Agenda item - BH2018/02607 -Greater Brighton Metropolitan College, Pelham Street, Brighton - Full Planning

Hybrid planning application comprising:  Full Planning application Site A (West of Pelham Street): External alterations and internal refurbishment to the existing college building and redevelopment of the existing car park to provide 3 storey extensions to the existing college (D1 use), disabled parking spaces with new vehicular access, cycle parking spaces, open space and landscaping.Outline Application Site B (East of Pelham Street): Demolition of York, Trafalgar and Cheapside Buildings and the erection of up to 135 residential units (C3 use) at maximum 6 storeys with associated new and relocated vehicular accesses, car and cycle parking (with all matters reserved except access, layout and scale).

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: St Peter’s & North Laine

              Hybrid planning application comprising: Full Planning application Site A (West of Pelham Street): External alterations and internal refurbishment to the existing college building and redevelopment of the existing car park to provide 3 storey extensions to the existing college (D1 use), disabled parking spaces with new vehicular access, cycle parking spaces, open space and landscaping. Outline Application Site B (East of Pelham Street): Demolition of York, Trafalgar and Cheapside Buildings and the erection of up to 135 residential units (C3 use) at maximum 6 storeys with associated new and relocated vehicular accesses, car and cycle parking (with all matters reserved except access, external layout and scale).

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

              Officer Presentation

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Sarah Collins, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, floor plans, elevational drawings, photographs and photomontages in relation to the proposed scheme. It was noted that that an updated and amended report had been circulated to Members and had also been posted on the council website. Reference was also made to the submissions included in the Late/Additional Representations List.

(3)          It was explained that the application site comprised a 1.18 hectare site which contains Pelham Tower and car park on the west side of Pelham St (Site A) and Cheapside, York, and Trafalgar buildings on the east side of Pelham St (Site B). The site was in use by Greater Brighton Metropolitan College (GBMET) for educational purposes. Pelham Tower was a 1960's block of 12 storeys and had a surrounding three storey podium which measured approximately 51 metres by 56 metres. Pelham Tower was accessed through a glazed entrance directly from Pelham Street. The materials were brick with steel window frames with the surface car park to the south accessed from Whitecross Street surrounded by metal fencing. It accommodated 118 car parking spaces which were allocated to staff. The buildings on Site B varied in height up to 3 or 4 storeys, more akin to 5 or 6 storeys residential because of the large floor to ceiling heights. They were mostly faced in red brick and a glazed entrance connected the Cheapside and Trafalgar buildings on the Pelham Steet frontage. There was vehicular access from Cheapside through an undercroft. The three significant buildings on this site, Trafalgar, Cheapside and York were developed between 1893 and 1938 as part of the school which occupied the site and had been supplemented by workshops, halls, 'temporary' classrooms and storage sheds.

(4)          Site A was bounded by Whitecross Street to the west, Cheapside to the north, Pelham Street to the east and Redcross Street, 1 and 2 Whitecross Street, 87-97 Trafalgar Street, and 1 and 2 Pelham Street to the south. Site B was bounded by Pelham Streete and The Sanctuary and The Foyer residential blocks to the southwest, Cheapside to the north, 8-31 York Place and St. Peter's House to the east, and the college's Gloucester building, no.5 Trafalgar Ct, and Trafalgar Ct to the south. An arched entranceway of brick with limestone spacers was present at 15 York Place, close to the eastern boundary of Site B and had three sections in the crenelated cornice, separated by brick buttresses and with a stone moulding above the arch. The site was in a highly accessible sustainable location, approximately 350 metres walking distance from Brighton Station, immediately to the north of the North Laine shopping centre and within 100m of the London Road shopping centre which lay to the northeast. The site was also close to some main bus routes including the Lewes Road and Preston Road bus routes from York Place and City Centre bus routes from Trafalgar Street and Brighton Station. The site lay within Development Area 4 (DA4) of the City Plan Part One (CPP1). Valley Gardens Conservation Area bounded Site B to the east and North Laine Conservation Area bounded both sites to the south. The application submissions provided a summary of the College's estates strategy and the purpose of the application, which was relevant in terms of viability considerations and to understand the need for the sale of Site B to enable the development of Site A, and what the development of Site A was intended to deliver and Site B and what that was intended to deliver. The application was a hybrid application (full application for Site A and an outline application for Site B and full details in respect of both were set out in the report.

(5)          The main considerations in the determining this application related to the principle of the net loss of the D1 college floor space, the absence of purpose-built student accommodation within the development, the design of the college building extensions and open space on Site A, the residential development of Site B and its scale, layout and access, affordable housing and viability considerations. In addition, the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the adjoining conservation areas and the setting of nearby listed buildings, impact on the street scene and wider views, neighbouring amenity, noise and anti-social behaviour/security considerations, pedestrian permeability, sustainable transport impacts including cycle parking demand, bus services and highway safety, sustainable energy and air quality considerations, impact on existing trees, and contribution to other objectives of the development plan.

