Agenda item - BH2016/02663 -1-3 Ellen Street, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of existing commercial units (B8) and erection of buildings ranging from four storeys to seventeen storeys in height comprising a mixed use development of no.186 residential apartments (C3), 1,988 sqm of offices (B1) and 226sqm of retail (A1) with car parking at basement level.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Goldsmid

   Demolition of existing commercial units (B8) and erection of buildings ranging from four storeys to seventeen storeys in height comprising a mixed use development of no.186 residential apartments (C3), 1,988 sqm of offices (B1) and 226sqm of retail (A1) with car parking at basement level.

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

Officer Presentation

(2)          It was noted that letters of objection had been received from Councillor Brown and that revised layout and fenestration drawings had been received which improved the levels of daylight to the residential units in the development.

(3)          The Principal Planning Officer, Chris Swain, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings delineating the proposed scheme. The site sat to the west of Hove Station to the south side of Conway Street and was currently occupied by single storey brick and metal clad industrial sheds with associated car parking. The Brighton & Hove Bus Company was located in the buildings/land to the north of the site and also owned the car park to the west end of the site which did not form part of the application site. There were three and four storey office buildings to the west with mixed commercial buildings beyond. To the south of the site there were ten storey residential blocks which formed part of the Clarendon Estate with low rise residential development at the base of the blocks along with garages and car parking. To the east of the site were the rear of properties which front Goldstone Villas the majority of which had single storey additions and garages fronting onto Ethel Street. A number of these had been converted to commercial uses some set out over two storeys. The east side of Ethel Street was occupied by open off street private car parking bays.

(4)          The application site lay immediately to the west of the Hove Station Conversation Area and adjoined the Denmark Villas Conservation Area to the east. To the north east of the site was the Grade II listed Hove Station, which formed an architecturally and historically important grouping with the adjacent public house at 100 Goldstone Villas, included on the council’s local list. Each building was contained within the Hove Station Conservation Area and was also within the Conway Street Industrial Area Strategic Allocation, within the wider policy DA6 Hove Station Area of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.

(5)          The principle of development on this site was fully supported and encouraged by planning policy, being located within the Conway Street Industrial Area Strategic Allocation. Officers had undertaken significant discussions and negotiations with the applicants to overcome concerns and to secure an acceptable scheme. The scheme was challenging in terms of the amount of development proposed, its form, appearance and impact on the locality. When its impact was weighed up against its positive benefits of kick-starting redevelopment of a Development Area Strategic Allocation and the provision of improved public realm it was supported. However, it had not been possible for the applicant to reach agreement with the District Valuer Service (DVS) on the amount of affordable housing within the scheme, taking into account the viability of the development. Whilst the proposals have been independently assessed by the DVS as being viable with 25% affordable housing to an appropriate tenure mix, this had not been agreed by the applicant who was offering 18.8%. Under those circumstances, the proposed scheme was contrary to policy CP20 of the City Plan. The level of affordable housing provision offered by the applicant was significantly below the 25% which had been independently assessed as being viable by the DVS and refusal was therefore recommended.

            Consideration of Deferral

(5)          Councillor Moonan referred to the recent publication of the viability information from the applicant and the DVS and the additional technical information which had been received from the applicants the previous day considering that in view of the late date at which it had been received it would be appropriate to defer consideration of the application until the next scheduled meeting of the Committee in order to enable it to be fully assessed. The Chair, Councillor Cattell was in agreement stating that she considered it regrettable that this information had been made available and submitted very late in the process. To hold consideration of the application over to the next meeting would be with the “open book” approach being adopted.

(6)          Councillor C Theobald stated that it was up to individual Members to decide whether they had sufficient information before them in order to make a decision asking whether officers considered that this represented a material change. Councillor Littman concurred, considering that if officers considered this represented a material change that they would have indicated that.

(7)          Councillor Mac Cafferty sought confirmation that officers were satisfied that Members had sufficient information before them to make a decision. Councillor Morris concurred, considering it regrettable that the information received had been received so late.

(8)          In answer to questions, the Planning Manager, Major Applications, explained that the information received had been made available to members at the earliest possible date, further advice had been sought from the District Valuer and the officer recommendation remained unchanged.

(9)          A vote was taken and on a vote of 6 to 5 Members agreed to consider the application at that meeting.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(10)       Ms Paynter spoke in her capacity as a local resident setting out her objections and those of other neighbouring residents to the scheme. In their view the scheme was overbearing and would have unacceptable impacts on the quality of life of the nearest residents and at 17 storeys the height would be too great and a development of that height should be resisted. The Design Access Statement had demonstrated how intrusive the development would be, it would be worse at night when lit and no assessment of that had been made, also, that the requirement for 40% affordable housing should be met.

