Agenda item - BH2013/02838 - Richmond House, Richmond Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing 2no storey building and construction of part three storey part five storey building providing 138 rooms of student accommodation, with associated ancillary space, 76 cycle spaces, removal of existing trees, landscaping and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Demolition of existing 2no storey building and construction of part three storey part five storey building providing 138 rooms of student accommodation, with associated ancillary space, 76 cycle spaces, removal of existing trees, landscaping and other associated works.

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

(2)                   An update was provided in relation to the policy context by the Senior Planning Officer, Steve Tremlett, resulting from an Inspector’s decision on another site which was received the day before the meeting that updated the policy comments submitted in regard to the application. The policy comments previously stated that Policy CP21 could be afforded ‘significant’ weight; the Inspector had determined that the policy had ‘limited’ weight; however, by doing so the Inspector had still acknowledged the policy had some weight. The Inspector also confirmed that Policy CP21, by promoting the retention of housing sites, is in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The recommendation of the policy team in regard to the application under consideration was therefore unaltered.

(3)                   The Senior Planning Officer, Liz Arnold, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. In reference to the above information in relation to policy; it was noted that the wording at 8.12 should be amended to give ‘limited’ weight to the policy rather than significant and that there was an error in recommended reason for refusal 2 in that reference to Policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan should not have been included. Since the publication of both the agenda and the Late List a further two representations had been received, but these highlighted no new material considerations. The application sought demolition of the existing building and construction of a new two storey building to provide 138 self-contained units for student accommodation. The site was currently vacant and adjacent to the Roundhill conservation area; to the north of the site was Diamond Court a new residential development which had been recently occupied, and an industrial estate to the north-west. Another application for student accommodation had been refused by the Committee earlier in the year for reasons in relation to design; the redundancy of the existing use and the principle of the development in relation to the emerging City Plan. The proposed scheme would be 3-storeys fronting onto Richmond Road; there would be 4 wheelchair accessible rooms and lifts on each floor; as well as associated facilities and common areas and 76 cycle spaces.

(4)                   In relation to the considerations it was noted that the applicant had not adequately demonstrated that the existing use was redundant – which was in contradiction to policy. Furthermore the emerging City Plan identified the site for housing, as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), and student accommodation on the site could compromise the ability of the Council to meet housing targets. The proposed building had been designed to follow the curves of the road; however, the mass and bulk were considered excessive and would compromise some of the views into the conservation area. Officers were also concerned with the impact on amenity, and felt it was unneighbourly in relation to Diamond Court. There was also concern with  some aspects of the design where units faced out onto the cycle storage, and lack of information from the applicant to demonstrate sufficient daylight or sunlight to some of the ground floor rooms. For the reasons outlined in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

(5)                   Ms Annie Rimington spoke in opposition to the application in her capacity as a local resident stating that residents were not opposed to development at the site or students living on the site, but had concerns about the impact on the conservation area. Residents were also unconvinced about the argument that the development would reduce the number of HMOs in the city as the accommodation would be provided for foreign students, who normally stayed with host families and  were not ‘typical renters’. The population density of the area would be approximately three times that of a medium sized city suburb. The development would also damage an important green corridor; as well blocking views in and out of the conservation area. Concern was also expressed in relation to the safety of the access, and nearby traffic. The Committee were asked to refuse the application.

(6)                   In response to Councillor Davey it was explained by Ms Rimington that the building had been vacated this year, but it had not been properly maintained in recent years.

(7)                   Councillor West addressed the Committee in his capacity as the Local Ward Councillor and stated that the previous application had been refused by the Committee approximately six months ago. Whilst the applicant had made some changes to address concerns the fundamental reasons for refusal still remained that housing was vitally needed in the city, and the views in and out of the conservation area would be compromised. Issues still remained with the massing and bulk and concern remained with the access to the site through the conservation area; as well as noise from the windows and terraces. There was also a lack of details in relation to cycle and refuse storage, and proper consideration of flood and contaminated land. There was strong opposition to the scheme from residents, and thanks were extended for their efforts to come together a second time.

(8)                   Mr Lomax and Mr Burges spoke in support of the application in their capacities and the architect and planning agent respectively. Mr Lomax stated that there was an entirely different approach to the development; he took great care in the developments he was involved within the city, and would not have proposed a scheme that he felt was not appropriate. He explained that the amenity space had been moved the centre to create a noise buffer, and concerns with amenity had also been dealt with. The building would be pitched on the south-west elevation with different treatments, and it was reported that the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) had no objection to the scheme. The line of the railway embankment had limited life, and the main green barrier was outside of the development site. The issues in relation to cycle and refuse storage could be easily dealt with by condition, and it was highlighted there was a growing need for this type of accommodation as both universities were planning to expand.

