Agenda item - BH2013/00197-Richmond House, Richmond Road, Brighton -Full Planning Permission

Demolition of existing 2no storey building and construction of 1no three storey building and 1no five storey building providing 144 rooms of student accommodation, with associated ancillary space, 186 cycle spaces, removal of existing trees, landscaping and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: St Peter’s & North Laine

Demolition of existing 2no storey building and construction of 1no three storey building and 1no five storey building providing 144 rooms of student accommodation, with associated ancillary space, 186 cycle spaces, removal of existing trees, landscaping and other associated works.

(1)       It was noted that this application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

            Introduction from Officer(s)

(2)          The Senior Planning Officer, Mrs Arnold gave a detailed presentation detailing the constituent elements of the scheme by reference to site plans, block plans, photographs and elevational drawings making referring to Buildings 1 and 2, also indicating the location of 3 parking spaces proposed between the buildings at the Richmond Road/D’Aubigny Road level. It was considered that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the existing office building was no longer viable and was genuinely redundant. The proposal for purpose built student accommodation on a site which was identified as having potential for housing provision in the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, would compromise the Council’s ability to meet its housing targets, and would set an unwelcome precedent for the approval of student accommodation on other comparable sites across the city in the future. For these reasons the proposed development was considered to be unacceptable in principle. The proposed development would be an over-development of the site and by virtue of its design; scale, bulk and massing would have a harmful impact upon the visual amenities of the D’Aubigny Road and Richmond Road streetscenes and the wider area including the Round Hill Conservation Area and longer views into the Conservation Area. It was also considered that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the development would adequately address issues of sustainability, refuse/recycling storage and protect the amenities of the neighbouring properties with regards to increased noise and disturbance, levels of daylight/sunlight received and overshadowing and it would give rise to perceived and actual overlooking, particularly in respect of the neighbouring property to the north. It would not provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers and was therefore recommended for refusal.

(3)          It was noted that the additional representations received had been set out in the circulated “Late Representations List”.

              Public Speakers and Questions

(4)          Mr King spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors stating that they considered that the proposed application was wholly inappropriate as it would result in a form of development at variance with the adjacent conservation area and neighbouring residential dwellings. It would give to rise to potential noise disturbance would be overbearing and would result in overlooking and loss of amenity and represented over development of the site and should therefore be refused.

(5)          Mr Burgess spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application accompanied by the applicant Mr Lambor who would be able to answer any technical questions should there be any. Mr Burgess stated that the applicants had requested consideration of the application be deferred. Confirmation had been received that Kaplan International colleges supported the application and it was therefore considered that the requirements of Draft Policy CP21 (6) could now be complied with. They considered that to state there were no significant unresolved objections to this policy was incorrect as the applicant and other parties had submitted objections to this policy and the policy was likely to be reviewed as part of the public examination. The applicants were also of the view that forthcoming permitted development rights would allow Richmond House to be converted to residential use without the need for planning consent. As such, the B1 office use could be lost in any event. The applicants had sought to devise an acceptable scheme in response to an identified need.

(6)       The Head of Development Control, Mrs Walsh explained that the view had been taken that the application was ready to be determined and that it should be. No new material planning considerations had been raised which would lead to an alternative recommendation. The decision had therefore been taken to proceed with determination of the application.

(7)       Councillor Davey stated that he was aware that the building had been in use for employment until relatively recently. He believed that the building had also been in a good state of repair. He enquired of the applicant the date at which that use had ceased and sought confirmation regarding any measures taken to market the site for office use. The applicant explained that during the period the premises had been marketed it had generated little interest; the last tenant had left some six months earlier.

            Questions to Officers

(8)          Councillor Mrs C Theobald sought clarification regarding the level of amenity space to be provided and regarding arrangements for the storage and collection of refuse and recycling, in her view these appeared to be inadequate.

(9)          Councillors Hyde and K Norman enquired regarding the content of a management plan for the site. The Head of Development Control explained that the content of any management plan had not been discussed in depth with the applicants as the application was recommended for refusal in principle as it ran contrary to planning policy.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)       Councillor Jones stated that whilst he had no objection to sites being considered for student accommodation where it was appropriate he was in agreement that it was inappropriate at this location and concurred with the recommended reasons for refusal.

(11)       Councillor Mrs C Theobald stated that the form of development proposed would be overly prominent in the neighbouring street scene on which it would have a negative impact by virtue of its hillside location. It represented overdevelopment of the site and should be refused.

(12)       Councillor Mac Cafferty considered that the applicant had not demonstrated that the site was redundant for office use or that it had been adequately marketed. He considered that the site would be ideal for use by small start up companies.

(13)       Councillor Davey was in agreement considering that use of the existing building had not been explored extensively.

(14)     A vote was taken and the 11 Members present at the meeting voted unanimously that planning permission be refused.

