Agenda item - BH2014/02308-113-119 Davigdor Road, Hove-Full Planning

Demolition of existing building and construction of a new part 4no, part 5no, part 7no and part 8no storey building providing 700sqm of office space (B1) at ground floor level and 68no residential units (C3) to upper levels. Creation of basement level car and cycle parking, landscaping, boundary treatments and other associated works.

Ward: Goldsmid

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Demolition of existing building and construction of a new part 4no, part 5no, part 7no and part 8no storey building providing 700sqm of office space (B1) at ground floor level and 68no residential units (C3) to upper levels. Creation of basement level car and cycle parking, landscaping, boundary treatments and other associated works.

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

(2)          The Senior Planning Officer (Adrian Smith) gave a presentation detailing the constituent elements of the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs. It was explained that the application related to a modern two storey building located on the north side of Davigdor Road comprising 700sqm of office accommodation. Associated parking was located to the west side and rear of the site, with access to Lyon Close from the rear.

(3)          It was noted that the site was bordered to the east by the seven storey P&H office building and three storey Preece House, and to the west by the four storey Cambridge House (Happy Cell), which comprised a mix of B1 and D1 uses. A number of single storey retail warehouses and trade counters were situated in Lyon Close to the rear, with the mainline railway beyond. A mix of two, three and four storey residential houses and flats sat opposite to the south. Permission was sought to demolish the existing office building and to replace it with a part four, part five, part seven and part eight storey building. 40% of the units would comprise affordable housing and car parking for 38 vehicles would be provided within the basement car park, 8 spaces would be allocated to the office uses and 30 to the residential flats. An area of landscaping would be provided to the front of the site.

(4)          Paragraph 8.8 of the report was corrected as it as it was clarified that all 5 wheelchair accessible units would be 1 bedrooom units. Members were also advised of late amendments to the s106 Heads of Terms as set out in Paragraph 11 of the report. It should be noted that the open space contribution had been reduced to £140,000, the local employment scheme contribution had been reduced to £17,000 and the public art contribution had been removed. The applicants had confirmed that a minimum of 4 units would be affordable rent units. Condition 11 would require amendment to reflect this, by addition of the phrase “and include a minimum 4 units of affordable rent housing” at the end of part a)

(5)          The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of development, the design of the proposed building and its impacts on the surrounding area, the standards of accommodation to be provided, the impact of the development on neighbouring amenity and transport, ecology and sustainability issues.

(6)          It was considered that the development was of a suitable scale and design that would make a more efficient and effective use of the site without harm to the surrounding townscape. The development would provide a suitable mix of additional housing, including affordable housing, without the loss of employment floorspace, and without significant harm to the amenities of adjacent occupiers. Subject to the conditions and the terms of the proposed s106 agreement the development would accord with development plan policies, minded to grant approval was therefore recommended.

              Questions for Officers

(7)          Councillor Hyde sought confirmation that 2 parking spaces were to be provided associated with the office use, if correct, she considered that number to be very low. It was confirmed that number was correct and that this had been carefully considered in line with the agreed Policy formula, taking account of the fact that a degree of on–site parking was to be provided (at basement level) and the site was located within a controlled zone. The site was well served by public transport and the level of on-site provision was considered acceptable. The Head of Development Control stated that a contribution had been suggested towards a sustainable transport infrastructure which would enable the proposed development to meet the requirements of policy TR1. These monies would be used to facilitate and encourage use of sustainable of transport locally. Councillor K Norman also sought clarification of the levels of parking to be provided.

(8)          Councillor Jones enquired regarding impact of the development, particularly to the rear. Whilst noting that the distances wall to wall between the site and the properties to the rear was generous he considered it was important to envisage the main visible massing and set back of the buildings. Councillor Jones asked to see visuals showing the impact of shadowing across the site if they were available. It was explained that the distances between the site and the neighbouring development to the rear was considered significant and on consequence the impact from the new form of development would not be harmful to neighbouring amenity. Contextual drawings Visuals showing the proposed northern and southern elevations were also shown.

(9)          Councillor Gilbey enquired regarding the level of contribution being sought towards the cost of providing school places and supporting pressure on the school infrastructure in the city which could arise in consequence of the development. Councillor Gilbey noted that a number of schools had been referenced in the report, however, as St Andrew’s Church of England Primary School had not been mentioned she sought confirmation as to whether any places available at this school had been taken account of. It was explained that St Andrew’s was a small school with 1 form of entry which had already been expanded. It was acknowledged that there was pressure on school places in this part of the city and that the contribution sought would be allocated where it could be used most appropriately.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)       Councillor Wells stated that he considered that the application represented good use of a brown field site. Whilst he had some concerns regarding the potential impact of the development in terms of pressure on school places, he noted that measures had been taken to address this issue. He considered that the scheme fitted well into the neighbouring street scene and was pleased to note that on-site parking had been provided. He was happy to support this scheme.

(11)       Councillor Hyde agreed that the scheme made imaginative use of the site and was pleased to note that it was lower in height that the earlier scheme. Such development helped to protect the urban fringe and should in her view be supported. Councillor Hyde also referred to the palette of materials to be used and it was confirmed that final approval would be subject to agreement by the Head of Development Control following consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and two Opposition spokespersons.

(12)       Councillor Bowden welcomed the scheme which would also provide much needed affordable housing. Councillor Jones also concurred in that view.

(13)       Councillor Littman concurred with all that had been said also expressing support for the scheme. The availability of school places across the city would continue to be a pressure, however an appropriate level of contribution had been sought to seek to address this issue.

(14)       Councillor Gilbey supported the scheme but considered that the mix of social housing to be provided was unlikely to assist those who needed access to affordable rental property whilst recognising that this did not constitute reasons to refuse planning permission. Councillor Carden concurred in that view.

(15)       Councillor Robins also expressed support for the scheme which he considered was of an acceptable appearance which would provide much needed housing.

(16)       A vote was taken and Members voted unanimously that Minded to Grant permission be granted in the terms set out below.

91.1       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a S106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 and as amended below:

              The s106 Heads of Terms to be amended to reflect the fact that the open space contribution has reduced to £140,000, the local employment scheme contribution has reduced to £17,000 and that the public art contribution has been removed.

              As the applicants have confirmed that a minimum of 4 units will be affordable rent units, Condition 11 to be amended to reflect this by the addition of the phrase “and include a minimum of 4 units of affordable rent housing” at the end of part a).