Agenda item - BH2013/01600 - City College, Pelham Street, Brighton - Hybrid Application-Part Full/Part Outline application some matters reserved

Hybrid planning application comprising: Phase 1: Full planning application for erection of an 8 storey (ground plus 7) College building of 12,056 sqm and ancillary accommodation (use class D1), with associated access, infrastructure and, public realm improvements and landscaping. Phase 2a: Full planning application for demolition of Pelham Tower and erection of a 10 (ground plus 9) storey building of 12,647 sqm to provide 442 student residential units and ancillary accommodation (sui generis use class), with associated access, infrastructure, public realm improvements and landscaping.  Phase 2b: Outline planning consent for the demolition of York, Trafalgar and Cheapside Buildings, and the erection of up to 125 residential units (use class C3) (access, layout and scale).

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

A.                 Hybrid planning application comprising: Phase 1: Full planning application for erection of an 8 storey (ground plus 7) College building of 12,056 sqm and ancillary accommodation (use class D1), with associated access, infrastructure and, public realm improvements and landscaping. Phase 2a: Full planning application for demolition of Pelham Tower and erection of a 10 (ground plus 9) storey building of 12,647 sqm to provide 442 student residential units and ancillary accommodation (sui generis use class), with associated access, infrastructure, public realm improvements and landscaping.  Phase 2b: Outline planning consent for the demolition of York, Trafalgar and Cheapside Buildings, and the erection of up to 125 residential units (use class C3) (access, layout and scale).

 

1)                      The Senior Planning Officer, Kathryn Boggiano, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs, elevational drawings and artists impressions of the scheme; attention was drawn to matters on the Late List and additional representations received. It was noted that since the publication of the agenda an additional 22 standard letters of objection had been received, and an objection had been withdrawn from a local resident. The application site was located in the North Laine Conservation Area, and the site also adjoined the Valley Gardens Conservation Area. There were two nearby listed churches St. Bartholomew’s and St. Peter’s. The Trafalgar Building which was due to be demolished had some historic value, but the building had been altered, and the Gloucester building would be retained. The Committee were also provided details of an approved scheme that had received permission in 2008 subject to the completion of a s106 agreement, but this had not been implemented as the funding from the Learning and Skills Council had been lost when the organisation was dissolved; the local planning authority had formally disposed of the application in 2011. The 2008 approval had been for a mixed residential and commercial scheme, and at that time the college had envisaged a two campus approach in which 10,000 sqm of learning space would be provided at the Pelham Street campus.

 

2)                      The hybrid application sought permission for a three phased development with full permission for first two phases consisting of the new college building and 442 student residential units, and outline permission for up to 125 residential units east of Pelham Street. The application also included significant public realm improvements, and new access under the archway at York Place. It was highlighted that the residential aspect of the scheme was outline and only matters in relation to the siting, scale and height were being considered: not the external details or the landscaping. There was a decant strategy for the whole site which would allow it to remain operational throughout the build. There was no external funding for the scheme, and the student and residential accommodation acted as enablers. The planning application had an accompanying EIA. In relation to representations 155 letters of objection had been received; as well as letters from two of the local Ward Councillors – West and Deane. There had been no objection from technical consultees, but both the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) and the North Laine Resident’s Association (NLRA) had objected; whilst the application had received support from the Business Forum.

 

3)                      The lowest point of the scheme would be on the Pelham Street frontage where the scheme would be 8 storeys, but this would appear as 7 from Whitecross Street due to the difference in the levels. The front of the college would be glazed with a screen of louvers and cladding; the plant on the roof of the building would be recessed and screened, and it was noted the roof line of the proposed scheme would be lower than the approved height of the college in the 2008 scheme. In front of the new college building would be a new public square and a row of trees would be planted on the southern boundary. There had been some concerns in relation to noise from the new square, and it had been agreed through condition that the alleyway adjacent to Whitecross Street would be locked in the evenings, and the area would be monitored through security provided by the college. It was noted that the current college had 30,000 square metres of floor space; 10,000 of this was circulation space, and the remaining 20,000 was considered inefficient for modern teaching. There was 12,000 square metres of space provided at the new college and with space at the Wilson Avenue campus the total space would be approximately 20,000 square metres; however, this would be 6,000 less than the approved 2008 scheme. This loss of teaching space was weighed against the long term aspirations of the college and the significant public benefits of a new ‘fit for purpose’ college building.

