Agenda item - BH2016/01438 -Land Adjacent Wellsbourne Health Centre, 179 Whitehawk Road, Brighton - Council Development

Erection of 1no three storey block and 1no part three part four storey block containing 29no one, two and three bedroom flats (C3) with a separate single storey plant room containing communal boilers. Provision of 12no vehicle parking spaces with cycle racks and associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: East Brighton

Erection of 1no three storey block and 1no part three part four storey block containing 29no one, two and three bedroom flats (C3) with a separate single storey plant room containing communal boilers. Provision of 12no vehicle parking spaces with cycle racks and associated landscaping.

(1)          The Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar gave a presentation detailing the application by reference to photographs showing the site in the context of the neighbouring development, site plans, illustrations showing the proposed form of the development and elevational drawings. It was explained that the Officer recommendation had been changed and was now “Minded to Grant” subject a S106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 of the report. It was noted that notification had been received from Southern Water that they had amended their view and did not now consider that a drainage strategy would be required. This change was reflected in the amended conditions to be attached to any planning permission granted.

(2)          It was explained that the application site was a vacant piece of land located at the northern end of Whitehawk Road on the eastern side of the road between Whitehawk Primary School car park and Wellsbourne Health Centre. Whitehawk Library was to the rear of the site and there were residential properties opposite the site. A public footpath from Whitehawk Road, which provided access to the school and library, separated the site from the school car park. The school, its car park and the library were set at higher ground levels than the application site. The area was a mix of two storey municipal housing and larger institutional buildings which are both traditional and contemporary in their design and appearance.

(3)          The main considerations in the determining this application related to the principle of development, the design and appearance of the proposed blocks, their impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties and uses, the standard of accommodation created, transport and sustainability issues. The impact of the scheme on the City’s housing supply had also been taken into account. In principle the redevelopment of this unused, previously developed site within the built up area of the City was acceptable for residential purposes. In addition, where residential development was acceptable it would be preferable if the density of development were at least 50 units per hectare in order to use the site as efficiently as possible. At a density of 150 units per hectare the proposed development exceeded the Council’s minimum density requirements. Although the amenity space provided would be reduced to a single balcony for each flat, it was considered that this was mitigated however, due to the proximity of the site to extensive areas of open space. The proposed buildings were set at a sufficient distance from the nearest houses that they would not have an adverse effect either in terms of overlooking, overshadowing or loss of privacy nor to impact the Health Centre or Primary School, or ecology and would meet the Council’s requirements for sustainable buildings and development; minded to grant approval was therefore recommended.

              Questions of Officers

(4)          Councillor Morris sought clarification regarding the colour of the proposed brickwork and it was confirmed that this would be controlled by condition and the materials to be used would require approval.

(5)          Councillor Mac Cafferty sought clarification whether it would be appropriate to make permission subject to a Section 106 in view of the fact that the Council was itself the applicant. He understood that this could not be done where that was the case. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward explained that this procedure had been used in relation to some previous applications by the council and was considered to be appropriate in this instance.

(6)          Councillor Hyde enquired whether as the development was being provided by the Council it would remain as 100% rental accommodation. The Legal Adviser to the Committee explained that “Right to Buy” legislation would apply.

(7)          Councillor C Theobald, sought clarification of the finishes to be used, including in relation to the metal cladding and the location of the disabled parking bays.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)          Councillor Moonan stated that this development which would provide some needed affordable housing in the city was welcomed. Whilst the appearance of the blocks could be considered uninspiring they were well designed internally and provided a range accommodation in the form of one, two and three bedroom flats.

(9)          Councillor Hamilton concurred in that view stating that the smaller units would provide the opportunity to downsize as well as providing family accommodation.

(10)       Councillor Miller stated that he considered that the development was of a “safe” design and had some reservations about the mix of units, nonetheless he supported the scheme and the officer recommendations.

(11)       Councillors Littman and Inkpin-Leissner also confirmed their support for the scheme.

(12)       Councillor C Theobald stated that she thought that the development was of a rather “boring” design but welcomed the additional housing which would be provided.

(13)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, stated that she also welcomed the scheme considering that the design was of an appearance which was in keeping with the neighbouring street scene and would provide much needed housing.

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

30.4       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 that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject a Section 106 and to the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 and to the amendments set out below:

              Minded to Grant subject a S106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 of the report.

S106 Heads of Terms

              £14,500 contribution towards the Council’s Local Employment Scheme.

              Submission of an Employment and Training Strategy, with a commitment to using 20% local labour.

              £54,421 education contribution

              £87,070 open space contribution

              £31, 800 sustainable transport contribution towards real time public transport information at Wellsbourne Centre southbound bus stop on Whitehawk Way and pedestrian crossing and footway improvements at the junction of Manor Road and Whitehawk Road (including dropped kerbs and narrowing the junction to improve the crossing).

              Delete Conditions 6, 7, 18 and 21

              Amend Condition 3 to read:

              Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted a scheme for the provision of a minimum of 40% affordable housing, as part of the development, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The affordable housing shall be provided in accordance with the approved scheme which shall include:

              Delete Conditions 6, 7, 18 and 21

              Amend Condition 3 to read:

              Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted a scheme for the provision of a minimum of 40% affordable housing, as part of the development, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The affordable housing shall be provided in accordance with the approved scheme which shall include:

              i) the timing of the construction of the affordable housing and its phasing in relation to the occupancy of the market housing;

              ii) the tenure, mix and location of the affordable units, including floor plans;

              iii) the arrangements to ensure that the affordable housing remains as affordable housing for both first and subsequent occupiers of the affordable housing; and

              iv) the occupancy criteria.For the purposes of this condition 'affordable housing' has the meaning ascribed to it by the National Planning Policy Framework.

              Reason: To ensure the provision and retention of an appropriate amount of affordable housing in accordance with policy CP20 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.

              Additional condition:

              The wheelchair accessible dwelling(s) hereby permitted as detailed on drawing no. HOU010 005 received on 22/04/16 shall be completed in compliance with Building Regulations Optional Requirement M4(3)(2b) (wheelchair user dwellings) prior to first occupation and shall be retained as such thereafter. All other dwelling(s) hereby permitted shall be completed in compliance with Building Regulations Optional Requirement M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings) prior to first occupation and shall be retained as such thereafter.

              Evidence of compliance shall be notified to the building control body appointed for the development in the appropriate Full Plans Application, or Building Notice, or Initial Notice to enable the building control body to check compliance.

              Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision of homes for people with disabilities and to meet the changing needs of households and to comply with policy HO13 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.