(6)          The principle of the redevelopment of the college buildings on Site B for housing, to enable the improvement and consolidation of the college campus facilities onto Site A, and the overall net loss of college floor space, was assessed in terms of the wider estates plan for the MET College and its financial position, and in terms of the College’s aspirations and needs for the campus, to modernise the facilities and continue to attract students. It was accepted that the existing buildings on Site B were not fit for purpose, and the Heritage Officer did not object to the demolition of the existing buildings on this site, subject to a high quality design for the replacement buildings. The development of this site for housing was considered necessary in order to fund the improvements to the campus facilities on Site A which the District Valuation Service had concurred with, and the economic and community benefits that this investment into the MET college would bring were acknowledged, and therefore an exception to policies HO20 and CP21 was considered to be justified in this instance. The principle of new housing development on this site was also supported by the Development Plan.

(7)          The proposed college extensions on Site A were considered to be of a high quality design which respected the architecture and scale of the existing tower and plinth, and although the Heritage Officer had raised concerns over the lack of glazing on the eastern wing, it was accepted that the College had specific daylight, heating and privacy requirements for the intended uses within the building and the extensions would nevertheless strengthen the building line and street scene in Pelham Street and Whitecross Street. The proposed extensions and open space to the south would greatly improve the existing surface staff car park in terms of townscape and would improve the permeability and visual amenities of the local area, allowing public access into and through the open space daily from 7am until 10pm. The Local Highway Authority (LHA), whilst generally supportive of the removal of the majority of the car parking spaces and supportive of the number of accessible spaces to be retained on Site A, was not satisfied with the design of the accessible parking spaces due to the gradient of the parking area, which the LHA considered should be level. The applicant had sought to reduce the gradient but this caused problems with damage to the protected sycamore tree roots and with connecting the car park to the open space and college building given the level changes across the site. On balance it was considered that the car park and open space should comply with the Building Control standards for ‘Access to and Use of Buildings other than Dwellings’ which the applicant considered was an acceptable requirement and detailed drawings would be required by condition to demonstrate this.

(8)          The application had also been assessed in terms of the matters to be considered in this outline application, namely the pedestrian and vehicular accesses, the external layout (building footprints and position of buildings and external areas), and the scale of the development. The assessment included the potential impact on daylight/sunlight to neighbouring properties, outlook, amenity and privacy of future occupiers and neighbours, trip generation and car and cycle parking provision, servicing and deliveries, vehicular accesses, and potential impact on the highway and infrastructure improvement and mitigation requirements including highway improvement works, and education, economic development, and open space contributions. The proposed development of Site B was considered to be acceptable subject to compliance with the recommended conditions and s106 obligations. The reserved matters of internal layout, landscaping and appearance would need to conform to the parameters set by the outline proposals, and an accompanying assessment of daylight/sunlight to internal and external areas should be submitted in support of the application. For all of these reasons the application was therefore recommended for minded to grant approval.

              Public Speakers

(9)          Mr Bromberg spoke in relation to the application setting out his objections and concerns. His property was immediately adjacent to the proposed integrated public seating areas and he was concerned that this would be detrimental to his amenity as its location could attract street drinkers and result in noise nuisance/anti-social behaviour in close proximity to his home and neighbouring residential dwellings. Ideally, there should be a buffer between this area and the nearby housing. It was confirmed that this could be controlled through a site management plan. Councillor Hyde asked Mr Bromberg to indicate the precise location of his property. Councillor Moonan stated that in her view the hours of access and arrangements for control/ closure and lighting of public areas after dark was important and asked for confirmation that this could incorporated into a management plan and it was confirmed that it could.

(10)       Councillor Deane spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her concerns in respect of some elements of the scheme. Whilst acknowledging that the applicants had gone to considerable lengths to address concerns in respect of the scheme and being generally supportive of it she also had concerns regarding some elements of management of the site considering that it was import to design out/control the site so that it did not attract or encourage the problems that Mr Bromberg had alluded to.

(11)       Ms Tipper spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of the scheme and was accompanied by Mr Jubba (Chief Executive Officer, Greater Brighton Metropolitan College) in order to answer any questions by Members of the Committee on which he was better placed to respond. It was explained that the applicants had needed to make significant changes from previously submitted schemes due to reductions in funding but had however sought  to provide improved facilities for existing and future students as well as public realm improvements whilst being sympathetic to the neighbouring residential dwellings.

