Agenda item - BH2014/02179 - 61-62 Western Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Change of use of part of basement, first, second and third floors from retail (A1) to 20 bedroom house in multiple occupation (Sui Generis) including ancillary staff accommodation, alterations to fenestration, installation of air conditioning units, creation of plant room to roof, creation of new entrance onto Stone Street and associated works.

D               Change of use of part of basement, first, second and third floors from retail (A1) to 20 bedroom house in multiple occupation (Sui Generis) including ancillary staff accommodation, alterations to fenestration, installation of air conditioning units, creation of plant room to roof, creation of new entrance onto Stone Street and associated works.

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

(2)             The Area Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site related to a 1920s property of four storeys plus the basement, and was located within the Regency Square Conservation Area – the building was also considered to be a heritage asset. The application sought permission for a change of use for part of the basement, and the floors from first above to create an HMO. Part of the basement would be retained for use in conjunction with the ground floor retail unit, and a number of extensions were sought including a fire escape; the replacement of the lift and lift shaft; the creation of a new entrance; insulation and a new fire escape.

(3)             The main considerations related to the loss of some of the retail space; the principle of the change of use; the external works; the impact on amenity and future occupiers; highways and sustainability. The application site was located within the regional shopping centre, and the application sought to retain the majority of the retail space and this would ensure the space remained viable in this location. There were currently no HMOs within 50 metres of the property, and as such the proposals complied with policy. There would be on-site management to help address residents’ concerns and the external alterations were considered acceptable. Since the submission of the application a letter had been received from the YMCA stating that the accommodation would be used to house 18-25 year olds who had faced homelessness in the past, but who had sufficient life and independence living skills. The YMCA would enter into a management agreement with the residents which would be used to enforce anti-social behaviour. Subject to the condition restricting the use of the third-floor balconies it was considered there would be no adverse impact on amenity. The application was recommended to be minded to grant for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(4)             Ms Trix Webber spoke in objection to the application in her capacity as a local resident. She stated that residents were of the view that the proposed hostel would create both noise and a loss of amenity, and as such should be refused in line with policy. Stone Street was a narrow street that could cause congestion, and create problems with rubbish – the extra residents would make these problems worse. Local residents had concerns in relation to anti-social behaviour; particularly given the size of the building, and there were already problems nearby in Preston Street. It was felt that new residential developments should provide outdoor space, and the solution to use s106 to improve nearby amenities was not considered sufficient. The loss of commercial space was not considered acceptable given the shortage already existing within the city, and the property could be better used as flats. If the Committee were minded to grant the application it was requested that the developer reinstate the historic street signs on the building.

(5)             In response to Councillor Jones it was explained by Ms Webber that despite the assurances from the YMCA the development still seemed cramped for the numbers that would be living there; there was no outside amenity area and there were existing anti-social behaviour problems in the area.

(6)             In response to Councillor Phillips the objector confirmed her position that remote outdoor facilities were not sufficient.

(7)             Mr Chas Walker spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant. He explained that the YMCA has been working to meet the housing needs of young people in the city for 25 years, and worked in partnership with the Council. The YMCA worked the secure grants to bring unused sites back into use for social housing, and this application had been supported by the Council. There was an emerging crisis with the high demand in the rented sector, and the application provided an excellent opportunity. The YMCA worked with over 600 young people, and affordable housing was vital to the work they undertook. It was stressed that the proposal would not be a hostel, but was a ‘move on’ scheme that would only house individuals already known to the YMCA, and the expectation was that a significant number of the young people would be working. Assurance was given that the YMCA would provide a responsible management service; with 24 hour security and a named Housing Officer – they would also work closely with the local community. In summary it was stressed that those housed would be local young people, and the scheme would allow them to contribute and become responsible.

(8)             In response to Councillor Cox the applicant explained that the highly central location was very desirable as many of the young people would be working in the city centre, and there were also a number of volunteer and apprenticeship schemes in this part of the city. The scheme would have a dedicated Housing Officer, and all projects of this nature were committed to building relationships with the local community. The young people would be tenants and there would be options for enforcement; part of the work of the YMCA was to develop life skills and the young people to be housed at the site would be very clear about their responsibilities.

(9)             In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was confirmed that the plaster work in the scheme would replicate the existing, and there was no proposal to change the face brickwork. The developer would also be happy to consider the objector’s request in relation to the historic street signage.

(10)          It was confirmed for Councillor Hyde that the residents would be able to smoke in their rooms.

(11)          In response to Mr Breckell the applicant explained that the proposal was to insulate the external wall as this was steel framed, and the steel would be afforded greater protection if it were on the outside – there should be no noticeable difference.

(12)          In response to Councillor Jones it was clarified that there was no restriction to the length of tenancies.

Questions for Officers

(13)          In response to Councillor Davey it was explained that the Heritage Team were happy with the proposals and considered them acceptable.

(14)          Councillor C. Theobald proposed an informative in relation to the heritage street signs; this was seconded by the Chair and agreed by the Committee.

(15)          The Chair asked for further assurance in relation to the plasterwork, and Officers highlighted condition 11 that would manage this.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(16)          Councillor Phillips stated her support for the scheme, and welcomed the 24 security presence; which she hoped would alleviate the concerns of local residents. She welcomed the strategy of the YMCA to bring empty properties back into use, and was pleased to hear that the work would improve the outcomes for local young people. She felt the scheme was an excellent stepping stone for young people.

(17)          Mr Breckell stated that the CAG had some reservations because of the proposed materials – in particular ‘cloaking’ the exterior in insulation. He recognised that both the Heritage Team and the Local Planning Authority were content, but he was of the view the finish would need to be of a very high standard. He noted that the CAG had voted to support the scheme and were supportive of the historic street signs.

(18)          Councillor Littman stated that this was an excellent application, and was evidence of what could be achieved by allowing a heritage asset to come back into use. He welcomed this solution to give young people somewhere affordable to live given the increasing costs of renting in the city.

(19)          Councillor Wells stated that he had shared some of the objectors concerns, but he was very much in support of returning the properties above retail properties to residential use. He would support the Officer recommendation.

(20)          Councillor Davey was very mindful of residents’ concerns, but he was assured by the level of management proposed by the applicant as well as the promise to work closely with the local community. He requested that YMCA should make it clear to the residents who would be their point of contact when day to day issues arise.

(21)          Councillor Cox stated he agreed with many of the points in the debate, and also supported bringing the space above retail units back into use. He stated that a high quality restoration of the building could create pride in the accommodation for those living there, and encourage greater care and respect of the surroundings.

(22)          Councillor Gilbey stated she would support the scheme, and she had noted that Stone Street was a ‘little rundown’ on the site visit and the proposals could serve as a means to improve the area.

(23)          The Chair noted that current poor state of what was otherwise a very attractive building, and he had received reasonable assurance in terms of the proposed management of the building. He took on board the comments made by the local resident, but also noted the positive work the scheme would do for young people in the city.

(24)          A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant was carried unanimously.

115.4    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, and the additional informative set out below:

i)       Planning Committee expressed a wish that the applicant should re-instate the heritage street names as part of the works to this scheme.  The applicant should contact the Heritage Team at B&HCC to discuss and agree the details.