There are still unresolved doubts as to the form of Quora’s application for an overlarge and rather characterless redevelopment of the courts building in Lewes. Despite the extended process of reconsideration and redesign this has served as a distraction from the serious concerns regarding parking implications of the hotel element, reflecting the basic overdevelopment and questioning the credibility of the application. The total absence of parking provision for the 59 bed hotel would create a serious loss of parking availability for town’s people and visitors alike on the adjacent public car park. This would cause conflict at several peak times of day. This is unacceptable in Lewes Town centre, where parking is already at a premium for existing local uses
Chairman: The fourth public speaker is Mr Ben Ellis speaking in support of the application on behalf of the applicant. Mr B Ellis: Chairman, members, thank you for hearing us again today. We listened carefully to the debate during the committee in October and we thank members for giving us the opportunity to revisit our proposal by deferral. I am grateful that members made their position clear at the last committee on all aspects relating to principle; we also welcome the positive approach adopted by key local groups. We met with Friends of Lewes several times since the last committee and presented again to CAAG who we would like to thank for all of their hard work and input. We were exceptionally pleased with CAAGs continued support; Friends of Lewes offered no objection to the proposals subject to certain points of detail being addressed. I’m very pleased that these aspects are points of detail that are covered by the suggested conditions, these will involve such measures as sample boards on site, for approval, which will obviously ensure the highest quality is achieved. Paul, our architect, will cover specific design aspects, however we have tried to incorporate changes
that not only address the member’s specific comments but are also sensitive to the discussions we have had with local groups since deferral. I hope that our perseverance and commitment does come across, we are genuinely proud of how we have managed to embrace the evolution of these designs. The quality and depth of design consideration is a testament to all of those who have put in so much. I sincerely believe we have achieved all that has been asked of us, and that this scheme that is now before you is one that is capable of approval. I am proud of the working relationships we have forged and should we be granted consent will remain committed to these in the future. We have already agreed to work with local groups and we would be delighted to extend this further to invite local liaison sessions for interested parties. Should members feel it appropriate we would be happy to accept conditions for this today, but we would do so in any event as part of our responsibility and commitment to Lewes. This all leads to a very inclusive approach with is truly the best way to deliver the best possible scheme on this important site in Lewes. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to address you again, I sincerely hope that you feel we have responded positively to all of your concerns and are able to support our proposals today. Thank you. Chairman: If the member Tom Jones would like to start the debate? Tom Jones: Thank you Chair. Today’s application was deferred previously because of specific issues which we raised at the last meeting. I believe that those are the issues that we should be paying attention to. However, listening to the speakers there have been a couple of issues which do need comment, one in particular is parking. I am pleased that Quora has endorsed the view that the hotel does not need permanent parking just overnight facilities. I would also like to raise the point that we need to look wider afield and think how Lewes is evolving. One of those areas is indeed the North Street Quarter where there are hundreds of parking spaces to be made available. To give the impression that there is a lack of parking to cater for the hotel is wrong. If we look at the reasons for it, it is clearly indicated in the report as to what our concerns centred around and we’ve heard our own officer and speakers describe
3
alone. The result would be one of angry frustration and dissatisfaction with those unable to find spaces then hunting for alternative parking adding to the traffic, congestion and pollution in the town centre. This will be to nobodies benefit and will have an adverse effect on the liveability, character and attractiveness of this historic town. It is contradictory and counterproductive to the National Park’s status and protection to which Lewes is surely entitled. A primacy has always applied in conservation areas for retention and reuse of existing buildings wherever possible, in preference to demolition and redevelopment. I have seen very little evidence of such concern in this particular case, except the comments of Lewes residents and the local groups representing them. This proposed building attempts to relate to its historical context but fails to do so credibly as it relies too much upon multiple repetition of the simple domestic fenestration of the nearby terraced housing, cloaking a development of much greater scale. It would be far better to retain the existing magistrates court for low intensity, locally based uses which would not generate the problems of overdevelopment, which this application does. There are entirely possible and realistically framed proposals, with financial backing available, for early consideration by the National Park Authority.
