Agenda item - BH2011/03956 - 191 Kingsway

Demolition of existing building and construction of nine residential flats.

Recommendation – Minded to Grant

(1)                   Demolition of existing building and construction of nine residential flats.

(2)                   The Area Planning Manager (West), Nicola Hurley, gave a presentation detailing the scheme for Application BH2011/03956 for full planning permission and Application BH2011/03957 for conservation area consent by reference to photographs, plans, elevational drawings and concept images. The application sought the demolition of the existing two storey Victorian building, and the creation of a new five storey building; with a fourth storey penthouse set into the building. It was noted that the legal representative for the owners of the site at 189 Kingsway had raised objections in relation to ‘right to light’ but the legal advice from the Council stated that this was not a material planning consideration. The principle of the redevelopment; the impact of the design and the standard of the accommodation had all been deemed acceptable.

(3)                   The current Victorian building was considered out of keeping with its surroundings and it was proposed to replace it with a modern building taking up the entire width of the site; there was no objection to the proposed size and scale, and it was considered a suitable additional to the Kingsway. In relation to design it was noted that the floors did not align with the neighbouring building, but this was considered acceptable through the hierarchical arrangements that were proposed. The size and layout of the proposed units were acceptable, with good access to amenity; and the Environmental Health Team were satisfied that issues in relation to noise could be addressed through appropriate conditions. The site included basement parking for 10 cars, and 9 cycle spaces. In relation to the conservation area consent it was highlighted that this was subject to the approval of the full planning permission, and the loss of the building was considered acceptable. For the reasons set out in the report Applications BH2011/03957 & BH2011/03956 were recommended for approval.

              Public Speakers and Questions

(4)                   Mr Barling, the legal representative for the owners of 189 Kingsway, outlined the objections to the scheme and stated that the former building at 189 Kingsway had been demolished and this applicant did not give consideration to a potential scheme that could come forward at 189 Kingsway. It was proposed that a development at 189 Kingsway would have windows in similar positions to the demolished building, and the application would reduce the amount of light available. Concern was also expressed in relation to underground parking and the amount of traffic on the Kingsway combined with the close proximity of a pedestrian crossing. It was felt that the scheme was undeliverable, and by granting consent the potential redevelopment of the site at 189 Kingsway would be put in jeopardy; it was important that the application be considered in the context of the larger redevelopment.

(5)                   Councillor Hawtree asked for more information in relation to Mr Barling’s comments that the application was undeliverable, and in response it was explained that if the application was granted the owners of 189 Kingsway would have no option but to appeal the decision through the appropriate legal channels.

(6)                   In response to a query from Councillor Hyde Mr Barling was unable to confirm the size of the proposed gap between the building and the site at 189 Kingsway.

(7)                   Mr Coleman, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application, and stated that the application had emerged though close work with the Development Control and Conservation teams at the Council; it was considered that the proposals were an improvement on the existing building. Despite the proposed building being larger than the current one the actual density would be reduced due to the size of the units. In relation to issue of ‘right to light’ it was reiterated that this was not a material planning consideration, and should not form any part of the decision of the Committee. It was considered that the scheme was well suited to the site and location.

              Questions for Officers

(8)                   In response to queries in relation to ‘right to light’ the Senior Lawyer clarified that it was not a material planning consideration, and there was relevant case law to support this position. In relation to comments made about legal proceedings it was clarified that if these were a reference to right to light issues this would be a private matter between the two adjoining landowners.

(9)                   Councillors Shanks asked for more information in relation to the access the underground parking. In response it was explained that there was no concern with the access; the central reservation of the Kingsway would prevent right turning into the basement car park, and the vehicles existing would only not be able to turn towards the pedestrian crossing.

(10)               Councillor Hyde asked for confirmation on the proposed material that would be used on the balustrades, and it was confirmed that this would be stainless steel. 

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)               Councillor Cobb noted that this type of modern building was not uncommon on the Kingsway; and stated that, although she was disappointed with the code level 3 for sustainability, she would support the application.

(12)               Councillor Hawtree felt that the design was not of sufficient standard, and suggested better quality could come forward for development of the Hove seafront.

(13)               Councillor Hyde stated that she liked the design, and felt the living accommodation would be of good standard; furthermore she welcomed the amenity created through the large balconies and was pleased with the parking arrangements. She would support the application.

(14)               A vote was taken and of the eleven Members present planning permission was refused on a vote of 6 to 5. Councillor Hawtree proposed reasons that planning permission be refused and these were seconded by Councillor Summers; a short recess was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Hawtree and Councillor Summers to agree the reasons for refusal in full in consultation with the Head of Development Control and the Senior Lawyer. A recorded vote was then taken. Councillors Hyde, Carden, Cobb, Farrow and Hamilton voted that planning permission be granted. Councillors MacCafferty, Deane, Shanks, Hawtree, Summers and Wells voted that planning permission be refused. Therefore on a vote of 6 to 5 planning permission was refused.

176.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below.

1.                      The site occupies a prominent position on the seafront and is within the Sackville Gardens Conservation Area. The proposed development by virtue of its bland architectural style and detailing would result in a development which would be incongruous in the context of its surroundings. The scale and form of the development fails to respect the character of the properties to the north in Sackville Gardens and Walsingham Road. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy QD1 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005 which aims to ensure that the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of conservation areas and local characteristics

2.                      The proposed development by virtue of its poor quality of design would result in a scheme having an adverse impact on strategic views along the seafront and the Sackville Gardens Conservation Area. For this reason the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy QD4 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005.

Note: Councillor Pidgeon was not present during the consideration or the vote on this application.