Agenda item - BH2016/05810 - Genome Centre & Land Adjoining To East Within The Science Car Park, Science Park Road, University Of Sussex, Brighton - Full Planning

Refurbishment of the existing Genome Centre building and erection of a new Life Sciences building (D1) (14,910 sqm) over four floors plus basement with associated access, servicing and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Hollingdean & Stanmer

A               BH2016/05810 - Genome Centre & Land Adjoining To East Within The Science Car Park, Science Park Rd, University Of Sussex, Brighton - Full Planning

Refurbishment of the existing Genome Centre building anderection of a new Life Sciences building (D1) (14,910 sqm) over four floors plus basement with associated access, servicing andlandscaping.

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

Officer Introduction

2)               The Principle Planning Officer, Kate Brocklebank, introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The proposal was on the current science car park, on the south side of the campus, and was in close proximity to nine Grade II listed buildings and one Grade I listed building.

3)               The Officer explained that the materials were subject to condition; however, the proposal showed red brick columns and an aluminium roof in a bronze colour. The existing Genome building was to be refurbished as part of the application.

4)               The Officer noted that there was an agreement that the scheme was to be funded directly from Central Government.

5)               The proposal would not have an effect on traffic or a harmful impact on the environment.

6)               There were two amendments to the conditions that were recommended by the Officers. These were:

“Amend Condition 11 to allow a period of up to 6 months following occupation for the submission of the completion certificate, to read:

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, within 6 months of the occupation of the new build non-residential development hereby approved a BREEAM Building Research Establishment issued Post Construction Review Certificate confirming that the new build non-residential development built has achieved a minimum BREEAM New Construction rating of 'Excellent' shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.   

Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy, water and materials and to comply with policy CP8 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.

Amend Conditions 22 and 23: reference to ‘phase 2’ to be removed from each condition.”

Questions for Officers

7)               In response to Councillor Miller the officer noted that they had received limited detail regarding the plant on the roof; however, this would be agreed by condition. The predominant view from the Library Steps would be the side of the existing Genome building. 

8)               In response to Councillor Morris it was explained that the screen on the roof would be visible in the winter from longer views; however would not be visible from other buildings on the campus.

9)               Councillor C. Theobald raised concerns regarding the loss of the car park and when the proposed car park was due to be built. The Officer explained that the university was hopeful that it would be able to provide additional car parking prior to the building being commenced and the Planning Department had recommended an updated travel plan and a parking management plan. It was noted that there were 88 cycle racks proposed on the site.

10)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was noted that applicant had submitted a brick sample and the Planning Department’s Heritage Team suggested amendments to have a brighter red brick to match the neighbouring buildings.

Debate and Decision Making Programme

11)            Councillor Littman noted that the building would provide good facilities and the building was a good design because it reflected the neighbouring buildings. He explained he had concerns for the loss of the trees as the area was becoming more urban; however, he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

12)            Councillor Miller noted concern for the roof plant and requested that the materials be approved by Officers in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons. He added that he would support the Officer’s recommendation.

13)            Councillor Russell-Moyle explained that the design was positive; however, it could be improved by the brick pillars being extended to the top level of the building. He agreed with Councillor Miller that the roof plant should be approved by Officers in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons to ensure that the plant did not protrude too much. He noted that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

14)            Councillor Morris noted concern for the roof plant and the design of the screening; however, explained that he welcomed the scheme.

15)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner explained that he was pleased with the design and liked the contrast between the red brick and grey. He thanked the Officers for the consultation with the architects regarding the colour of the red brick and noted that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

16)            The Chair thanked the Officers and applicants for the positive work and working collaboratively.

17)            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.

109.1      RESOLVED – That the Committee resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement and expiry of the consultation period raising no new material considerations and the conditions and informative set out in section 1.