Agenda item - BH2018/00868 - King's House, Grand Avenue, Hove-Full Planning

Demolition of existing office building (B1) fronting Grand Avenue.Conversion of existing (B1) building fronting Queens Gardens to 69no dwellings (C3) with associated alterations and extensions. Erection of a 10 storey building over basement carpark comprising of 72 flats on Grand Avenue and erection of a 6 storey building comprising of 28 flats on second avenue. Associated underground parking, landscaping, cycle storage, bins and recycling points.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected : Central Hove

              Demolition of existing office building (B1) fronting Grand Avenue.Conversion of existing (B1) building fronting Queens Gardens to 69no dwellings (C3) with associated alterations and extensions. Erection of a 10 storey building over basement carpark comprising of 72 flats on Grand Avenue and erection of a 6 storey building comprising of 28 flats on Second Avenue. Associated underground parking, landscaping, cycle storage, bins and recycling points. (Amended Description)

 

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

 

Officer Presentation

 

(1)          The officer presentation covered the planning and listed building applications. Reference was also made to the proposed amended report wording, additional representations received and alterations to conditions which were set out in Late/Additional Representations List.

 

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett and Senior Planning Officer, Luke Austin introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to drawings, elevational drawings, site plans, floor plans, photographs and visuals showing the proposals from various aspects in order to show its context within the neighbouring street scheme, also by use of aerial views showing the site in its broader context.

 

(3)          It was noted it that the building had originally been built as a terrace of 7 houses between 1871 and 1874 with the westernmost houses converted soon after to the Princes Hotel and latterly as the Headquarters of the South Eastern Electricity Board; and then the City Council. The modern northern extension to Kings House had been built in the 1980s. While of significant townscape merit within The Avenues Conservation Area, in more recent years the building had been further eroded of original features, most notably windows, entrances, balconies and a 2 storey wing formerly fronting Grand Avenue, all of which affect the significance of the building.

 

(4)          The application site is 0.53 hectares and currently contained Kings House to the south part fronting onto Queens Gardens with Kingsway beyond and Kings Lawns beyond that; the modern 1980s extension to the west part fronting onto Grand Avenue with its open gardens; ground-level open car park to the east part fronting onto Second Avenue. The design of the application scheme had evolved during pre-application discussions and during the course of the application, in light of the response from the Design Review Panel, officer advice, pre-application advice from Members, and as a result of various consultee responses especially the Heritage Officer. The application proposed demolition of the modern northern extension and link building, conversion of the main building of Kings House to residential dwellings, alterations to the listed building including upward extensions of the three historic outriggers, and the erection of two new blocks of flats. This represented a site-wide change of use from B1 office use to C3 residential for the provision of 169 dwellings. The proposed 10-storey building fronting Grand Avenue would contain 72 dwellings. The proposed 6-storey building fronting Second Avenue would contain 28 dwellings. Both buildings would be of similar in style making use of locally distinct yellow gault brick for the main elevations with more contemporary grey panel accents. Balconies would be formed of steel and glass balustrades. To Kings House, two additional storeys (plus roof terraces) were proposed to each of the three rear outriggers. Only visible from Second Avenue, the first level of each additional storey would be of matching brickwork with the second additional storey formed of dark grey metal cladding in a mansard-roof form.  Small dormers are proposed to the rear main roof slope with conservation rooflights to the front. All fenestration would be returned to historically appropriate timber sash format. The existing below ground car park was proposed to be extended to provide a total of 80 car parking spaces including 11 disabled spaces accessed via the existing basement ramp. The basement would also provide access to cycle spaces for residents (the final number and location of which to be secured by condition), refuse and recycling storage. Cycle spaces are proposed to the front and rear of the development which would provide visitor cycle parking. A new low level glazed link building would provide a public entrance to the development on Grand Avenue. Landscape areas to the rear of Kings House and between the proposed two new buildings would form a communal garden and courtyard area incorporating areas of coastal planting, seating and hard landscape circulation.

 

(5)          Amended drawings had been received in August 2018 and a new public consultation had been undertaken which had expired on the 2 November 2018. New balcony details had been proposed as well as other details to address initial objections by the Heritage Officer. In regard to affordable housing, the original application submission stated that no affordable housing could be provided. However, following discussions with the applicant, and an independent viability assessment, it had been determined that the development could provide affordable housing in the form of 15 rent units and 13 shared ownership, and a contribution of £265,492 towards off-site provision, without threatening the viability of the scheme. This is now proposed; the affordable units would be delivered in the proposed Second Avenue block.

