Agenda item - BH2012/04044 - 9-16 Aldrington Basin/Land South of Kingsway, Basin Road, North Portslade - Full Planning Permission

Demolition of business unit to east of Magnet showroom. Erection of new building ranging from 3no to 5no storeys at Kingsway Level and a further one and a half storeys of car parking beneath Kingsway ground floor accessed via Basin Road North. Development comprises mixed use commercial premises (A1, A3, B1, D1) with associated new access and 52 residential units in 6no blocks. Change of use of existing Magnet showroom at Basin Road North level to storage (B8) with associated service area, lorry delivery bay and care parking. (Amended plans and supporting information)

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

A.                                                                 Demolition of business unit to east of Magnet showroom. Erection of new building ranging from 3no to 5no storeys at Kingsway Level and a further one and a half storeys of car parking beneath Kingsway ground floor accessed via Basin Road North. Development comprises mixed use commercial premises (A1, A3, B1, D1) with associated new access and 52 residential units in 6no blocks. Change of use of existing Magnet showroom at Basin Road North level to storage (B8) with associated service area, lorry delivery bay and car parking. (Amended plans and supporting information).

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

(2)                   The Head of Planning Strategy, Rob Fraser, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. It was noted that there had been a number a late comments since the closure of the Late List from: Councillor Peltzer-Dunn; the Kingsway and West Hove Resident Association; SaveHove and three other individual residents – furthermore a number of minor typographical errors in the report were corrected. There was also an additional recommendation that the heads of terms for the s106 agreement be amended to seek funding for the occupants of the dwellings for car club membership and a Traffic Regulation Order for a car club parking bay, and the revised wording had been circulated to Members at the start of the meeting. The application site was located in Shoreham Harbour in development area DA8 of the City Plan, and was covered by the joint area action plan between Brighton & Hove City Council, West Sussex County Council, Adur District Council and the Shoreham Port Authority. The site currently comprised the Magnet warehouse, and the application sought the demolition of this building and the small business unit to the east of the site and the construction of new buildings ranging from three to five storeys above Kingsway which would be accessed from Basin Road North and Kingsway. The application was for a mixed use scheme with commercial premises and 52 residential units; there had been a refused application that involved the use of biomass boilers and wind turbines, and the revised scheme had removed these elements and reduced the height of the some of the blocks.

(3)                   At Basin Road North level there would be the Magnet warehouse that would be B8 use with associated lorry service area and delivery bay. To the east of this there would be parking, and a B1 unit at the far end of the development would be a workshop. The car parking for the scheme was indicated on the floor plan, and was located in the eastern end of the block and the mezzanine level above.

(4)                   The whole site was covered by a development brief that sought to manage and facilitate change; as well highlighting key intervention and encouraging investment in the harbour. At Kingsway level there would primarily be commercial uses at ground floor, and working east to west there would be: a visitor centre; a clinic/medical centre; a café/restaurant; retail units and the Magnet showroom. The housing was arranged in all six of the blocks, and there would be 52 units; 20 of which would be affordable and secured through condition. There was a minimal size for each of the units, and they would have all private amenity space and balconies; as well communal outside space between each block.

(5)                   A contribution of £126K was sought for open space, and there was an additional condition in relation wheelchairs use of some units. A noise assessment had been undertaken to show future occupants would not be subject to unacceptable levels of noise, and the sound proofing would not prejudice the future use of the harbour. In relation to impact on adjoining properties there would be loss of daylight and sunlight, but this was assessed to be acceptable against the BRE guidelines, and the loss of light was not such to warrant refusal of the scheme. The loss of solar rays to the panels on nearby roofs would also be very small. The separation between the frontages was considered sufficient to prevent harmful overlooking, and a condition was sought to protect the type and hours of the commercial units at ground floor level. A construction environmental management plan would form part of the s106 agreement. The blocks would be up to five storeys on the Kingsway, and the residential units would have Code Level 6 for sustainable homes achieved through photovoltaic panels and a heat recovery system. At Basin Road North level there would be 58 car parking spaces, and a management plan was sought for the car park by condition; it was expected there would be displaced parking of up to 40 vehicles, but there was capacity for this on the surrounding streets. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended to be minded to grant subject to the signing of the s106 agreement.