 

4)                      In relation to the student residential accommodation it was explained that the main entrance would be from Pelham Street with active street frontages, and the first floor and above would form a ‘U’ shape. The lowest section of the building was at the corner of Pelham Street and Cheapside, and the tallest section would be ten storeys, but read as nine from the street level. On all elevations the building would be broken up into vertical sections, and long sections of glazing would help to achieve visual horizontality; recessed bedrooms would also be a feature to create greater depth. The policy basis (CP21) in the submitted City Plan had identified 300 student accommodation units on the site, but there was no objection in principle to a figure in excess of 300. Sussex University had also confirmed that they wished to rent the accommodation and manage it through a third party management company. Any student living at the site would enter into a contractual management agreement in relation to their behaviour, and Officers were of the view that the provision of student accommodation was in line with policy. It was noted that concern had been expressed in relation to student behaviour in surrounding streets, but it was not possible for the application to condition against this, nor could the applicant be responsible for such behaviour; however, it had been agreed that the management company would attend the Local Action Team meetings.

 

5)                      In relation to the residential accommodation it was noted that there would be 30 disabled parking spaces, but future occupiers would not be eligible for on-street parking permits. The building would be similar in height to the Cheapside building, and only 0.8 metres higher than the proposed building in the same location in the 2008 application. Some of the key views were highlighted to the Committee, and it was noted that there would be an improved view of the Grade I listed St. Bartholomew’s from Pelham Street and the street would be widened. From Sydney Street the proposed building would be 16 metres lower than the current Pelham Tower, but would be perceived to be higher closer to it as it covered a wider area. From Grand Parade the views were improved, and from New England Street the mass was moved with a reduction in the height. In relation to daylight impacts there was an increased impact on some properties on Whitecross Street and Trafalgar Street where some fell below recommended levels, but it was acknowledged that the daylight levels were already poor on these aspects due to the city centre location, and it was considered acceptable given the wider benefits of the scheme.

 

6)                      An assessment had been undertaken of the construction impact; work would take place over a four year period and concurrently on the student ands residential aspects of the scheme. The working hours would be 0800 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday; until 1300 hours on Saturday and no work on Sundays and bank holidays. The assessment had identified noise thresholds and there would be a need for mitigation; as well as a formal Construction and Environmental Management Plan and an agreement with Environmental Health for the different phases of construction activities, and it was considered that these two agreements were the best way to secure mitigation measures. The sustainability and viability matters were set out in the report, and it was highlighted that the student and residential aspects of the scheme were enablers, and the viability assessment had been assessed as well as the £300k affordable housing contribution – both of which were considered acceptable. There was also the provision for a claw back scheme to provide further affordable housing offsite. It was highlighted that the scheme offered substantial public benefits; improved public realm, and was recommended to be minded to grant subject to conditions and the agreement of S106 agreement.

 

Public Speakers and Questions

 

7)                      Mr Peter Crowhurst spoke in his capacity as the Chair of the North Laine Residents Association and stated that the application would have a huge negative impact; contravened planning policy and should be rejected by the Committee. Policy highlighted 300 student residential units on the site, and there was not sufficient evidence of the mitigation measures for the increased number of students. There were already noise problems in the local area and this application would increase these issues. The scale, mass and height of the proposed development was inappropriate as the housing in the wider North Laine area was low rise; painted white and on narrow streets; the application also impaired views from the conservation area, and the scale should reflect the character of the area. The effectiveness of the construction plan was questioned, and it was argued there was no need for the new college as the existing one was doing very well. The Committee were asked to refuse the application as people would leave the area if the application were approved.

 

8)                      Mr Clint Powell, a local resident, also addressed the Committee with Mr Crowhurst and added there were similar concerns that had been expressed with the 2008 application in relation to the Section 61 Agreement signed with Environmental Health, and it was felt this could not be fully relied upon to protect the amenity of local residents. Residents were not opposed to the college selling off land, but felt the construction phase would make their homes unliveable, and the construction plan was only confirmed for the first phase of the build.