 

(6)          The main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of the development including the total loss of the B1 office use, the proposed market and affordable housing units, the impact of the conversion of the listed King’s House on its significance the impact of the design on the character and appearance of the conservation area and setting of surrounding listed buildings, impact on the street scene and wider views, neighbouring amenity, impacts on the street scene and wider views, sustainable transport impacts including parking demand, landscaping, ecology/biodiversity and the contribution made in respect of other objectives of the development plan.

 

(7)          The proposed development would provide 169 residential units including a provision of 28 affordable units with a policy compliant tenure mix. The standard of accommodation the proposed units would provide would be good in most cases and acceptable in all cases. The majority of the units would benefit from external amenity space, a communal garden area, basement car parking and cycle parking. The proposed building and associated landscaping were considered to represent an appropriate redevelopment of the site which would introduce a contemporary building into the street scene and would have a positive visual impact whilst paying respect to the Grade II Listed Building.

 

(8)          The proposed development considered acceptable in transport, sustainability and ecological terms, and conditions / s106 requirements were recommended to secure

·         Disabled parking and cycle parking provision, and travel plan measures;

·         Details / method statements of the refurbishment of the listed building;

·         Compliance with energy and water consumption standards and access standards;

·         Solar photovoltaic panel array and solar thermal heating system;

·         Ecological improvements;

·         Contributions towards educational provision, open space/sports provision, and the Council’s Local Employment Scheme.

 

(9)          Whilst the office use of the site would be lost, which was regrettable, the potential of the site for ongoing employment use was limited by the costs involved in refurbishment of the buildings to an appropriate standard, the implications of the historic layout of the listed building for modern office and a lack of interest from potential occupiers as an employment use. It was recognised that the proposed new buildings would cause some harm to the setting of the historic listed building, although substantial heritage benefits would also be delivered. The proposed new buildings would have some negative impact upon neighbouring amenity, however the resultant scenario would be in keeping with the pattern of development in the immediate area and overall the harm which would be caused did not warrant the refusal of planning permission.

 

(10)       Overall, whilst the proposed scheme would result in some harm, and the loss of office space was of concern in the current climate, it was considered that the scheme would deliver substantial benefits including; a significant delivery of housing including on site affordable housing, in addition to significant public realm improvements and restoration of the Grade II Listed Building. Overall, therefore approval of planning permission was recommended subject to the conditions and s106 requirements set out in the report and as amended in the Late/Additional Representations List.

 

              Public Speakers

 

(11)       Ms Robinson and Ms Barrett spoke on behalf of objectors to the scheme detailing their representations. Ms Robinson spoke representing residents of 2 Second Avenue and Ms Barrett spoke representing residents of 1 Grand Avenue. It was explained that two well attended public meetings had taken place and whilst the proposed use was welcomed in principle this scheme was considered unacceptable as it was too high and not in keeping with the neighbouring villas and would have a detrimental impact on the closest neighbouring dwellings. The potential loss of light to some of the existing neighbouring properties infringed their rights to light, would result in overlooking, loss of amenity and noise disturbance due to the location of some of the balconies and loss of views. Whilst there was no legal right to a view, there were rights to light and the proposals as put forward would have a serious impact by virtue of their height and bulk and their very close proximity to some of the adjacent buildings. The impact of this scheme would be far greater than when the building was in use as an office building.

 

(12)       Councillor Robins enquired regarding references which had been made to “Rights to Light” and the Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, responded explaining that this was a private matter between neighbours. As it was a private matter, the existence of a right to light was not a consideration that could be taken into account by the Planning Committee. A right to light was separate to an assessment of the impact of any loss of light which could be taken into account as part of determining a planning application.

 

(13)       Councillors Moonan and Wealls spoke in their capacity as Local Ward Councillors setting out their objections to the proposed scheme. Both referred to the several detailed letters of objection which they had submitted and were in agreement that whilst they supported conversion of the site to residential use the scheme as currently devised was in their view too high and would be overbearing on neighbouring buildings and overly dominant in the street scene by virtue of its scale, height and massing. The scale of the new blocks to be constructed to the north of the original listed building and their impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties at One Grand Avenue and in Second Avenue was of concern. There would be significant negative impact on access to light and it was considered that the proposed new buildings had little architectural merit on such a key site in a conservation area. The 10 storey block proposed on Grand Avenue would be significantly higher than the norther tower of the retained listed building and would therefore have a significant negative impact on the retained listed building and the amenity of neighbouring residents. The six storey block in Second Avenue was also not in keeping with the existing villas in the conservation area which had been reduced in height the nearer they were to the sea. It was considered that this block should be two storeys lower and should be set further back from the street. There were also concerns regarding the level of parking which notwithstanding that there would be on site provision was considered to be inadequate. The proposed development was situated in Zone N and it was suggested that a condition be imposed to prevent residents of the new development from being entitled to on-street CPZ parking permits. Access to the on-site parking from Second Avenue would also increase traffic flow along a residential street, this would also have a negative impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

