Agenda item - BH2017/01083 -City College, 87 Preston Rd, Brighton - Full Planning

Change of use from education (D1) to 25no flats (C3) including roof conversion, insertion of mezzanine levels, installation of rooflights, replacement of windows, erection of rear infill extension at first floor level, demolition of existing building to rear of property and other associated works including cycle and bin store, new pedestrian access to the building, communal garden space and associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Preston Park

Change of use from education (D1) to 25no flats (C3) including roof conversion, insertion of mezzanine levels, installation of rooflights, replacement of windows, erection of rear infill extension at first floor level, demolition of existing building to rear of property and other associated works including cycle and bin store, new pedestrian access to the building, communal garden space 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, Sarah Collins, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. It was also noted that the first sentence of paragraph 8.3 of the report “The scheme would provide 104 new residential units” was incorrect and should be deleted.

(3)          The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the conversion of the building from D1 education use into C3 residential use, the impact of the development on the locally listed building, the amenity levels of future residents, and the impact of the development on the local highway network and infrastructure. The Heritage Team had indicated that following amendments to the plans and details of the fenestration and boundary treatments, the proposed development would be acceptable and would improve the appearance of the building and external spaces around the site, although conditions were proposed to ensure that the roof level vent terminals were flush with the roof and to require further details of external materials to be submitted.

(4)          Conversion of the building for residential use, the first floor rear infill extension and the removal of the single storey building at the rear would not affect the amenity of neighbouring properties. Whilst some of the individual windows within the proposed flats did not meet the BRE minimum standards, this was compensated for either by additional windows serving the living rooms or adequate sunlight predicted at these windows and as such it was considered that there would be adequate sunlight/daylight within the proposed development. The application proposed a car-free development which was considered acceptable by Sustainable Transport, as being in an accessible location and within an area with on-street parking controls.

Questions for Officers

(5)          In answer to questions by Councillor Morris it was confirmed that the applicant had indicated that they intended to use a private waste collection service and that the proposed bin stores were considered adequate to accommodate the likely waste requirements and that these would take place from the Preston Road frontage.

(6)          Several Members expressed concern that the gated area and access way used in connection with the wood furniture business fronting Preston Road was located alongside the communal amenity play space associated with the development. The shared access arrangement could result in a potential safety hazard particularly if/when children were using the area. The applicant’s representative was present at the meeting and although not afforded the opportunity to speak in support of their application at the Chair’s discretion and with the agreement of the Committee they were invited to clarify the position in respect of this matter. It was confirmed that use of this area by the furniture business had been an informal arrangement and was due to cease prior to completion of the proposed development; therefore no safety issues would arise.

(7)          In answer to further questions, the Development and Transport Assessment Manager, Steven Shaw confirmed that no indication had been received that the parcel of land adjacent to the site in the ownership of Network Rail would be disposed of in the foreseeable future, or could be made available for use in association with the development.

(8)          Councillor Miller enquired whether as the development would be car free occupants would be eligible for a travel pass and whether appropriate additional traffic signage could be provided. It was confirmed that this could be investigated further.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)          Councillor C Theobald stated that notwithstanding that her preference would have been for some on-site parking to be provided within the site, nonetheless, overall she considered it was a good scheme and supported the officer recommendation.

(9)          Councillor Littman considered that the development proposed would make use of a very attractive building in a sympathetic way and would provide much needed housing.

(10)       Councillor Miller concurred that in his view the proposed scheme represented a good use of the site.

(11)       Councillor Morris stated that he considered the development had been sympathetically designed and would bring a currently unused building back into use.

(12)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair commended the scheme confirming that she hoped officers could further investigate use of appropriate traffic signage.

(13)       A vote was taken and the 10 Members of the Committee who were present voted unanimously that minded to grant planning permission be given.

33.4       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 (the amendments to which are set out below and to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.

Note: Councillor Gilbey was absent from the meeting during consideration of the above application.