Agenda item - BH2015/01471 - The Astoria 10-14 - Gloucester Place Brighton - Full Planning

Demolitionof existingGradeII listed building (approvedunder BH2013/03927)andconstructionof anew part3/part 7storeybuilding (plus basement)toform70noone, two, threeandfour bedroomself- containedresidential units (C3)and incorporatingcommercial units (A1/A2/B1) in the basement andon the ground floor fronting Gloucester Place, a community room (D1)on the ground floor fronting Blenheim Place together withrefuse/recycling facilities, cycle storage andother associated works.

RECOMMNEDATION – REFUSE

Demolition of existing Grade II listed building (approved under BH2013/03927) and construction of a new part 3/part 7 storey building (plus basement) to form 70no one, two, three and four bedroom self-contained residential units (C3) and incorporating commercial units (A1/A2/B1) in the basement and on the ground floor fronting Gloucester Place, a community room (D1) on the ground floor fronting Blenheim Place together with refuse/recycling facilities, cycle storage and other associated works.

              Officer Presentation

1)               The Principal Planning Officer, Adrian Smith, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application related to a Grade II listed property on Gloucester Place; permission was sought to demolish and rebuild the site which was located in the Valley Gardens Conservation Area. There was an existing permission on the site which expired on 5 March 2018, and the differences between the proposed and approved schemes were highlighted though it was noted the design was largely the same and would use a similar palette of materials. The loss of the Grade II listed building remained acceptable and the scale, form and height were largely the same as were the considerations in relation to transport and highways. The viability case for the housing had been assessed and agreed, and full details would be in the s106 agreement. The main concern related to the standard of some of the accommodation which was considered to be sub-standard and outweigh the wider gains of the additional housing on the site. The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

2)               Mr Davis spoke in support of the scheme in his capacity as the applicant. He stated that the ethos of the development was to create a community focused environment where tenants would have access to communal facilities including: landscaped areas, bookable dining room, bookable guest rooms, on site gym and cycling spaces. Assurance was provided that it was not the intention for the site to be used for student housing. The level of s106 contributions required put pressure on the viability of the scheme, and the Officer report demonstrated that the scheme was acceptable in terms of the impact on neighbouring properties, the loss of the listed building and the standard of accommodation for the majority of the units. The aim was to create a new specialist style residential accommodation, and the Committee were invited to approve the application.

3)               In response to Councillor Barradell the speaker confirmed this type of high-end rented accommodation was a market that the developer wished to move into.

4)               In response to Councillor Wares the speaker gave assurance that the development would not be used to house students.

Questions for Officers

5)               In response to Councillor Barradell it was confirmed that the proposed scheme would restore areas of active frontage to the site.

6)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald the changes to the rear configuration were highlighted and it was confirmed that were this a recommendation for approval there would be the same conditions as those in the extant consent. In response to Councillor Wealls it was clarified that the accommodation was considered to be substandard as the proximity of the units across the courtyard was insufficient and the only windows were at the front of the units.

7)               In response to Councillor Wares it was clarified that were the scheme granted then the funds in the s106 for affordable housing would be used to provide affordable housing worth £2.4m – discussions had taken place with the Estates Regeneration Team and there were several unfunded schemes that would be able to deliver affordable rent.

8)               In response to Councillor Gilbey the Planning Policy Manager explained that there was some flexibility to allow for commuted sums where there were good planning and viability reasons to do so; this was considered acceptable at this site.

9)               In response to Councillor Morris it was clarified that the building had been vacant for 17 years and this was sufficient to demonstrate the case for the loss of the community facility. Were permission granted then the community space on the site would be made as widely available to the public as possible.

Debate and Decision Making Process

10)            Councillor Wealls noted he was minded to go against the Officer recommendation as he felt the market would naturally address the issue of sub-standard accommodation.

11)            Councillor C. Theobald highlighted that the building was derelict; though it would be a shame to lose the original building. She stated she would support the Officer recommendation and also had concerns in relation to parking.

12)            Councillor Barradell noted that she unsure if the proposed model of accommodation would work, and she was minded to agree with the Officer recommendation for the reasons set out in the report.

13)            Councillor Morris noted his concerns in relation to affordable housing and stated that he could not support a scheme in this location that did not provide on-site affordable housing.

14)            Councillor Hamilton noted his support for the Officer recommendation, but highlighted that the applicant could easily bring an acceptable scheme forward at this site.

15)            Councillor Mac Cafferty noted how difficult the original decision had been; he did not have confidence in the different elements of the scheme and would vote with the Officer recommendation.

16)            The Chair stated that she would support the Officer recommendation as the quality of the accommodation was poor and some of the design elements were contrived.

17)            A vote was taken on the Officer recommendation that planning permission be refused and this was carried on a vote of 9 in support, with 2 against and 1 abstention.

103.2    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 REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reason for Refusal:

i.       The proposeddevelopment includesa significantnumber ofsingle aspect dwellingsthat wouldprovide fora sub-standardform ofaccommodation by reasonof insufficientaccess tonatural light,an undulyenclosed outlook, potentialnoise disturbance from use ofthe innercourtyard, andlack of suitableprivacy. Theproposal thereforeresults inan unacceptablestandard of residentialaccommodation forfuture occupiers,contrary topolicy QD27of the Brighton& HoveLocal Plan.

Informatives:

ii.    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 arefor sustainable development where possible.