Agenda item - BH2016/05312 -65 Orchard Gardens, Hove-Full Planning

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 5no storey building and basement comprising a mixed use development of offices (B1) on the Ground floor and 23no one, two and three bedroom flats (C3) on the upper floors, 23no car parking spaces (including 3 Disability Spaces), cycle storage and associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected : Hove Park

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 5no storey building and basement comprising a mixed use development of offices (B1) on the Ground floor and 23no one, two and three bedroom flats (C3) on the upper floors, 23no car parking spaces (including 3 Disability Spaces), cycle storage and associated landscaping.

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

Officer Presentation

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. It was also noted that Councillor Brown had submitted a letter of objection in respect of this scheme.

(3)          Permission was sought for clearance of the site, demolition of the existing buildings, and the erection of a 4/5 storey building comprising ground floor office space (B1(a)), ground floor double height car parking area, and the           provision of 23 self-contained flats to the upper floors. Nine affordable units were proposed; five as affordable rent and four as shared ownership. 23 car parking spaces were proposed, three of which were suitable for disabled access. A landscaped communal garden area was proposed to the eastern side of the site atop the flat roof of the ground floor car park.

(4)          It was considered that although the proposed development would result in the loss of the existing employment use; the new building would deliver replacement employment floorspace and a potential net uplift in the number of staff which would be accommodated. The proposed residential units would provide a good standard of accommodation, 40% affordable units and an acceptable mix of unit sizes. The proposed building design would appear in contrast to the prevailing character of the Nevill Road street scene, but would relate well to the larger buildings fronting on to Old Shoreham Road, and overall was considered to represent a good standard of design which would have a positive impact upon the Nevill Road and Orchard Gardens street scenes. The scheme would provide for 40% affordable housing and conditions were recommended to secure 10% of affordable units overall wheelchair accessible; approval was therefore recommended.

              Questions for Officers

(5)          Councillor Moonan referred to the concerns expressed by the Police requesting clarification regarding measures taken to address those concerns, also regarding whether windows to the rear would be non-opening. It was confirmed that mitigation measures had been taken and that the windows would not be non-opening but would be vented so that there would be a fresh air source without the need to open the windows.

(6)          Councillor C Theobald asked to see plans relating to the previous scheme in order to see the differences between the two.

(7)          Councillor Cobb referred to the proposed transport contribution stating that she was aware that various traffic improvements were proposed in the vicinity of Old Shoreham Road seeking clarification of what was proposed, stating that she hoped that there would not be any duplication of work and that one scheme would not compromise another. It was explained that the area would be assessed in order to make improvements overall.

(8)          Councillor Morris enquired regarding the location of the lifts.

(9)          Councillor Bennett required regarding potential loss of light to neighbouring buildings and it was explained that although there would be some loss it fell well within BRE guidelines.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)       Councillor Hamilton stated that he was pleased to note that the amended scheme had been reduced and that he supported the officer recommendations. Councillor Morris also welcomed the scheme.

(11)       Councillor Littman stated that in his view the proposed scheme represented a good use of the site.

(12)       Councillor Bennett stated that whilst generally supportive of the scheme she considered that in its present form it was too high and would be detrimental to neighbouring amenity. Councillor C Theobald concurred in that view.

(13)       Councillor Cobb stated that it would be preferable for fewer cycle spaces to be provided and for some motor cycle bays to be provided in their stead. Overall, she considered the scheme to be too high and could not therefore support it.

(14)       A vote was taken and the 10 Members present at the meeting voted that minded to grant planning permission be given on a vote of 6 to 4.

7.2         RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a S106 agreement and to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report.

              Note: Councillor Mac Cafferty was not present at the meeting during consideration of or voting in respect of the above application.