Agenda item - BH2017/01665 - Whitehawk Clinic, Whitehawk Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of Clinic building (D1) and erection of a 4 storey building over basement containing 38no dwellings (C3), 18no parking spaces, cycle parking and associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: East Brighton

Demolition of Clinic building (D1) and erection of a 5 storey building over basement containing 38no dwellings (C3), 18no parking spaces, cycle parking and associated landscaping.

Officer Presentation

1)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings and explained that there was currently an empty building that was partially single storey and partially three storeys on site. The existing building was set within soft landscaping and trees and it was noted that the trees were to be retained. The building was previously a clinic and the services had been relocated with the loss of community use provided elsewhere within the city. The neighbouring properties consisted of two houses and a block of flats and eight letters of objection had been received within close proximity of the site.

2)               The proposal comprised of four storeys and a setback fifth storey with underground parking. The rear elevation would be partially screened by the existing trees and the proposed soft landscaping would cover parts of the front development. The basement car park would provide car parking and cycle parking and would be accessed by a ramp and would have gated access.

3)               It was explained that the proposal included 40% affordable housing and the mix of units was close to being policy compliant. The materials would be a brick finish and white concrete balconies, similar to Kite Place which was within close proximity to the site.

Questions for Officers

4)               In response to Councillor Moonan the Principal Planning Officer explained that the full details of the balcony treatments were secured through condition and Officers would suggest obscure glazing.

5)               In response to Councillor Hyde it was confirmed that the balconies being half obscured glazing to ensure there was no overlooking could be considered.

6)               In response to Councillor Daniel it was explained that the visuals were indicative and samples would be submitted at condition stage; however, the applicant was indicating a lighter finish.

7)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that condition 17 secured the details on lighting. The proposal would not include lighting of the public routes; however, the developer would be lighting the entrance to the building and this would be need to be assessed due to the impact it could have on the neighbouring properties.

8)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that there was an 8.6 metre distance from the proposal to the closest neighbouring properties. The majority of proposed windows that could overlook were secondary windows and the development had been designed to align some of the sensitive windows with the stairwell of the neighbouring building.

9)               In response to Councillor Miller it was explained that the contribution for open space would be spent or partially spent on Whitehawk Green, St Cuthman’s, Manor Road or East Brighton Park. The natural and semi natural contribution would be invested in the Whitehawk Hill Nature Reserve. The sport facilities contribution would be spent on either Whitehawk Green, Stanley Deason Leisure Centre or East Brighton Park. The allotment contribution would be spent on Whitehawk Hill Road, the Racehill, Walpole Road or Craven Vale allotments.

10)            In response to Councillor Miller it was explained that the security measures raised within the comments received by Sussex Police were also raised by Highways and the access to the car park was secured by condition to discuss this further with the applicant.

11)            In response to Councillor Bennett it was noted that the landscaping was secured by condition; however, the applicant had implicated through the visuals submitted that the planting on the boundary would be smaller planting, such as, small trees or hedging.

12)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that the volume of traffic near the vehicle access was assessed as part of the application and no concerns had been raised. The access was set back from the junction of Whitehawk Way and the access gates were setback to ensure there was clear visibility of the oncoming traffic.

13)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that nine of the one-bedroom units and one of the two-bedroom units were below the national space standards. This had been assessed as part of the application process and the units had been reconfigured twice. It was noted that there was a concern regarding this; however, it had been reconfigured to get the best out of the site and anymore would have impacted on the number of units and the viability of the scheme.

14)            In response to Councillor Gilbey the Principal Planning Officer explained that there was a proposed communal garden at the rear of the development and this would provide enough informal play space for children. The Senior Solicitor added that provided the proposal was policy compliant further play space could not be provided.

15)            In response to Councillor Moonan it was explained that the s106 contribution towards education would be used for secondary education. The comments raised were that the majority of the primary schools within the area had capacity and would not be full in the near future.

16)            In response to Councillor Robins the Development and Transport Assessment Manager clarified that the bus passes would be issued to the first occupants.

Debate and Decision Making Process

17)            Councillor C. Theobald noted that the design was aesthetically pleasing and she preferred the light brick for the area. She stated that she was pleased with the underground parking and the level of affordable housing that had been secured. She noted concern for the units that were below the national space standards but added that there was a good mix of units.

18)            Councillor Miller explained that the 38 units were much needed within the city and the s106 contribution and mix that had been secured was positive. He added that the balconies should be obscure glazing.

19)            Councillor Hyde noted that she preferred the lighter coloured stock brick.

20)            Councillor Daniel stated that a red brick design would be more in keeping with the area and this was supported by the community comments. She added that she would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

21)            The Chair noted that she was pleased that the scheme was policy compliant and would be offering 40% affordable housing.

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

73.3       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 Agreement and the conditions and informatives as set out in the report.