Environmental Impact Assessment - Rear of Brighton Metropole Hotel, Cannon Place

Brighton & Hove City Council

Decision required under delegated procedure

Case officer 

Chris Swain, Team Leader, Major Applications (East)

Date

13 January 2021

Environmental Impact Assessment screening opinion

Rear of Brighton Metropole Hotel, Cannon Place.

Ward affected

Regency

Planning team leader

Maria Seale

1.1. To provide a formal screening opinion in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended) (‘the EIA Regulations’) as to whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the northeast corner plot of the existing Brighton Metropole Hotel to provide a new standalone hotel.

2.1 To adopt a formal screening opinion that EIA is not required for the proposal at the site comprising of the north east corner plot at the Brighton Metropole, adjacent to Cannon Place and as set out in paragraph 3.4 below submitted and as described by Hugh Scanlon of Lichfields on 21 May 2020.

3.1 The relevant legislation is the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended),

3.2 Government guidance on the application of the new Regulations is contained within the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG).

3.3 Regulation 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 states that a person who is minded to carry out development may request the relevant Planning Authority to adopt a screening opinion.

Regulation 6 sets a 3 week period in which the Planning Authority must issue a screening opinion unless an extension is agreed. The agreed target date is 15 January 2021.

While this extended date is outside the regulatory time frame the applicant and the Local Planning Authority are in agreement that the screening opinion should still be issued.

3.4 The development is being brought forward in detail and comprises the creation of a new standalone hotel at the corner plot of Cannon Place and St Margaret’s Place. The key features comprise:

• redevelopment of the northeast corner plot of the existing Brighton Hilton Metropole Hotel site to provide a new 6 storey hotel (not including basement and ground floors)
• provision of up to 217 rooms as a mix of standard guest rooms, king guest rooms and suites within the first to sixth floors of the hotel
• ground floor uses including the hotel reception, welcome/gathering zones, a hub area, a kitchen with floorspace for commercial/food and beverage use, and toilets
• lower ground floor uses include a hotel meeting room/conferencing suite, hotel gym, third party commercial floorspace, and hotel plant and back of house uses (including staff facilities, offices, security and kitchens)

3.5 The development is proposed for the northeast corner of the existing Brighton Hilton Metropole Hotel, at the corner of Cannon Place and St. Margaret’s Place.

The site currently accommodates the largely unused Viscount exhibition hall (at ground and first floor levels) along with small conference rooms and associated service areas at second floor.

The site includes Nos. 31 to 32 Cannon Place, the listed building that fronts St Margaret’s Place, that is vacant, other than accommodating an emergency stair core.

3.6 The site is situated in central Brighton and the immediate surrounding area is characterised by residential properties, other large-scale hotels and commercial uses.

The wider surrounding area includes the Churchill Square Shopping Centre and associated car park, of which the blank façade faces the site at the northeast, and Western Road to the north of the site, both focal points of the Brighton & Hove City Council designated Regional Shopping Centre.

On the seafront across Kings Road to the southwest, is the British Airways i360 observation tower, near to the remains of West Pier.

Brighton Train Station is located approximately 860 metres northeast and provides direct services to:

• Gatwick Airport
• London St Pancras International
• London Victoria
• Southampton
• Cambridge
• Bedford
• other local destinations

The nearest bus stops to the site are located at Clarence Square approximately 170 metres to the north, which provide frequent services to locations across Brighton & Hove.

Other bus stops within 200m of the site are located along West Street and Western Road to the east and north.

3.7 The site is located within the Regency Square Conservation Area, which is centred around Regency Square, located to the west of the development, which is characterised by 19th Century residential properties.

There are no Scheduled Monuments within the site.

As above, the Grade II listed building of 31 to 32 Cannon Place (ref. 1380048) is part of the proposed development site.

