Agenda item - BH2014/03300 - 119 Lewes Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 5 storey building (plus basement) comprising 65 self-contained studio flats for student occupation, plant room, communal areas, cycle parking, recycling/refuse facilities and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 5 storey building (plus basement) comprising 65 self-contained studio flats for student occupation, plant room, communal areas, cycle parking, recycling/refuse facilities and associated works.

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

(2)             The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. Attention was drawn to late amendments to the report: reason for refusal 1 had been deleted and there was a minor amendment to reason for refusal 4 to include a reference to CP21 as well as QD27. The site was located on the eastern side of Lewes Road and currently was in use as a hand car wash; immediately to the north there was vehicular access to the cemetery, and the site at 112-113 Lewes Road was currently being developed for student accommodation. The site was located within the DA3 area as set out in the emerging City Plan; this was a strategic area and the main thrust of the policy was to promote and enhance the area for further education. The policy also recognised there was some poor development in the area, and new development needed to improve and enhance the public realm. In terms of HMO mapping the site was located within the Article 4 area, and there was a high concentration of HMOs in the immediate vicinity.

(3)             The application sought the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and the erection of purpose built student accommodation; the built form would run close to the boundary at the front of the site and be slightly more stepped in at the sides. The building stopped at the rear and stepped down to a two-storey element in line with the height of the properties on Gladstone Place; the fifth floor of the development was set back at roof level. There had been a late representation from the University of Brighton stating they supported the accommodation and would seek to use it for their students. Whilst there was no formal agreement this did address the concerns and reason for refusal 1 outlined in the report.

(4)             In relation to reasons for refusal 2 & 3 it was considered that the development did not address the principle of Policy DA3. The development was considered excessive, and the built form on the line of the pavement did not allow the opportunity for public realm improvements which a smaller building could deliver. In relation to reason 4 – neighbouring amenity –14 objections had been received from Gladstone Place with concerns in relation to design and the nature of the development, and there were already problems with intensive car use in the street. HMO mapping had evidenced the concentration locally, and it was considered the development would worsen the situation for residents creating increased demands for parking. For the reasons outlined in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

(5)             Mr Jim Tarzey spoke on behalf of the applicant and stated that this was a part of the city where high quality, high density development was encouraged – it was also a location where students wanted to live. The application had evolved during the pre-application stage, and the building needed to work whilst fitting in with the local area and wider context. The application proposed a 5-storey building where the fifth storey would be set back and it would respect the amenity of neighbouring properties. The site was located in a tall building corridor where there were nearby buildings of up to 6 storeys. The building stepped down at Gladstone Terrace, and this gave the scope for a greater frontage on the building. In terms of the operation of the building there was full written support from the University of Brighton, and the development would help to meet the current and future projected housing needs of the city. Work would be undertaken with the University management team to manage student behaviour appropriately and introduce control measures to prevent students parking vehicles in the surrounding streets. This type of accommodation was in demand; would free up existing HMOs and was in compliance with guidance.

(6)             In response to Councillor Davey the applicant confirmed they had experience of these types of schemes both nationally and elsewhere in the city, and the concerns and issues were often common. The accommodation would be let on the agreement that students were not allowed to bring cars with them, and this was enforced through the tenancy agreement. A system would also be in place to allow residents to liaise with the management.

(7)             In response to Councillor Hyde the applicant explained there was a partnership between the universities and the local authority which allowed for ongoing dialogue; whilst there nothing formally agreed at the site this would form part of ongoing negotiations as a scheme emerged. 

Questions for Officers

(8)             In response to Councillor Davey the different policy context that had allowed the approval of the site at 112-113 Lewes Road was outlined, and it was highlighted that the policy position in terms of the emerging City Plan now placed significant weight on DA3 in terms of design. The objective of DA3 was to improve the street scene in the area, and provided a remit to push for high standards on all sites coming forward to achieve significant improvements.

