Agenda item - BH2016/01961- 46-54 Old London Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 3 storey building containing 44 assisted living apartments for older persons with associated communal facilities, parking and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – WOULD HAVE REFUSED

Ward Affected: Patcham

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 3 storey building containing 44 assisted living apartments for older persons with associated communal facilities, parking and landscaping.

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

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Sarah Collins, gave a presentation detailing the proposed scheme by reference to elevational drawings, plans and photographs. Reference was also made to the additional representations received and the amended wording of reason for refusal no.4, as set out in the circulated Additional Representations List. It was explained that as the applicant had lodged an appeal against non-determination of the application, it was considered to be a deemed refusal and a case needed to be put forward to the Inspector indicating what would have been the local planning authority’s grounds for refusal had it been able to determine the application. The Planning Officer maintained regular contact with the applicant’s agent throughout the course of the application and delays were incurred by the absence of pre-application consultation with Officers, the submission of amended plans, additional information and a further round of consultation, and correspondence with the agent relating to the potential impact of the development and developer contributions.  The Planning Officer requested a further extension of time to allow for these ongoing discussions but the applicant did not agree to this and the appeal was submitted.

(3)          It was explained the site was located in a predominantly residential area of mainly low-rise detached housing set within well-vegetated plots. The site lay on the east side of Old London Road and comprised five detached dwellings, nos. 46 to 54. Number 46 at the southern end of the site was a bungalow with clay tiled roof and half brick, half pebbledash finish. 48 and 50 were chalet style bungalows, with steeply pitched clay tiled roofs which contain additional accommodation. Numbers 52 and 54 were detached two storey houses with clay tiled roofs and half brick, half render finishes.

(4)          An Area Tree Preservation Order covered the plot of number 54 (and extends to number 11 on the opposite side of Old London Road). However, none of the existing trees at number 54 were present at the time of the Tree Preservation Order in 1971 (ref: 1971-16) and therefore they were not protected. The site measured approximately 67m to 71m (East to West) by 67m (North to South) with a site area of approximately 4,638sqm (0.46 hectares). The site sloped gently upwards to the east. The existing houses are set approximately 15 to 18 metres back from Old London Road. There was no pavement on that side of the road but instead grass verges of approximately 3m to 4m depth. The front boundary treatments of the existing houses generally consist of low brick walls and substantial hedges, shrubs and small trees interrupted by the driveways of each property so that there is a verdant character to the road frontage, with the exception of the frontage of number 54, which is more open albeit there is some planting and a large tree at the northwest corner. To the south of the site this verdant character and green verges continued to the property frontages.

(5)          The appeal history in respect of this site including previously withdrawn appeals by this same applicant were referred to in the officer report. The main considerations in the determination of this application relate to the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the street scene, the flood risk potential at the site, the level of amenity provided to the prospective residents and the requirement for developer contributions in mitigation of the development. The City Plan Part 1 Inspector's Report had been received in February 2016. This supported a housing provision target of 13,200 new homes for the city to 2030. It was against this housing requirement that the five year housing land supply position had been assessed following the adoption of the Plan on the 24th March 2016. The City Plan Inspector had indicated support for the Council's approach to assessing the 5 year housing land supply and had found the Plan sound in that respect. The five year housing land supply position would be updated on an annual basis.

(6)          The Policy Officer questioned the use class of the proposed development put forward by the applicant. The applicant considered the development to be a C2 use, however the Policy Officer considered the development to be more akin to 'dwelling houses' (C3 use) rather than a 'residential institution' (C2). Irrespective of the use class (whether it be C2, C3 or sui generis) it was considered the accommodation proposed should be considered against and comply with policies relating to housing/dwellings.

(7)          As such, the Policy Officer considered policy CP20 to apply to the proposed development, and had sought 40% affordable housing, which it was considered could be provided as a commuted sum. The supporting text to policy CP20 states that financial contributions will be pooled and used to enable affordable housing provision within the City. The Housing Strategy Officer calculated the commuted sum to amount to £2,282,000.00.

(8)          However, the applicant has not offered any affordable housing and contrary to reference to a viability assessment in the submitted Planning Statement, no viability assessment has been submitted in relation to this application. Therefore, the application was contrary to saved Local Plan policy HO12, and City Plan Part One policies SA6, CP7, CP19 and CP20, and it was considered it should be refused on this basis.

            Public Speakers

(9)          Mr Balchin spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors referring to the high number of objections received, also, from Ward Councillors and the Local MP, regarding the detrimental impact of the proposed scheme. The area was at significant risk of flooding and slides were shown indicating the potential extent of the problem.

(10)       Councillor MacCafferty sought clarification of when the photographs had been taken, for example had they been taken in 2000 when flooding in the area had been particularly bad? i.e., did they represent a worst case scenario?

            Questions of Officers

(11)       Councillor Russell-Moyle sought clarification regarding the amount of time it took for floodwaters to subside.

(12)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell, confirmed that it would be useful to receive clarification of the situation in relation to flooding in the vicinity of the site. The Committee were referred to the comments received from Southern Water set out in paragraph 5.15 of the report and to the recommendation received from the Flood Risk Management Officer that the application should be refused.

(13)       Councillor Wares stated that the site was located in his ward and explained that whole section of London Road in Patcham could be subject to severe flooding not just due to poor surface run-off, but in consequence of rising ground water as well and inadequate capacity to deal with surface water sewage. That situation was currently the case without the provision of additional housing units.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(14)       Councillor Morris stated that he was gravely concerned that the applicants had not engaged in any pre-application or other discussions with officers. nor had they sought to meet policy requirements including the BREEM target.

(15)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the application did not respect the issues associated with the area/site. The flood risk issue had not been addressed at all and on those grounds alone he was totally in agreement with the officer recommendation.

(16)       Councillor Wares concurred with all that had been said, especially bearing in mind his knowledge of the area.

(17)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that he considered that the attitude displayed by the applicant was very bad and hoped that the Inspector upheld the Council’s policies, as did Councillor Littman and Russell-Moyle.

(18)       Councillors Janio and Miller stated that there would be a detrimental impact produced by additional buildings on the site, not just for neighbouring residents but for future occupiers of the site too.

(19)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell, stated that she considered the grounds on which the authority was intending that planning permission would have been refused were robust and she fully supported them.

(20)       A vote was taken and Members voted unanimously in agreement with the officer recommendation.

96.1       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation and resolves that it WOULD HAVE REFUSED planning permission for the reasons set out in the report as amended by the Late Representations List had an appeal against non-determination not been made