 

9)                      Councillor Deane addressed the Committee in her capacity as the Local Ward Councillor. She stated that whilst Officers had recommended that the scheme be minded to grant she was asking the Committee to refuse. The objections were not aimed at the college itself, but the application was not financially viable as the college could only go forward with the scheme by including both residential and student aspects on the site. The level of student accommodation was in contradiction to policy, and it was considered that Officers should have pushed the applicant further on the level of affordable housing; as the figure was only half that which could normally be required. The plans offered little in the way of biodiversity and there would damage to the neighbourhood and the quality of life for residents. Concern was expressed that the major development could quickly become unfit for purpose in a few years due to the reduction in teaching space at the new site. It was highlighted that the college had done well in its last OFSTED report, and this was more of a ‘vanity’ project that had the potentially to compromise the City Plan at the outset. Attention was drawn to the letters of objection and that most were from people living in the local area for many years.

 

10)                 Mr Peter Hoffman, the Chair of Governors at the College, spoke in support of the scheme and explained the scheme would transform the future of further education in the city for the next 40 years, and could have provision for 10,000 students a year, and many of these students would go on to live and work in the local area. The application would be a key component for regeneration in the city, and in particular this would impact on the London Road area. It would provide £80 million of investment and create 140 new construction jobs. The developers had worked to communicate with residents through the life of the application, and this has resulted in a number of alterations and refinements. In closing it was added that the proposals before the Committee would secure the investment for the future of City College.

 

11)                 In response to Councillor Randall it was confirmed by Mr Hoffman that there would be approximately 12,000 square metres of teaching space at the Pelham Street campus, and approximately 8,000 at the Wilson Avenue campus.

 

12)                 In response to Council Shanks it was explained by Mr Hoffman that much of the current space at the college was non-teaching space, and the application would provide the opportunity to grow and expand. Councillor Hyde continued this line of questioning and asked how this new application would actually be of real benefit; Mr Hoffman explained that with buildings such as the Trafalgar and Cheapside buildings the space was very outdated and difficult to operate, and there were quite long travel times between parts of the college – this all made timetabling more difficult. The new building would have less space overall, but be much more suitable to the modern and future learning techniques that would be required.

 

13)                 Mr Hoffman explained, in response to Councillor Wells, that over 140 local construction jobs would be created, and the contractor was committed to providing this through their contract.

 

14)                 In response to Councillor Carol Theobald it was explained that there would be arrangements in place to stagger the arrival and departure of students at the beginning and end of term at the student accommodation to ease traffic congestion. It was also envisaged that the accommodation would largely be let to post-graduate students who would be more likely to arrive by public transport.

 

15)                 It was confirmed for Councillor Gilbey that the college would largely be providing further education in the vast majority of cases for local residents to the city.

 

16)                 In response to Councillor Randall it was confirmed that it was the intention to use the student accommodation during the summer for language schools, and this would be managed in the same way as during the term time.

 

Questions for Officers

 

17)                 Councillor Carol Theobald asked about the loss of parking on the site, and Officers explained that there were currently 118 surface level parking spaces for staff, and the application did not propose to provide an parking for staff as the location was highly sustainable close to rail and bus services – there would be six disabled parking spaces retained on Pelham Street. Councillor Carol Theobald went on to ask about public art and historic street signs, and it was explained that the contribution was split across the different phases of the development; the final form of the public art would be agreed in consultation with local Ward Councillors; historic street names had not been conditioned, but this could be explored further with the applicant.

 

18)                 Councillor Jones asked for clarification in relation to material considerations and construction impacts. The Senior Solicitor, Hilary Woodward, explained that when a planning  application was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment there was a two stage process. First of all the construction impacts would be considered in the context of the Environmental Impact Assessment and the relevant Regulations governing this. If the EIA was considered acceptable the next stage was then to determine the planning application. In determining the planning application under the Town and Country Planning Act construction impacts were not material planning considerations, but this was not to say that the LPA could not seek to mitigate construction impacts as the recommendation in relation to this application sought to do.

