Agenda item - BH2018/00340, Former Amex House, Edward Street, Brighton- Full Planning

Erection of a mixed use development to provide 168no residential dwellings (C3), 16,684sqm (GEA) of commercial floorspace (B1), 1,840 sqm (GEA) of ancillary plant/storage and 1,080 sqm (GEA) flexible floorspace comprising commercial and/or retail and/or residential communal space and/or non-residential institution (B1, A1, A3, C3, and D1) across lower ground and 4 and 8 storeys above ground, with associated parking, hard and soft landscaping and access.

RECOMMENDATION – Minded to Grant

Ward Affected: Queens Park

              Erection of a mixed use development to provide 168no residential dwellings (C3), 16,684sqm (GEA) of commercial floorspace (B1), 1,840 sqm (GEA) of ancillary plant/storage and 1,080 sqm (GEA) flexible floorspace comprising commercial and/or retail and/or residential communal space and/or non-residential institution (B1, A1, A3, C3, and D1) across lower ground and 4 and 8 storeys above ground, with associated parking, hard and soft landscaping and access.

              Officer Presentation

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

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Mick Anson, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to site plans, elevational drawings, photographs and floor plans. It was explained that the main considerations in determining this application were the principle of the development of a mixed scheme of B1a) offices and residential units together with a flexible mix of retail, small business units and/or potentially Class D1 community uses. The quantum of affordable housing provision proposed had been assessed against a Viability Assessment submitted with the application. The density, building heights, design and appearance of the development together with the layout of open space and landscaping within the development had been assessed. The wider impacts of the proposals on the townscape and the impact on heritage assets within the city was also a key consideration. Key amenity and sustainability characteristics had also been assessed including daylight/sunlight and potential noise impacts, neighbour impacts, sustainability issues including transport impacts, microclimate, air quality and ecology The site fell within the Eastern Road and Edward Street strategic development area and formed part of a larger site allocation which included the adjacent Job Centre identified within the Edward Street Quarter. It was also important to note that the residential requirement stated referred to a minimum rather than a maximum. The site was considered to be primarily an employment site since its location in proximity to other key employment sites and buildings lent itself to that use. There was recognition that the area was mixed in character and that a residential element would also enable a viable scheme to come forward to regenerate this site and area. The brief included an indicative site layout for accommodating the quantum of development and the proposed scheme had generally followed the guidance given on site layout and land uses. Reference was also made to the amendments and comments set out in the Late/Additional Representations List. The wider impacts of the proposals on the townscape and the impact on heritage assets within the city had also formed part of the key considerations in assessing this application. Key amenity and sustainability characteristics had also been assessed including daylight/sunlight and potential noise impacts, the microclimate of the site, air quality and ecology. The Principal Planning Officer referred to information submissions shown on the Planning Register which had been queried in instances confirming that where there had been any doubt as to the understanding/intent these had been removed from the register.

(3)       A group of local residents had submitted an alternative neighbourhood plan which it was considered would meet City plan requirements. The Local Planning Authority was however required to determine the development proposal in front of it. The residents’ plan gave no indication of floor space of the residential units, whilst it appeared that it would not provide minimum commercial floor space required, nor comply with adopted development Brief which had been subject to wider consultation. A Financial Viability Appraisal had been undertaken by the applicant and a Statement of Common Ground between the applicants and the District Valuer had been placed on the Planning Register as a public document.

(4)          The Principal Planning Officer, Planning Policy, Helen Gregory, explained that in addition to the considerations referred to in the report it also needed to be noted that the City Plan Part 1 Inspector’s report had been received in February 2016. The Inspector’s conclusions on housing had been to agree a target of 13,200 new homes for the city until 2030 as a minimum requirement and that it was against that that the city’s five year housing land supply position would be assessed annually. The Council was keen to see the re-development of this vacant site as part of redevelopment of the Edward Street Quarter, the emphasis of policy for which was for employment led development to strengthen the city’s economy in order to meet the council’s priorities for high quality job creation and to support the city’s growth potential. The principle of mixed use re-development was in accordance with policy and was in line with the Edward Street Planning Brief. On balance for the reasons set out in the report it was considered that the proposed dwelling mix for affordable housing would be acceptable.

(5)          The financial viability appraisal undertaken by the applicant had calculated that 20% was the maximum amount of affordable housing which could be provided on the site without making the development unviable which equated to 33 units; with the tenure mix of affordable housing as 55% affordable rent and 45% shared ownership. This appraisal had been independently verified by the District Valuer and was therefore accepted as being in accordance with the requirements of Policy CP20.

