Agenda item - BH2014/02417 - Robert Lodge, Manor Place, Brighton - Council Development

Construction of two new 3 storey blocks of flats consisting of 8no one bed flats, 1no one bed wheelchair accessible flat and lift in the Southern block and 4no one bed flats and 2no two bed flats in the Northern block together with associated works including solar panels on the roofs of both blocks and the re-routing of the public footpath within the site.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Construction of two new 3 storey blocks of flats consisting of 8no one bed flats, 1no one bed wheelchair accessible flat and lift in the Southern block and 4no one bed flats and 2no two bed flats in the Northern block together with associated works including solar panels on the roofs of both blocks and the re-routing of the public footpath within the site.

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

(2)             The Senior Planning Officer, Adrian Smith, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans, and elevational drawings. Robert Lodge comprised purpose built flats on either side of the site with public gardens in the centre; there had also been a pre-fabricated office to the south of the site that had now been demolished. The application sought permission for two new 3-storey buildings to create 15 new units for social rent. The new northern block would be located on currently undeveloped land, and would be the same height as the western buildings of Robert Lodge – the proposed brick work of both blocks would match Rugby Place. The proposed southern building would be on the site of the former housing office, and there would be six parking bays, and the southern elevation would be largely rendered.

(3)             The plans also included the diversion of the public footway around the western side of the southern building. The application was for 15 units for social rent, and the buildings broadly complimented the existing ones on the site and were considered an improvement to the previous arrangement with the housing office. The application had been the subject of daylight and sunlight studies, and the greatest impact had been identified on the northeast and southeast corner. The room in the existing unit that would be most impacted had a secondary aspect, and the impact was considered acceptable. The six parking spaces would be for use by residents only, and any additional demand on the nearby network was not considered significant. The application was recommended to be minded to grant subject to conditions and the signing of the S106 agreement.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(4)             Councillor Morgan spoke in opposition to the application in his capacity as one of the Local Ward Councillors. He stated that the depth of feeling in relation to the application was clear due to the number of objections that had been received. The residents did not support the construction of the northern block as it took away too much outside space and they felt the southern block should be reduced. Lighting and design needed to be taken into account to help reduce the risk of anti-social behaviour – should the Committee be minded to grant the application residents asked that the construction be limited to Mondays to Fridays to reduce disruption, and it should be conditioned that construction vehicles not use Rugby Place. There was already heavy congestion in the nearby streets, and it was requested that the Committee refer the application back for consideration to take on board these views. Whilst there was a need for new housing in the city the schemes had to be appropriate when they were infilling Council land.

(5)             Lucy Skelton spoke in opposition to the scheme in her capacity as a local resident, and stated that she and her family had lived in Rugby Place for the last 10 years. She was speaking on behalf of residents, but wished to note that there was general support for the Council’s position to build more housing. The proposed northern block would be built on much loved open space and close to living rooms and windows. The southern block would be 3-storey – replacing the previous single-storey building. The design was inappropriate and did not compliment Rugby Place; the residents of Rugby Place were also concerned about the loss of privacy, and asked that the block be reduced by 1-storey. It was also felt that there was no justification for having a south facing balcony, and it would make more sense to turn the balconies round to give a view over the garden – this would not create a loss of light. Residents were also seeking assurances that Rugby Place would not be used by construction vehicles, and that works would be limited to Mondays to Fridays. In summary the Committee were requested to refuse the application, and residents would welcome the opportunity for a better design to come forward.

(6)             Sam Smith spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant [the Council]; he stated that this was one of the first schemes to come forward as part of the Council’s New Homes for Neighbourhoods initiative – which aimed to bring forward 500 new homes on Council owned land. The use of sites like this would be fundamental to the initiative, and the scheme was one of the few that was 100% affordable rented housing. The application had been the subject of consultation, and changes had been made in response to residents’ views to include: a reduction in the size of the southern block and footprint; the introduced of planting into the scheme and on-site parking. There was also a commitment to work closely with the Robert Lodge Residents.

(7)             Councillor Phillips asked about the rationale for the south facing balconies and Mr Smith explained that in order to move the balconies to the north the living rooms would also have to be moved creating much darker flats to the detriment of the living space.

