Agenda item - BH2014/01637 - Land at 54 Hollingdean Road & 46 Freehold Terrace and 52 Hollingdean Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of all buildings at 54 Hollingdean Road and erection of a part 3, 4, 5 and 6 storey building (plus basement) to form 205 student rooms (180 cluster bedrooms, 19 studios and 6 accessible rooms) with kitchen and common room facilities, cycle storage and refuse facilities.  Associated works include photovoltaic panels on the roof of 6th storey, roof gardens on 3rd, 4th and 5th storeys and general planting and landscaping of grounds.     Demolition of 46 Freehold Terrace and erection of a 4 storey building comprising 8 affordable housing units.    Change of use and refurbishment of 52 Hollingdean Road from A1 retail with residential above to form an associated management suite including reception, offices, toilets, laundry facilities and staff kitchen.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Demolition of all buildings at 54 Hollingdean Road and erection of a part 3, 4, 5 and 6 storey building (plus basement) to form 205 student rooms (180 cluster bedrooms, 19 studios and 6 accessible rooms) with kitchen and common room facilities, cycle storage and refuse facilities.  Associated works include photovoltaic panels on the roof of 6th storey, roof gardens on 3rd, 4th and 5th storeys and general planting and landscaping of grounds.     Demolition of 46 Freehold Terrace and erection of a 4 storey building comprising 8 affordable housing units.    Change of use and refurbishment of 52 Hollingdean Road from A1 retail with residential above to form an associated management suite including reception, offices, toilets, laundry facilities and staff kitchen.

 

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

 

(2)             The Senior Planning Officer, Mick Anson, gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans, elevational and concept images; attention was also drawn to matters on the late list. The application sought permission for 205 student rooms arranged as studios, cluster flats and accessible rooms – there would also be 8 affordable flats. Attention was also drawn to amendments to conditions 19 and 22, and the replacement of condition 33. The site fronted onto Hollingdean Road and Freehold Terrace and had the railway embankment to the rear; it was currently in use as light industrial and occupied by a printing firm.

 

(3)             The proposed plans were for a part 3, 4, 5 & 6 storey building on the site. The lower ground floor of the student accommodation block comprised the communal room with access to the amenity space. There was ramped access to the cycle storage at ground floor, and the student rooms would be set back by two metres to leave room for planting. The main entrance was off Freehold Terrace, and the secondary entrance was also off Freehold Terrace. The affordable units would be a mixture of one and two bedroom flats, and the main entrance to the student blocks would be at the location of the studios. At the third floor of the building the student block would be set back, and there would be access to a landscaped garden. The building would be further set back at the fourth floor with a further terrace and roof garden, and this pattern would be repeated at the fifth floor. The roof would be mainly green with photovoltaic panels. The proposed materials were noted on the sample block that had been provided for the Committee.

 

(4)             The policy considerations were set out in the report, and the applicant had been able to demonstrate that the employment use was no longer viable at the site; the site was in the DA3 area and considered appropriate for this type of student accommodation. In terms of design the development was not considered a ‘tall building’, and the area already featured other larger scale buildings; . The impact on daylight was considered overall acceptable. On-site there would be a student management plan, and the more ‘discreet’ location would be helpful to reduce the impact. There would be no parking allowed on the site aside from two-disabled bays, and it was also acknowledged that car ownership was lower with students. In terms of sustainability the development would achieve code level 4. The application was recommended to be minded to grant for the reasons set out in the report.

 

Public Speaker(s) & Questions

 

(5)             Ms Caroline Lynch spoke in objection to the application; she stated that her objections related to the impact on amenity; the lack of parking, and the impact on travel in the Lewes Road area that could not be sustained by large schemes. She was of the view that these types of developments had an impact on community cohesion. Reference was made to the Council’s article 4 direction, and it was considered that developers were using this development to circumvent the policy. Ms Lynch stated that if the application were for a large HMO then to the Committee would refuse this. She summarised the impact on the local area would continue until the universities took the responsibility of housing all of their students themselves.

 

(6)             Mr Peter Rainer addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant and stated, in response to the objector, that the article 4 direction did not apply in this instance as the application was for a new property – rather than a change of use. There was an accepted need for student accommodation in the city, and the preference was for larger schemes of this type – this addressed the demand from the universities and allowed homes in the city to return to family occupancy. The development included a student management plan to reduce noise and avoid car use, and the proposal was a high quality development on a site that was no longer fit for purpose. The existing buildings were ‘drab’ and in a poor state of repair, and the proposals would have a positive impact on the area, and the 8 affordable units would help the housing needs of the city. During the life of the scheme a public consultation had been held, and the scheme was a result of close work with the Council.

 

(7)             In response to Councillor Hamilton the Chair noted there was an amended condition to provide for all 8 of the affordable units to be for social rent.

 

(8)             In was clarified for Councillor C. Theobald that there would be a travel management plan for the site that would co-ordinate the arrival and departure of students at the beginning and end of the terms. In response to a further question it was explained that the crime prevention matters would form the subject of a detailed condition, but measures including 24 hour on-site security had already been agreed .

 

(9)             In response to Councillor Davey it was explained by the applicant that Brighton University had formally expressed their interest in using the accommodation for their students. The construction would be undertaken by a third party, and then the site would be managed by the operator and linked to the university with their own management agreement.