There are no other listed buildings within the site, however, there are several other listed buildings and structures within its vicinity, including:

• the Grand Hotel (Grade II listed, NHLE ref. no. 1381654) east of the Metropole Hotel
• No. 30 Cannon Place (Grade II listed, NHLE ref. no. 1380047) and Nos. 2 and 3 St Margret’s Place
• (Grade II listed, NHLE ref. no. 1380898) north of Nos. 31 and 32 Cannon Place
• the West Pier (Grade I listed, NHLE ref. no. 1381655) to the south-west
• several other listed buildings on the esplanade, enclosing Regency Square to the west and enclosing Russel Square to the north

3.8 The site is not within any statutory ecological designations but the following are within 5km: 

• Brighton to Newhaven Cliffs Site of Special Scientific Interest (‘SSSI’) approximately 3km east of the site
• Whitehawk/Race Hill Local Nature Reserve – located approximately 2km northeast of the site
• Bevendean Down Local Nature Reserve – located approximately 3.6km northeast of the site
• Wild Park Local Nature Reserve – located approximately 3.4km north of the site; and
• Withdean and Westdene Woods Local Nature Reserve – located approximately 3.4km northwest

3.9 Other nearby designations include the Royal Pavilion Grade II Registered Park and Gardens, a non-statutory historic designation, located approximately 640m to the north.

The nearest boundary of the South Downs National Park is approximately 4km to the east.

3.10 According to the government Flood Map for Planning, the site is located wholly within Flood Zone 1 (in other words, the area with the lowest probability of flooding).

There are no trees within the site boundary.

3.11 The site is within the Brighton & Hove ‘Central Area Brighton’ Air Quality Management Area (‘AQMA’), whose designation reflects prevailing nitrogen dioxide levels.

3.12 A formal screening opinion was sought on 19 May 2020 by Hugh Scanlon of Lichfields on behalf of Topland Group of Companies.

The screening request was accompanied by a letter from Lichfields containing Annexes comprising of a site location plan and proposed drawings of the scheme.

4.1 The purpose of this screening opinion is to establish whether the development is likely to have significant effects on the environment, and thus represents Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development.

In accordance with the Regulations and guidance, the Local Planning Authority must first give consideration as to whether the development falls into Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

4.2 The proposal does not fall under any of the categories listed in Schedule 1 of the EIA Regulations whereby EIA is mandatory.

4.3 The next stage is to identify whether the development is located in, or partly in, a defined ‘sensitive area’ as the more environmentally sensitive the location, the more likely it is that the effects on the environment will be significant and will require an Environmental Impact Assessment.

The 2017 Regulations defines ‘sensitive areas’ as:

• Sites of Special Scientific Interest
• areas covered by Nature Conservation Orders
• National Parks
• the Broads
• World Heritage Sites 
• Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
• Schedules Ancient Monuments

The definition of sensitive areas does not include Conservation Areas or Listed Buildings.

The site is not within any of these areas and so the proposed development is therefore not considered to be within or significantly affecting a ‘sensitive area’ as defined by the EIA Regulations 2017.

4.4 The next stage is to establish whether the proposals meet any of the relevant thresholds and/or criteria in column 2 of Schedule 2.

For urban development projects these are listed as:

1. a development which includes more than 1 hectare of urban development which is not dwellinghouse development, or
2. a development which includes more than 150 dwellings, or
3. the overall area of the development exceeds 5 hectares

4.5 The proposal is not considered to exceed any of these thresholds in Part 10(b) of Schedule 2.

Notwithstanding the above, a screening opinion has been sought due to the location of the site, proximity of receptors and features of sensitivity including listed buildings.

 4.6 The National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) gives further advice with regard to screening of Schedule 2 projects.

It states such projects need to be assessed to establish whether they are likely to give rise to significant effects on the environment, taking account of the selection criteria set out in Schedule 3.

If this assessment finds that environmental effects are likely, then an EIA will be required.

Not all of the criteria will be relevant in every case. Each case should be considered on its own merits in a balanced way and authorities should retain the evidence to justify their decision.

