Agenda item - BH2013/02798 -13A-14 Stone Street & 19A Castle Street, Brighton - Full Planning

Conversion of existing two storey office and storage building on Stone Street into 1no three bedroom dwelling with associated alterations and refurbishment.  Demolition of existing two storey building on Castle Street and erection of three storey student accommodation block of 14no units.

(1)             The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings in respect of application BH2013/02798 for full planning permission and BH2013/02799 for listed building consent. The site was divided into two distinct parts, and the two areas formed one unit with all of the buildings in a poor state of repair. The building to the north of the site was listed and the building to the south also had protection as part of the curtilage of the listing and by virtue of being in a conservation area. The building on the Stone Street frontage was also on the Council’s buildings at risk register. The application sought permission for the conversion of the two-storey office building on Stone Street and demolition of the existing building on Castle Street. In terms of the listed building there was a separate application for consent for the alterations. The main considerations related to the loss of employment space, the design and appearance, impact on the listed building and conservation area, the level of accommodation, transport and highways considerations, land contamination and the suitability for student accommodation.

(2)             The Local Plan sought to address the loss of employment space, but it did not cover sui generis use which was not protected by policy, and the buildings were currently in a poor state of repair. In the Stone Street property there were limited historical features and the principle of retaining and converting was welcomed. At the Castle Street frontage there were currently structural defects and it was proposed to demolish the building and replace it with a contemporary building. The building was seen as complimentary in terms of the height of the neighbouring buildings; the Heritage Officer had considered the height appropriate for this location and the design was appropriate and would match the streetscene. In relation to the suitability for student accommodation is was noted there were supporting documents. In terms of the design this was worked around the listed building, and some of the habitable rooms had restricted light; however, this was addressed with rooflights and considered acceptable. For the reasons set out in the report the application for full planning was recommended to minded to grant and the listed building consent was recommended for approval.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(3)             Mr Chris Beasley, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application and stated that the application sought to demolish the historic stables and replace the building with a ‘blank three-storey wall’ which would not be admired. The proposed student accommodation would be very small and crowded which would create a burden on the facilities. It was felt that the student accommodation would be depend on the use by the proposed operator, and was unnecessary with other student sites opening up in the city; the high density was also not considered compatible with the neighbourhood. The Regency area of Brighton should be preserved as a tourist attraction, and there was a need for good quality housing rather than student accommodation. In summary the application was contrary to policy, would not contribute to the area and was ‘shabby’ architecture. Concern was also expressed about the future use of the site if the operator were to pull out; residents and locals were asking the Committee to refuse the application.

(4)             In response to Councillor Hyde it was stated by Mr Beasley that he could not confirm the nature of the listing of the Castle Street property.

(5)             Councillor Mac Cafferty asked Mr Beasley about the harm to the area he had highlighted, and Mr Beasley explained that the street had reached capacity and there was too much of this type of ‘high rise’ building.

(6)             Mr Richard Wrattan spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the architect. He stated that the firm had been involved in the scheme for approximately five years and were pleased to put forward a scheme to regenerate the site. The Stone Street buildings had been listed in August 2012 and this limited the form of the proposed building; with this in mind it was considered the best proposal was a single residential unit. The Castle Street aspect of the scheme was not listed as it had not passed the appropriate test, and whilst retention would have been favourable a structural engineer has assessed the site and considered the building to be beyond economical repair. It had also been considered that flats were not appropriate at this location at this part of the street had more commercial activity. The approach from the local language school was seen as an appropriate use and the site would be managed by a local letting agent. The Committee were invited to approve the applications.

(7)             In response to Mr Gowans the architect explained that the proposed render and brick work were common and popular within the city; it was recognised that the aluminium windows were modern, but they were beneficial in marine areas.

(8)             Councillor Deane asked about the building being beyond economic repair and Mr Wrattan explained that there were significant problems with the courtyard wall, which despite repair works was likely to collapse. The existing building joists would not comply with building regulations, and the building was unlikely to have foundations and would need new ones before any work were undertaken. Councillor K. Norman continued this line of question, and Mr Wrattan explained that the building could not be retained as it was in such a poor state of repair and any alterations would be dangerous to those working at the site and the floors were unsafe.

(9)             The Chair expressed his concerns about the protection of the listed building during construction; in response Mr Wrattan explained the funding for the works to the listed buildings was through the student accommodation and the developer was very keen to bring the listed building back into use. In response to further questions from the Chair it was explained by Mr Wrattan that the Castle Street height was considered appropriate and this made been decided in consultation with Officers and the proposed materials had come from discussions with the Conservation Officer.