Question(s) for Officers

(8)             In response to Councillor Hyde it was confirmed that a construction management plan was submitted with the application, and the delivery point was conditioned within the recommendations – as well as the hours of construction and the storage of materials.

(9)             In response to Councillor C. Theobald the height difference between the southern block and the buildings on Rugby Place was clarified, and the location of the bin and cycle storage was also confirmed. Officers went on to clarify that the narrowest distance between the existing buildings and the new ones would be 5.5 metres.

(10)          Councillor Robins asked question about the car parking spaces and the Principal Transport Officer, Steven Shaw, explained that there were six, and the likely potential overspill was not a reason for refusal. Consideration had been given to data at Ward level and this had been narrowed down to the location – rather than look at the city as a whole. It was also noted that the development was for 1 and 2 bedroom flats as such it was considered there would be less demand for parking, and the area was also served very well by public transport.

(11)          In response to queries from Councillor Gilbey it was clarified that the new location of the footpath would not allow for any direct views into the windows of properties. In terms of the loss of light to the most affected property it was clarified that the light would fall just short of the recommended threshold, but there was a secondary window to help reduce excessive enclosure.

(12)          In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was confirmed that it was proposed that 2 of the 6 parking bays would be for disabled use as there was one wheelchair accessible unit, and to allow for visitors.

(13)          In response to Councillor Davey it was confirmed that the footprint of the proposed southern building would be smaller than that of the demolished housing office, and the northern would site would cover 8% of the total communal garden space.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(14)          Councillor Hyde stated that the site visit had been very useful, and the majority of her concerns related to the most affected flat in terms of the loss of light. She felt the design was good, and it would not be appropriate for it to try and replicate the Victorian style of property in Rugby Place, but there would be some attempts to tie this in with the brickwork. She favoured the provision of balconies, and noted that as they did not overhang the properties they overlooked would be afforded greater privacy, and from the site visit she was of the view that there would actually be no overlooking. She welcomed the proposal from the applicant for 500 new homes on land owned by the Council, and felt this was the appropriate way forward. She welcomed the improved facilities on the green space at the site, and she agreed the parking was adequate given the location and type of accommodation. Councillor Hyde went on to note that amendments had been made during the life of the application, and she would support the Officer recommendation as she was not of the view that the potential harm warranted refusal.

(15)          Councillor Wells noted that the city was desperate for new affordable homes, and the proposed blocks would fit in well with the rest of the site. The Officers had worked well with residents to bring forward an appropriate scheme. He agreed that the gains outweighed the potential harm, and noted that parking would not be an issue in this location.

(16)          Councillor C. Theobald stated that she supported increasing the city’s housing stock, but she was concerned about the northern block - particularly the close proximity of the pathway. She felt the scheme would be better if it had formed two separate applications.

(17)          Councillor Davey stated that he heard the resident’s concerns and the points made by Councillor Morgan, but he felt that the applicant had worked to address these and the proposals were modest in scale – for these reasons he would support the Officer recommendation.

(18)          Councillor Gilbey stated that she was less concerned about the balconies, but felt that residents should be restricted from using them to dry laundry. She felt that the new blocks would be too close to existing housing, and noted that the secondary window of the most affected property looked out onto a bank. Whilst she acknowledged the need for new housing in the city she felt that a better scheme could come forward on this site.

(19)          Councillor Robins stated that the Committee were broadly in support of new housing at this location, but there were concerned about the southern block – in response it was clarified that the Committee could only consider the scheme before them in its entirety.

(20)          Councillor Cox stated that there was need for more social housing in the city, and the Committee had a responsibility to show leadership and support this scheme.

(21)          The Chair stated that his concerns had been addressed at the site visit, and he felt secure about the future amenity at the site. He stated that he would be voting in support of the Officers recommendation, and it was important that the Committee support appropriate housing schemes in the city.

(22)          A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation that permission be minded to grant was approved by the 11 Members present with 8 in support and 3 against.

103.1      RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the S106 agreement and the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

Note: Councillor Jones was not present at the meeting.