Agenda item - BH2016/01001- East Slope Refectory Road, University of Sussex, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to 'East Slope' to create a mixed use six storey building comprising entertainment and assembly venue, bar, meeting space, ancillary office space, flexible retail floorspace (A1, A3, A4) and 249 student bedrooms with associated landscaping and bicycle storage.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Hollingdean & Stanmer

              Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to 'East Slope' to create a mixed use six storey building comprising entertainment and assembly venue, bar, meeting space, ancillary office space, flexible retail floorspace (A1, A3, A4) and 249 student bedrooms with associated landscaping and bicycle storage.

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

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Kate Brocklebank detailed the scheme by reference to site plans and elevational drawings, floor plans and photographs showing the existing buildings and proposals in the context of the Master Plan for the site including those in respect of landscaping.

(3)          It was noted that ten of the University’s original buildings had been listed, all of which were based around Fulton Court (nine at grade II* and Falmer House at grade I). These determined the general character, architectural tone and presence of the campus. Similarly, the landscape, played an equally important role to the buildings in setting the tone and character of the campus. The listed buildings, which essentially formed the core of the campus, had a very high degree of architectural significance. The University’s boundary lay predominantly within the local planning area of Brighton & Hove City Council although a small area in the south eastern corner of the site (part of Phase 2/Academic Area) fell within Lewes District Council. The application site occupied a central location on the East Slope of the campus and was formed of large areas of hard standing (car parking) along with portions of existing residential blocks nos. 21-32 and the existing East Slope Bar all of which were to be demolished.

(4)          The main considerations in the determining the application related to the acceptability of the principle of the development and its impact on the outline approval (BH2013/04337), along with design and heritage impact, sustainability amenity and sustainable transport. The verified views submitted with the application demonstrated that the proposed development would not harm the setting of the listed buildings and that there would be negligible impact on the setting of the conservation area or the setting of the registered park and garden at Stanmer. It was considered that the proposed development was of a high standard of design and would integrate well with the overall masterplan and the original Sir Basil Spence design concept without causing harm to the setting of adjacent listed buildings, the Stanmer Park Conservation Area or the South Downs National Park. The development will achieve a BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rating, will adequately protect amenity and with the imposition of suggested conditions will not have an unacceptable impact on the highway network. Minded to Grant approval was therefore recommended.

              Questions of Officers

(5)          Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to this application in the context of the previous applications for this site seeking reassurances that any changes which could impact on the ecology of the site e.g., on the badgers and slow worms would be carefully monitored. The Principal Planning Officer, Kate Brocklebank confirmed that this was the case.

(6)          In relation to the impact of the proposals on the Listed Buildings, particularly the Grade I, Falmer House, the Principal Planning Officer, Heritage and Design, Tim Jefferies, confirmed that the proposals were considered sympathetic to the overall setting of the Listed Buildings.

(7)          Councillor Littman sought confirmation regarding arrangements in relation to the landscaping proposals, with particular regard to tree replacement.

(8)          Councillor C Theobald enquired as to the height of the proposed blocks and whether they would be higher than any of the existing.

(9)          Councillor Morris sought clarification of the location of the lift shaft equipment and whether it would be visible also regarding the materials to be used.

(10)       Councillor Miller sought clarification of the number of parking spaces to be provided across the site. It was confirmed that this would fluctuate during the course of the works. In addition to cycle parking facilities, some parking would be provided for students living on campus and associated with the student union building.

(11)       Councillor Gilbey enquired as to the location of the disabled bays in relation to the accommodation and whether they would be for use by students.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(12)       Councillor Littman stated that whilst he some concerns in regard to the proposals to relocate the existing Student Union building he recognised that was not a planning matter. He considered that the application was acceptable overall and supported the officer recommendation.

(13)       Councillor C Theobald considered that some of the blocks were taller than she would have liked but on balance considered the scheme was acceptable. She also considered it appropriate for the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition spokespersons to agree materials in consultation with Planning Manager. Members were in agreement that the word “green” should be removed in relation to the cladding materials to be used.

(14)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell considered the scheme was acceptable and was happy to support the recommendations.

(15)       A vote was taken and Members voted unanimously that minded to grant planning permission be given.

30.1       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendations set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a S106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 and to the amendments and additional condition(s) set out below:

              Additional S106 head of terms – no other building within Phase 3/West Slope of the masterplan area shall exceed 5 storeys in height.

Delete Condition 9

Amend Condition 19 to read:

No development above ground floor slab level of any part of the development hereby permitted shall take place until a sample of the rain screen cladding material to the stair/lift tower, render and concrete used in the external surfaces of the development, including colour, along with details of the following hard landscaping features; hard surfacing/paved areas, handrails to steps, bollards, fixed seating and litter bins have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to comply with policy CP12 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.

Additional condition:

No development, including demolition and excavation, shall commence until a Site Waste Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved.

Reason: To maximise the sustainable management of waste and to minimise the need for landfill capacity and to comply with policy WMP3d of the East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Local Plan.

              Additional Informative:

The details submitted in relation to materials condition no.19 are delegated to the Planning Manager for agreement in consultation with Members attending the Chairs Briefing.