 

(14)       Mr Dowsett and Mr Wagner were in attendance on behalf of the applicants and spoke in support of the application and responded to Members in relation to questions on which it was more appropriate for them to provide clarification. It was explained that the application before the Committee that day was the result of months of intense work with officers following the initial pre-application process to come forward with a scheme which was viable and would provide an active frontage.

 

(15)       In answer to questions by Councillor Miller regarding the building line at the pre-application stage and currently it was explained that this had been set back in response to discussions which had taken place and to address some of the issues of concern which had been raised. Councillor Miller also referred to the number of 1 and 2 bedroom units to be provided, there was an identified need for 3 bedroom units. It was explained that the type of units put forward had guided by the viability assessments carried out including the configuration of mix of affordable units to be provided. In answer to further questions it was explained that a number of issues had been taken into account including the views of the District Valuer and the discussions which had taken place in December 2017, the application being submitted in March 2018 and the work which had taken place subsequently in order to bring it to Committee.

 

(16)       Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the fact that the basement area of King’s House had been subject to flash flooding in July 2014. He wished to know whether a full risk assessment had been carried out in that respect and what mitigation measures if any were to be put in place. It was explained that a series of improvements were proposed to address this issue. Councillor Mac Cafferty also referred to the landscaping/planting treatments proposed enquiring whether species had been chosen which were suited to survival in a marine environment. Councillor Mac Cafferty also referred to the fact that a condition had been applied to other applications where the developer had undertaken to replace trees/planting provided if it did not flourish, for a period of 5 years following completion of a development, enquiring whether a similar condition could be applied in this instance. Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the proposed parking arrangements and to the concerns expressed by residents and the Local Ward Councillors at the impact which could arise as a result of additional vehicles and vehicular movements, and, whether consideration could be given to making the development car free or  converting  some of the  existing  bays to “Pay and Display”. It was explained that the proposed development did not meet the criteria for being car free or for “Pay and Display” to be invoked. It had been assessed that if a maximum of 15 residents were to be issued with permits that a harmful situation would not result and it was recommended that a condition be applied to any permission granted to ensure that was the case.

 

(17)       Councillor Mac Cafferty enquired regarding the materials and finishes proposed which would be associated with a prominent development within the conservation area. It was explained that as a result of the discussions which had taken place it had been considered to provide a building which was complimentary to rather than a pastiche of its neighbours.

 

(18)       Councillor Hyde referred to the height of the proposed buildings, as this appeared to be one of the main issues of concern, she sought clarification regarding whether if the number of units were to be reduced the scheme would remain viable. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, stated that the application needed to be determined as put forward.

 

              Questions of Officers

 

(19)       Councillor Daniel also asked regarding the mix of units and access arrangements to the site and whether it would be possible to provide all of the parking on-site. It was confirmed that the scheme before the Committee had been prepared following detailed discussions and was considered to present the best mix of what could be provided overall.

 

(20)       Councillor Littman referred to the external amenity space (communal garden) asking whether that would be exclusively for use by those living in the development and it was confirmed that was so. Councillor Littman stated that it was clear that a number of challenging issues had needed to be addressed in order to bring the application forward.

 

(21)       Councillor Robins referred to the lightwell which had been referred to seeking further clarification. It was confirmed that this was a scenario which was common across the city and that the depth of the light wells was considered sufficient to allow acceptable light and outlook and would provide external amenity space for the future occupiers. In respect of cycle storage arrangements revised details were required to ensure that an adequate standard was required

 

(22)       Mr Amarena, CAG, referred to the objections which had been put forward by CA, detailed comments had been submitted regarding the sensitive and significant character of this part of the seafront, not all of which appeared to have been taken up in the officer report He was concerned that the Conservation Officer may not have considered the Impact on Second avenue as it was not included in the officer summary. He sought confirmation regarding the issues considered. The Planning Manager, Applications, Nicola Hurley, responded explaining that whilst details of the areas considered were summarised in the report issues were looked in depth including the responses received from the consultation process.

 

(23)       Councillor C Theobald asked to see drawings and plans indicating the location of the frontage of the building and the degree of set back and the gaps between them in relation to the neighbouring dwellings. Councillor Theobald also referred to the open spaces and works proposed to the railings asking for clarification of how the s106 monies would be spent. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, confirmed that the criteria for allocation of s106 monies and the amounts which could be used were set out in the s106 Technical Guidance but would be allocated following the appropriate consultations.

