Agenda item - BH2017/01065 - Baptist Tabernacle, Montpelier Place, Brighton - Full Planning & Demolition In CA

Demolition of existing church and erection of 24no residential units (C3), comprising terrace of 5no four storey houses, five storey block of 14no flats and three storey block of 5no flats. Creation of non-residential unit (D1) to ground floor of five storey building and associated car parking and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Regency

Demolition of existing church and erection of 24no residential units (C3), comprising terrace of 5no four storey houses, five storey block of 14no flats and three storey block of 5no flats. Creation of non-residential unit (D1) to ground floor of five storey building and associated car 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 Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings and explained that the current building was distinctive; however, it was a low rise building and did not maximise the potential of the site and was not visually in keeping within the area. The proposal included three affordable rent units, one to be wheelchair accessible, and two shared ownership units.

3)               There was a D1 unit proposed on the ground floor of the development that would be 115m². This was to compensate the loss of the church and was compliant with policy HO20. Seven car parking spaces and cycle spaces were provided as part of the application and the access for these would be from Norfolk Terrace and this had been deemed acceptable by the Highways Authority.

4)               The development represented the context of the area with contemporary styling. The three storey building would be red brick and this was considered acceptable as the neighbouring dwellings had a red brick element. The majority of the windows on 2 York Avenue, Hove had obscure glazing and due to the distance between these and the development, there would not be a harmful impact on the neighbour’s amenity. The Abbey Hotel adjoined the site and there would be a three metre gap between their windows and the proposed five storey block. These windows served short term units and were designed to accommodate people for approximately one week; therefore, it was deemed acceptable by the Officers. The Abbey Hotel had initially objected; however, this had been withdrawn and they were content with the scheme.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

5)               Mr Hutchison spoke in objection to the application and explained that the planning application did not meet the requirements of policy HO20 and this was a material consideration. He noted that the space had been used for community use for approximately 200 years and there was currently almost 700m² and the applicant had proposed to replace this with 115m² of community use. The application did not provide evidence of the potential use for the community space. He explained that community users had bid for the space; however, the current applicant had placed a higher bid. He explained that granting planning permission would result in the loss of community space and the land value would become too high once it was developed and would no longer be able to use it as a community space. He noted that the applicant was likely to appeal the decision if the Planning Committee refused the application; however, the Planning Inspector would give considerable weight to a D1 alternative use for the site.

6)               In response to Councillor Yates Mr Hutchison explained that the site closed in 2012 and he had approached the owners in 2014 and 2015 to make an offer; however, he was told to wait until the site was on the market. He had made a bid of the asking price; however, the applicant had made a higher bid which was accepted.

7)               In response to Councillor Moonan he explained that he was an Architectural Planning Consult and was representing the owners of a premises in Bedford Place as a consultant.

8)               Mr Mason spoke in support to the application in his capacity as the agent and explained that the proposal was for a sensitive redevelopment of a brownfield site within the city centre. He noted that the development retained a D1 use in addition to providing houses for the city. The current site was in a bad state and had been vandalised. There were a number of design challenges for the site due to the heritage in the area and these had been dealt with throughout the application process and the materials had been modified due to objections that had been received. The proposed D1 use complied with Policy HO20 and the space could have a varied use. The Church would receive money from the sale of the site and this could be used for community use and some space was secured on site.

9)               In response to Councillor Moonan Mr Mason explained that the proposed community space had support from local agents and had noted that the proposed size was positive and that there was a shortage in the city. He explained that there was difficulty attracting a tenant for the space currently as it would not be delivered in approximately two years; however, if planning permission was granted then the space would be marketed.

10)            In response to Councillor Miller it was explained that after consultation with the Heritage Officers if was agreed that no artificial materials would be used on the development due to the high failure rates and to ensure a high finish and detail.

11)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the agent clarified that the comments received from the CCG, concerning the space of the community use, were focussing on an NHS health use of the space. Other commercial agents had stated that the size of the proposed space was viable for D1 use and was a popular size of unit. He added that a larger community space would change the appearance of the exterior.

Questions for Officers

12)            In response to Councillor Miller the Principal Planning Officer noted that there was currently 480m² of community space on the site and there was 115m² proposed. In response to Councillor Yates it was explained that the 480m² was the floor space and did not include the outside space.

13)            In response to Councillor Littman it was explained that the policy did not require the applicant to look into the marketing or consult with local groups regarding the proposed space.

14)            It was explained to Councillor Mac Cafferty that with previous applications the Planning Authority had requested that the applicant consults with organisations and local groups to gather their opinions on the proposed size and possible uses for community space. It was confirmed that the Planning Authority had sought comments from the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).

15)            In response to Councillor Yates the Planning Manager explained that only the CCG were contacted to ascertain whether the space could have been used as a GP surgery.

16)            In response to Councillor Hill it was explained that the Abbey Hotel windows would not be blocked; however, the development would be close and restrict daylight.

17)            In response to Councillor Moonan the Planning Manager confirmed that the majority of the 53 letters of objection and six letters in support of the application were received within the vicinity of the application site.

18)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was confirmed that the preference of the Local Planning Authority was to have the affordable units throughout the site; however, the provider tends to prefer the affordable units to be together due to the management of the area.

19)            In response to Councillor Bennett the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that there was not a proposed disabled parking space as there was a substantial distance between the wheelchair accessible unit and the parking bays. The applicant had originally proposed an on street dedicated disabled bay; however, the Highways Authority would only install a dedicated space at the request of a resident. It was also explained that the maximum parking on site would be seven spaces.

Debate and Decision Making Process

20)            Councillor Yates stated that the current property had been closed for five years and therefore, the D1 use was not being used. There was a high demand in the city for community space and the application was providing this. The proposal was policy compliant and was sensitively designed for the area.

21)            Councillor Miller noted that the design of the proposal and materials were aesthetically pleasing and the development would provide housing for the city, including affordable units and shared ownership. He added concern for the Abbey Hotel windows; however, as these were used for temporary stays then he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

22)            Councillor Moonan agreed with Councillors Yates and Miller and added that she had concerns for the windows of Abbey Hotel. She explained that the affected rooms were currently used for temporary stays; however, this could change in the future. She added that overall she was supportive of the application.

23)            Councillor Littman noted that despite the affected rooms at the Abbey Hotel being short term they were entitled to daylight and the development would restrict this. He stated that he would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

24)            The CAG Representative explained that CAG had not raised an objection to the application as an appropriate balance between the contemporary design and heritage had been sought. He added that additional detail could be added to the buildings as to ensure it was not the subject to graffiti and it was important for the applicant to be aware that the Abbey Hotel was a Grade II listed building and was a cream colour.

25)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be minded to granted was carried by 8 votes in support, 1 refusal and 1 abstention.

58.3       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 and the additional condition detailed below:

Additional condition:

The community space on the ground floor shall be used as a Non-Residential Institution (Class D1) onlyand for no other purpose.  Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no change of use shall occur without planning permission obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The Local Planning Authority would wish to retain control over any subsequent change of use of these premises in the interests of safeguarding the amenities of the area and to comply with policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

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