Agenda item - BH2013/01646 - 18, 24, 28 & 30 Kingsthorpe Road, Hove - Outline Application All Matters (save scale) Reserved

Outline application for demolition of existing building and erection of part three storey and part four storey building comprising of B1 use at ground floor level and 26no residential units with associated works, and approval of reserved matters for scale.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Outline application for demolition of existing building and erection of part three storey and part four storey building comprising of B1 use at ground floor level and 26no residential units with associated works, and approval of reserved matters for scale.

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

(2)             The Area Planning Manager introduced the application, and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application site related to a depot site with two main buildings and brick built boundary walls that abutted the railway line to the north with residential properties to the south. Much of the surrounding area was characterised by two-storey terrace dwellings. Outline permission was sought for the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of a part 3 part 4 storey development with all matters reserved aside from scale; plans were shown to the Committee and it was noted that these were illustrative. The plans proposed a mixed use development with 26 two and three bedroom residential units; the main considerations related to the principle of the development and if the scale could be accommodated on the site. The commercial space would be of a modern standard and provide twice as much employment as the current usage and would be a more intensive use.

(3)             The application proposed a greater level of development, but on balance was considered acceptable. In relation to the visual impact whilst much of the surrounding development was two-storey there was a five-storey block of flats in close proximity. Although the indicative plans were not considered acceptable Officers were of the views that a mixed three and four-storey development could be accommodated on the site, and an appropriate design could follow the outline permission. The indicative plans proposed that the affordable units would be two-bedroom and it would be preferable if some of these could be three-bedroom, but this could be dealt with as part of the reserved matters application. Appropriate soundproofing could be secured to mitigate the harm from the railway line and the site could contain a scheme to meet with acceptable standards of accommodation. Whilst a development of this scale would have some overshadowing it was considered that the impact would be acceptable and mitigation measures could be secured at the reserved stage. In terms of transport the increased trips were acceptable and there were no concerns in relation to sustainable transport. The indicative plans showed 6 spaces, but there was no indication how these would be allocated. For the reasons set out in the report the Committee were recommended to be minded to grant permission, subject to conditions, informatives, a S106 agreement and an additional condition in relation to the height of the development.

Questions for Officers

(4)             In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was confirmed that the commercial use would be B1 which was compatible with residential, and it was proposed that the development be car free.

(5)             In response to Councillor Simson the distance to the railway line was clarified.

(6)             Following queries raised by Councillor Gilbey in relation to the land it was confirmed that there would be a suggested condition for the submission of the land levels.

(7)             Councillor Simson had specific questions in relation to parking and the access to parking for the commercial units. In response it was explained that Officers had considered the potential transport impacts of the outline application in terms of the scale; it was important to note there was an existing number of trips as the site was currently in use, and any increase would only be a net increase – it was not felt that this warranted a reason for refusal.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)             Councillor Hyde stated that this was a large area to develop, and the nearby five-storey block of flats was not typical to the area. The development would be much higher than the remaining housing and the site could be laid up much better than the indicative plans proposed; this application could ‘ruin’ the road and she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(9)             Councillor Simson stated she had concerns in relation to B1 use with residential units and that they could be operated as one very large single unit – which would not be appropriate for the street. The more commercial space at the site the more pressure would be placed on transport and the scale of the plans was not appropriate; for these reasons Councillor Simson stated she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(10)          Councillor Wells stated that the bulk and height were not appropriate for the street, and he could be minded to support a scheme that was one storey lower. He felt the indicative plans could be better laid out to facilitate more parking at the rear of the site. He welcomed the mixed use, but had concerns about the density and as such would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

(11)          Councillor Phillips noted that her initial concerns had been alleviated following the site visit. She felt the indicative plans were appropriate and took into account the gradient of the road. She was pleased that both cycling and tree protection could be secured and she noted the highly sustainable nature of the location in relation to transport. For these reasons she would support the Officer recommendation.

(12)          Councillor Hyde referenced her view that the B1 units would need parking to realistically be able to operate, and that the some of the spaces on the site should be allocated for this purpose.

(13)          Councillor Littman noted the difficulty of the decision; in particular due to outline nature of the application. He stated the area historically had mixed use, and it was excellent in terms of sustainable transport. On balance he felt the need for housing and the positives outweighed the harm and for this reason he would support the Officer recommendation.

(14)          Councillor C. Theobald noted that the scale was excessive for the site and the indicative plans would be over dominant in the street scene. The building line would come forward and be overbearing on the housing opposite, and the site needed proper car parking spaces. For these reasons she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(15)          Councillor Phillips noted that the Committee should only be considering matters in relation to scale.

(16)          Councillor Jones noted that he welcomed the principle of the application, but had concerns – he was currently undecided.

(17)          Councillor Gilbey stated that the development was too high for the road and the mass too great. She noted the nearby flats were not typical of the area, and the overlooking would be unacceptable, and she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(18)          Councillor Davey referenced the need for housing and employment sites within the city – as well as the highly sustainable location in terms of transport. The residents would also have access to the Car Club, and he felt this was a potentially good application and he would support the Officers recommendation.

(19)          In response to further queries from the Committee it was explained by Officers that the car free conditions would prevent overspill into the existing residential bays. A car parking management plan would consider the use of the any proposed spaces, and residents would be offered 2 years free membership to the Car Club; it was also added that two of the spaces in the indicative plans were proposed to be disabled bays.

(20)          In response to Councillor Hyde it was explained that the two disabled bays formed part of the six proposed in the indicative plans, and there were two or three Car Club bays in the area.

(21)          By means of the clarification the Head of Development Control and the Senior Solicitor, Hilary Woodward, explained that the reserved matters would not be delegated to the Committee for decision, and procedures in relation to requests to refer items to the Committee by Ward Councillors and the number of representations did not apply to the determination of reserved matters applications. Whilst the Committee expressed some concern to this determination process it was clarified this was a fully appropriate manner to determine the application and the delegation of the reserved matters would not form a reason for refusal.

(22)          In response to Councillor Davey it was noted that it would be not be appropriate to condition use of the Car Club for commercial units.

(23)          Councillor C. Theobald expressed her concern that if the application were approved the reserved matters would not be delegated to the Committee for approval.

(24)          The Senior Solicitor confirmed that the reserved matters application would have to follow an approved outline permission within three years, and the applicant would still have the option to bring forward an application for full planning permission.

(25)          Before the vote was taken the Head of Development Control noted that a condition had been added in relation to range of height that would be expected in the reserved matters application.

(26)          A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to approve planning permission was not carried on a of 3 in support, 5 against and 4 abstentions. Reasons were then proposed and seconded to refuse the application by Councillors Hyde and Wells. A short adjournment was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Hyde, Councillor Wells, the Head of Development Control, the Area Planning Manager and the Senior Solicitor to draft the reasons in full. These reasons were then read to the Committee and it was agreed that they accurately reflected what had been put forward. A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors: Hyde, Simson, Gilbey, C. Theobald and Wells voted that permission be refused; Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Carden and Phillips voted that permission not be refused and Councillors: Jones, Davey and Littman abstained from the vote. It was noted that between the initial vote and the recorded vote Councillor Hamilton had left the meeting, but this had not affected the outcome of the vote.

7.3         RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into account the Officer recommendation, but resolves to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below:

i      The scale of the proposed development is overbearing, overlarge, out of scale with neighbouring buildings and excessive in its immediate context and would therefore have a negative impact on the street scene contrary to policies QD1 and QD2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.

ii     The proposed development by reason of its excessive scale would result in an overbearing and unneighbourly development having a direct and adverse impact on neighbouring residential properties contrary to policies QD1 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.