Agenda item - BH2014/03605 - 70 and site of Chrome Productions Limited, Goldstone Lane, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site including construction of new part 3no, part 4no and part 5no storey building providing office space (B1) at ground floor level and 59no self contained apartments (C3). Erection of 6no three storey terraced dwelling houses (C3) incorporating provision of 2no car parking spaces per dwelling, creation of basement car park to provide 41no car parking spaces, landscaping and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO REFUSE

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site including construction of new part 4no, part 5no and part 6no storey building providing office space (B1) at ground floor level and 59no self contained apartments (C3), incorporating creation of basement car park to provide 41no car parking spaces. Erection of 6no three storey terraced dwelling houses (C3) incorporating provision of 2no car parking spaces per dwelling, landscaping and other associated works.

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

(2)       The Principal Planning Officer Mick Anson gave a presentation by reference to site plans and elevational and cross section drawings indicating the proposed layout and configuration of these interconnected sites indicating the proposed layout of the proposed flats and dwelling houses including the degree of set back and location of the proposed front gardens. Reference was made to a letter of support which had been received from the local MP for Hove and to a late letter of objection received from the car showrooms immediately adjacent to proposed Block A. The letter of objection expressed concern regarding the noise levels generated by some of their on-site activity which could render them liable to noise complaints which were unlikely to be resolved due to the nature of the operation and could lead to the closure of their business.

(3)       The Principal Planning Officer explained that it had been necessary to re-advertise the description of the development, neighbours had been re-consulted and the application had been re-advertised by site notice and in the local newspaper. The expiry date for comments, 2 February, was one day before the statutory date for determination and Members were therefore asked to agree the recommendation subject to no further representations being received after the Committee meeting which raised new material planning issues.

(4)       It was also explained that the application site comprised two industrial buildings fronting Goldstone Lane on its west side. No.70 was sited at the corner of Goldstone Lane and Newtown Road whilst the building occupied by Techniform was adjacent to the north. The two plots were separated by a narrow access path providing a right of way to the land at the rear and was not included within the red line on the plans indicating the parameters of the application site. The proposals were considered to constitute one single application. The proposal included a 40% provision of affordable housing although no details of their location within the scheme had been provided. The provision of 40% affordable housing would be welcome and if this was an unallocated employment site, could be the fall back position if the loss of an employment site had been first justified. However as his site is allocated in the City Plan under CP3.4 for employment led mixed use development, the replacement with some affordable housing is not part of the policy criteria.

(5)       Overall it was considered that the proposed scheme would be contrary to the City Council’s employment policies EM1 and EM3 as set out in the adopted Local Plan as the site is allocated within the Newtown Road Industrial Area for employment uses. The applicant had submitted very limited information to justify the loss of employment floorspace and land in respect of the site characteristics, location or marketing evidence as set out in policy EM3. Policies DA6 (Hove Station area) and CP3.4 of the emerging City Plan allocates the application site as one in which consideration could be given to an employment led mixed scheme with residential units as enabling development.

(6)       In relation to Block A, the flats, the development was considered to be contrary to policies QD1 and QD2 relating to the scale and appearance of the development and its impact in the streetscene and the neighbourhood due to its height, bulk and elevational appearance. It was also considered that the proposed layout of Block A and Block B would not provide strong definition for the streetscene and character of the regenerated neighbourhood. The quality of some of the amenity space was of concern as it would be quite open to public view and its use might have limited appeal. It would also not achieve recommended sunlight levels. Further the open design of the layout and the siting of entrances could give rise to concerns about crime prevention and the fear of crime contrary to policy QD7. The siting of the dwelling houses with very generous amenity space to the front and back would result in a very low density which would be contrary to policy QD3 which requires the efficient and effective use of land for housing. The City Plan policy CP14 states that densities in the DA development areas were expected to be high, potentially at least 100 dwellings per hectare subject to other applicable planning criteria for good development. The assessment of other environmental criteria had raised the biggest concern over likely noise impacts from adjoining existing businesses. The Noise Assessments had not considered two potential sources being a plant room adjoining the proposed gardens to dwellings and rear habitable rooms as well as noise and disturbance from the service yard at the rear of the Goldstone Retail Park. These noise sources were witnessed by the Environmental Health Officer and due to insufficient information, it was not considered that the proposal would meet the requirements of policy SU10 of the adopted Local Plan. Whilst the principle of the regeneration of this site would have a beneficial impact, it is considered that the benefits of this proposal would be outweighed by the key policy objection to the unjustified resultant loss of land and floorspace for employment purposes on this allocated site where an employment led mixed development might be acceptable subject to meeting policy criteria. For these reasons and the others set out in detail in the report the application was recommended as minded to refuse.

              Public Speakers & Questions

(7)       Mr Shaw and Mr Parsons were in attendance on behalf of the applicant and their agents sharing the available speaking time to speak in support of the application. It was explained that the site had remained vacant for some ten years and attempts to market it over that period had proved unsuccessful. The site was ideally located to provide much needed housing and provided a mix of apartments and houses with the parking and office accommodation. The proposed scheme would remove the existing eyesore and effect significant improvements to the street scene.