(6)       It was recommended that the application was approved “Minded to Grant” save that should the s106 Planning Obligation, conditions and informatives not be agreed by 7 November 2018 that the Head of Planning be authorised to refuse permission for the reasons set out in section 9 of the submitted report.

            Public Speakers

(7)          Mr Peacock spoke on behalf of neighbouring residents setting out their objections to the proposed scheme. Mr Peacock explained that whilst local residents were not averse to the principle of development of the site, the proposals put forward were not appropriate and would have a highly detrimental impact on neighbouring residents of White Street in particular, were not acceptable and failed to comply with the Development Brief on height and density and was contrary to a number of the Council’s own planning policies, namely CP20 (affordable housing), Strategic Plan Objective SO9, DA5 and SO12. Residents had put together their own Neighbourhood Plan. The developer had failed to consult properly with residents and The Council had also provided incorrect/misleading deadlines for objections in some instances. Mr Peacock also stated that Lloyd Russell Moyle MP had objected to the proposal. Mr Peacock was accompanied by Mr Hart and Mr Hurst who were in attendance to assist in answering questions or to respond to any points of clarification which members might have.

(8)          In answer to questions by Councillor Mac Cafferty, Mr Hart reiterated the information which he had submitted previously to members and officers. Significant numbers of detailed objections had been received in response to the proposals. The consultation process had been flawed and had not been as thorough as it should have been. Information provided regarding deadlines by which information needed to be submitted had been conflicting and confusing, had it not been so the level of objections and information submitted in support of them would have been even higher, for example residents had been led to believe that they had missed a key deadline to comment on the application when that had not in fact been the case. Mr Hart considered that information contained in the officer report was misleading. He was aware that a number of the letters which appeared to indicate support for the proposed scheme had been based on misleading information which had been provided by the developer. Mr Hart and other neighbouring objectors contended that the consultation process had been flawed and that this application should be refused to enable that process to be recommenced properly which would enable a scheme which was more sympathetic to and in keeping with the neighbouring street scene to be brought forward. What was currently on the table represented an overdevelopment in terms of its height and massing.

(9)          The Planning Manager, Paul Vidler, confirmed that the Council’s own consultation process had been carried out in accordance with national guidance and its own established processes. Councillor Morris sought confirmation from Mr Peacock regarding whether/what amendments could be made to the scheme as presented which would make it more acceptable to residents.

(10)     Mr Wade (Director of First Base) spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. Mr Wade stated that both the consultation process and the scheme as before the Committee for determination had been carried out in line with agreed policy. The consultation process had been extensive with pop-in sessions held in order to explain the scheme and extensive leafleting of the neighbouring residential area.

(11)       Councillor Platts referred to the draft planning brief and sought clarification from Mr Peacock regarding the brief against which this application had been set and the manner in which objectors considered this application had departed from that. Officers clarified that the objectors had referred to the 2013 Adopted Planning Brief which had been prepared by the Council. Councillor Hyde enquired regarding residents’ understanding of the scope of the original brief.

(12)     Councillor Mac Cafferty sought confirmation from the applicants regarding their failure to provide 40% affordable housing and it was explained that this would not be financially viable for the reasons set out in the report and that the District Valuer had concurred in that view. Councillor Mac Cafferty also sought clarification of the rationale for extending the frontage of the scheme up to the footway when it his view it would have been more logical to have an open space in front of those blocks. It was explained that this approach had been adopted in order to activate and maximise the frontage of the site.

            Questions for Officers

(13)       Councillor Mac Cafferty enquired why a contribution towards school places had not been required towards school. In response it was explained that whilst a contribution would not be sought towards primary education places, a contribution would be sought towards the cost of secondary provision should the development proceed. Councillor Mac Cafferty also enquired regarding the location of obscured glazing as he had understood that it had been agreed that this would be provided to some units and in respect of the loss of trees, their species and location and whether they were to be replaced with mature/semi mature specimens.

(14)       It was explained that it was proposed that semi mature trees rather than saplings would be used, smaller trees grew more quickly and should be sufficiently hardy provided that they were planted in a trench of sufficient depth. Concerns were expressed regarding the potential for new planting to survive should it be planted close to the footway or where it would be more susceptible to inclement conditions.

(15)       Councillor Morris enquired regarding rights of way/access across the site, access arrangements and whether and where there would be shared pedestrian/vehicular access or highway arrangements. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager, David Farnham, confirmed that the main access to the site would be from John Street and that although there would be several other access points to the site.

