Agenda item - BH2013/00293 - Land West of Redhill Close, Brighton - Removal or Variation of Condition

Application for variation of conditions 8 and 13 of application BH2010/00692 (Outline application for 31 dwellings (0.62 ha) with public open space (2.11 ha) and approval of reserved matters for layout, access and landscaping) to change the wording within the condition to state that the development will achieve a Sustainable Homes Code Level 4 rather than Level 5.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Application for variation of conditions 8 and 13 of application BH2010/00692 (Outline application for 31 dwellings (0.62 ha) with public open space (2.11 ha) and approval of reserved matters for layout, access and landscaping) to change the wording within the condition to state that the development will achieve a Sustainable Homes Code Level 4 rather than Level 5 in respect of plots 1-14 and block 1.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager, Zachary Ellwood, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. Outline planning permission had been granted in 2011, and at that time it had been conditioned that all 31 of the units would meet Code Level 5 for sustainability; this application sought to amend that condition such that 18 of the units would be able to meet a Code Level 4. It was noted that those units still able to meet Level 5 would be those with southerly facing roofs where the installation of photovoltaic panels would be most effective. It was outlined in the report that the Sustainability Officer was satisfied with the amended condition for the remaining 18 units, and it was expected that these units would achieve a high Code Level 4. The site would contain 12 affordable homes units, and 8 of these would be Code Level 5. It was explained that the detailed design of the scheme would form part of the reserved matters application. It was noted that the position of the units was set out in the outline planning permission, and a minor amendment to Conditions 8, 9, 14 & 15 was suggested to explicitly state which units would be Code Level 5. The application was recommended to be minded to grant for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Councillor Ann Norman spoke in objection to the scheme in her capacity as the Local Ward Councillor. She extended her thanks to the applicants for keeping the local Ward Councillors updated about developments with the application, and went on to highlight some of the concerns of local residents in relation to the access to the site from Redhill Drive, and the potential impact of visitor parking in the area. There was also some concern expressed about the potential future of the green space, and it was felt that the units should adhere to the sustainability level agreed in the original outline planning permission.

(3)                   Mr Andrew Munton spoke on the behalf of the applicant, and noted the Code Level 5 for sustainability had been agreed at the outline stage; however, following work on the reserved matters application it was apparent that there was inadequate roof space on some of the units to include the necessary amount of photovoltaic panels to reach Code Level 5. The applicant had explored other sustainable system to achieve Code Level 5, but none would be as effective. The proposed changes had been fully assessed by the Council’s Sustainability Officer to maximise what could be achieved on the site, and the amendment was considered acceptable.

(4)                   Councillor Cox asked for information on when the applicant proposed to commence the scheme; in response the Chair advised that the commencement of work was not a material planning consideration, and pointed to the relevant conditions in the report in relation to commencement.

(5)                   Councillor Hamilton asked for further information on why Code Level 5 was not achievable on some of the units, and in response Mr Munton explained that this was in relation to the orientation of the dwellings and the amount of panels that could be put on each roof that would be effective.

(6)                   Councillor Hyde went on to ask if the roofs could be orientated differently, and Mr Munton explained that the citing of the units was set out in the outline permission, and the amount of roof space was limited so that only so many panels could be placed on each roof.

(7)                   Councillor Carol Theobald asked for more information in relation to the orientation, and also about the provision for the Scout hut. In response Mr Munton reiterated that the problem related mainly to the amount of roof space available on each unit; he explained that part of the application sought the transfer of land in relation to the Scout hut and funds to improve the facility.

(8)                   Councillor Jones asked why the problems in relation to achieving Code Level 5 had not been apparent at the stage of the application for the outline permission. Mr Munton then explained that when the site had been purchased an assessment had been undertaken and the developers were confident of achieving Code Level 5; he explained the sustainability coding was banded and it was only the exclusion of the photovoltaic panels that made the difference between Code Levels 4 & 5.

Questions for Officers

(9)                   Before the Committee asked questions the Area Planning Manager confirmed that the roof space of the units was already set by the outline permission, and could not be altered, and the completion timescales were set out in Condition 1 of the report.

(10)               Councillor Davey asked for more information in relation to the banding of the sustainability codings, and in response the Senior Planning Officer. Paula Goncalves, outlined how the levels were banded, and explained that the proposal outlined would be for a high Code Level 4.

(11)               Councillor Cox asked about the dates in the report for the commencement of the scheme, and Officers explained that the commencement would be the same as in the outline permission; this was set nationally for outline consents.

(12)               Councillor Carol Theobald asked if it would be possible for the scheme to achieve a Code Level 5 for all of the units; in response the Sustainability Officer explained that this would be possible with a different design or set of circumstances, but Officers considered the scheme put forward was a reasonable compromise.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(13)               Councillor Carol Theobald stated the issues in relation to the achievability of the Code Level 5 should have been worked out in advance of the outline planning permission.

(14)               A vote was taken and planning permission was granted on a vote of 8 to 1 with 1 abstention.

18.1       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 be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to: the variation of the Section 106 Obligation dated 13 May 2011 to refer to the current application, the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 of the report; the amended conditions set out below and the additional informative set out below.

8.     No residential development pursuant to plots 15-22 (inclusive) or Block 2 (plots 27-31) shall commence until a Design Stage / Interim Code for Sustainable Homes Certificate demonstrating that development achieves Code Level 5 for these residential units has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.  A completed pre-assessment estimator will not be acceptable.

Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy, water and materials and to comply with policy SU2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Document SPD08 Sustainable Building Design.

9.     No residential development pursuant to plots 1-14 (inclusive) or Block 1 (plots 23-26) shall commence until a Design Stage / Interim Code for Sustainable Homes Certificate demonstrating that development achieves Code Level 4 for these residential units has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. A completed pre-assessment estimator will not be acceptable.

Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy, water and materials and to comply with policy SU2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Document SPD08 Sustainable Building Design.

14.   Plots 15-22 (inclusive) and Block 2 (plots 27-31) shall not be occupied until a Final / Post Construction Code Certificate issued by an accreditation body confirming that these residential units have achieved a Code for Sustainable Homes rating of Code Level 5 has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy, water and materials and to comply with policy SU2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Document SPD08 Sustainable Building Design.

15.   Plots 1-14 (inclusive) and Block 1 (plots 23-26) shall not be occupied until a Final / Post Construction Code Certificate issued by an accreditation body confirming that these residential units have achieved a Code for Sustainable Homes rating of Code Level 4 has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy, water and materials and to comply with policy SU2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Document SPD08 Sustainable Building Design.

Additional informative:

              i.           In respect of conditions 9 & 15 of the permission hereby granted, the Local Planning Authority expects the residential units on Plots 1 to 14 (inclusive) and Block 1 (plots 23-26) to achieve a minimum of 76 points overall in the Code for Sustainable Homes assessment.

              Note: Councillors Littman and Wakefield were not present at the meeting.