Agenda item - BH2018/01016 - Former Site Of North District Housing Office, Selsfield Drive, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of former neighbourhood housing office, housing store and garages (retrospective) and the erection of a 7 Storey over lower ground floor building, comprising of 30no residential dwellings (C3) with associated hard and soft landscaping, works to provide public realm, private and community amenity space, car parking and relocation of existing UK Power Networks electricity sub-station.

Recommendation – Minded to Grant

Demolition of former neighbourhood housing office, housing store and garages (retrospective) and the erection of a 7 storey over lower ground floor building, comprising of 30no residential dwellings (C3) with associated hard and soft landscaping, works to provide public realm, private and community amenity space, car parking and relocation of existing UK Power Networks electricity sub-station.

(1)             The application was the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

Officer Introduction

(2)             The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, elevational drawings, photographs and floor plans. She stated that the main considerations in determining the application related to: harm to the character and appearance of the wider area including the setting of the nearby List Building (harm to which was less than substantial under the terms of the NPPF), only providing a housing mix of one and two bed room units, loss of light and outlook to surrounding properties, and that the scheme would provide 30 affordable units all of which met government space standards.

Questions to the Planning Officer

(3)             In response to Councillor Miller, the Planning Officer stated that the guardrail on the roof was required due to roof access being necessary for the maintenance of the proposed solar panels. The guardrail was considered by officers to be preferable to extending the brickwork up to the equivalent height. The balconies had been designed using railings rather than a solid opaque material to aid in cleaning and maintenance. The railings would appear opaque from certain angles to provide a level of privacy to occupants.

(4)             In response to Councillor Hyde, the Planning Officer stated that the proposed block would be approximately 3.5m closer to Lewes Road than the closest wing of the neighbouring building. However the neighbouring building did extend towards the street further along the road. The Planning Officer also stated that the position on Lewes Road was not a concern to officers as the building was in the designated tall buildings corridor and Lewes Road already had a varied building line.

(5)             In response to Councillor Theobald, Officers stated that the original design which included one, two and three bedroom dwellings had been deemed to have an unacceptable impact on neighbours. The loss of the three bedroom flats was considered acceptable as the proposal still provided a mix of one and two bed units all of which were affordable.

(6)             In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty, the Planning Officer stated that the materials had not yet been confirmed and would be brought back to the Chair’s briefing but it was always open to Members to add further conditions. The Planning Manager also stated that the Council as the developer would take into account the longevity of any materials used to ensure cost effectiveness.

(7)             In response to Councillor Morgan, the Transport Planning Officer stated that there was no controlled parking zone in the area and the new parking bays proposed would be available for use by residents of the new block as well as those in the surrounding council blocks.

(8)             In response to Councillor Gilbey, the Planning Officer stated that the proposal included two wheelchair accessible units on the ground floor and all other units were adaptable. The landscaping included ramped access and a flat path around the block.

Debate and decision making process

(9)             Councillor Mac Cafferty believed it was a smart scheme and liked the design and look of the materials. He stated that the key to the scheme’s success was to ensure that the materials used would stand up to the environment.

(10)          Councillor Theobald was disappointed that the concerns about the height of the building expressed by Members at the pre application stage had been ignored and that the proposal was now two storeys higher and no longer included three bed dwellings. She stated that she followed the Regency Society’s objection and considered that the scheme would be a ‘blot on the landscape’.

(11)          Councillor Hyde stated that she agreed with much of what Councillor Theobald said and was concerned that the block came too far towards the street. She stated that while she appreciated the design, the need for housing and that this was a development on a brownfield site she felt that it did not comply with policy QD2.

(12)          The Planning Manager clarified that QD2 had been superseded by policy CP12.

(13)          Councillor Miller stated that he would be supporting the scheme although he had reservations about the inclusion of the guardrails and the design of the block with the setback top storey. He also stated that he would like to see the rest of the estate developed in the same manner as there was a lot of wasted land and the cost of maintaining blocks which were coming to the end of their life would continue to increase.

(14)          Councillor Morgan stated that there was a desperate need in the city for the affordable housing which the scheme would provide and to maximise the use of brownfield sites. The scheme would add family homes to an area which had been seen as suffering from ‘studentification’. He also welcomed the use of local labour during construction which had been conditioned.

(15)          Councillor Moonan welcomed the scheme and sought to echo the positive comments made in the debate while acknowledging that the building was tall and would impact on neighbouring amenity.

(16)          Councillor Littman stated that the scheme had a smart design that he hoped would stand the test of time and provided much needed affordable housing. However it would have a significant negative impact on neighbouring amenity but on balance the positive aspects of the scheme outweighed its drawbacks.

(17)          Councillor O’Quinn stated that while she was not generally keen on tall buildings and did appreciate the harm the scheme would cause to neighbours it was providing much needed social housing and she would be supporting it.

(18)          Councillor Gilbey supporting the scheme. It was a in an area which already had a lot of tall buildings and it had been designed to minimise impact on neighbours and retaining the large tree on the site would enhance the area.

(19)          The Chair thanked the Project Team for their hard work in bringing forward a good scheme which now provided additional units of affordable accommodation.

(20)          The Chair called a vote and the Committee resolved to be Minded to Grant planning permission by 10 votes For with one abstention.

43.1       RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be 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 the 4 January 2019 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 9 of the report.