4.7 The PPG provides indicative screening thresholds to aid local planning authorities.

For urban development projects it states key issues to consider are the physical scale of such developments, and potential increase in traffic, emissions and noise.

It states EIA is unlikely to be required for the redevelopment of land unless the new development is on a significantly greater scale than the previous use, or the types of impact are of a markedly different nature or there is a high level of contamination.

The thresholds for sites which have not previously been intensively developed are:

1. area of the scheme is more than 5 hectares, or
2. it would provide a total of more than 10,000 sqm of new commercial floorspace, or
3. the development would have significant urbanising effects in a previously non-urbanised area (for example, a new development of more than 1,000 dwellings)

4.8 The PPG advises that only a very small proportion of Schedule 2 development will require EIA.

4.9 Taking note of the above, the entirety of the site has been previously developed and falls significantly under the thresholds set out above.

4.10 The existing site has previously been urbanised and comprises an existing commercial use.

While the height and scale of the new development would be greater than existing, it is not considered that the physical impacts would be such that an EIA would be required.

Potential increases in traffic, emissions and noise would not be markedly different in nature.

There is no initial evidence that land contamination would be significant, though this will be fully assessed on the submission of an application and can be dealt with through appropriate planning conditions.

5.1 Schedule 3 of the Regulations requires the proposal to be assessed against 3 main selection criteria:

• Characteristics of Development
• Location of Development
• Types and Characteristics of the Potential Impact

5.2 Characteristics of development:

a) The size and design of the whole development - having consideration of the above, the development is not considered to be of a scale that would warrant EIA.

b) Cumulation with other development – the site is situated within Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One Policy DA1 development area.

However, there are no other planning permissions in place or developments being built out that are of a scale/nature that cumulatively would result in significant environmental impacts that would warrant EIA.

c), d) and e) The use of natural resources and production of waste is likely to be limited to elements like gas and water for the proposed end uses.

The production of waste, pollution and nuisances is not considered to be of a magnitude that would warrant EIA and would be adequately controlled through a Site Waste Management Plan/Construction Environmental Management Plan and / or appropriate planning conditions should permission be granted.

f) The risk of accidents, having regard in particular to substances or technologies used – the development would be expected to adopt best practice measures during the demolition, construction and implementation to prevent the risk of accidents within the site.

The proposed end use will not involve the handling or processing of substances or technologies that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment to a magnitude that would warrant EIA.

g) The risks to human health (for example, due to water contamination or air pollution), are not likely to be of a magnitude that would have a significant impact that would warrant EIA and can be controlled by the use of appropriate planning conditions.

5.3 The Location of the Development needs to be considered in respect of the environmental sensitivity of the site and surrounding area, looking at factors set out in criterion a) to c) of Schedule 3:

a), b) and c) (i) to (v) The existing site is previously developed brownfield land and features very little natural environmental quality that would be affected by the proposed development. In addition, the site is not close to any of the natural environments such as wetlands or coastal zones identified in Schedule 3 part 2 that could be adversely affected.

c) (vi) to (viii) While the site is in close proximity to an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) it is not considered that any impact on the AQMA would be so significant as to warrant EIA.

The existing listing building within the site is predominantly just a façade whilst the locally listed Brighton Metropole Hotel has been compromised by harmful roof alterations and its setting compromised further by the 1970s Sussex Heights tower.

The existing building to be demolished has a little architectural merit with a blank façade which detracts from the Regency Conservation Area.

While the proposal would be taller than the existing building, given the existing condition of the site the proposals will not likely have any significant impacts on the heritage assets within the wider site.

Outside the site there are a number of listed buildings within the surrounding area, including the Grand Hotel.

While the proposal is sited within the Regency Conservation Area and close to a number of designated and undesignated heritage assets it is considered that the impact on these assets and on the wider townscape and visual amenity is not likely to be significant.

Overall, the nature and magnitude of the proposed development in relation its location/Schedule 3 criterion a) to c) is not considered likely to give rise to significant environmental impacts that would warrant EIA.

