Agenda item - BH2015/02004 - Land Adjacent to Watts Building, University of Brighton, Lewes Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a part two, part three storey building providing a new Advanced Engineering Centre (D1), incorporating landscaping, access works and other associated alterations.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a part two, part three storey building providing a new Advanced Engineering Centre (D1), incorporating landscaping, access works and other associated alterations.

 

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

 

(2)             The Planning Manager (Major Applications) introduced the report with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application sought permission for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and the erection of a two and three storey engineering centre. The site was located on the western side of Lewes Road between the Cockcroft building and the Watts building, and currently in use as a car park. The smaller lodge building on the site was to be demolished as part of the application and landscaping would be provided instead. It was also noted that there was a belt of trees that would screen the development from Lewes Road when they were in leaf.

 

(3)             The building would be used as a science centre and teaching facility – which a focus of research into internal combustion engines. The university had secured funding from the local enterprise partnership. The ground floor would be used for research and meeting rooms; the first floor for teaching and the third would contain plant a room.

 

(4)             In relation to landscaping there would be new pedestrian access from the Lewes Road. The ground floor of the building would be predominantly glazed, and the areas of the building in which research would be undertaken would have a concrete finish to show that the design would relate to the function of the building. On the first floor there would be metallic panels in a brass finish. The building was designed to be flexible and allow for internal alterations as the demands on the space changed.

 

(5)             The scale of the building between those neighbouring it would be smaller, but the design was considered exciting and would match the nature of the use. Policy supported the expansion of university buildings along the Lewes Roads corridor, and the s106 would seek to achieve 20% local labour during the construction period.

 

(6)             In terms of amenity the nearest buildings were 50 metres across the Lewes Road and 130 metres on Preston Way. Environmental Protection officers were recommending controls for noise and chimneys, and these had been included as conditions. In relation to transport there would be 565 remaining spaces on the wider campus and the proposals would relocate 11 disabled spaces to the south car park. The applicant had submitted information which forecast the demand for parking and the availability on the surrounding streets – this indicated there was sufficient space for the loss on the site. In sustainability terms the building would meet BREEAM excellent, and would have the potential to be connected to a future district heat network along the Lewes Road corridor.

 

(7)             In relation to matters raised at the site visit the access to the new parking spaces were confirmed using a site plan. In terms of the park and ride facilities provided on the campus for staff at the Falmer campus – the facility would be re-provided in the south carpark. In terms of the lodge building to be demolished, this was used for storage and some offices and would be located within the campus. In relation to level changes it was confirmed there would be no change between landscaped area, the hard-surfacing and the entrance to the site. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended to be minded to grant.

 

Questions for Officers

 

(8)             In response to Councillor Barradell the width of the access to the new car park was confirmed; it was also explained that this space would be shared pedestrian and vehicular and finished with granite. The main entrance could be managed to only allow pedestrian access out in the pedestrian area, rather than the shared vehicular access. In terms of under-development of the site it was clarified that given the density of the neighbouring buildings, and the likely densities when the nearby Preston Barracks was developed this level of development was considered appropriate.

 

(9)             In response to Councillor Morris it noted that the Committee could add an additional informative that the discharge of the materials condition be delegated to the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

 

(10)          In response to Councillor Littman it was explained that the park and ride facility for 350 spaces on match days for the Amex Stadium was currently provided on the south car park and there would be no impact.

 

(11)          In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was confirmed that the Planning Authority did not currently have details of refuse, but a condition could be attached requiring these to be agreed a later date.

 

(12)          In response to Councillor Gilbey the Head of Transport Policy & Strategy confirmed the numbers of parking spaces on the site.

 

(13)          In response to Councillor Bennett, Officers stated that they could not be certain if the metallic cladding would fade; however, if treated properly the material should be capable of maintaining the striking finish which was integral to the design of the building.

 

(14)          In response to Councillor Gilbey it was clarified that the methodology used for the parking survey was nationally recognised; the streets used for the survey were clarified, as were the general expectations of a travel plan.

 

(15)          In response to Councillor Morris it was confirmed there was no contribution in the application towards arts projects.

 

Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(16)          Councillor Littman stated he did have concerns in relation to parking when the park and ride was in operation; however, he was very supportive of the scheme; felt it added to the architecture offer of the area and would support the Officer recommendation.

 

(17)          Councillor Mac Cafferty noted his agreement with the comments made by Councillor Littman and added that the design was ‘stunning and visionary’; he also welcomed the high sustainability offer.

 

(18)          Councillor C. Theobald noted her concerns in relation to the loss of parking, and felt there was a lost opportunity to provide underground parking on the site; however, she felt the facility was excellent; the design was interesting and exciting and she would support the Officer recommendation.

 

(19)          Councillor Taylor echoed the support expressed by other Members, and added that this was an exciting opportunity for the city. He expressed some concerns in relation to the parking at the site, in particular potential overspill into neighbouring roads, but ultimately would support the scheme.

 

(20)          Councillor Gilbey stated this was an exciting scheme, but she had some reservations about the parking on the site; however, she would support the Officer recommendation.

 

(21)          Councillor Barradell highlighted her reservations in relation to the shared space; she also was concerned about underdevelopment; however, she felt the building was very attractive and would support the Officer recommendation.

 

(22)          Councillor Bennett stated the building was fit for purpose, and she particularly liked the metallic cladding.

 

(23)          Councillor Wares welcomed the design and felt it would make a positive contribution to the local area.

 

(24)          Councillor Mac Cafferty proposed an informative that the discharge of the materials condition be delegated to the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons; this was seconded by Councillor Barradell; and agreed by the Committee.

 

(25)          Councillor Littman added that the location was highly sustainable in terms of transport, and modular changes in transport usage could lead to less staff accessing the site by car.

 

(26)          The Chair noted that she had confidence in the travel plan; she felt the design was exciting and felt it would raise the bar for design in the city.

 

(27)          A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant planning permission was carried unanimously by the twelve Members present at the meeting.

 

70.1       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 7 and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives in section 11 and the amended conditions and additional conditions and informatives below:

 

              Amended Conditions

 

Amend Condition 5: Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, a scheme for landscaping shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall include the following:

 

a)        Details of all hard surfacing;

b)        Details of all boundary treatments;

c)         Details of all proposed planting, including numbers and species of plant, and details of size and planting method of any trees

d)        Details of levels including sections showing adjoining land levels.

 

Amend Condition 10: Delete ‘pupils’ replace with ‘students’

 

Additional Condition

 

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted a scheme for the storage of refuse and recycling shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The scheme shall be carried out in full as approved prior to first occupation of the development and the refuse and recycling storage facilities shall thereafter be retained for use at all times.

 

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory facilities for the storage of refuse and to comply with policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

Additional informative

 

The details submitted in relation to materials condition 4 are delegated to the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager for agreement in consultation with the Chair, the Deputy Chair and the Opposition spokesperson.