Agenda item - BH2015/01121 - 119 Lewes Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a part 3/part 4 storey building (plus basement) comprising 51 self-contained studio flats for student occupation, plant room, communal areas, cycle parking, recycling/refuse facilities and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Hanover and Elm Grove

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a part 3/part 4 storey building (plus basement) comprising 51 self-contained studio flats for student occupation, plant room, communal areas, cycle parking, recycling/refuse facilities and associated works.

 

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

 

(2)             The Principal Planning Officer, Mick Anson, introduced the application by reference the photographs, plans, elevational drawings and some concept images; reference was also made to matters on the Late List. The site was currently a car wash and fronted onto Lewes Road at Gladstone Place. A previous scheme had been refused by the Committee in February 2015 for reasons in relation to: scale and bulk; intensity of use and lack of enhancement or improvement to the townscape and the Lewes Road corridor. The accommodation would consist of 51 self-contained studios; three of these on the ground floor would be accessible. The frontage to the building at Gladstone Place stepped back, and there would be storage for 24 cycles inside, with further storage to the side of the building. The scheme also proposed photovoltaic panels and a green roof. The windows which directly faced the neighbouring building on Gladstone Place would be obscurely glazed and only served corridors. The application was recommended for approval subject to a s106 agreement which included a management plan.

 

Questions for Officers

 

(3)             In response to Councillor A. Norman it was explained that there was not a dedicated storage area for wheelchairs for disabled occupants; however, there were some storage areas that could potentially be used.

 

(4)             In response to Councillor Barradell it was explained that the entire building had mechanical ventilation; whilst the windows could be opened they were not needed for air quality and sound insulation. It was also confirmed that the access on the ground floor to the side of the building was not intended for use as a fire escape.

 

(5)             In response to Councillor Morris it was clarified that there was a requirement for a construction environmental management plan to be submitted before works commenced; there would also be consultation with the local action team, and residents would need to be notified of any work outside of normal hours. In terms of the student management plan a standard, familiar approach was expected.

 

(6)             In response to a further query from Councillor Barradell the Planning & Building Control Application Manager explained to the Committee that Officers were of the view that the concept image provided by the application with a view down Gladstone Place was slightly inaccurate and showed a more detrimental position than the actual plans.

 

(7)             In response to queries from Councillor Miller it was explained that the development could not be car free as it was outside of a controlled parking zone; the comparison data that had been used to project the likely occupancy had been taken from the three wards with the highest number of students. In relation to security at the site; whilst the application proposed 24 hour security, it was not certain if this would in the form of a member of staff permanently on site; Officers noted that if the Committee were of the view that this should be the case then an informative could be attached to this extent. In relation to the materials it was noted that an informative could be attached that this be discharged by the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons Persons.

 

(8)             In response to Councillor Wares the Principal Planning Officer explained he was aware there were negotiations ongoing with the two universities in the city; however, neither had entered in formal agreement with the applicant for use of the accommodation.

 

(9)             In response to further questions from Councillor Wares the Principal Transport Officer explained that when assessing the pressure proposals would put on parking the Local Planning Authority would consider parking surveys around the site at different times of the day; there had also been informal site visits by the applicant and Officers.

 

(10)          In response to Councillor Gibson it was explained that Officers had no further information on the reasons why the University of Brighton had withdrawn their formal interest in the scheme. It was also confirmed that when undertaking parking assessments Officers would consider existing planning permissions.

 

(11)          In response to Councillor Gilbey Officers confirmed that the accessible rooms were larger, and there was space to manoeuvre and keep a wheelchair in the room.

 

(12)          In response to further queries from Councillor Barradell it was confirmed that Officers had requested additional cycle storage on the site and this was the reason for using the alleyway to the side of the building. The rationale for creating the space between the proposed development and the neighbouring building was to reduce the potential for nuisance; any amenity issues had to be balanced against the need for cycle storage. In relation to daylight and sunlight it was confirmed that full assessments had been undertaken and the impact was negligible and within guidelines.

 

Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(13)          Councillor Wares stated that in principle he welcomed this type of development and felt that the scale and bulk were appropriate; however, he had concerns in relation to the impact of the parking in an area that already had high parking stress, for these reasons he felt it was unlikely he would be able to support the scheme.

 

(14)          Councillor Miller stated he was in two minds in relation to the application and he was in support of the design and the proposed materials. On the other hand he noted his concerns in relation to parking in the area and noted that there was no support from either local university; he stated he was more minded to refuse the application.

