Agenda item - BH2017/01176 - Land At Goldstone Street, Hove - Full Planning

Erection of a 3 storey office building (B1) with 2no disabled parking spaces, bin storage and roof terrace.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Goldsmid

Erection of a 3 storey office building (B1) with 2no disabled parking spaces, bin storage and roof terrace.

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 explained that there were two disabled spaces provided as part of the application. It was explained to the Committee that the main considerations for the application were: the principle of the planned use, policy compliance, design and appearance, impacts on amenity, sustainable transport and sustainability. It was noted that the proposal was for a three storey building and whilst it was disappointing that it was not part of a wider scheme, the proposal would not prejudice the future redevelopment of the area, including the adjoining site and would provide benefits to the street scene. The contemporary design was considered acceptable by the Planning Officers. There would be no detrimental effect on the amenity of the surrounding high rise blocks. A parking survey was completed by the application, and this showed there would not be a significant overspill of cars in the residential area and the Transport team was satisfied with the scheme.

Questions for Officers

3)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that there were transport links in the area and there were residential parking bays the employees could use nearby. It was added that if the applicant deemed there was a problem once they had developed then they could offer parking to their employees on one of their nearby sites.

4)               In response to Councillor Miller the Principal Planning Officer noted that there was a small proposed terrace area on the roof and roof plant. In response to Councillor Morris it was noted that the remainder of the roof could not be used and this was secured by condition.

5)               In response to Councillor Yates it was explained that a travel assessment had been carried out and the results were the potential parking problems would not have a significant impact and therefore officers were not recommending refusal. There was a s106 contribution to improve the travel routes and access from the railway station.

6)               In response to the Chair the Principal Planning Officer explained there was a pre-application presentation for the scheme and the applicant had explored applying for additional storeys; however, the Councillors must determine the application on its own merits. It was added that the site was currently an empty car park and on balance the Officers deemed the application acceptable.

Debate and Decision Making Process

7)               Councillor Bennett stated that there was not a problem with the design; however, it was disappointing that the scheme did not include parking. She explained that it was currently difficult to find a parking space in the area due to the station, local schools and residential properties. 

8)               Councillor C. Theobald noted that undercroft parking would have been ideal for the scheme.

9)               Councillor Hyde agreed with both Councillors Bennett and C. Theobald and noted that the scheme was aesthetically pleasing; however, parking needed to be provided.

10)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner agreed with parking concerns; however, noted that this could be resolved if the future employees were provided with a season bus ticket.

11)            Councillor Hamilton noted that the applicant could arrange for the workers to park in the bus depot when the buses were not parked during the day.

12)            Councillor Miller noted that he would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation due to the parking and that the scheme was under developed.

13)            The Chair noted that parking needed to be provided on site and the site was under developed for the location.

14)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be minded to granted was refused by 5 votes in support and 7 refusals.

15)            Councillor Miller proposed an alternative to the Officer recommendation to refuse the application on the grounds of low density and underdevelopment, loss of existing car parking and substantial parking impact on surrounding area. Councillor Miller’s alternative recommendation was seconded by Councillor Inkpin-Leissner.

16)            A recorded vote was taken on the proposed alternative recommendation by the 12 Members present. This was carried with Councillors C. Theobald, Bennett, Hyde, Inkpin-Leissner, Miller, Morris and Moonan in support, Councillors Mac Cafferty, Hamilton, Hill, Littman and Yates against.

44.6       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration but disagrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and resolves to REFUSE permission for the reasons set out in paragraph 16.