Agenda item - BH2016/02535-Westerman Complex, School Road, Hove - Full Planning

Outline application for Demolition of existing mixed use buildings and erection of 104 dwellings (C3) and 572 Sqm of office space (B1) and approval of reserved matters for access, layout and scale.

RECOMMENDATION - MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Wish

Outline application for Demolition of existing mixed use buildings and erection of 104 dwellings (C3) and 572 Sqm of office space (B1) and approval of reserved matters for access, layout and scale.

(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, Stewart Glassar, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings delineating the proposed scheme. It was explained that the application site comprised a mix of mainly two storey brick built buildings located on School Road, originally constructed as industrial and light industrial units and now accommodated a range of uses, including a children’s play centre, car wash, church, tool hire and tyre repair/MOT centre. The site backed on to houses in Alpine Road to the east and houses in Marmion Road to the south. The car park to Rayford House, a four storey office building which had prior approval to change to 32 flats, adjoined the site to the north. On the opposite side of School Road there was a mix of residential, office and school uses.

(3)          The application proposed redevelopment of the site for housing and Class B1 office space. The application had been submitted in outline to establish the principle of the use. The detailed matters of access, layout and scale were also to be considered at this stage. However, appearance and landscaping were not matters which formed part of the consideration of this application. The scheme had been subject to pre-application discussions over a number of years and this application was the result of that advice. The layout and approach had been amended to reflect the officer suggestions and information provided as necessary to address the key issues and was recommended Minded to Grant.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(4)          Mr Aldiss spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors stating that the scheme as presented whilst it would tidy up the existing site would result in overdevelopment which would result in overlooking of neighbouring properties and loss of amenity to them.

(5)          Councillor Nemeth spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor stating that the existing site was ripe for redevelopment. Local residents had however suffered nuisance from the previous use over a number of years and it was vitally important therefore that their concerns were headed and that the resultant scheme was sensitive to neighbouring development in terms of it’s appearance and sought to avoid overlooking loss of amenity, noise and other nuisance to neighbouring properties. Councillor Peltzer Dunn was also present in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor and responded in answer to questions that in his opinion the number of units proposed was too dense and would result in an unneighbourly form of development.

(6)          Mr Bareham and Mr Lap Chan spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. They reiterated that discussions had taken place with officers over a lengthy period in order to ensure that an appropriate form of development which would provide a mix of much needed housing and office space resulted.

Questions for Officers

(7)          Councillors Hyde and Miller sought clarification of the parking provision and access and egress arrangements proposed, as did Councillor Morris.

(8)          Councillor C Theobald sought clarification of the treatment proposed in relation to the upper storeys of the development and clarification as to whether it would be set back in order to minimise any potential overlooking.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)          Councillor Mac Cafferty whilst welcoming the proposals in general terms was concerned that the mix did not appear to actively encourage the provision of live/work units/ community space. This appeared to be at variance with policy and the identified need to promote and encourage units which were appropriate in supporting the local creative arts industry. It was explained that the proposals did not preclude such use and as such were not seen as being in conflict with agreed policy. Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that for him this remained an issue of concern.

(10)       Councillor Miller asked for confirmation as to whether reserved matters including the rendering and fenestration proposed would come to Committee for approval and it was confirmed that they would.

(11)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner referred to the community space proposed and it was confirmed that details in relation to this and to landscaping would also come back to Committee. Also, whether bus passes would be provided for residents and it was confirmed that this matter could be addressed as part of the Travel Plan.

(12)       Councillor Miller stated that he welcomed the mix within the development and supported the application.

(13)       Councillor Morris stated that in his view the application provided much needed housing and represented a good use of the site

(14)       Councillor Hyde concurred stating that notwithstanding of sporting facilities in this instance she considered that the scheme was appropriate and was therefore willing to support it.

(15)       A vote was taken and of the 11 Members present at the meeting voted by 10 with 1 abstention to-that Minded to Grant planning approval be given. The artistic component contribution was to be agreed by officers as two different amounts appeared in the report. Also, the Local Employment Scheme contribution was confirmed at £35,600.

20.1       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 also set out in the report.