 

(15)          Councillor Littman noted that, like colleagues, he was in two minds in relation to the application, but he would support the scheme as this type of accommodation was critical for the city’s housing need and felt they were no overwhelming reasons to refuse the application.

 

(16)          Councillor Gilbey noted that she agreed with Councillor Littman, and added that the applicant had clearly addressed the previous reasons for refusal and she was satisfied with the proposed solution in relation to the disabled units. She was not as concerned as other Members with issue in relation to the alleyway at the side, and she would support the application.

 

(17)          Councillor A. Norman noted her support for the scheme and added that this type of student housing was not using family homes in the city. She still had some concerns in relation to storage for wheelchairs, but welcomed the ethos on encouraging those with disability to be part of the wider community of students in the building. It was noted that issues in relation to emergency evacuation were a matter for Building Control.

 

(18)          Councillor Gibson stated that he recognised the need for this type of student accommodation in the city, but had concerns in relation to Policy CP12 and the need to create balanced communities. He was not sure that all of the previous reasons for refusal had been addressed, and still had concerns in relation to the management plan. He felt the application should be deferred to investigate how the similar site at 112 Lewes Road was managed. The Planning & Building Control Applications Manager confirmed that the local planning authority had a duty to determine applications, a deferral could be requested, but this would need to be explicitly justified.

 

(19)          Councillor Barradell noted the need for student housing in the city and stated that the location was appropriate; despite the lack of support from either university she was minded to support the scheme.

 

(20)          Councillor Morris noted that he was minded to support the scheme and added that potential issues in relation to the cycle storage at the side of development should form part of the management plan.

 

(21)          Councillor Bennett noted her concerns in relation to parking, and added that the scheme proposed a lot of development on the site.

 

(22)          Before the vote was taken the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager clarified that the authority had received a letter from Brighton University to confirm they were not in discussions with the applicant. There were four main education providers in the city that were recognise and it was the position of the authority was to encourage relationships with these providers and developers.

 

(23)          A vote, with the additional informatives in relation to the discharge of materials the management plan, was taken and the recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant the application was carried on a vote of 7 in support with 5 against.

 

58.1       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives in section 11 and the additional and amended conditions and informatives set out below:

 

              Amended Conditions

 

·                Amend Condition 3 by substituting BS10175:2001+A1:2013 for BS10175:2001. Add omitted Reason: As this matter is fundamental to the acceptable delivery of the permission to safeguard the health of future residents or occupiers of the site and to comply with policy SU11 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

·                Amend Condition 2 –Revised site plan (08)204 Rev 02 Date Received 11.08.15

 

·                Amend Condition 10 – “energy centre” to be replaced with “plant room” (as agreed by Sustainability Adviser).

 

·                Amend Condition 13 –to refer to ‘brown/green roof’ rather than ‘green walling’ (Plans show green/brown roof not walling).

 

·                Amend Condition 14 by inserting:

 

a)     The soundproofing shall achieve an airborne and impact sound insulation value of 5dB better than that specified in Approved Document E of the Building Regulations.

 

b)    Prior to occupation, results of tests showing that the standard required by this condition has been achieved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The written report shall contain details of what if any additional mitigation measures are necessary to achieve the required standard in a).

 

Reason: as per the report.

 

Additional Conditions

 

·                Prior to commencement samples of either the recommended: Velfac Triple and Double Glazing or the Pilkington Glass double glazing specifications, as outlined in the Discussion and Conclusions of The Acoustic Associates Sussex Ltd letter report, dated 13th July 2015, Reference J1521 to Stace LLP shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority and thereafter used in the development.

 

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and to comply with policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

·                Prior to commencement a written scheme for the ventilation of the residential units shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority designed to ensure that the internal noise conditions with the windows shut, shall comply with BS8233:2014. The ventilation shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and thereby retained.

 

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and to comply with policies SU9 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

Additional Informatives

 

·                No.9: The site is known to be or suspected to be contaminated. Please be aware that the responsibility for the safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer. The local planning authority has determined the application on the basis of the information made available to it. It is strongly recommended that in submitting details in accordance with the above conditions that the applicant has reference to CLR 11, Model Procedures for the management of land contamination. This is available online as a pdf document on the Environment Agency website.

 

·                The details submitted in relation to materials condition xx are delegated to the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager for agreement in consultation with the Chair, the Deputy Chair and the Opposition spokesperson.

 

·                The details to be agreed under the s106 Head of Term for the Student Accommodation Management Plan are delegated to the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager in consultation with the Chair, the Deputy Chair and the Opposition Spokesperson.