Agenda item - BH2016/00156 - Clermont Church, Clermont Terrace, Brighton - Full Planning

Change of use from church (D1) to 1no three bedroom flat, 3 no two bedroom flats and 2no one bedroom flats (C3), with associated alterations including installation of rooflights to North and South elevations.

MINDED TO GRANT

Change of use from church (D1) to 1no three bedroom flat, 3 no two bedroom flats and 2no one bedroom flats (C3), with associated alterations including installation of rooflights to North and South elevations.

Officers Introduction

1)               The Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. It was noted that the report should state that there would be an Affordable Housing Contribution of £164,500, rather than £16,45000. The site was located on the corner of Cumberland Road and was within the Preston Park Conservation Area. The application sought permission for the change of use to 6 residential units but would be maintaining the appearance of the building. The application was recommended to be minded to grant, subject to a s106 agreement, for the reasons outlined in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

2)               Councillor Taylor spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor; he explained that he representing the three Local Ward Councillors and the residents. He had concerns in relation to the loss of a community space, car parking and the heritage of the building. He did not agree that it was a sustainable development and disagreed with the Officer recommendations. He stated that there was severe parking stress in the Preston Park area and the car club would not be suitable mitigation, as it would be likely that there would be more than one car per unit. He noted that there would be a loss of amenity to the neighbouring property due to the rooftop proposal and the fire escape route could affect the outside of the property. He read a statement from a local resident that highlighted the following reasons for objecting to the application; increased parking pressure, impact on the historic fabric, and the loss of community use.

3)               Mr Simon Barham and Mr Steven Reeves spoke in their capacity as the applicant’s agents. Mr Reeves highlighted that he had had correspondence with the Development and Transport Assessment Manager who had clarified that there would not be any severe transport issues or impact on parking pressures and the Highways team had carried out tests during the day and evening to ensure this. He noted that evidence from Transport for London (TfL) showed that introducing a car club reduced car use by 23%. Mr Reeves noted that they had worked closely with the Planning Officers, Heritage Officers and Conservation Advisory Group (CAG). The scheme provided high quality residential units that were larger than the national space standards and there was a significant high need for housing.

4)               In response to Councillor Miller, Mr Reeves confirmed that the community hall was actively used by a music dance school.

5)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was confirmed that the Church was quite bare with modern timber. Any items that were of heritage value in the Church would be retained.

Questions for Officers

6)               In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was explained that the partitioned floors would not be flush to the existing windows of the Church.

7)               The Development and Transport Assessment Manager clarified to Councillor Miller that if Members were so minded, a condition could be added to have a contribution from the development towards public transport.

8)               In response to Councillor Hyde it was explained that the community use of the Church was redundant.

9)               In response to Councillor Moonan the Planning Manager noted that there would be cycle storage at the basement level of the property.

Debate and Decision Making

10)            Councillor Hyde noted that she was satisfied that there would not be a loss of community use. She believed it would be a good use of the building and noted that there was a need for housing in the city. She was pleased that there had been correspondence between the Officers and the applicant and her concerns had been alleviated by the applicant in respect of the potential transport issues the development could cause.

11)            Councillor Miller agreed with Councillor Hyde and noted that the residents’ concerns were not as impactful as he originally thought. He stated that parking would be a problem and he wished to discourage car use by introducing public transport incentive measures.

12)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner noted that he was pleased with the development and that it reflected well on the original architecture in the area. He was satisfied that the Officers and applicant had gained support from CAG. He added that he disagreed with the Ward Councillor, Councillor Taylor, that the units would have more than one car each. He agreed with Councillor Miller that public transport incentives should be introduced.

13)            Councillor C. Theobald stated that she was undecided if she would be supporting the Officer recommendations because it would be difficult to park in the area and she wasn’t happy that with the change of use with the Church; however, she noted that accommodation was needed in the city.

14)            The Members agreed to amend the proposed s106 to authorise the development to make a contribution towards a bus pass scheme.

15)            A vote was taken by the 11 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee grant planning permission was carried unanimously.

18.11    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 GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in section 11.

              Note: Councillor Taylor withdrew for the discussion and vote on this application.