 

19)                 Councillor Jones went on to ask about matters raised by objectors to the scheme that the proposal was contrary to policy and potentially open to legal challenge. In response the Senior Solicitor explained that there was clear set procedure in relation to environmental impact assessment; the assessment was a matter of judgement for Officers and it was necessary to look at the likely significant effects on the environment. The Case Officer considered that the Environmental Statement had taken on board all of the necessary information, and had considered this as part of the application and made a recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant the application. The Case Officer added that the Environmental Statement established certain thresholds for noise and clearly outlined that mitigation measures would need to be taken. Councillor Hyde also added that the Planning Authority would be able to undertake enforcement action if the applicant did not comply with the conditions. The Environmental Protection Officer, Annie Sparks, added further information in relation to the environmental impact stating there would be an agreement in the s106 agreement – under the Control of Pollution Act – to mitigate the impact. The Council had also been able to successfully enforce conditions on other sites in the city at the Magistrates Court.

 

20)                 In response to Councillor Hyde the pallet of materials was confirmed, and it was noted that the projection on the college was just less than 1 metre.

 

21)                 Councillor Hamilton returned to the issue of staff parking, and asked about staff having to move between the two college sites in the city. In response the Case Officer explained that the facilities would be split to provide a minimum need to travel between the two sites; where there would be travel a shuttle bus service would be provided as part of the wider travel plan for the site.

 

22)                 In response to Councillor Shanks the Case Officer confirmed that the views submitted by the applicant were accurate and had been verified; whereas those provided by the objectors were not verified.

 

23)                 Councillor Randall asked for more information on why the college could not be provided on the Pelham Street site and the student accommodation at the Wilson Avenue site. In response the Case Officer explained that the Wilson Avenue site had not been identified for student accommodation; furthermore the site was less suitable for that type of accommodation. The Head of Planning Strategy, Rob Fraser, added that policy CP21 of the emerging City Plan, set the criteria and stated that student accommodation should be on suitable transport corridors with easy access.

 

24)                 Councillor Gilbey asked about the daylight impact compared with the previous 2008 application. The Case Officer explained that the Committee has visited a flat on Trafalgar Street during the wider site visit, and the kitchen, Members observed, would not fail guidelines – only a smaller secondary window. It was further noted that the building line of the 2008 application would have actually been closer to the building in question and there would be screening planted as part of the application.

 

25)                 Before the Committee went into debate the Case Officer also added that: the Wilson Avenue site was constrained, in relation to use due to its location; the use of local labour would be a minimum of 20%; there would be a service lay-by to drop off at the student accommodation on Pelham Street and students would have allocated 10-15 minute slots.

 

Debate and Decision Making Process

 

26)                 Councillor Simson explained that she accepted the need for a modern college space; however, she expressed concern in relation to the reduction in the level of affordable housing, but less worried about the short-term impacts from the construction. She went on to add that the loss of staff parking was of further concern, and the loss of light to nearby properties – she would be taking all of these matters into account when voting, and added that her initial impression was of a very large scheme that would provide less teaching space.

 

27)                 Councillor Wells expressed concern in relation to the permanent loss of the parking on the site, and felt there was a missed opportunity for underground parking as the whole area was already very difficult for parking. He went on to add that the application was incongruous, and the density levels on the site would be far too high and the whole scheme would be better bought forward on the Wilson Avenue site where it would be possible to address issues such as the ground contamination and the Pelham Street site could be returned to use as housing. Councillor Wells concluded that he would not support the Officer recommendation.

 

28)                 Councillor Carol Theobald stated that the design of the 2008 application had been good, but this design still had merit and would be better than the existing Pelham Tower on the site which had become very antiquated. She went on to express her disappointment that the Trafalgar Building would be demolished, and felt there was a lost opportunity by not having the college restaurant on the top floor of the development to take advantage of the views. Concern also expressed at the loss of the parking at the site and car parking could have been negotiated as part of the application; however, overall the scheme would be a great asset for the city. In conclusion Councillor Carol Theobald stated she was torn in relation to the application.

