Agenda item - BH2015/01783 - 106 Lewes Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing public house (A4) (retrospective) and construction of a new part 5no part 3no storey student accommodation building (sui generis), comprising 44no rooms, plant room, communal areas, cycle parking, refuse facilities, landscaping and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Demolition of existing public house (A4) (retrospective) and construction of a new part 5no part 3no storey student accommodation building (sui generis), comprising 44no rooms, plant room, communal areas, cycle parking, refuse facilities, landscaping and other associated works.

(1)             The application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)             The Principal Planning Officer (Mick Anson) introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application sought retrospective permission for the demolition of a public house and the erection of a purpose built block of student accommodation consisting of 44 studio flats, communal space, cycle parking and refuse storage; attention was also drawn to matters in the late list. The proposed development would be defined as a tall building, and the applicant had submitted a tall building study and associated landscape impact assessment. In terms of the relationship with the neighbouring petrol station there was a clearance of 4.1 metres. The proposed materials were clarified and the sample board that had been brought to the Committee was highlighted. The building line was set back 3 metres from the carriageway, and the access arrangements for service vehicles was clarified. In terms of landscaping there was an indicative plan, but this was likely to be amended for highways safety reasons. The application was recommended to be minded to grant for the reasons set out in the report.

Questions for Officers

(3)             In response to Councillor Miller it was explained that the material of the gates would be subject to standard conditions. In relation to trees the Tree Officer had requested native species. In terms of congestion it was not considered there would be any negative impact, and the servicing of the building would be low level, approximately once a week; given that the servicing for the pub had been on street this was considered an improvement. A loading bay was considered unsuitable as it would restrict pedestrian movements and would have to manoeuvre into the loading bay – the proposal also allowed servicing vehicles to enter and exit in a forward gear.

(4)             In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was confirmed that no enforcement had been taken in respect of the unauthorised demolition as the Planning Authority was aware that the proposed application was coming forward. The height of the building would be the equivalent of six storeys and it was likely the windows would tilt, but not be fully openable, for safety reasons.

(5)             In response to Councillor Wares it was clarified that, under the heads of terms, there would be an agreed process to pick up and drop off students, as well as clear servicing arrangements.

(6)             In response to Councillor Morris it was clarified that, whilst not a material consideration, the refuse collection was likely to be undertaken by a commercial operator.

(7)             In response to Councillor Miller it was clarified that the balcony amenity space would not be accessible at night to prevent noise disturbance.

(8)             In response to the Chair it was clarified that that the terms of the section 106 agreement had not clarified the open space contribution.

(9)             In response to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner it was clarified that policy CP21 addressed HMOs and purpose built blocks; the area was identified for this type of development in the emerging City Plan and considered suitable given the relatively reasonable number of units proposed.

(10)          In response to Councillor Gilbey the Principal Transport Officer clarified that the building had been designed to encourage residents to use the pedestrian crossings.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)          Councillor Wares stated that he had doubts in relation to the servicing arrangements at the building, as well as the dropping off and collecting of students at the beginning and end of term. He proposed that the hours for use of the amenity space and the servicing arrangements be formally conditioned to protect the amenity of local residents.

(12)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner noted he agreed with the points made by Councillor Wares, and would support the conditioning of the amenity space. He went on to add that he liked the scheme and felt it was a good use of the site, was disappointed there would no direct reduction in the number of HMOs as a result of such approvals. He would support the Officer recommendation with the addition of the proposed conditions.

(13)          Councillor C. Theobald stated that she felt the building was a little too tall, and she had concerns about the safety of the students, but she agreed with the additional conditions proposed by Councillor Wares. She went on to add that the application was a good use of the difficult site, and the city needed this type of purpose-built accommodation.

(14)          It was confirmed for Councillor Morris that no space for public art had been identified as part of the scheme.

(15)          Councillor Gilbey noted the improvements that had been to the scheme since the pre-application presentation; she also noted her concerns in relation to road safety, but would support the scheme as the city needed this type of accommodation.

(16)          Councillor O’Quinn noted her previous concerns in relation to noise and pollution, but felt assurance had been provided by Officers.

(17)          Councillor Wares formally proposed additional conditions in relation to hours of use of the amenity space and the hours of deliveries for service vehicles. These were seconded by Councillor Miller.

(18)          The Chair put the proposed additional conditions to the vote, these were carried.

(19)          A vote was taken and the 12 Members present unanimously agreed to be minded to grant planning permission subject to a s106 agreement:

106.1    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 be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives in section 11, and the amended and additional conditions below:

Additional Conditions:

i.       Vehicular access to the site shall be from the western elevation (Lewes Road North bound carriageway) only and all vehicles shall leave the site from the eastern elevation onto the South bound Lewes Road carriageway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.”

ii.      The gates and bollards on the sites internal access route shall be closed and prevent vehicular access at all times to the site other than between 19.30 to 7.00 and 10.00 to 16.00 daily in order to accommodate deliveries and  access by residents in associated with the development .

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.”

iii.    The ground floor glazing to the street frontages shall be retained in clear glass and be transparent and shall not be made opaque by the application of screening, applied film or similar.

Reason: In order to ensure that the proposal maintains an attractive visualrelationship to the public realm and in the interests of designing out opportunities for crime in accordance with policy QD27 of the saved 2005 Brighton & Hove Local Plan”

iv.    The balcony amenity area hereby approved as part of this development shall not be in use between the hours of 20.00 and 07.00 daily. 

Reason: In the interests of general and residential amenity in accordance with policy QD27 of the saved 2005 Brighton & hove Local Plan

Delete condition 12

Insert the word “plantroom” in condition 14 and delete the words “energy centre”

Condition 10

Add policy references to TR7 and QD5 to the reason.