 

(24)       Councillor O’Quinn sought more information regarding the potential impact of overlooking from balconies and the materials proposed including those for rails and balustrades and the location of obscure glazing if any was to be provided.

 

(26)       Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the viability of the scheme and sought confirmation regarding why energy efficiency/energy saving measures had not been maximised. It was explained that as that would need to be taken up under the maintenance charging arrangements, this had not been considered appropriate especially in relation to the affordable units.

 

(27)       Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the open space arrangements/planting, referring to the wind tunnel effect which could occur in that location asking that full consideration be given to the impact that could have. Councillor Mac Cafferty asked if that could be revisited to ensure that it was suitably robust.

 

(28)       Councillor Mac Cafferty reiterated his concerns regarding the level of parking to be provided by the scheme, enquiring whether this issue could be revisited in future, stating that his preference would be for the development to be car free and residents to be unable to hold parking permits as he was aware that had been used in connection with other schemes. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, stated that it was not possible to do so and that the development did not meet the test for being car free and that the requirement that eligibility would be limited to 15 permits had been recommended as a condition of grant. The Development Transport Assessment Manager, David Farnham, also confirmed in relation to the removal of pay and display arrangements that none of the thresholds had been met.

 

(29)       Councillor Miller sought clarification of how the parking would be allocated and whether/how that would be allocated between the affordable and market units.

 

(30)       Councillor Mac Cafferty also referred to the conditions relating to glazing particularly in relation to the balconies which would be located closest to the neighbouring residential properties; details of this and the proposed finishes were provided and it was confirmed that Condition 12 could be amended should Members wish to do so.

 

(32)       Councillor Gilbey asked whether as the percent of affordable housing proposed was lower than would usually be required whether a commuted sum could be sought and it was confirmed it could not. Councillor Gilbey also asked whether the block fronting Second Avenue would be at an angle to its neighbours and it was confirmed it followed the building line.

 

(33)       It was confirmed that the expenditure of the s106 contributions would be agreed in consultation with the relevant Ward Councillors and relevant officers.

 

              Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(34)       Councillor Miller stated that whilst loss of the office was regretted he was persuaded on balance that this would represent a good use of the site which would provide much needed housing and he supported it; subject to amendments to Condition 12 which would ensure that materials were agreed in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons, to include the balcony treatments.

 

(35)       Councillor C Theobald concurred in that view, whilst she would have preferred more on-site parking, overall the scheme was acceptable and would provide much needed housing.

 

(36)       Councillor Littman considered that on balance the benefits of the scheme outweighed any potential harm and although he would have preferred the blocks to be lower in height he would support the officer recommendation.

 

(37)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that it was clear that a lot of work had been undertaken in bringing the scheme to its current point and that officers had pushed very hard. He was disappointed in respect of some elements of scheme which he regarded as a missed opportunity but provided that the amendments suggested were agreed he was willing to support the proposal.

 

(38)       Councillor Hyde agreed with all that had been said, not least that she would have preferred the buildings to be lower in height but was prepared to support the officer recommendation.

 

(39)       Councillors Gilbey and Robins confirmed that they would be voting in support. Councillor Gilbey stated that the scheme brought to Committee now was significantly improved on that which had originally been put forward at the pre-application stage.

 

(40)       Councillor O’Quinn stated that she supported the application, although she had some reservations regarding the close proximity to neighbouring blocks of some elements of the scheme which would result in a degree of overshadowing. She also had doubts regarding how “affordable” the affordable element of the scheme would be.

 

(41)       Councillor Bennett, whilst concurring with much of what had been said, had concerns regarding the height of the blocks and the potential for overlooking and loss of light to some of the existing properties stating that she would therefore abstain.

 

(42)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, commended the scheme and the hard work which had been put in by officers in helping to progress the scheme. There were a number of constraints and challenges and it was pleasing to see that there was now an affordable element to the scheme where originally there had been none; she would be voting in support of the officer recommendation.

 

(43)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 10 with 1 abstention the 11 Members present when the vote was taken voted that minded to grant planning approval be given in the terms set out below.

 

65.1       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 to the conditions and informatives also set out in the report and to the amended and additional conditions set out in the Late/Additional Representations List; save that should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on before 27 February 2019, the Head of Planning is authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 9 of the report. This included the requirement that officers be required to consult with Members at a Chair’s meeting on material including those to be used for the balcony treatments.