4
in detail what has been done. I think there has been a quantum leap in terms of the design of all aspects. Referring back to the Design Review concerns about the front and back relationship I think it has been carefully looked at and changed drastically. The other one is the view down the twitten, it was bland, it was uninteresting. I think that the new design is a vast improvement and in fact meets the needs of the concerns expressed. I do like how the architect has addressed the front of the building on Friars Walk, I believe that they have infant integrated the design of Friars Walk Terraces to reflect that. I do take note of what our Design Officer has said, he feels that the design does not respect the cadence of these terraces, but what we don’t want is a pastiche. In that part of Lewes there is a complete mix in terms of design and age of buildings so to consider it all historic is a mistake. I will be voting in favour of the officers recommendations.
number of improvements. It aint going to be a landmark building, it aint going to be an award winner necessarily, but I think it is certainly beyond acceptable in terms of its contents and history. Couple of relatively minor points about the design, first of all the steps to the hotel, the car park frontage, could they be widened as part of the landscape conditions, and also could there be some clarification about the dropping off point arrangements. Is there a clear area for people to drop off, unload bags, go and register because that is clearly the important function of a hotel. It’s not quite clear from this drawing how that works. I don’t know if anyone can provide a detail on that?
Alun Alesbury: Thank you Chairman, I agree with the gist of most of what Tom Jones has just said. I have been fairly vociferous about previous iterations of this proposal and there are several points I need to skip over quickly. This is an appropriate town centre use. I myself am not troubled by the scale of this building, it is a town centre site. I don’t actually, and I’ve said this before, think that the previous Court building is a particularly attractive building, it’s interesting but it doesn’t actually sit very well in the townscape. This proposal actually seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable scale for the site and I have to say I feel really gratified as it is rather difficult contributing to the planning of a particular site via committee process and I actually think we have achieved something positive here. It’s hugely better, hugely better, than it was before. This time around, I actually like what English Heritage have said and I wish it could be said about every proposal that comes up, they said “the latest proposals are a sound attempt to provide a scheme that is at once recognisable as a new piece of architecture which signals the use of the building while also having regard for the historic context and the Lewes townscape”. If that sort of comment could be made for every application I would not be discouraged. So I am going to vote in favour of the application.
Charles Peck: Thank you Chairman. Ordinarily I’m confident that this committee is able to consider planning applications and take into good account the wishes of the community and feeling of the community as well. It’s part of our job. Our purposes require us to conserve and enhance the cultural heritage of the area, they require us to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of our special qualities. We have to foster the economic and the social wellbeing of the local community living within the National Park. I don’t think that anyone would deny that Lewes is a substantial community living within the National park. This application is the third time in 175 years where a decision can be made about the use of this site. This is a public site, a prominent public site, in a town where people care passionately about public and private spaces. Every visitor to Lewes can appreciate the effort they have gone into, perhaps even sense the passion. An argument about a curb stone, this is the sorts of thing that goes on in Lewes quite routinely. These are badges of their pride and it is a remarkable town.
Ian Phillips: Right off I’m going to say that I will also be voting for approval of this. I think there has been some very substantial improvement to the design reflecting the committees view last time. It is now responsive to the conservation area, it addresses lots of the urban design principles I was concerned about, it incorporates a huge
Chairman: I think if you look at the plan in front of us now that indicated a drop off area. Ian Phillips: OK, that looks fine, thank you.
Now, what’s proposed here is demolition. I’m not satisfied that demolition is the default position, I really have problems with that. This building, people say it’s not a heritage asset, but if you look at that building its was built with heritage concerns. There was a lot of fighting about how to do it, how to put it in some scale that would work in that site. What we have before us is not an attractive change, it may be sufficient, it may meet the middle, but it does not enhance and conserve. It does not meet park “special qualities”: it’s a massing of
buildings. Now the applicant has chopped and changed to meet the many concerns of this committee, but the questions continue to recur. The glazed canopies that we objected to because of pigeon shit have been replaced by fabric roller awnings. I have no idea what those will entail, how they look, and we really cannot be a committee of detail, but its evidence of the kind of doubt I have about this building.