(11)       Mr Gibson spoke in support of the scheme on behalf of the Hove Station Neighbourhood Forum. Overall subject to resolution of concerns especially in relation to the proposed public realm improvements the Forum was of the view that any harm to heritage assets would be substantially offset by a combination of improvements to the public realm immediately west of Hove Conservation Area and by the sustained investment in the historic buildings themselves.

(12)       Councillor O’Quinn spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor. Councillor O’Quinn stated that she had had been aware of the scheme from an early point. The proposals had a high level of support locally as it was considered that it would totally transform the area for the better, making it a far more pleasant place to live and would also utilise a brownfield site. The development would also provide residential housing and office and retail space which was much needed in this badly neglected area of Hove.

(13)       Mr Lomax spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application. He explained that careful thought had been given to the way in which the scheme had been designed and put together. It would provide much needed improvement to an area of Hove which had been neglected, with a mixed use development which would provide both housing and commercial uses. The requirement for 40% affordable housing was unrealistic and the information provided by the DV was refuted as the applicant’s own independent assessment had arrived at different conclusions.

Questions for Officers

(14)       Councillor Bennett enquired regarding the level of amenity space proposed and the applicant’s representative confirmed that it was proposed that all of the units would have their own balcony space.

(15)       Councillor Cobb enquired regarding the amount of amenity space being provided across the scheme as a whole and the distance between the development and the nearest residential dwellings.

(16)       Councillor Moonan referred to the variance between the level of  affordable housing proposed by the applicants as against that suggested by the District Valuer Service (DVS), enquiring regarding the rationale for use of information provided by the DVS, the weight and validity given to that information. It was explained that the DVS was used by Local Authorities and gave independent advice on all applications where it was appropriate for such an assessment to be made. Each application was judged on its individual merits and in instances where the DVS considered the applicant’s viability assessment justified a level of affordable housing below policy compliance this would be set out in the report and taken into account in the officer’s recommendation. A consistent approach was used in that all applications subject to a viability assessment were considered by the DVS. There had been no instances where non-policy compliant levels of affordable housing had been accepted contrary to the advice of the DVS.

(17)       Councillor Bennett enquired about details of any anticipated additional traffic in the vicinity of the site.

(18)       Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to “demonstrable harm” which would result seeking further information and clarification of the details appertaining to this scheme. It was explained that the level of “harm” would largely be mitigated by the improvements which would result from the scheme. The principle of development was fully supported, however, the scheme was challenging in terms of the amount of development proposed, its form, appearance and impact on the locality. The proposals had been independently assessed by the DVS as being viable with 25% affordable housing as an appropriate tenure mix. The applicant had indicated that they were only prepared to offer 18.8% and it was on that basis that refusal was recommended.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(19)       Councillor C Theobald stated that the scheme would provide significant improvements and would provide some affordable housing which would not be available otherwise. The scheme would be quite tall however and she would have preferred to see more on-site parking.

(20)       Councillor Taylor stated that the scheme for redevelopment of this site had taken a long time in coming to fruition and would provide much needed housing some of which would be affordable, he welcomed the scheme.

(21)       Councillor Moonan stated that although there was much to commend the scheme, she was concerned that the level of affordable housing was too low considering that the assessment of the DVS should be used as a benchmark as that approach was consistent with that used for other schemes. Councillors Gilbey and Morris concurred in that view.

(22)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that some elements of the scheme were fantastic, the current scheme had been a long time in preparation, however, the scheme should be fantastic for everyone and ultimately as it would deliver such a low level of affordable housing he was unable to support it in its present form. Councillor Littman was in agreement and considered that it was important to respect the views of the DVS as the independent expert used by the authority.

(23)       Councillor Hamilton welcomed the mix of residential and commercial uses provided by the scheme, but on balance considered the element of affordable housing proposed to be too low.

(24)       Councillor Bennett was in agreement with others that the scheme was too high, also that would it would have a negative impact on traffic and parking, that the recreational space was too small and that the comments received from the Design Panel had not been taken on board.

(25)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell concluded the debate by stating that she was in agreement that whilst there were many positive elements to the scheme and whilst it was recognised that it would affect improvements to the area ultimately, it was contrary to Policy CP20 of the City Plan and she therefore supported the officer recommendation that the application be refused.

(26)       A vote was then taken and the 11 Members present at the meeting voted that planning permission be refused on a vote of 9 to 2.

7.1         RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out in the report.