Agenda item - BH2015/02941,Former Whitehawk Library Site Findon Road/Whitehawk Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Construction of 2 residential blocks to provide a total of 57 self-contained flats incorporating creation of vehicular access points from Whitehawk Road and Findon Road, car parking spaces, refuse facilities, landscaping and other associated works. (Amended Scheme.

RECOMMENDATION- MINDED TO GRANT

Ward  Affected: East Brighton

              Construction of 2 residential blocks to provide a total of 57 self-contained flats incorporating creation of vehicular access points from Whitehawk Road and Findon Road, car parking spaces, refuse facilities, landscaping and other associated works. (Amended Scheme).

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

(2)          The Planning Officer, Jason Hawkes introduced the report by reference to plans, photographs, aerial photographs and elevational drawings. Planning permission was sought for the construction of two blocks to form 57 flats. The land was Council owned and would provide 57 housing units. The scheme was part of the New Homes for Neighbourhoods programme to build 500 new council homes by 2030. During the course of the application, the Estates teams had advised that the scheme would be built either as a 100% affordable rented scheme or with a minimum of 50% affordable rented and a percentage of market sale depending on financial viability. The main considerations in determining this application related to the loss of the former community use, the provision of affordable housing, the design and appearance of the proposed development, impact on residential amenity, standard of accommodation, transport and highway concerns, land contamination, impact on trees and landscaping, sustainability, ecology considerations and crime prevention measures.

(3)          It was considered that the loss of the existing community use was acceptable given the historical relocation of the previous community use to a nearby location. The development was of an appropriate height, scale, bulk and design and would fit in with the character of the area. The development would not cause significant harm to neighbouring amenity by way of loss of light, privacy or outlook, or increased overshadowing, noise or disturbance and was also appropriate in terms of highway safety, ecology and sustainability and minded to grant approval was therefore recommended.

(4)          It was noted that although objectors had registered to speak in respect of the application, notification had been received that they would be unable to attend, therefore there would be no speaking in respect of this application.

              Questions of Officers

(5)          Councillor Gilbey sought confirmation of the number of parking spaces to be provided, and whether this was comparable with that generally provided. Councillor Gilbey stated it was her understanding that estimates of the number of vehicle movements generated included those in the wider vicinity, as well as access/egress to the site itself.

(6)          Councillor Robins also sought confirmation on that point. It was confirmed that this accorded with that set out in planning guidance.

(7)          The Development and Transport Assessment Manager, Steven Shaw, confirmed that the figure for post developmental trips had been calculated by reference to the TRICS database and had been based on the information submitted. The figure of 110 trips in total did however relate solely to vehicle trips. The total number of person trips used for the purposes of calculating sustainable transport contributions had been made in accordance with the Council’s standard methodology.

(8)          Councillor Bennett sought clarification of the position of the balconies in relation to the roof slope above.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)          Councillor Janio stated that whilst considering the scheme to be acceptable overall, he was of the view that the level of on–site parking provided was inadequate.

(10)       Councillor Miller stated that he considered the scheme to be of a good design and supported it.

(11)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell commended the scheme which she considered to be a good one which would provide much needed housing.

(12)       A vote was taken and members voted unanimously that minded to grant planning permission be granted.

94.2       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 a S106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11.