(9)                   Councillor Cox asked about Ms Rimington’s comments that the type of student would not be those that would normally live in HMOs and in response it was explained by Mr Lomax that is was difficult for him to make an assessment, but he highlighted that there was low provision of specialised student housing within the city.  Mr Burges confirmed the accommodation would be for both UK and overseas students.

(10)               Councillor Davey asked Mr Lomax for more information in relation to overshadowing and access, and in response it was explained that at the move in and out dates all students would be allocated time slots to ease access. In relation to overshadowing there was adequate distance between the proposed development and Diamond Court; the proposal would also be set back at the top level.

(11)               Mrs Montford clarified on behalf of the CAG that the group had not objected to the scheme on conservation grounds.

Questions for Officers

(12)               The Head of Planning Strategy, Rob Fraser, explained that evidence suggested the increase in the number of students within the city was being broadly addressed through the plans from the two universities. A statement of common ground had been agreed with the University of Brighton to seek further sites for student accommodation in Part Two of the emerging City Plan.

(13)               In response to queries from Councillor Hyde it was explained that the site was identified in the SHLAA for 12 dwellings as part of a mixed use scheme and the nearest distance between the proposal and Diamond Court was clarified. In response to a further query it was explained that the inspector decision, which had informed the weight given to policy CP21, had been received the day before the Committee, but it was important to give it consideration in view of this application and the weight that could be placed on the policy.

(14)               In response to Councillor Carol Theobald the position of the dormer windows was clarified.

(15)               Councillor Gilbey asked if the accommodation had the support of either of the two city universities, and Officers explained that they had received written confirmation to this extent, and this had not formed part of the reason for refusal.

(16)               In response to a query from Councillor Davey it was explained that the information provided had not demonstrated enough sunlight to aspects of Diamond Court; in particular as some of the units were single aspect.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(17)               Mrs Montford reinforced the comments that had been made by the CAG that the proposal was too solid; too sombre, and too dark in contrast to the bright colours of the conservation area.

(18)               Councillor Hyde explained that she knew the area very well; she appreciated the need for student housing, but felt the proposal was too much for the site and would be cramped and bulky. The suggested allocation of a mixed residential and commercial scheme seemed much more appropriate, and she would be voting in support of the Officer recommendation.

(19)               Councillor Carol Theobald stated she was torn on the application, and she acknowledged that the scheme had been amended since the previous refusal; the CAG had also not objected on conservation grounds and the proposal would ‘free up’ housing elsewhere as well as provide student accommodation.

(20)               Councillor Davey stated that he was concerned about the impact on Diamond Court, and he did not believe that the redundancy of the existing use had been demonstrated.

(21)               Councillor Cox noted his concern that the recent decision of the inspector had, in his view, undermined the recommendation form the Case Officer; however, he was unconvinced by the applicant’s argument that the proposal would allow existing students homes to go back into residential use in the city. Councillor Cox added that he was torn, but acknowledged that the scheme was not without merit.

(22)               Councillor Jones stated that there were aspects which were an improvement, but overall the bulk and massing remained an issue. He also stated that the proposed other uses of the site had merit, and, like Councillor Cox, he was not convinced it would free up other homes within the city.

(23)               A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on a vote of 7 to 0 with 3 abstentions.

105.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 11 and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reasons for Refusal:

              i.           The submitted elevational plans lack detail and clarity. Notwithstanding the lack of detail the proposed development, by virtue of its design, which includes a bulky roof form, bulky mansard dormer features and projecting bay details, is unacceptable and would cause harmful impact upon the visual amenities of the Richmond Road/D’Aubigny Road street scenes 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 of the Round Hill 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, this in turn would have a harmful impact upon the distinctive layout and predominance of green space of the area when 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.

            ii.           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, which would therefore compromise the Council’s ability to meet its housing needs and set an unwelcome precedent for the approval of student accommodation on other housing sites across the City in the future. For this reason the proposed development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and policies CP1 and CP21 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.

          iii.           The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the existing B1 office use is no longer viable and genuinely redundant by failing to adequately 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.

           iv.           The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed north facing accommodation would receive sufficient levels of daylight/sunlight Furthermore it is considered that the ground floor units would have an oppressive outlook due to the positioning of the proposed cycle storage facilities, facilities which would also create noise disturbance to the ground floor residents. As such the proposal would provide a poor standard of accommodation to the future ground floor residents, harmful to the amenity of future occupiers. As such the proposal is contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

             v.           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 the building 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. 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.

           vi.           The applicant has failed to demonstrate that adequate refuse and recycling provision can 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:

              i.           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.

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