Agenda item - BH2016/03040 - Jubilee Car Park, Arts Road, University of Sussex, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of a 4no storey car park with associated landscaping and improved pedestrian and vehicle access.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Erection of a 4no storey carpark with associated landscaping and improved pedestrian and vehicle access.

Officer Introduction

1)            The Planning Manager, Paul Vidler, introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The site was part of the Sussex University on the West side of campus. Planning permission had been granted in 2015 for additional bed spaces and this included a proposed car park for 117 spaces. An application was required because the car park building would be 2.2 metres higher than previously proposed and the structure required excavation.

2)            The proposed car park was four storeys; however, there would be eight split levels. The building would be well screened by the trees from most angles. The proposal would be a concrete and cladding design and the metal cladding would be applied at angles. The Officers considered the design to be appropriate and the introduction of different materials to the area was suitable. Additional onsite parking on campus was needed and the proposed car park would provide 362 spaces, including 14 disabled spaces at ground floor level.

3)            The Planning Manager explained that the recommendation had changed to minded to grant as it was subject to a s106 agreement. He added that had been a correction on condition 4 and that it should state “the concrete feature wall to the east elevation”, rather than north-east.

Questions for Officers

4)            Councillor Mac Cafferty raised concerns for potential contamination from WW2 onsite. The Planning Manager noted that the archaeology reports did not raise concern regarding this.

5)            It was clarified to Councillor Morris that the application was not presented at a design panel.

6)            In response to Councillor Morris it was explained that the replacement footpath was west to the proposed car park and it would not be lit at night. The existing footpath was not lit; therefore, the applicant did not feel it was necessary to light the proposed one.

7)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was confirmed that the concrete stairwell would be a natural concrete colour.

8)            In response to Councillor Miller it was confirmed that there would not be any loss of trees from the library square view towards the car park and there would be 65 new trees planted.

9)            In response to Councillor Moonan it was noted that the stairwell on the proposed car park was outside of the building because otherwise it would affect the spaces inside and was necessary for access into the car park. The stairwell would not be as prominent as the elevational drawings were showing.

10)         In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle it was explained the most impacted view would be from the Library Square. There would not be a significant impact from other directions.

11)         The Principal Planning Officer, Tim Jefferies, explained to Councillor Russell-Moyle that the prominent material for the proposal would be the metal cladding, rather than the concrete stairwell. It was felt that using red brick and concrete would have been inappropriate and lose the distinction between the two listed buildings.

12)         In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was confirmed that none of the trees to be removed had preservation orders.

13)         In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was noted that the disabled parking spaces were on the ground floor.

Debate and Decision Making Programme

14)         Councillor Morris noted that the application should have been discussed and modified at a Design Panel as the immediate surrounding area contained Grade II* and Grade I listed buildings. He added that the cladding did not follow the design of the neighbouring buildings. He noted that he would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

15)         Councillor Miller explained that having sufficient parking on site was important and agreed with the Heritage Officers that red brick or render would not be appropriate because it would blend into the listed buildings. He noted he would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

16)         Councillor Hyde agreed with the objections highlighted by CAG and echoed that the stairwell should be made in brick, rather than concrete. She explained the view walking towards the proposed car park would not be aesthetically pleasing and it was important to consider the views when one was closer to the car park and not just long distance views.

17)         Councillor Inkpin-Leissner agreed with Councillor Hyde and added that the stairwell would deflect the effect from the cladding and the reflection of light; therefore would not be supporting the Officer recommendation. 

18)         Councillor Theobald noted that it was shame the trees were being lost; however, onsite parking was needed. She added the stairwell in cladding would have improved the application; however, she would be supporting this Officer recommendation.

19)         Councillor Moonan stated that she welcomed additional parking onsite, believed the cladding was aesthetically pleasing; however, explained the stairwell was bulky and would stand proud. She noted that the stairwell inside the building would have been a better design, despite losing spaces. She added that she was undecided whether she would support the Officer recommendation.

20)         Councillor Russell-Moyle believed the views from Jubilee Square and Bramber House would be ruined by the proposed car park. The concrete would be imposing and there was not any architectural detailing. He noted that car parking was needed; however, he would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

21)         Councillor Littman explained that he did not dislike the design and that there were not any grounds for refusal; therefore, would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

22)         Councillor Wares stated that he liked the design and thought the grey concrete would blend with the cladding better than red brick and would; therefore, be supporting the Officer recommendation.

23)         Councillor Miller noted that the proposal would be a significant improvement on what was currently there. He requested that the materials be approved by Officers in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

24)         Councillor Mac Cafferty noted that he liked the metal cladding design; however was unsure about the concrete stairwell. He stated that he would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

25)         Councillor Morris noted that there were Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings on campus; therefore, the proposal should have be discussed at a Design Panel. The Chair noted that applicants can choose to go to Design Panels and it is not the Officer choice.

26)         The Chair noted that it was a good design and she would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

27)         A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant planning permission was carried with 7 votes for and 5 against.

69.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement, the conditions, informative set out in section 1 and the amended conditions set out below:

Amended condition 4:

Should read east elevation, rather than north-east.

Amended condition 11:

Should read condition 10 rather than condition 9.

Amended informative 2:

Should read condition 5 rather than condition 4.