5.4 Types and characteristics of the potential impact – the potential significant effects of the development need to be considered in relation to the criteria set out in paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 above, and having regard in particular to:

a) The magnitude and spatial extent of the impact (geographical area and size of the affected population) – the site consists of a 0.18 hectares plot.

The likely impact will be to the wider Metropole site and the immediate surrounding area within close proximity to the site.

b) the nature of the impact – the proposal would be to regenerate this site to provide homes and jobs.

The site currently provides jobs and the nature of the building impacts during construction and occupation would be generally limited to the local vicinity with some wider impacts on transport, and townscape which would be limited and could be mitigated by design and conditions.

Other impacts identified in above sections would be quite localised and would not have wider impacts beyond adjoining neighbours and some surrounding streets.

c) The transfrontier nature of the impact – there are no transfrontier impacts predicted as part of the proposed development.

d) The intensity and complexity of the impact – the development is for a hotel with 217 rooms. The site is previously developed and contains existing conference facilities.

The proposal, by reason of its height, scale and increased density would result in some degree of intensification of the site.

However, this is limited to the immediate surrounding area and would therefore have a limited impact, if any, on the character and setting of the Regency Conservation Area.

The proposal would also have the potential to generate additional vehicular movements, which would be likely to have some impact on the AQMA.

e) The probability of the impact – Should the proposal achieve planning permission and be implemented, the potential impacts outlined in c) above are highly probable.

Given that the probabilities of the impacts are predictable, a full EIA is not considered to be required.

Construction impacts will arise and as part of a CEMP and the types of construction involved would enable the probability to be determined with reasonable accuracy.

f) The expected onset, duration, frequency and reversibility of the impact – Once implemented, the development is likely to remain for the foreseeable future and is only reversible if the site is redeveloped in the future.

Construction impacts would be limited while some of the post construction impacts would be long term for the life of the development.

Impacts on daylight/sunlight and climate impacts would be predicted and mitigated by assessment and would be seasonally related as well as annually.

Other impacts, like noise, could be assessed based upon the time of the day, for example work related travel patterns and opening hours of the commercial occupants.

Impacts of the built form itself would be permanent for the life of the buildings and would not be reversible.

g) the cumulation of the impact with the impact of other existing and/or approved development – as set out in paragraph 5.3 (b) there are no very major schemes being developed or have planning permission close to site.

It is noted that the site sits within the wider DA1 development area.

The main consideration under the cumulative impact of the development is likely to be townscape impacts and transport impacts and these will be dealt with via a Visual Impact Assessment and a Transport Assessment and any adverse impacts of the scheme can be mitigated accordingly if required.

h) the possibility of effectively reducing the impact - the impacts of the development could be mitigated at design stage as well as during the formal consideration stage by planning conditions and S106 agreement.

The impacts that are likely to arise beyond the vicinity of the site such as townscape, transport or air quality can be reduced.

The application will be accompanied by a Visual Impact Assessment and it will be possible to evaluate whether changes could be necessary to reduce the visual impact of the development.

Transport and air quality impacts will be thoroughly assessed during the application and further impacts could be mitigated by implementing measures to reduce vehicles on the roads and providing enhanced public transport and cycle provision, such as promotion of sustainable modes through travel plans.

6.1 The proposal does not represent Schedule 1 development and also does not exceed the thresholds set out in Schedule 2 Part 10(b). The site is not within a ‘sensitive area’ as defined by the EIA Regulations.

The Characteristics of Development, Location of Development and Potential Impacts of the Schedule 2 development have been assessed in accordance with the Criteria within Schedule 3 of the Regulations and NPPF PPG advice, and have been found not to be significant in terms of environmental impact.

6.2 The Local Planning Authority therefore considers that the development would not have an environmental impact of a magnitude which would require an EIA.

The recommendation, therefore, is that the council adopts a negative screening opinion that EIA is not required for the proposed development.

7.1.1 The council is not required to carry out formal consultation when adopting a screening opinion.