Questions for Officers

(10)          The Area Planning Manager clarified that when the listing had been made it had not been considered necessary to extend this to the whole site.

(11)          In response to Councillor Gilbey the impact of the three-storey building on the listed building when viewed from the street was clarified using a sectional drawing.

(12)          Mr Gowans asked why the outline of the proposed student accommodation had been omitted from the north elevation of the drawings, and the officer explained that this was on account of a drafting error.

(13)          The Planning Officer (Conservation), Sanne Roberts, confirmed to Councillor Hyde that the Castle Street building was not considered to warrant statutory listing; however it currently had curtilage listing and was a ‘non designated heritage asset’ and a candidate for the local list. The Chair explored this issue further and asked how this related to the Officer recommendation; it was explained that this was a material consideration and much of the original building had been replaced with concrete blocks or patched and the building was in a very poor state of structural repair. It was also considered against the advantages of removing the building from the buildings at risk register.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(14)          Councillor Littman noted that the report referenced that the Castle Street scheme was acceptable in conjunction with the changes across the rest of the site; he stated that in his view the Castle Street scheme not acceptable on its merits.

(15)          My Gowans noted that the Conservative Advisory Group (CAG) had objected to the application, but they welcomed the Stone Street aspect; whilst the Castle Street aspect was highly controversial. He stated it was important to consider the immediate local historic environment; the history of the site; the volume of building; the building line and the proportions of the windows and doors. The building line of the non designated heritage asset had an existing yard as it had been built as a stable and there was historic interest in this – replacing this with the new building line would completely remove that history on the site. Mr Gowans stated he was not convinced by the arguments in relation to the building materials and there would be little or no relationship to the listed building. He summarised that the application should be refused as the Castle Street aspect did not preserve or enhance the conservation area and in no way helped to understand or appreciate the listed building.

(16)          Councillor Hyde stated that the Stone Street proposal was most welcome; however, she felt that the Castle Street proposal was not acceptable. She was pleased to understand the wider site was captured by the curtilage listing, and felt that features such as flint could be used to restore the site. She had concerns in relation to the materials, and pointed to better more sympathetic schemes on the street in contrast to the ‘faceless’ proposal. For the reasons that the Castle Street aspect was inappropriate she would not be able to support the Officer recommendation.

(17)          Councillor Gilbey stated that she agreed with the comments made by Councillor Hyde and as such she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(18)          Councillor Wells stated he was not satisfied with the buff brick proposed and would prefer to see flint on Stone Street to tie the two aspects together as it would be more in-keeping.

(19)          Councillor Duncan stated that the scheme was ‘almost there,’ but he could not support the proposal before the Committee. He noted that the Stone Street aspects had merits and that the city needed more residential and student accommodation.

(20)          Councillor Jones noted that the two aspects of the scheme were distinct, and he felt the Committee were being asked to accept Castle Street to achieve a good scheme at Stone Street; however the Castle Street aspect was not of a standard that he was willing to accept.

(21)          Councillor Mac Cafferty referenced policy and stated that the Committee should seek to grant schemes in conservation areas that preserved or enhanced their character or appearance. Whilst the proposal on Stone Street was commendable it was felt this did not offset the problems with the Castle Street aspects of the scheme and the proposed height, massing and building line did not respect the rhythm and vernacular of the street. It was felt that any scheme needed to respect both the old life of the building as well as the new use and the scheme could not be supported in its current form.

(22)          A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation that full planning be minded to grant was not carried on a vote of 9 against with 3 abstentions. Councillor Littman proposed reasons for the refusal and these were seconded by Councillor Duncan. A short recess was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Littman, Councillor Duncan, the Deputy Development Control Manager, the Senior Solicitor, the Planning Officer - Conservation and the Area Planning Manager to draft the reasons in full. These reasons were then read to the Committee and it was agreed that they reflected what had been put forward by Members. A recorded vote was then taken with the reasons for refusal and Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Jones, Hyde, Deane, Duncan, Gilbey, Hamilton, Littman and K. Norman voted that permission be refused and Councillors: Carden, Cox and Wells abstained from the vote.

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

          i.       The proposed building on Castle Street by reason of its height, massing, density, scale, building line and materials, and by virtue of it being an incongruous feature in the street scene, fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Regency Square Conservation Area contrary to policies HE6, QD1 and QD2 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005.