Agenda item - BH2015/04536 - Preston Park Hotel, 216 Preston Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Change of use of hotel (C1) to residential (C3) comprising conversion of main hotel building into 16no self-contained open market flats, demolition and redevelopment of north wing to provide 9no affordable flats, alterations to front façade, retention of 27 car parking spaces and provision of new cycle and refuse facilities.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected - Withdean

Change of use of hotel (C1) to residential (C3) comprising conversion of main hotel building into 13no self-contained open market flats, demolition and redevelopment of north wing to provide 9no affordable flats, alterations to front façade, retention of 27 car parking spaces and provision of new cycle and refuse facilities.

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

Officer Presentation

2)               Jonathan Puplett, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The site included parking spaces, cycle spaces, as well as pedestrian access. The proposed rear units had patio areas and the units on the west side had balconies. The proposed balconies at first floor level would be a metre deep; therefore would not be usable for seating, and they would be set back from the neighbouring property to prevent overlooking. It was noted that the Officer recommendation was minded to grant and the s106 requirements were outlined in the report.

Questions for Officers

3)               In response to Councillor Morris it was clarified that the proposed balconies would be one metre deep and approximately 2.5 metres wide and would be restricted further when the doors were open; therefore, would not be big enough for a seating area. It was added that the angle of the balconies would help prevent overlooking.

4)               It was confirmed to Councillor Moonan that 9 of the units would be affordable housing, which was over 40%, and the application had been amended to include larger units. Officers believed the mix of units was acceptable.

5)               In response to Councillor Littman the Officer explained there had been no objection received regarding the loss of visitor accommodation, employment and the loss of the hotel accommodation met City Plan Part One policies.

6)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was confirmed there would be 23 car parking spaces, including three disabled spaces. Councillor C. Theobald noted that it was difficult to park in the area; however, the Case Officer explained that Officers were of the view that the impact would not be significant.

7)               It was noted that the hotel was currently in operation; however, the applicant had informed the Planning Department that the business was struggling.

8)               Councillor C. Theobald noted concern for the windows on the north elevation being fixed shut because of ventilation problems that might occur. The Officer noted that the windows could be opened if above 1.7 metres from the floor.

9)               In response to Councillor Gilbey the Case Officer explained that he was unsure about access to the storage room through the garden; however, noted that this would be a consideration.

Debate and Decision Making Process

10)            Councillor C. Theobald noted that it would be a shame to lose the hotel; however, it was an attractive scheme and additional housing for the city; therefore, she would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

11)            Councillor Russell-Moyle agreed with Councillor C. Theobald that the loss of the hotel would be a shame. He added that there should be more car parking spaces on site as there are problems in the area with street parking; however, he would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

12)            Councillor Moonan stated that the building had been designed well; however she had concerns for the mix of the units and thought the scheme could hold larger family units.

13)            The Chair noted that it was shame that a hotel was being lost; however, there was another hotel near. She added that it was a positive application.

14)            The Committee agreed that an additional condition should be added requiring a site waste management plan if the Planning Manager considered it necessary.

15)            A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant planning permission was carried unanimously.

56.1       RESOLVED – That the Committee resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement, the conditions and informative set out in section 1 and to a condition requiring a site waste management plan should the Planning Manager consider it necessary.