 

29)                 Mr Gowans explained that the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) was recommending that the Committee refuse the application; it was felt the application sought to hide the different height elements it was introducing. The design was not appropriate in relation to the adjoining conservation areas and the nearby two listed buildings.

 

30)                 Councillor Randall stated that he had had a lot of contact with the college in the last few years and was very familiar with the Wilson Avenue site, but he stated he was not happy with the scheme. He referenced comments made by the objectors that the scheme would be of detriment to the North Laine area and he felt that more consideration should be given to refurbishment of the exiting facilities. Concern was expressed that the scheme sought to ‘cram’ more accommodation into the centre of the city, and in particular one of the five wards in the city that was already identified as having high levels of students, and reference was made to Former Co-op building being converted into student accommodation which was also in the same ward. There was real concern that properties in the North Laine area could increasingly turn over to student houses which would permanently change the nature of the area. There was objection from the student unions in relation to taking the bus to reach the university campuses, but it was felt this should be a real option and the Wilson Avenue site needed further consideration for student accommodation.

 

31)                 Councillor Shanks noted that the parking facilities in Trafalgar Street car park were underused, and whilst the scheme may not have been ideal it was noted that the previous 2008 application had been brought forward under the belief that it would be government funded. As the college were now funding the scheme themselves there was a necessity to provide more housing to make this viable. The issue with student accommodation was the lack of purpose built accommodation, and Councillor Shanks summarised that on balance she would support the Officer recommendation.

 

32)                 Councillor Duncan stated that the decision was difficult, and felt that the application had become more focused on housing rather than the educational aspects. He stated that he was generally in favour of this type of development; in particular the affordable housing provided at the site; however, he expressed concern in relation to the environmental standards of the application and that the Trafalgar Building should be retained as a heritage asset. In summary he stated that the collage development was necessary, but this should be provided without the enabling aspects of the scheme.

 

33)                 Councillor Hyde stated the difficult nature of the decision before the Committee, and she agreed with a great deal of what had already been said by other Members on the Committee. She stated that she had listened to the concerns from the objectors and in particular the loss of the Trafalgar Building – which was one of the first secondary schools building in Brighton. She went on to express concern that aspects of the scheme might be in contradiction to policy and made particular reference to the scale and height; the relationship to the surrounding buildings and the conservation areas; however, she also noted the balance of the argument in relation to the improved facilities for the city. In summary Councillor Hyde drew attention to her concerns in relation to the loss of space and the enabling development.

 

34)                 Councillor Carden expressed his support for the scheme, and noted his concern that often this type of large development was turned down at Committee. He noted the accessibility of the site in terms of sustainable transport.

 

35)                 Councillor Jones noted the difficulty of the decision, and stated his view that the previous scheme was better, but he understood the necessity for the enabling aspects of the scheme. He added that there was a need for a new college building, but was very troubled in relation to the loss of the Trafalgar Building and the potential impact on the North Laine area; however, on balance he felt he would vote in support of the Officer recommendation.

 

36)                 Councillor Hamilton expressed his concern that the applicant was trying to meet too many aspects and conditions from the Planning Authority, and all this made it increasingly difficult to achieve a workable scheme; this was also made increasingly difficult through the lack of public funding. He expressed concern in relation to the loss of the car parking spaces at the site and stated that some people would still access the site by car; whilst he had come with an open mind he did not feel able to support the Officer recommendation.

 

37)                 Councillor Mac Cafferty stated his view that the facilities were needed as the existing building was no longer practical or fit for purpose; he felt that overall the benefits of the scheme outweighed the maters raised by the objectors.

 

38)                 In response to some of the matters raised in relation to parking the Case Officer highlighted that there were nearby public car parks at Trafalgar Street and London Road with 275 and 528 spaces respectively. The location was considered one of the most sustainable in the city. It was noted that there could be more demand on parking as regeneration schemes came forward in the London Road area, but it was felt the local area could still accommodate those staff who would use local parking facilities. It was also confirmed that the information which accompanied the application stated that the parking was currently only used for staff.

 

39)                 A vote was taken on the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant the application and the vote was tied with 6 in support and 6 against; the Officer recommendation was then agreed on the Chair’s casting vote.

 

117.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolved to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and a s106 agreement.