Agenda item - BH2017/01108 - Site Of Sackville Hotel, 189 Kingsway, Hove - Full Planning

Erection of 5 to 8 storey building to provide 60no residential dwellings (C3) (mix of one, two, and three bedroom units) incorporating balconies and terraces with associated access from Sackville gardens, 21no basement car parking spaces,6no ground floor car parking spaces, cycle parking, plant and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Westbourne

Erection of 5 to 8 storey building to provide 60no residential dwellings (C3) (mix of one, two, and three bedroom units) incorporating balconies and terraces with associated access from Sackville gardens, 21no basement car parking spaces,6no ground floor car parking spaces, cycle parking, plant and associated works.

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

Officer Presentation

2)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings and noted that there was a letter published in the Late Representations List from Councillor Bewick providing comments and regarding the scheme. The proposal was for 60 units and these would be: 40 one bedroom and studio flats, 19 two bedroom flats and one three bedroom flat. Following the submission of further viability information since the completion of the report and advice from Housing Strategy, it was recommended that five (8%) affordable rented units be secured in the S106 Agreement.

3)               The corner of the south elevation would be curved and this had been agreed after consultation at a Design Panel. The four proposed flats on the top storey would be set back. The proposed materials were not traditional within the conservation area; however, the development had traditional elements and was deemed acceptable as a new build.

4)               It was explained to the Committee that the units complied with the national space standards and the majority of units had a small, external balcony area. It was added that there would not be additional harm of overlooking on the neighbouring properties.

Questions for Officers

5)               In response to the CAG representative it was explained that the developer had requested that a feature was designed within the site and would be seen from the public realm. It was added that it would be subject to the agreement of Officer’s.

6)               In response to Councillor Morris the Principal Planning Officer explained that the material palette submitted was acceptable for the scheme. Materials could be approved by Officers in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons attending the Chair’s briefing.

7)               In response to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner it was noted that the scheme at the pre-application presentation was six storeys with two additional penthouse levels; however, the applicant was now applying for seven storeys with an additional one storey penthouse. The majority of the proposed development would be brick and the penthouse level would be cladding.

8)               In response to Councillor Littman it was noted that the Heritage Officer had objected to the proposal due to the height and that it would “dwarf” the neighbouring properties. It was explained; however, that the Planning Officers thought overall that the height was acceptable and was replicated in other areas near the site so was in keeping with the street scene.

9)               In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the Principal Planning Officer noted that the bronze material had been used on seafront buildings before and the Officers would ensure these would not rust.

10)            In response to Councillor Littman the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that due to the transport links in the area and the cycle provision on site the applicant was not required to contribute towards a bike share scheme.

11)            In response to Councillor Yates the Development and Transport Assessment Manager noted that the encouragement for the use of public transport was not needed for the residents due to the transport links in the area. A stronger travel plan would be necessary if there was a concern for a high rise with on street parking.

12)            In response to Councillor Hyde it was noted that the proposed units met the national space standards.

13)            The Planning Manager clarified to Councillor Miller that studio flats were considered when assessing the affordable housing contribution; however, these would not be considered for the education and transport contribution.

14)            The Public Realm improvement with an artistic component would not be a financial contribution; however, would be worth approximately £19,000 and the value and location would be assessed.

15)            In response to Councillor Miller it was explained that the Planning Officers sought the maximum amount of affordable housing for each scheme up to 40%. The District Valuer Services (DVS) assessed the submitted viability information and concluded that 33% affordable housing was viable; however, they could not reach agreement with the applicant. The applicant’s consultant had resubmitted viability reports and assessments after the consultation with the DVS.

16)            In response to Councillor Littman it was explained that there was a difference of opinion between the DVS and applicant on the methodology used to calculate the affordable housing contribution and the Council sought the opinion of a third party, BNP Paribas.

17)            In response to Councillor Hyde the Principal Planning Officer explained that it was felt necessary to gain a second opinion from BNP Paribas.

18)            In response to Councillor Morris it was explained that applications were reported to Committee as expediently as possible and the applicant had submitted further information after the agenda had been published.

19)            In response to Councillor Miller the Planning Manager explained that the Officers had tried to secure an acceptable amount for affordable housing and commissioned a further independent review. Following receipt of this further review and the additional information agreement had been reached.

Debate and Decision Making Process

20)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that he would not be supporting the application as the scheme had changed from the pre-application presentation and more units had been proposed. He also noted that affordable housing was needed within the city and was unhappy that the developer did not initially propose any.

21)            Councillor C. Theobald explained that she preferred the scheme at the pre-application presentation stage with two penthouse levels. The proposed development was too tall and it should be in line with the neighbouring property as it would overshadow the balconies. She also noted that the proposed 27 car parking spaces were not enough for the amount of proposed units. Due to the lack of affordable housing contribution she explained that she would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

22)            The CAG Representative explained that he was grateful the applicant had extended the pre-application presentation to the members of CAG and thought the design and materials would be aesthetically pleasing. He noted concern for the height of the building; however, CAG were not recommending the refusal of the application.

23)            Councillor Hyde noted that a condition for an addition three units to rent and four were for shared ownership would be appreciated. She explained that the site had been derelict for too long and there was a need for studio flats within the city. She was satisfied with the south and east elevations; however, the north elevation was too dominating. She added that she was pleased with the amount of proposed parking on site. She would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

24)            Councillor Miller explained that he would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation unless the Committee agreed to defer the application to a future Planning Committee. He wished for more information to be gathered regarding the concertina walls in the proposed studio flats and for the viability to be re-assessed by the DVS. He explained that the proposed studio flats meant that a contribution towards transport and education were not needed; however, they appeared to be one bedroom flats with a concertina wall. He had concern for the parking on site and a larger transport contribution would have resolved this.

25)            Councillor Littman noted that the internal and external design was aesthetically pleasing; however, he did not like the northern elevation and agreed with the comments from the Heritage Officer regarding the proposal dwarfing the neighbouring properties. He added that he would appreciate a slightly amended application.

26)            The Senior Solicitor explained to the Committee that Members could agree to defer; however, the application would miss the agreed extension of time and the applicant could appeal for non-determination. The Planning Manager added that a further extension of time could be requested from the applicant.

27)            Councillor Miller proposed to defer the application for the viability to be re-assessed by the DVS and to calculate the s106 contribution from both studio flats and one bed flats. This was seconded by Councillor Morris.

28)            The Chair then put the proposal of the deferral and this was carried by 7 votes for, 4 against and 1 abstention.

44.3       RESOLVED – That the Committee agreed to defer the application.