Agenda item - BH2016/01766 - 76-79 and 80 Buckingham Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Conversion of nos 76-79 Buckingham Road to provide four residential dwellings (C3). Demolition of no 80 Buckingham Road and the erection of a five storey building to provide 20 residential units (C3) and a community use unit (D1). Associated car and  cycle parking.

RECCMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected – St Peter’s & North Laine

Conversion of nos 76-79 Buckingham Road to provide four residential dwellings (C3).Demolition of no 80 Buckingham Road and the erection of a five storey building to provide 20 residential units (C3) and a community use unit (D1). Associated car parking, cycle parking, landscaping and servicing provision.

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

Officer Presentation

2)               The Case Officer, Gareth Giles, introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The site was former offices that would be converted to housing units. It was explained that there would be 24 residential units in total, 22 net as there are two existing units on site and 9 of these would be affordable housing. The scheme proposed a community use unit at lower ground level. The blue plaque that was currently on 74 Buckingham Road would be relocated to 80 Buckingham Road during construction. The final location of the blue plaque would be determined by the Council.

3)               The underground parking would be retained and would have six spaces and two disabled spaces, alongside 42 cycle spaces and six on street parking spaces that will be provided through the on street parking scheme.

4)               It was noted that the roof had been amended due to concerns raised by Members and the material proposed was metal. It was noted that Members could agree to add a condition that the materials would be approved by Officers in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

5)               The Officer explained that there were some recommended amendments to the conditions in the report. These were: to remove condition 4 as it had been combined in condition 25; the opening hours for the community use unit, outlined in condition 5, to be changed to 0800 hours – 2200 hours; to add the wording “No developments above ground floor slab level” to condition 7; to add the wording “No developments above ground slab level” to condition 9; to remove condition 15 as it was a duplicate of condition 10; to add the wording “No development above ground floor slab level of any part of the development hereby permitted shall take place” to condition 16; amend the wording of condition 17 to “refuse and recycling facilities shall be implemented in accordance with the details hereby approved” as the change had already been submitted and approved; and a fourth informative to be added reading “The commemorative E. Marshall plaque on the ramp adjoining 79 Buckingham Road shall be relocated to 80 Buckingham following completion of the new build construction at No. 80. The future location of the plaque should be agreed with the Council.”.

Questions for Officers

6)               In response to Councillor Morris it was explained that the roof would be metal; however, the metal had not been specified at this time. It was noted that all the materials were conditioned and would be approved by Officers in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

7)               In response to Councillor Miller is was explained that Frederick Place was an office development; however, the health care facilities had not been lost,

8)               In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was noted that there had been interest from a local health care clinic to use the community space. Officers had not conditioned the space as this could be restrictive, and it was hoped the space would be used by a range of groups. It was added that the opening times had been amended to accommodate different uses.

9)               Councillor Russell-Moyle questioned whether the building could be set back from the pavement as the sharp edge did not reflect the neighbouring properties. The Planning Officer explained that there had been discussions with the applicant regarding this; however, a Design and Review Panel had praised the building being in line with the pavement as rest of neighbouring properties were and it would follow the character of Upper Gloucester Road.

10)            In response to Councillor Hyde it was clarified that there would be set in balconies under the windows which would be sculpted into a ‘wave’ pattern and this would likely be made in render or cast concrete.

11)            It was noted to Councillor Moonan that there would be six one-bedroom, 13 two-bedroom, one three-bedroom and two four-bedroom units and nine units would be affordable housing.

12)            In response to Councillor Gilbey it was confirmed that the space on the ground floor could include a kitchen and toilet facilities. Once the community space had been established, this would be decided.

Debate and Decision Making Process

13)            The CAG representative, Mr Gowans, noted that the set in balconies should be the same material as the roof. He added that the Conservation Area Group were grateful for the work that had been done to improve the application.

14)            Councillor Morris noted that the proposed roofs were not aesthetically pleasing.

15)            Councillor Russell-Moyle noted that he thought the roof would be attractive as long as the applicant ensured the material aged well. He noted concerns regarding the design of the hard corner on Buckingham Street and wished to propose a condition for a diagonal cut corner to match the neighbouring properties. The Planning Manager advised Councillor Russell-Moyle that Members could not condition elevational changes as the application should be determined as submitted.

16)            Councillor Littman stated that he was pleased with the scheme and that the Victorian building was being restored. He also welcomed the proposal that the blue plaque be moved to 80 Buckingham Road, as this was the site of the hospital.

17)            Councillor Miller agreed with Councillor Littman and stated that it was a vast improvement on the current site. He noted that he agreed with Councillor Russell-Moyle that the roof should be a durable material and that the material for this and the balconies should be approved by Officers in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

18)            Councillor Hyde noted that she was pleased that the Victorian buildings would be restored and back in use. She explained that she initially had concerns for the design of the roof; however, since seeing a 3D visual she was not as concerned but noted that the materials needed to be considered carefully, as they could be inappropriate for the area. She noted that she would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

19)            Councillor C. Theobald noted that it would improve the current street scene and was pleased that the blue plaque was to be relocated when construction was taking place. She added that it was a good location near Brighton station and within the city centre.

20)            Councillor Moonan noted that it was a significant improvement to the existing buildings and would provide additional housing in the city centre. She noted that the mix of unit sizes was positive and as a Member of Planning, she wished to ensure a balance was being reached.

21)            The CAG representative explained that the design of the building being extended to pavement level followed the original building pattern.

22)            The Chair thanked the Officers for the input into the application and explained that there had been ongoing negotiation regarding the design and balance of affordable housing. She noted that she would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

23)            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.

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