Public Speakers and Questions

(6)                   Mr Les Robinson spoke in objection to the application on behalf of his client who owned Magley’s Wharf, directly in front of the site. He stated that his client did not oppose residential development at PortZed, and they welcomed the conditions in relation to the noise; however, it was felt that the relationship between PortZed and the wharf had not been properly explored. A requested study into the matter had not been undertaken, and the matter of flood risk had not been properly considered. It was also noted that although the wind turbines were not part of the application the proposed gaps could still be used to house them and no firm commitment had been received from the applicant to this extent. The Committee were asked to refuse the application.

(7)                   Mrs Sue Moffattspoke in objection to the application in her capacity as a local resident, and stated that local residents did not oppose the development of the site. The homes currently on the Kingsway received sunlight everyday, and the application would see them only receive partial sunlight, whilst Officers were of the view that this was not a loss. Facts in relation to the duration of the overshadowing had been sent in as part of the consultation, and the extent of the overshadowing would be worse from mid-October to February. Finally it was added that regeneration should not give way to an abandonment of policies, and the proposal would seriously harm the living conditions in the homes opposite.

(8)                   Councillor Peltzer-Dunn spoke in his capacity as the Local Ward Councillor and stated that the report prepared by Officers was very fair, and outlined the benefits of the scheme, but these were mainly for those who would be living in the new accommodation. Little reference had been made the adverse effect on the surrounding neighbourhood, and issues such as additional traffic were referenced. It was asked that the Committee take into account ‘reasonable views’ and note that the scheme was overdevelopment and would overshadow and overwhelm the area. The Committee were asked to refuse the application.

(9)                   Councillor Pissaridou addressed the Committee in her capacity as the Local Ward Councillor and stated that she agreed with the view of her fellow Ward Councillor; whilst she welcomed the development she felt that height and massing of the blocks, as well as the impact on sunlight, was unacceptable. She went on to make reference to the Development Brief which she argued should be given significant material consideration, and referenced inconsistencies between the proposal and the plan such that: the proposals was not set back; the proposed height conflicted with the plan and the height was the significant feature of the development.

(10)               Mr Simon Bareham and Mr Colin Brace spoke in support of the application in their roles as the agent and the applicant respectively. They stated that the proposal was for a high quality development which would provide 65 full time employment opportunities and affordable housing that comfortable exceeded the Council’s sustainability levels. The scheme had been substantially amended since the previous application including: the reduction in height of the outer towers; the removal of the wind turbines and biomass boilers and the additional commercial frontage. Due to the changes the number of units had dropped by 20%. The scheme had substantial public benefits, and the application provided for local amenity space; the building phase would also use 20% local labour, and thanks were extended to the work of Officers at the Council. Mr Brace added that the scheme had been borne out of the desire for sustainable development, and it had taken some time to get a suitable recommendation from the Planning Authority. The site needed to act as a gateway into the harbour area and act as benchmark for sustainable development nationally. The scheme had already won approximately £0.5 million of funding for the city. The Committee were asked to support the design before them.

(11)               In response to Councillor Wells it was confirmed by Mr Brace that there was no intention to add the wind turbines to the scheme at a later point; furthermore any such amendment would required planning permission.

(12)               Councillor Randall asked about apprenticeships as part of the construction phase, and it was explained that the Economic Development Team at the Council had a local enterprise scheme and this was also required as part of the code for sustainable homes. It had also been made a condition of the tendering that each service would take on at least one apprentice. Councillor Randall also asked about comments from the Fire Service and it was explained that there would be an internal sprinkler system, and dry risers on each level of the residential accommodation.

(13)               Councillor Davey asked the applicant for more information in relation to residents’ concerns about the loss of light, and it was explained that an independent assessment of daylight issues had identified three properties with solar panels, but these were all largely located on western facing roofs; the assessment had also found these three properties would suffer a small loss of sunlight. In relation to a further query from Councillor Davey it was then explained that in the new development very low heat loss would be achieved by triple/quadruple glazing draft proofing and a heat recovery system; as well as integrated photovoltaic panels that would provide enough electricity for use in the residential units each year; the electricity in the commercial units would still come from the national grid.

