Agenda item - BH2013/02082 - BHASVIC, 205 Dyke Road, Hove - Full Planning Permission

Construction of a new 3no storey teaching block located on the existing upper car park between College House and the main building on Dyke Road, provision of a new service area to provide access for deliveries and refuse vehicles located to the north of College House on Dyke Road, refurbishment of the existing refectory and staff room in the Link Building, installation of CCTV cameras and creation of a new landscaped area.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Construction of a new 3no storey teaching block located on the existing upper car park between College House and the main building on Dyke Road, provision of a new service area to provide access for deliveries and refuse vehicles located to the north of College House on Dyke Road, refurbishment of the existing refectory and staff room in the Link Building, installation of CCTV cameras and creation of a new landscaped area.

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

(2)                   The Case Officer, Clare Simpson, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings; the application site at Brighton & Hove and Sussex Sixth Form College was on a triangular piece of land which currently accommodated approximately 2000 students. Attention was also drawn to a sample board; matters on the Late List and some minor typographical changes to conditions. The corner building on the site was locally listed with an imposing frontage that was considered important to the street scene. There were three car parks on the site; one accessed from Dyke Road and two from Old Shoreham Road, and there were temporary classrooms located adjacent to the sports hall and pitches. Between the two main buildings on the site there was a flat area that was in use as a car park, and it was on this site that permission was sought for a 3 storey educational services building. The building would mean the loss of 29 car parking spaces, and provide a glazed link between the existing buildings, and seven new parking spaces were proposed. The design would be modern in contrast to other buildings on the site, and there were objections from neighbouring residents; a local amenity society and the Heritage Team; however, it was felt there was ample room on the site for the development and the modern design would be appropriate and the height would be between the ridge heights of the surrounding red brick buildings. There would be hedge screening at street level, as well as screening on the roof to mask some of the plant and machinery.

(3)                   Discussions had taken place with the applicant in relation to the choice of materials which had initially been a brighter palette of blue and green tones, and since then the proposals had been toned down to provide more earthy lighter tones. It was acknowledged that the design would be modern with strong lines and colours as the college wanted the building to stand out rather than replicating other design features on the site. The applicant had provided information to show that the frontage would not be bland, and the levels dropped away to soften the visual impact of the front elevation. On the roof there would be solar thermal and solar photovoltaic panels, and the building would achieve a BREEAM rating excellent. In relation to residential amenity it was considered that the height and scale were appropriate and would not create a significant loss of light or overshadowing. In conclusion it was noted that the overall scheme was acceptable and the character of the area would not be harmed as the existing buildings could be read and appreciated in their current forms; the application would also provide the enhancement of educational facilities on the site. For the reasons set out in the report the recommendation was minded to grant subject to conditions and a s106 agreement.

Questions for Officers

(4)                   Councillor Littman asked for more information in relation to the discussion with the applicant about the colour palette and their responses. The Case Officer had explained that the Heritage Officer had been keen for reds and browns to be used in the scheme, but the college had felt there would be the potential for clashing. They were keen to offer a contrast rather than a blend, and decided to soften the colour palette initially proposed to show the progression of the college.

(5)                   In response to Councillor Carol Theobald the proposed colours at the front and side elevations were confirmed, and it was explained that the boundary treatment was conditioned to blend in with the existing. It was also confirmed for Councillor Robins that the colours chosen for the coloured panels and cladding were for decorative purposes.

(6)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Gilbey that the whole site was locally listed.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(7)                   Councillor Shanks stated that she felt the removal of one of the vehicular access points would improve the traffic situation along the stretch of road; she went on to say that she felt the old building was an asset and would be supporting the new scheme.

(8)                   Councillor Hyde stated that she was pleased the college was doing well, and had secured government funding for the scheme; however, she went on to say that the proposed building was intrusive and out of character. Whilst similar applications, in terms of design, had come forward for other schools in the city they were acceptable as they did not have the level of street prominence of this site; nor did they sit next to locally listed buildings. She also noted the objections from the amenity society and the Heritage Team; the latter of whom had objected to the building being set forward and concern that it would compete with the main block. Councillor Hyde also referenced policies QD1 & QD2, and stated that the building would be detrimental and negatively impact on the locally listed buildings; as such she would not support the Officer recommendation for reasons relating to the design, materials and palette.

(9)                   Councillor Carol Theobald noted that she agreed with the comments made by Councillor Hyde. Whilst she supported the principle of a building on this site she felt the design was dark and intrusive, and had concerns in relation to the loss of the 22 spaces when there could be a need for extra staff. She went on to add that the design was ‘terrible’ and too high, and would be very visible from the street. Councillor Carol Theobald concluded by adding that she felt there could be a better solution for the site.

(10)               Councillor Jones stated he was disappointed with the colours, and whilst he understood the necessity for a state of the art modern building he did not feel the palette of materials was acceptable. The buildings either side were very attractive and enhanced the streetscene – any new building should use the existing colour palette. For these reason he would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

(11)               Councillor Wells stated he did not like the proposed colour of the cladding, and felt the palette should be more in keeping with the buildings around it; for these reasons he stated he would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

(12)               Councillor Robins stated that he agreed with most of what had been said, and he liked neither the cladding nor the design of the building.

(13)               Councillor Littman stated he thought there was an opportunity for a ‘terrific’ addition to the college, but he was unable to support the scheme.

(14)               Councillor Shanks reiterated that she was in favour of the scheme and the proposed palette.

(15)               Councillor Gilbey noted that she largely agreed with what had been said, and also drew attention to Policy QD4 stating the proposal did not respect the old building. She added that from attending the site visit she had no issue with the proposed location, but felt the design was unacceptable. Reference was also made to other schemes in the city which she felt had or had not worked well.

(16)               Councillor Davey expressed his concern that an alterative scheme could propose something more pastiche with could be ‘bland’ in nature. He added that he felt the location was right, but the proposal was too high.

(17)               Councillor Jones stated he hoped an alternative scheme could better protect the locally listed buildings.

(18)               Mr Gowans added that the proposal had not been of concern to the CAG.

(19)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to be minded to grant was not carried on a vote of 4 in support; 7 against and 1 abstention. Councillor Hyde proposed reasons for refusal and these were seconded by Councillor Jones; a short adjournment was then held to allow Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Hyde and Jones; the Deputy Development Control Manager; the Senior Lawyer and the Case Officer to draft the reasons for refusal in full. These reasons were then read to the Committee and it was agreed that they reflected that had been put forwarded by Members. A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors: Jones, Hyde, Gilbey, Robins, Littman, Carol Theobald and Wells voted that planning permission be refused; Councillor: Mac Cafferty, Cox, Davey and Shanks voted that it be granted and Councillor Carden abstained from the vote.

80.2       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer recommendation to grant, but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below:

              i.           The proposed development is obtrusive in view of its prominence in the street scene. It is out of character with the area in terms of design, materials, colour and palette and does not take account of local characteristics. Furthermore it does not respect the locally listed buildings on the site. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies QD1, QD2 and QD4 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005.