(9)             In response to a further question from Councillor Davey it was explained that the article 4 direction had been considered by Officers due to the high number of representations, and the existing problems on Gladstone Road.

(10)          In response to Councillor Hyde it as confirmed that the site at Preston Barracks had been allocated in the City Plan to deliver student housing. Whilst the Presenting Officer did not have the detailed mapping around the recently granted site at Hollingdean Road he was of the view that the streets surrounding the application site had a higher density of HMOs.

(11)          In response to Councillor Cox it was confirmed that each reason for refusal had to stand in its own right, and they were not numbered in terms of importance or significance.

(12)          In response to Councillor Gilbey the Presenting Officer explained that there was no detailed management plan in relation to the accommodation as the interest from the University had been expressed late in the application. The normal expectation would be to secure this through the S106 agreement, and this kind of detail would be sought if the application were being recommended for approval.

(13)          In response to a further question from Councillor Gilbey it was explained that any windows overlooking the rear gardens of Gladstone Place would be obscurely glazed and controlled through a condition were the Committee minded to approve the application. It was also confirmed that the roof terraces were the only usable areas of outside space.

(14)          In was confirmed for Councillor Mac Cafferty that the height of the building was below the threshold to be considered a tall building, and the height of the building did not form a reason for refusal.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(15)          Councillor Hyde explained that she had initially been surprised at the Officer recommendation in the report, but this had become much clearer from detail in the report and the site visit. She noted the Officer comments that a block of reduced scale and bulk could deliver more in terms of public realm improvements. She noted the proposed building scale was significantly greater than Gladstone Place; she was also conscious of the nearby HMO density and the potential harm to nearby properties. For these reasons she would support the Officer recommendation.

(16)          Councillor Davey echoed the remarks made by Councillor Hyde and  in particular he agreed about the importance of the street scene and the public realm elements of any scheme coming forward. He also added that good management of the scheme under construction at 112-113 Lewes Road would help to ease resident’s concerns.

(17)          Councillor C. Theobald stated that she was not against the principle of the scheme, but she felt the height and bulk were excessive for this location.

(18)          Councillor Hamilton stated that he had concerns in relation to the size of the rooms in the development; as well as concerns about overdevelopment at the site; for these reasons he would support the Officer recommendation. 

(19)          A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation that the Committee refuse the application was carried unanimously by the 12 Members present at the meeting.

139.1    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 REFUSE permission for the reasons set out below:

Reasons for Refusal:

i.                 The proposed development would be of an excessive scale and bulk. Due to this scale and the footprint of the proposed building the development would have an excessive prominence, would not relate well to the existing development in the immediate vicinity of the site, and would result in an incongruous appearance. The design includes large areas of blank wall, and it has not been demonstrated that the materials proposed would result in an appropriate appearance. The proposal is contrary to policies QD1, QD2 and QD3 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan and policy CP12 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part 1 submission document.

ii.               Policy DA3 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) sets out a strategy for the development and enhancement of the Lewes Road area, which includes the objective to secure improvements to the townscape and public realm. As identified above, the proposed development would not enhance or improve the townscape or public realm and would therefore be directly contrary to the strategic objectives set out in Policy DA3.

iii.              The area surrounding the site contains a concentration of properties in multiple occupation which as set out in policy CP21 can impact negatively upon neighbouring amenity. The proposed development, which would result in an intensive occupation of the site, would worsen this situation and therefore has the potential to harm neighbouring amenity by way of increased activity and disturbance, and in this case an increased demand for on street parking where demand is already particularly high. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan and policy CP21 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part 1 Submission Document.

Informatives:

i.                 In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible.

ii.               This decision is based on the drawings listed below:

iii.              The applicants attention is drawn to the fact that the visuals in the submitted Design and Access Statement are not consistent with the submitted drawings as the visuals show that all walls would be of white render finish, the submitted drawings however contradict this and show brick faced elements.

iv.              The applicant is advised that the application site will be considered for inclusion in the Council’s SHLAA at the time of its next annual review.