(14)               In response to queries from Councillor Hyde it was explained by Mr Bareham that the scheme had been designed to have a lower impact on neighbours, and this was achieved through the gaps between the blocks. The angling of the blocks would give contracting oblique views and this created a superior scheme.

(15)               In response to Councillor Cox it was explained that the applicant had worked with the local community by going back to first principles after the refusal of the previous scheme. Two public meetings had been held, and Mr Brace had attended the AGM of the residents association. The residents’ concerns had been addressed and the height of the end blocks had been reduced taking the residential units from 67 to 52; as well as the removal of the wind turbines and the biomass boilers. If the application was granted then dialogue would continue with residents during the construction phase. It was hoped the scheme would be an achievement for the city.

(16)               It was confirmed for Councillor Randall that there was an absolute commitment to the affordable housing which was sought through thes.106 Agreement and work had already been undertaken with a housing association, and there would be no future need to reduce this amount.

Questions for Officers

(17)               It was confirmed for Councillor Gilbey that the tallest blocks were approximately the same height as the blocks in the previous application. It was also confirmed that there would need to be amendments to internal layout of the units that were wheelchair accessible.

(18)               It was also confirmed for Councillor Hyde that each unit had private amenity space.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(19)               Councillor Davey stated that the applicant had made real efforts to address the previous concerns of the Committee, and he felt the scheme was much improved visually. He welcomed the gaps in the design; the amount of commercial space and the level of affordable housing in the scheme stating that he would be voting in support of the Officer recommendation.

(20)               Councillor Wells stated that the developer had done well to work with Officers, and tried to appease those living opposite by the revisions to the scheme. He stated he did not feel the loss of light would hold much in terms of the planning considerations, and he would be voting in support of the Officer recommendation.

(21)               Councillor Gilbey stated that she welcomed the scheme, but had serious concerns in relation the height of the taller blocks; she stated they were too high and they conflicted with the policy in the emerging City Plan which referenced four storeys as acceptable in this location. It was queried why an exception was being made in relation to this location, and concern was expressed that this could open the way for other tall developments in this part of the city. It was also noted that the brief had stated no building should be higher than the Vega Building, but there would be several of the towers that would exceed that height.

(22)               Councillor Randall welcomed the guarantee in relation to the affordable housing; as well as the local training and development. He stated that overall the scheme was good for the city; the s106 agreement would provide very good services. In summary he drew attention to the comments made by the Regency Society and noted the scheme would set a positive example whilst addressing the city’s housing needs.

(23)               Councillor Hamilton noted that the scheme was not located in Portslade as the address stated, and went on to add that he felt the developers were asked to do too much and this put pressures on budgets which meant that developers had to explore higher density options. He stated that all the central towers were still the same height as the previous scheme he would vote against the Officer recommendation.

(24)               Councillor Cox stated that he been thinking very hard about the scheme, and he recognised the concerns of local residents, but he noted there was a very real need for affordable homes in the city. In recent Committees some Members had expressed concerns in relation to the number of empty school places in Portslade and this would go some way to filling those places. He stated that on balance he would support the Officer recommendation.

(25)               Councillor Ken Norman noted that he still had concern in relation to the Vega Building, and went on to note the concerns raised by some of the public speakers. He added that the height of the central blocks was still too high, and the view from the surrounding roads was unacceptable; he wanted to see development in this area, but felt this scheme was not quite right. He noted the loss of light to the residents, and stated that he would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

(26)               Councillor Gilbey referenced paragraphs of the planning brief, and noted that the scheme did not protect amenity.

(27)               A vote was taken and planning permission was granted on a vote of 7 to 4 with 1 abstention.

92.1       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 11 and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report, and the additional Heads of terms to the Section 106 agreement set out below:

              i.           Funding of membership of car club for residential occupants for the first two years of occupation following completion of the development.

            ii.           A contribution of £2,000 towards funding of a Traffic Regulation Order for a car club parking bay on Kingsway.