Agenda item - BH2013/01575 - Enterprise Point & 16-18 Melbourne Street, Brighton - Outline application some matters reserved

Outline application for the demolition of 16-18 Melbourne Street and the construction of a new 5 storey building comprising 15 no. residential units (including 3 no. affordable). Demolition of the South wing of Enterprise Point, provision of an additional storey on the remaining block and 7 storey extension to the West (front) elevation to provide 1030 sq m of upgraded Class B1 offices on the lower ground and ground floors together with 58 no. residential units. Construction of a new 4 storey building in the South East corner of the site comprising 65 sq m. of community space on part ground floor and 15 no. affordable residential units. (Amended description, plans and documents).

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Outline application for the demolition of 16-18 Melbourne Street and the construction of a new 5 storey building comprising 15 no. residential units (including 3 no. affordable). Demolition of the South wing of Enterprise Point, provision of an additional storey on the remaining block and 7 storey extension to the West (front) elevation to provide 1030 sq m of upgraded Class B1 offices on the lower ground and ground floors together with 58 no. residential units. Construction of a new 4 storey building in the South East corner of the site comprising 70 sq m. of community space on part ground floor and 15 no. affordable residential units. (Amended description, plans and documents).(Appearance and landscaping to be reserved matters).

(1)                   The Major Projects Officer, Mick Anson, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application sought outline permission for the redevelopment and conversion of the existing buildings to create 88 residential units and 1030 sqm of B1 commercial space; in relation to the outline application the Committee were being asked to determine the building heights; layout; floor plans; access and parking. The site fronted Melbourne Street which led onto Lewes Road; currently there were two access points, and the northern boundary of the site adjoined the Crematorium where there was a large ‘belt’ of trees. There was a nearby converted industrial premises that was now flats, and to the west there was the playground for St. Martin’s School. The site currently had vacant leisure space, and around the wider site there were 80 parking spaces. It was highlighted that the site rose quite steeply and there was a difference in ground levels between the front and rear. To the west of the site was Viaduct Lofts which was currently two metres higher than the highest roof line of Enterprise Point. The proposals sought to extend the building at the current frontage to provide B1 offices, and there would be parking at the lower ground floor for 24 residential spaces – including 8 disabled spaces; the existing parking to the north would be retained for use in association with the commercial space on the site. In total there would be 29 commercial parking spaces and 24 residential spaces with 155 cycle spaces.

(2)                   The scheme proposed the replacement of the existing south-wing to provide 4 storeys of accommodation with 15 affordable housing units – all with private gardens to the rear; there would also be a community garden on the site. In order to construct the new block it would be necessary to excavate between two and three metres; the new south block would also be bought forward 5 metres, but instead be 5.6 metres away from the boundary. Using the floor plans it was highlighted that the new block would be separated from the existing building, and it was noted that the new block included some cutbacks to retain the 45 degree angle of the windows. The new south block would also have a green roof. The appearance and façade of the building was a reserved matter, but it was noted the flats would have balconies. The policy issues were considered in the report, and whilst it was acknowledged there was a loss of B1 floor space the applicant had provided viability information to support this loss; both this and the 20% reduced level of affordable housing had been agreed by the District Valuer. The design and scale of the application was considered acceptable in this location and would help to improve the appearance of the area. The full list of contributions as part of the S106 agreement were set out in the report, and the Committee were recommended to be minded to grant the application for the reasons set out in the report.

Questions for Officers

(3)                   Councillor Davey asked for more information in relation to the contributions for sustainable transport, and it was explained that the occupiers of the flats would have two years free membership of the Car Club and vouchers for the purchase of bicycles with the view to encourage residents to use such schemes and types of transport.

(4)                   Councillor Hyde asked about the proposed level of contributions for recreation, and the Case Officer explained that that the proposed contributions were in accordance with policy, and the applicant had agreed to these levels – the amounted represented the demand that would be created by an additional 88 units in the area.

(5)                   Councillor Pissaridou asked about the loss of the employment space on the site, and the amount that was currently in use. The Case Officer confirmed that there was currently a 40% occupancy rate, but this was broken down across the fully vacant leisure use, and the B1 space currently employed 128 staff. The scheme proposed space for approximately 100 staff, and it was noted that of the 128 current staff the majority of these worked for a call centre that took up a relatively small amount of space.

(6)                   Councillor Duncan asked about the level of affordable homes and in response the Case Officer explained the calculation of the District Valuer was based on the value of the building itself; the construction and demolition costs and the sale values of flats in this location. Based on these figures it was considered that a level of 20% affordable acceptable; the recommendation was proposing a consent for two years to reflect that the level of affordable housing reflected the current situation.

(7)                   In response to Councillor Pissaridou it was explained that there was not currently a controlled parking zone in the area, and there were was capacity for additional vehicles on the local network. The potential for overspill had been considered, and it was felt this had been mitigated through the travel plan – the site was also located on a sustainable travel corridor.

(8)                   Councillor Jones asked about some of the ecology comments in the report, and the Case Officer explained that these were covered through the conditions, but the Committee could add more explicit conditions if they were minded to do so.

(9)                   Councillor Mac Cafferty asked about the redundancy of the existing leisure and commercial space, and it was explained that the applicant had submitted marketing information in relation to the upper floors in D2 leisure use which had been vacant for over 10 years; the vacant office space had also been marketed, and it was noted that as the space was currently occupied there would not be an expectation that this be marketed.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)               Councillor Wells stated that the currently building was less than satisfactory and the application would help to enhance the area. He approved of the provision of new balconies, but felt that more could have been done to achieve a high level of affordable housing on the site; however, overall he would support the Officer recommendation.

(11)               Councillor Davey noted that the scheme was very positive and would help to contribute to the rapidly improving Lewes Road area together with the recent transport measures. He hoped this would improve the numbers in some of the schools in the area and provide a population of more permanent residents; for these reason he would support the Officer recommendation.

(12)               Councillor Hyde added that there was currently a lot of wasted space on the site which the application made good use of; she would support the Officer recommendation.

(13)               Councillor A. Norman noted that she liked the appearance of the scheme, and Officers confirmed that the construction impact on the neighbouring school would be managed through the Construction & Environmental Management Plan.

(14)               Councillor Hamilton noted his concern that applicant’s were asked to balance many factors when submitted schemes in particular the S106 contributions, and this created a squeeze on the level of affordable housing.

(15)               The Head of Development Control, Jeanette Walsh, highlighted that the purpose of the S106 agreement was to mitigate the impact of the development locally, and policy recognised that this needed to be balanced against securing levels of affordable homes.

(16)               Before the vote was taken Councillor Hyde requested that the materials’ pallet  be agreed by the Head of Development Control in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons, and this was unanimously agreed by the Committee. A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation that the application be minded to grant was unanimously agreed.

129.1    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.