Agenda item - BH2017/00662 - The Downsman, 189 Hangleton Way, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of former public house (A4) and erection of 33 dwellings (C3) comprising of 10 terraced houses and a block of 23 flats incorporating community space (D1) at ground floor level with associated access, parking and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Hangleton and Knoll

Demolition of former public house (A4) and erection of 33 dwellings (C3) comprising of 10 terraced houses and a block of 23 flats incorporating community space (D1) at ground floor level with associated access, parking and landscaping.

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

Officer Presentation

2)               The Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings and explained the site was within a residential area consisting of semi-detached houses and blocks of flats. The site was underdeveloped and classed as an open space. The Planning Officer noted that there was an additional s106 Heads of Terms proposed and amended conditions that were published in the Late Representation List.

3)               The application included the demolition of a former public house which closed in 2014. There had been little interest in keeping the building as a public house and no objection had been received regarding the loss of it. The loss of the public house was deemed acceptable by the Planning Officers.

4)               The application proposed individual parking spaces for each terraced house and a parking area for the block of flats. The scheme would produce on street parking; however, it would be minimal and the area could accommodate this.

5)               The Planning Officer explained that the proposed block of flats would be four storeys and a basement level. There was proposed community space on the ground floor of the block of flats and a storage area which was compliant with Local Plan Policy HO20. Soft landscaping was proposed and there was natural screening on site which would be retained. The site was identified as open space; however, the benefit of the development outweighed the loss of open space.

6)               The proposal was in accordance with the housing need and would provide 40% affordable housing. The tenure mix was not met with three affordable rented units and ten shared ownership. The proposed dwellings would be similar to the existing neighbouring properties. The block of flats was to be higher than the properties in the area; however, it was set in a lower part of the site.

7)               Material samples were shown to the Committee and explained that there was green cladding proposed for the top floor of the flats. This was deemed acceptable as it would add interest to the building.

8)               The windows on the neighbouring block of flats on Buckley Close would directly face the development; however, it had been designed to protect the amenity of the neighbours. The proposed block of flats was set back in the site to ensure it would not impact on the daylight and sunlight. The applicant had submitted reports and there would be a slight loss of sunlight but would not harm the neighbouring amenity. There was proposed screening to prevent overlooking, which was secured by condition, and the windows at a higher level would be obscure glazing. It was noted that the Planning Officers deemed that there would not be a significant impact on the neighbouring properties.

Questions for Officers

9)               In response to Councillor Moonan it was explained that the application included an onsite community space. This was to comply with policy and no objection had been received regarding the proposed space and it was policy compliant.

10)            In response to Councillor Yates it was noted that there was an existing community centre within close proximity of the site. The Planning Manager explained that the application was advertised locally and was published on the weekly list. It would not have been possible to consult with all the local groups in the area. It was added that the proposed community space met the s106 contribution requirement and if it was not viable at a later date then the applicant could apply through the Planning Committee to amend the heads of terms.

11)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the Planning Officer noted that a statement of proposed community use had been submitted by the applicant and this outlined that the space would be for general community use and would be managed by the applicant. The applicant had suggested that there was an interest in using the facility by local groups. There was previously a group that was interested in renting the space permanently; however, there were concerns regarding noise disturbance and general use was now being applied for.

12)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the Planning Officer noted that the County Archaeologist had recommended condition 11 to ensure that an archaeology investigation took place before any development. If these further programs show anything of interest then consultation would happen regarding this.

13)            In response to Councillor Janio it was explained that the Parks and Project Team recommended areas that the s106 contribution to open space should be invested; however, his request would be noted and forwarded.

14)            In response to Councillor Littman the Principal Planning Officer noted that S106 heads of terms should have stated “timetable information for each first household;”.

Debate and Decision Making Process

15)            Councillor Yates stated that the application was policy compliant and there was a serious housing need in the city. He was pleased with the affordable housing contribution; however, had concern regarding the proposed community space and how this would be complied with. He added that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation. 

16)            Councillor Miller explained that he was pleased with the majority of the design apart from the green cladding. He noted that the application was policy compliant and would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

17)            Councillor Janio agreed with Councillor Miller regarding the design of the green cladding. He noted that he was pleased that the application included 40% affordable housing and was a mix of family housing and flats. He noted that he hoped the applicant would improve the former Dyke Railway track leading to the South Downs National Park. He thanked the developers and Officers.

18)            Councillor Hill noted that the design was aesthetically pleasing and agreed with the Officers that the green cladding would add interest to the building. The Chair agreed with Councillor Hill.

19)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be minded to granted was carried unanimously.

58.2       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT permission for the reasons set out in the report.

              Note: Councillors Gilbey and Inkpin-Leissner were not present for the consideration and vote of this application.