 

(10)          It was confirmed for Councillor Hyde that there was currently no contractual agreement with Brighton University, but they had expressed serious interest through their Board and Management Team.

 

Questions for Officers

 

(11)          In response to Councillor Hyde it was explained that the article 4 direction covered five wards in the city to give greater control over small HMOs of less than 6 residents. Policy within the emerging City Plan was relevant, and the distinct policy approach between planned and unplanned development was clarified for the Committee.

 

(12)          In response to Councillor Littman it was clarified that the former retail unit to be retained currently had students living on the first floor, and in the proposals it would become the management suite and laundry.

 

(13)          In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was clarified that there was the potential for overshadowing to occur in one corner of the site.

 

(14)          In response to Councillor Jones the Senior Planning Officer explained that some of the sustainability levels had been increased during the life of the application, and the conditions attached to the application would ensure they were fully implemented.

 

(15)          Councillor Gilbey asked some specific questions about the road, and Officers explained that deliveries would be made to the site from Freehold Terrace; the applicant had suggested options to improve road safety, but these had yet to be formally agreed in detail. There would be an element of the s106 monies for transport contributions. Currently the pavement was flush with the highway, and residents had objected to the proposal to make the road one-way on the basis it would increase ‘rat-running’. There were two entrances to the site for safety and fire reasons, and student access to the site could be further considered through the management plan.

 

(16)          The distance from the flats to the railway was confirmed for Councillor Gilbey.

 

(17)          The Chair asked about the policy position in relation to the application, and in particular whether there had been any early conversations about progressing a mixed-residential scheme. In response the presenting Officer explained that this was not something that had been discussed; however, the District Valuer had assessed a B1 scheme which had come back as significantly negative in terms of viability.

 

(18)          In response to further questions from the Chair it was explained there was policy in relation to boundary treatment which would include security measures, and this was recommended to be secured through condition. It was also considered that more open access at the front of the scheme would be a better option in terms of crime deterrent.

 

Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(19)          Councillor Hyde noted that scale of the proposals; she felt the site was appropriate for student accommodation, but noted she had several concerns with the scheme. There would be a substantial increase in traffic for deliveries and services. There was no parking at the site, and whilst there would be lower car use amongst students there would still be the potential for some displaced parking. The design was acceptable, but there were concerns with the height of the development as it would be much higher than the railway bridge in Hollingdean Road. Councillor Hyde was not of the view that such schemes would lead to family homes coming back into use as the universities in the city continued to expand. The majority of nearby residential properties were terrace and would be disproportionately affected; for these reason Councillor Hyde stated that she would not support the Officer recommendation.

 

(20)          Councillor Wells noted his general agreement with the points made by Councillor Hyde as well as those made by the objector. He felt the scheme was overdevelopment, and felt the area would be better identified for housing. The scheme would also create parking problems in the area, and for these reasons he would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

 

(21)          Councillor C. Theobald noted the site was appropriate for student accommodation, but noted the loss of the light industrial use. The scheme would look very dominant, and was overdevelopment of the site – there were also concerns in terms of the currently proposed palette. Councillor C. Theobald also felt it needed more parking and a mixed use scheme would be more appropriate – for these reasons she would not support the scheme.

 

(22)          Councillor Davey felt the proposals were a good use of the site, and felt the scheme was an excellent opportunity being situated so close to Brighton University, amenities and on a major sustainable transport route. The scheme would be a boost to the local area, and bring in improvementsas well as improving air quality through greater circulation of air. For these reasons he would support the Officer recommendation.

 

(23)          Councillor Cox noted his support of the scheme and he felt the Committee needed to be forward thinking and open looking; as well as consideration the wider benefits of having two major universities located in the city.

 

(24)          Councillor Gilbey stated that she would support the scheme having listening to points during consideration of the application; she felt the impact in terms of the height of the scheme did not outweigh the wider benefits, and she was satisfied with the responses she had received in terms of road safety.

 

(25)          Councillors Jones noted it was a very large scheme; he was mindful of the points made by the objector and acknowledged the difficulties with the site. With all this considered the site usage was efficient; the onsite security was welcome and proposed colour scheme would work well – for these reasons he would support the Officer recommendation.

 

(26)          The Chair proposed an additional informative that if the Committee were minded to grant the application then the discharge of the materials condition be delegated to the Head of Development Control in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

 

(27)          A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant the application was carried on a vote of 8 in support with 4 against.

 

115.1    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; the conditions and informatives set out in the report, and the amended and replacement condition and additional informative set out below:

 

              Amended Conditions

 

i)       Amend condition 19 to add the wording “roof gardens” after the words “shall include hard surfacing”

 

ii)     Amend condition 22 to add the words “(social rented)” after the words “Affordable Housings units”

 

Replacement Condition

 

Delete conditions 33 and replace with the following wording:

 

i)       The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme showing details of the cycle parking provision.  The agreed scheme shall be implemented in full prior to occupation of the development and retained thereafter. 

 

Reason:  To ensure satisfactory provision of cycle parking and storage facilities which meets the Council’s standard and complies with policy TR14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005. 

 

Additional Informative

 

i)       The material samples required by condition seven (7) shall be delegated for agreement to the Head of Development Control in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and the Oppositions spokespersons.