Chairman: I accept that you probably are quite pleased to hear someone say something like that but this is a meeting held in public, not a public meeting. Could you please refrain from showing your enthusiasm. Jennifer Gray: I actually think that what the speaker said in support of this application is extremely reassuring. They have made a huge effort to listen to all our concerns and those of people in the District. There is public support for this. I don’t think that we can possibly refuse this one again. They have made such huge efforts to listen to all our concerns which I think have been very satisfactorily met. I will be supporting the officer’s recommendations, thank you. Neville Harrison (Deputy Chair): Thank you Chair. I can’t possibly promise to be quite as brief as that. I want to start by saying I know Lewes well, I have lived within
Now starting with the design I acknowledge that an honest attempt has been made to address our concerns last time. What does English Heritage say about it? Now, I interpreted what they said rather differently to Alun Alesbury. When they mention ‘it is a sound attempt’, the emphasis for me is on the word attempt. The word attempt suggests honesty, it suggests integrity, but it does also suggest that it hasn’t been achieved; it’s only an attempt. It’s like, as several of our members said last time, I suppose it’s OK. Where here to raise the bar, the trouble here is the bar was so low to start with that it’s been pushed up a bit, but you still haven’t got over it. Note that the design officer still has his objections. I ask you just contrast these with his comments on the next application which is the Lewes community cinema. I wanted to go on to say this: it is a well-constructed building that can be re-used. I’ve already said it has historic interest; it must be environmentally preferable to keep it. We’ve had no demonstration, and were told it doesn’t need demonstration, that the building cannot be reused. We’ve only had the applicant’s word that it wasn’t reusable. We now have, we know because it in our information we’ve been sent or given, two groups with proposals for how it could be reused. These are planning application that haven’t reached the committee so we haven’t considered them, and then there is the private individual who has come forward offering to buy the site. Sorry Mr Chairman, I know I’m going on but… Member: Point of order Mr Chairman but we must only consider what is in front of us today. Neville Harrison: I’m going to summarise by saying that disappointingly the design is still below the bar and fails to deliver a building that is an exemplar that we can be proud of. The building should not be demolished because of the historic interest and the fact that there is no proof that it must be demolished. This decision today will set the standard for Lewes and we know there are other major applications coming forward. It will also establish our reputation. I care about Lewes and I care about the National Park. I want us to demonstrate that being in the National Park is worth the while; I think we will fail the people of Lewes if we do not refuse this
5
The developers would like to get us to approve so of course their going to meet our concerns. But along that process how is the community view being taken in? We have serious concerns in Lewes, you should have no doubt about that having received, as I have, submissions through the mail from people with counter proposals. The community is waking up to the urgency of the situation, unfortunately all were considering here is a single application, it’s the one that got here first, it’s the one were obliged to consider. They call this planning but really were just taking something that came in through the door and were looking at it seriously, trying to do the best we can. Ordinarily I think that’s a process that works but here when you have a lot of opposition in Lewes, a town that really cares; I think we should hold back on this one. I think we actually need to act as a planning authority and not simply judge the first application on its own terms. We need to take the community into account. That’s part of our statutory duty, that’s what makes the park so special. So I would propose that we reject this proposal as being premature and having failed to take into account community needs in a significant public space. [Applause and shouts].
a few miles of Lewes for over 30 years. I have a feel for Lewes. We must remind ourselves that Lewes fought to get into the national park and because of that it deserves the highest level of protection for local people, visitors and for the nation.
application.
7
Barbara Holyome: Although I do concede this application is better conceived, I am of the opinion that our design officer has enough concerns for me to be concerned. It is still a standard specification of a hotel design and this cannot be unified with the domestic terraces of Friars Walk. I agreed with a lot of what Neville Harrison has said, I just cannot go with this. It is better but it isn’t still right for me. I am sorry but I do not think this is highest standard worthy of the Park.
Against?
6
Chairman: Any final comments? Tim Slaney: It’s been suggested that the application is premature as there are other proposals in front of us which appear to have been brought to member’s attention. Each application has to be considered on its own individual merits. A number of those proposals are not actually with us and the one that is with us is still being assessed before the planning board. The whole issue of prematurity in planning is a very difficult issue to support. More importantly and in terms of raising the bar, which is a term the members often use, there has been an awful lot of consultation. Now you may have your views on that, how effective that’s been or how exclusive or inclusive it’s been, but there has been more, in my experience, consultation and engagement, willingness to try and achieve something better, on this scheme than many others. So I would not want anyone to think whether you say yay or nay to this particular design really imposes on whether you are doing your duty by services to the National Park. Ian Phillips: I would just like to make comment that I think I am pleasantly surprised and relieved that the deferral from the last meeting has resulted in substantial redesign and that the applicants have worked with officers rather than going for appeal. I think we ran the risk of an appeal last time and I’m pleased that the national park has sent a message to the developer and his team that redesign and improvements to design can result in a more positive response and a win win for all, well for many. Chairman: Could all in favour of the officer’s recommendations to permit please show?
3 1 abstention. Thank you very much indeed. So that is permitted.