(8)       Councillor Hamilton noted that it was proposed that affordable housing would be provided on site and sought confirmation whether any of the units would be available to rent or whether it would all be shared ownership. Councillor Hamilton stated that the salary levels required to be eligible for shared ownership were beyond the financial reach of those who needed accessible housing. The applicants responded that 8 of the units on site could be allocated for affordable rent.

              Questions for Officers

(9)       Councillor Phillips also sought clarification in relation to the 40% split of affordable housing and where it was proposed this would be located across the site.

(10)     Councillor Hyde referred to the concerns raised in relation to potential noise penetration from the neighbouring car workshop and asked regarding any mitigation measures available. It was explained that in the event of reports of any nuisance the situation would be monitored and a range of measures would be explored.

(11)     Councillor Littman asked whether conditions could be added to any permission granted to mitigate against any potential nuisance. It was explained that if permission was refused an amended/reconfigured scheme which relocated accommodation away from that area of the site could address these potential problems as could provision of the office space.

(12)     Councillor Davey enquired regarding supporting evidence in relation to marketing of the site for employment use.

(13)     Councillor Wealls enquired whether given changing requirements in the type of employment accommodation sought in the market place, the percentage of commercial/employment use being sought was realistic. The Planning Manager, Planning Policy, Liz Hobden stated that a better balance between an employment led use was set by the city plan and greater mitigation measures would have been expected.

(14)     Councillor Davey enquired regarding the number of jobs which would be created on site. The Chair noted that the tests set by the city plan had not been met, however the balance of proposed uses needed to be considered.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(15)     Councillor Randall referred to the recently formed Hove Station Neighbourhood Forum and to the fact that overall, notwithstanding some concerns they generally appeared to support a mixed use of the site. Notwithstanding concerns which had been expressed in relation to noise from the neighbouring site, he considered these were not insurmountable and could be addressed. In his view this particular brownfield site had lain dormant for some years and the proposed use would provide a mix of much needed accommodation in a location which had good sustainable transport links. He considered that the scheme should be supported and that the offer by the developer to provide eight units for affordable rent should be conditioned.

(16)     Councillor Mac Cafferty, the Chair stated that he considered that given the imperative that was being placed on the city from central government to provide significant increases in the level of housing supply, serious consideration needed to be given to use of brownfield sites where appropriate, although each needed to be considered individually on its planning merits. Notwithstanding potential noise issues, this application would provide a good mix of different types of housing, on site parking and some employment use. The site had been vacant for some eight years during which time no other suitable schemes had been brought forward and he wished to support this one. Councillor Littman also concurred in that view.

(17)     Councillor Hyde stated that she also supported the scheme which would significantly improve the appearance of the site and of the area generally, she also liked the fact that a mix of family homes and flats and properties for sale and rental would be provided.

(18)     Councillor Wells welcomed the scheme considering that the balance of uses should be supported.

(19)     Councillor Theobald stated that she particularly welcomed the provision of parking on site including the provision of underground parking. Whilst she shared concerns about noise, noise issues could occur anywhere in the city.

(20)     Councillor Wealls stated that he considered that the merits of the scheme outweighed any perceived disadvantages, the alternative would be for the site to remain in its current semi-derelict condition, which in his view was not acceptable.

(21)     Councillor Hamilton stated that on balance he supported the scheme stating that the site was a good location for housing and should be supported.

(22)     Councillor Carden stated that he had knowledge of the noise generated by the neighbouring workshop use. Based on this knowledge he was sceptical that it would be possible to mitigate sufficiently against any potential nuisance and considered that the application should be refused.

(23)     Councillor Davey stated that he also had concerns regarding the noise issues which he did not consider had been adequately addressed, he did not therefore feel able to support the application in its current form.

(24)     Councillor Gilbey also had concerns, noting that the Neighbourhood Forum had also expressed concerns regarding some elements of the proposed scheme.

(25)     A vote was taken by the 12 members present at Committee and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to refuse planning permission was not carried on a vote of 9 to 3. Councillor Hyde proposed that the application be granted for the reason set out below but subject to the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager’s approval of suitable planning conditions, such conditions to include conditions providing for noise mitigation and at least eight units of affordable rented housing and this was seconded by Councillor Randall.. A recorded vote was then taken. Councillors Hamilton, Hyde, Littman, Mac Cafferty (the Chair), Phillips, Randall, C Theobald, Wealls and Wells voted that they were minded to grant permission for the reason set out below and subject to approval of conditions as referred to above  and Councillors Carden, Davey and Gilbey voted that the application be refused.

127.3  RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer’s recommendation but resolved that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission for the reason set out below and subject toi) the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager’s approval of a S106 Agreement and suitable planning conditions, such conditions to include conditions providing for noise mitigation and at least eight units of affordable rented housing and ii) no further representations being received after the Committee meeting and within the re-consultation period which raise new material planning issues.

              Reason for grant: that the benefits to be provided by the proposed development, namely, the good mix of residential accommodation which included real family homes, at least 8 units of accommodation for affordable rent and communal gardens for residents of the flats, the provision of adequate parking and the improvement to the local environment outweighed any detrimental impact that may occur from noise arising from employment use.