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.

Officers Introduction

1)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings and explained that the application had been previously deferred at the Planning Committee on 13 September 2017. 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.

2)               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. The applicant had submitted further images that showed the brick work would be light to be in keeping with the properties on Sackville Gardens, Hove. 

3)               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.

4)               The development would step down from eight storeys to five on Sackville Gardens and there would be a gap between the proposal and existing property on Sackville Gardens. This would provide the entrance to the underground car park.

5)               The applicant had submitted further images showing the brick detailing on the proposed north elevation and potential public art options. One of the possible options was a brick mural on the north elevation; however, something large and significant may require planning permission.

Questions for Officers

6)               In response to Councillor Miller the Principal Planning Officer noted that there were 12 studio flats and 28 one-bedroom flats proposed and these all met the national space standards. The national space requirement for a studio flat was 39m² and for a one-bedroom flat it was 50sq².

7)               In response to Councillor Moonan it was explained that the Members had requested at the Planning Committee on 13 September 2017 that the District Valuer Service (DVS) was re-consulted regarding the viability of the scheme. Throughout this process the applicant submitted further evidence to the DVS and the final figure of 16% affordable housing units was agreed. 

8)               The Principal Planning Officer explained to Councillor Hyde that the applicant had applied for 21 underground parking spaces and six ground floor parking spaces and this had not changed throughout the application process.

9)               In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was explained that there were conditions securing the sustainability of the units and this was policy compliant. It was noted that additional measures were discussed at the pre-application stage. 

10)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that the city wide target was to secure more 2-3 bedroom units; however, a development with the majority of one-bedroom units was not unusual for the area the site was in.

Debate and Decision Making Process

11)            Councillor Miller explained that he was supporting the Officer’s recommendation and was pleased that the Committee had agreed to defer the application and secure more affordable units. He noted that the DVS report published online had stated that 31% of shared ownership could have been secured; however, the City Plan Part One suggested a mix of 45% affordable rented and 55% shared ownership.

12)            Councillor C. Theobald explained that she was pleased with the additional five shared ownership units secured. She noted that the development would have been more in keeping with the area if the top two storeys had been set back or if the development was a storey lower. Additional parking would have been beneficial as it was currently difficult to park in the area. She noted that she would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation as it was a good development for the site and she liked the potential public art improvements.

13)            Councillor Littman agreed with Councillor C. Theobald and the Heritage Officers regarding the height of the building; however, added that the development and housing was needed for the city so would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

14)            Councillor Hyde noted that she liked the public art proposals. The lighter brick was more in keeping with the area and the design of the building, including the rounded edge on the south east elevation, was aesthetically pleasing. She added that she would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

15)            Councillor Robins noted that the design of the development was an improvement on the current site; however, the design could have been more iconic with a variation of materials. He added that the provision of housing with affordable units was positive.

16)            Councillor Moonan noted that it was a good scheme for the site and was pleased with the additional affordable housing units secured. She explained that the application may have been presented to Planning Committee too early and the negotiation should be pushed harder by the DVS. She added she would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

17)            Councillor Gilbey noted that the scheme was improved from the previous application and would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

18)            The Chair explained that she liked the design and was pleased with the materials. She thanked the applicant and the Officer’s for working on the application.

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

73.1       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planningpermission subject to a s106 and the conditions and informatives as set out in the report and the amended condition below:

Amend wording of condition 4:

Part (i) Prior to commencement, a full asbestos survey of the site, undertaken by a suitably qualified specialist shall be submitted in writing to the local planning authority for approval. And if any asbestos containing materials are found, which present significant risk/s to the end user/s then 

Part (ii) A report shall be submitted to the local planning authority in writing, containing evidence to show that all asbestos containing materials have been removed from the premises and taken to a suitably licensed waste deposit site.

Reason: As this matter is fundamental to the acceptable delivery of the permission to safeguard the health of future residents or occupiers of the site and to comply with policy SU11 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.