Agenda item - BH2015/04474 - Units 1-6 Longley Industrial Estate, New England Street, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Change of use of all units from light industrial (B1c) and warehousing (B8)  to offices (B1a) together with external alterations and refurbishment including increase in height of building, installation of curtain walling system, metal faced cladding and glazed panelling, revised vehicular and pedestrian access, new cycle  and motor cycle storage and disabled parking bays.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Change of use of all units from light industrial (B1c) and warehousing (B8)  to offices (B1a) together with external alterations and refurbishment including increase in height of building, installation of curtain walling system, metal faced cladding and glazed panelling, revised vehicular and pedestrian access, new cycle  and motor cycle storage and disabled parking bays.

Officer Introduction

1)               The Planning Manager – Major Planning Applications (Paul Vidler) introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application sought permission for a change of use from light industrial units to office space and the installation of new mezzanine floors. The application sought approval to make changes to the exterior of the existing building with the addition of a new entrance and cladding the front of the building. The building would become four levels, double the floor space and would increase the potential employment numbers from 50 to 500. There would be disabled parking spaces at the front of the building and soft landscaping to the sides and at the rear of the building. The site was located in Development Area 4 of the recently adopted City Plan Part 1 and the site had been allocated for a mixed use development; however, the application proposed all commercial use. It was explained that it was recognised that there was an acute need for new residential development; however, the site only been identified for 10 residential units and other sites in the Development Area 4 had been identified to accommodate higher residential numbers. The application was recommended to be minded to grant as it provided significantly uplifted office space in the area.

Questions for Officers

2)               In response to Councillor Barradell it was clarified that the security fence proposed would be two metres high and around the parking area. The Officer clarified to Councillor C. Theobald that the fence would be made from a metal with an open mesh.

3)               The Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained to Councillor Barradell that it was unlikely the development would need to fund mitigation measures in relation to traffic flow on New England Street as the proposals were only for two disabled parking bays. It was added that the Committee were so minded they could require that a keep clear box outside the premises be installed.

4)               The Planning Manager explained to Councillor Morris that the office space could be subdivided for smaller businesses to use.

5)               In response Councillor Miller it was explained that five sites had been identified in the City Plan Part 1 for mixed use commercial and residential schemes with 10 residential units identified for this site. It was added that the application was for a change of use rather than a new building and Officers were of the view that the were the application for redevelopment then they would expect to see a mixed use scheme. In response to Councillor Barradell, the Planning Manager explained that 165 residential units needed to be developed over the five sites.

6)               In response to Councillor Moonan it was clarified none of the other sites identified for residential units in the area were currently under development.

7)               It was explained to Councillor Mac Cafferty that were a scheme to come forward for full redevelopment of the site there would be an expectation that such a scheme should include residential elements in line with policy. It was also explained that there were no plans to extend the ‘greenway’ that had been developed on New England Street that was near to completion.

8)               In response to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner, the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that there were no plans to provide parking spaces for staff at the site in local public car parks such as London Road. There would be an expectation for the scheme to come forward with a sustainable transport plan. It was also explained that it was unlikely that staff would be competing with residents as the staff would not be able to park in permit holders bays, only the pay and display bays or nearby car parks.

Debate and Decision Making Process

9)               Councillor Littman noted that there was a greater need for housing rather than office space in the city and stated that he was likely to not support the Officer recommendation as the application did not comply with policy in the City Plan Part 1.

10)            Councillor Barradell stated that she believed it was a visual improvement on the current site and was pleased that the property would be used for something useful. She stated that she would support the Officer recommendation if there could improvements to the traffic flow issues in the area.

11)            Councillor Miller stated that he agreed with Councillor Barradell and believed it was a visual improvement. He expressed concern that the materials would be agreed at a later point and with the lack of parking. Councillor Miller noted that despite the property being a visual improvement, he would not be supporting the Officer recommendation as the site did not comply with policy in the City Plan Part 1.

12)            Councillor Mac Cafferty agreed with Councillor Littman and expressed concern that the site was a missed opportunity and could have been used for housing. He also noted concerns that the materials had not been detailed and that there was no information on where the greenwall would be located. Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he would likely not support the Officer recommendation.

13)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that there wasn’t a demand for office space in the city and that there was a demand for housing. He explained that he would not be supporting the Officer recommendation due to the existing parking problems in the area; the traffic issues and the additional pollution it could create.

14)            Councillor Morris stated that he was pleased that jobs are being created and noted that more jobs were needed in the city. He expressed concerns that: the office space being created would be for large businesses rather than smaller; the proposed property would not help the shortage of housing in the city and the current traffic problems would be exacerbated. Councillor Morris added that he was undecided if he would support the Officer recommendation.

15)            Councillor C. Theobald noted that additional housing was needed in the city; however, there had already been a lot of new residential properties built in this area. She explained that it was a visual improvement and as it was in the centre of the city, it had good transport links to it; therefore, she stated that she would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

16)            Councillor Hyde stated that she would be supporting the application because: there were other opportunities for housing in the area; there was a requirement for office space in the city; the space was flexible for small and large offices; it would offer new jobs; it was a vast visual improvement from the current property. She added that she had noted the traffic problems and would support a condition to include a keep clear box.

17)            Councillor Moonan noted that the scheme was a visual improvement; however, was concerned by the lack of housing in the scheme.

18)            A vote was taken by the Committee on the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant permission and this was not carried on a vote of 4 in support with 5 against and 3 abstentions. Councillor Miller proposed reasons for refusal and these were seconded by Councillor Inkpin-Leissner, a short adjournment was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Miller, Councillor Inkpin-Leissner; the Planning Manager – Applications and the Senior Solicitor to draft the reasons in full. These were then read to the Committee and it was agreed that they reflected those that had been put forward. A recorded vote was then held and Councillors: Gilbey, Barradell, Inkpin-Leissner, Littman, Miller and Moonan voted that permission be refused; Councillors: Cattell, Theobald, Bennett and Hyde voted that permission not be refused; and Councillors: Mac Cafferty and Morris abstained.

19)            RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer recommendation, but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reason 1

The proposed development does not represent a mixed use development of the site as identified in policy DA4 C.1. of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part 1 by its failure to provide housing and so contribute to the 165 units identified in the policy.

Reason 2

The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the traffic generated by the proposed development can be accommodated within the constraints of the existing road network contrary to policy CP9 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part 1.

Reason 3

The provision of two disabled spaces on the site is lower than the standards set out in SPGBH4: Parking Standards and is therefore considered unacceptable and contrary to policy TR18 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005 and policy CP9 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part 1.