Agenda item - BH2014/00093- Lansdowne Place Hotel, Lansdowne Place, Hove - Full Planning

Part demolition, change of use and alteration and extensions, including creation of additional penthouse floor to convert existing hotel (C1) to 47no residential units (C3), creation of car parking and secure cycle parking at lower ground floor level, landscaping and other associated works. (Revised design).

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

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

(2)             The Deputy Development Control Manager, Paul Vidler, detailed the scheme by reference to site plans, floor plans, elevational drawings and photographs. A revised scheme had been submitted requesting approval for part demolition, change of use and alteration and extensions, including creation of additional penthouse floor to convert the existing hotel (C1) to 45no residential units (C3), creation of car parking and secure cycle parking at lower ground floor level, landscaping and other associated works.

(3)          The building was vacant currently and the principle of its conversion from a hotel to residential use was acceptable and would secure the future of the building. The proposed residential accommodation would be of an acceptable standard and would not adversely impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. Whilst there are concerns about the visual impact of the additional storey, the extant planning permission for a similar structure is a material planning consideration. Approval was therefore recommended.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(4)          Councillor Bowden spoke on behalf of Councillor Sykes one of the Local Ward Councillors who had submitted a letter of objection in respect of the application. Councillor Sykes had expressed particular concern regarding the detrimental impact of the proposed form of development, particularly on the residents of 2 Brunswick Street West. The occupants of this property had already suffered water ingress from the adjacent Lansdowne Hotel building and it was suggested that investigations and any remedial work to address this formed part of any immediate measures to make the building safe.

(5)          Martin Taylor spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He referred to the issues raised in relation the current condition of the building and explained that works had already been begun and would be on-going to address water penetration and any other issues. The scheme as submitted would include fewer units than earlier schemes and had been designed to respect the neighbouring buildings a number of which were listed.

Questions for Officers

(6)          Councillor Cox stated that he was confused by Councillor Sykes’ letter which seemed to indicate that if the issues he had highlighted were addressed he might be minded to support the application. It was confirmed that his letter had been treated as a valid letter of objection.

(7)          Councillor Jones referred to the density of the development expressing concern that there was a danger of noise break–out to neighbouring buildings, seeking confirmation of the location of kitchens and other rooms which could give rise to nuisance. He requested assurance that remedial measures would be put into place to address any potential nuisance.

(8)          Councillor Hyde referred to the Penthouse element of the scheme and sought clarification of its appearance within the roof line, and the degree to which this would be set back from the main frontage of the building, also details of any cladding to be used, re-iterating her earlier concerns in relation to the use of zinc cladding, particularly in this location where a constrained site was in close proximity to a number of listed buildings.

(9)          Councillor Gilbey enquired regarding the 14 car of parking spaces, to be provided, 5 of which would be for disabled persons accessed from Brunswick Street West. Further parking for residents would be on street nearby. The Committees’ attention was drawn to the measures which the applicant’s had undertaken including 2 year membership of the City Car Club to address any potential implications arising from overspill parking.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)       Councillor Hyde stated that whilst she was supportive of the scheme overall she considered that it would be appropriate for materials and surface treatments, particularly to the penthouse flat to be agreed by the Development Control Manager in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chair and the Opposition spokespersons. The Committee indicated that they were in agreement.

(11)       Councillor Davey whilst indicating his support for the scheme considered it was important for the applicants to continue to work with neighbouring residents.

(12)       Councillor Jones enquired whether regarding party wall arrangements being put into place to ensure the structural integrity of immediately neighbouring properties, e.g.,2 Brunswick Street West. The Deputy Development Control Manager explained that although this could be included as an informative, these issues would need to be addressed in order to meet the requirements of Building Regulations.

(13)       Councillor Hamilton sought clarification as to how the affordable accommodation would be allocated and whilst supporting the scheme considered it disappointing that it seemed unlikely that it would be made available to those on the housing waiting list.

(14)       Councillor Carden stated that he supported the scheme which would provide much housing.

(15)       The Chair stated that whilst there were concerns in relation to some elements of the scheme including the provision of a penthouse floor both in the context of the host building and its appearance within the neighbouring street scene, he was mindful of the earlier permission and the period which the building had been empty and was therefore supporting the report recommendations.

(16)       A vote was taken and Members voted unanimously that they were minded to grant planning permission in the terms set out below.

43.2       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and the policies and guidance in section 7 of the report and resolves that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a S106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11.

              The List of Drawing numbers set out in Condition 2 should be amended to read:

The following additional informatives also to be added:

The applicant is advised that a number of issues were raised by the occupiers of adjoining properties relating to party walls, structural matters resulting from water ingress and soundproofing during the consideration of the planning application. These should be addressed under the Building Regulations and other appropriate legislation.

Details of materials to be provided under condition 6, to include the penthouse painted grey, are to be agreed by the Head of Development Control in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.