204.1    RESOLVED –  That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 of the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

1.      The proposed purpose built student accommodation is not supported by one of the City’s two Universities or other existing educational establishments within Brighton & Hove. The proposal would have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity in the surrounding area, especially with regards to increased noise and disturbance as a result of the applicant failing to submit a management plan specific to the site. In addition part of the proposed development would occupy a site which is identified as having potential for housing provision in the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, and would therefore compromise the Council’s ability to meet its housing need and set an unwelcome precedent for the approval of student accommodation on other housing sites across the City in the future. For these reasons the proposed development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and policies CP1 and CP21 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.

2.      The proposed development, by virtue of its design, finish materials, excessive bulk, scale and massing would be an over-development of the site, which would relate poorly to the terraced properties in D’Aubigny Road and Richmond Road, causing a harmful impact upon the visual amenities of the Richmond Road/D’Aubigny Road streetscenes and the wider area including the Round Hill Conservation Area and would fail to emphasis and enhance the positive qualities of the neighbourhood. The mass, scale and bulk of the development is substantially larger than the existing office building and would appear out of scale and overly prominent in views out of the Round Hill Conservation Area. The height of Building 1 fails to reflect the change in ground level across the site and fails to have a direct relationship with D’Aubigny Road/Richmond Road, a characteristic of the Conservation Area. In addition the actual/visual loss of the existing embankment would result in the erosion of the distinct barrier between the Conservation Area and the less cohesive streetscape located to the north of the site, which would have a harmful impact upon the distinctive layout and predominance of green space of the area seen in longer views. The proposal is therefore contrary to development plan policies QD1, QD2, QD3, QD4 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

3.   The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the existing B1 office use is no longer viable and genuinely redundant by failing to market the ground floor/entire building on competitive terms for a period of at least twelve months. In the absence of such evidence, the proposal would involve the unacceptable loss of employment generating floorspace. As such the proposal is contrary to policies EM3 and EM5 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and policy CP3 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.

4.   The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have a significant impact upon the amenities of the new development located to the north of the site, between Hollingdean Road and Sainsbury’s Service road, with regards to received levels of daylight/sunlight and over-shadowing. The proposed massing, scale and bulk of Building 1 is considered to result in an unneighbourly form of development which is considered likely to have an adverse effect on the amenities of the neighbouring northern development by way of loss of daylight/sunlight, especially in respect of the single aspect flats. The proposal is also considered to give rise to adverse actual and perceived loss of privacy and overlooking to windows, balconies and terraced area on the southern elevation of this neighbouring property. As such the proposal is contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and CP21 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.

5.   Insufficient information has been provided with regards to the use of secondary entrance of Building 1 onto Richmond Road and the use of the Courtyard area and as such the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse upon the amenities of occupiers of the neighbouring properties and future occupiers of the development, with regards to noise and disturbance. As such the proposal is contrary to policies SU9, SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and policy CP21 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.

6.   The south facing accommodation within Building 1, at first floor level, would be provided with poor levels of daylight/sunlight and oppressive outlook resulting in a sense of enclosure. As such the proposal would provide a poor standard of accommodation harmful to the amenity of future occupiers. As such the proposal is contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

7.   The proposed development would not provide a level of sustainability which would adequately address the requirements of policy SU2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and the guidance set out in SPD08 ‘Sustainable Building Design’. Furthermore sufficient justification has not been provided to demonstrate that the level of sustainability recommended in SPD08 could not reasonably be met. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy SU2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and SPD08 on ‘Sustainable Building Design’.

8.   The applicant has failed to demonstrate that adequate refuse and recycling provision would be provided. The proposed refuse store is not large enough for a development of the size proposed based on a weekly collection by the Council. No details of private refuse and recycling collections have been submitted as part of the application. Failure to provide adequate refuse and recycling facilities would have a harmful impact upon the amenities of future occupiers of the development and neighbouring properties As such the proposal is contrary to policies SU9 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and PAN 05 on Design Guidance for the Storage and Collection of Recyclable Materials and Waste.

                  Informatives:

1. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible.

2. This decision is based on the drawings listed below:

Plan Type Reference Version Date Received

Site and Block Plan 0565 F0-001 P2 8th February 2013

Proposed Site and Block Plan 0565 D0-001 P1 23rd January 2013

Existing Floor Plans 0565-F0-100 P1 23rd January 2013

Existing Elevations 0565-F0-101 P1 23rd January 2013

Topographical Survey 0565-F0-102 P1 23rd January 2013

Proposed Level 00 – Hughes Road Level 0565 D0-100 P1 23rd January 2013

Proposed Level 01 0565 D0-101 P1 23rd January 2013

Proposed Level 02 –

Richmond Road Level 0565 D0-102 P1 23rd January 2013

Proposed Level 03 0565 D0-103 P1 23rd January 2013

Proposed Level 04 0565 D0-104 P1 23rd January 2013

Proposed Roof Plan 0565 D0-105 P1 23rd January 2013

Proposed Elevations 0565 D0-200 P1 23rd January 2013

Proposed Elevations and Sections 0565 D0-201 P1 23rd January 2013

Proposed Elevations and Sections 0565 D0-202 P1 23rd January 2013

Proposed Elevations (Building 2) 0565 D0-203 P1 23rd January 2013

Proposed Bay Detail 0565 D0-204 P2 8th February 2013