(16)       Councillor Miller asked for information in respect of materials to be used for the balcony terraces and whether they would be screened. Also, in respect of the location of the affordable rental and shared ownership units within the development.

(17)     Councillor Hyde enquired regarding the location of the proposed disabled parking spaces seeking assurance on their accessibility. Councillor Hyde also enquired regarding loss of light and overshadowing/overlooking to properties located in White Street and Mighell Street and relation to any mitigation measures proposed. The Principal Planning Officer, Mick Anson stated that whilst it was acknowledged that there would be some loss of light the scheme had been considered against all other impacts and its benefits.

(18)     Mr Amerana, CAG, referred to the height and massing of the proposed development and to the Heritage comments received seeking clarification of comments made in respect of amendments made to the scheme and views from/across the site. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the opportunity to link the new through street and square to the existing Dorset Gardens Peace Park was welcomed as it would create a sense of continuous public open space and a green route and that overall the scheme would provide a mix of uses with good quality architecture and public realm, would enhance views from Dorset Gardens, that identified heritage assets would be preserved and that no harm to them had been identified.

(19)     Councillor Gilbey enquired regarding wheelchair access to the site, access arrangements from Mighell Street. In answer to questions as to whether it was proposed that a community space/rooms would be provided on site it was confirmed that, it was not.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(20)     Councillor Littman stated that he considered it regrettable that the level of affordable housing fell below the 40% required. Overall, the proposed scheme ticked a number of boxes, he did however have concerns regarding whether the planting to be provided would be sufficiently robust enquiring whether it would be possible to ensure that the trees were replaced (as necessary) for an agreed period e.g., five years and it was confirmed that was a proposed condition of grant (condition 40).

(21)     Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated he considered that whilst there was much to commend the scheme, not least, that it would provide much needed housing he was concerned about the height and bulk of the proposed scheme and the negative impact it would have on would have on residents of White Street.

(22)     Councillor Morris stated that whilst welcoming some elements of the scheme for example the green space linkage with the Dorset Gardens Peace Garden, overall, he was very disappointed with the design of the scheme which he considered was unimaginative, with a colour palette proposed for materials which was discordant. Councillor Morris also had concerns regarding the detrimental impact the scheme would have on White Street by virtue of its height and close proximity.

(23)     Councillor C Theobald stated that she had concerns that the level of parking proposed on-site was insufficient, although generally she considered the scheme to be acceptable.

(24)     Councillor Hyde concurred in that view stating that she considered the scheme to be of a good design and made good use of a brownfield site although she was in agreement that it would have been preferable had it been possible to provide more parking on site and had there been no detrimental impact on White Street.

(25)     Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that whilst the scheme had many things to commend it the issues to be considered were complex. In his view there were departures from the original 2013 planning brief and the consultation process had been flawed. In his view local residents had not been properly consulted, elements of the scheme would have a disproportionate impact on residents of White Street in particular and he did not therefore feel able to support the application.

(26)     Councillor Platts also expressed concerns regarding the consultation process which had taken place, the impact on White Street residents and the broader impact on the neighbouring street scene and in respect of proportion of rental/affordable housing to be provided and on those grounds found herself unable to vote in favour of the scheme.

(27)     Councillor Gilbey was in agreement that the scheme was complex and had concerns in relation to some aspects of it whilst acknowledging the housing units and office space which would be provided.

(28)     Councillors Bennett and Miller expressed support for the scheme whilst Councillor Bennett sought confirmation regarding measures to be undertaken to ensure that light pollution/spillage did not occur in the evening It was confirmed that the office accommodation would be fitted with motion sensor lighting.

(29)     Councillor Morgan fully supported the scheme, referring to the economic needs of the city which it would help to address.

(30)     The Chair, Councillor Cattell, stated that she considered that the scheme provided a good mix of uses with an active frontage and that the materials proposed were of good quality and durable. The scheme would in her view provide an exciting space which would also provide a huge boost to the local economy, she would be voting in support of the officer recommendation.

(31)     In response to the Chair, the Legal Adviser stated that the Committee needed to determine the application before them as presented. In answer to further questions, the Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, referred to the fact that the Ovingdean appeal inspector had found that the Council did not have a five year housing land supply and that accordingly increased weight would need to be given to housing delivery and quoted from paragraph 14 of the NPPF which stated that permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

(32)     A vote was taken and on a vote of 8 to 4 Minded to Grant planning permission was given.

18.1    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 Planning Obligation and the conditions and informatives as set out in the report SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 7 November 2018, the Head of Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 10 of the report.