(12)       Councillor Mac Cafferty asked the applicants to explain the rationale for the level of affordable housing to be provided on site and it was explained that a that a balance had needed to be struck in order to provide for the college’s needs, and an appropriate level of enabling development which would ensure the viability of the scheme. The viability assessment had been independently verified by the District Valuer. Councillor Mac Cafferty also enquired regarding the relatively low BREEAM rating which would be achieved asking why the applicants had not sought to achieve an excellent rating. It was further explained that it had not been possible to achieve this within the constraints of the current scheme. The council’s sustainability officer had accepted however, that this design decision had benefits elsewhere (e.g. daylight) and had indicated that they could accept BREEAM Very Good in this instance. The external alterations to the existing building although modest, would improve the corner façade on Cheapside/Whitecross Street and the extensions and fully glazed atrium would greatly improve the southern elevations of the building.

(13)       Councillor Moonan also sought further information in relation to viability and in relation to proposed Condition 28 in relation to noise control measures and to ensure protection of neighbouring amenity.

(14)       Councillor C Theobald asked regarding the level of parking proposed and it was explained that notwithstanding the matters which were to be addressed in relation to configuration of the car park the level of parking provided was considered to be acceptable and took account of the site location which meant that it was easy to walk to or travel to by public transport and there was also the opportunity for car share arrangements.

(15)       Councillor Miller referred to the sports facilities available on site enquiring whether it was intended that they would be available to the local community. It was explained that that could be given consideration.

(16)       Mr Gowans, CAG, referred to and enquired regarding access arrangements to be put into place.

(17)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, referred for the need for students to be reminded that they needed to act as good neighbours bearing in the mind the close proximity of residential dwellings asking whether the management plan included arrangements to ensure that was conveyed and that appropriate action could be taken in the event of any complaints. It was confirmed that there were.

              Questions of Officers

(18)       Councillor Miller referred to the conditions proposed in relation to site B seeking details regarding the landscaping proposed and to the relative heights of the constituent elements of the development, also referring to the fact that details set out in the “Heads of Terms” for site A should also be included for Site B; it was confirmed that they should and requesting that materials be brought back to a Chair’s meeting for Member approval.

(19)       Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the earlier scheme(s) for which permission had been granted seeking confirmation as to whether they represented a material consideration and regarding the weight which could be attached to them. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward explained that they were material, although this application needed to be determined on its individual planning merits.

(20)       Councillor Mac Cafferty also referred to the proposed boundary treatments in relation to the proposed housing and the design out elements which could give rise to anti-social behaviour/crime. Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the viability information provided with the application, seeking re-assurance that the applicants had been required to provide a robust case in support of the level of affordable housing. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward stated that as the information provided had been assessed and was considered to be reasonable by the District Valuer, it would not be appropriate to seek a greater number of units in this instance.

(21)       Councillor C Theobald sought confirmation regarding the existing buildings to be demolished and clarification of the rationale for doing so.

(22)       Councillor Littman stated that whilst the scheme had much to commend it in general terms he had some concerns in relation to the overall loss of educational floor space and why that was considered to be acceptable. The Principal Planning Officer, Sarah Collins, explained that the space to be replaced was out dated and no longer fit for purpose and would be replaced by modern higher spec teaching space. Councillor Littman also stated that it was disappointing that an excellent BREEAM rating had not been achieved but it was confirmed that the rating which would be achieved was considered to be the optimum which could be achieved without compromising the overall viability of the scheme. It was also confirmed that the archway fronting London Road was not to be demolished.

(23)       In answer to queries regarding access and parking arrangements the Development and Transport Assessment Manager, David Farnham, explained that a number of complex issues had been considered and the Highway Authority’s concerns were set out in the report. Notwithstanding those it was considered that they could be addressed by condition and subject to agreement of final details as set out in the report.

(24)       Councillor Hyde sought confirmation regarding the precise location and height of the flats proposed.

(25)       Councillor Gilbey referred to the existing Gloucester building and it was confirmed that it fell outside the area covered by this application but had been included for viability purposes.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(26)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that there were a number of issues on which he would have preferred greater clarity enquiring regarding the feasibility of deferring determination. It was explained that the application was time limited in terms of the college’s ability to apply for the necessary funding and that additional information could be sought from the applicant or from officers.

(27)       Councillor C Theobald stated that she was disappointed that the existing tower block would be retained and that although there were some aspects of the scheme which she considered to be improved on overall it was acceptable particularly as it would provide improved facilities for students at the college and housing.

(28)       Councillor Miller stated that he would be voting in support of the scheme which would tidy up the existing car park area and provide enhanced facilities and housing.

(29)       Councillor Hyde concurred, stating that she would be voting in support of the application.

(30)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that whilst he considered that there were a number of missed opportunities in terms of the number of affordable housing units to be provided and in terms of the environmental aspects on balance he would be voting in support.

(31)       Councillor Morgan stated that he knew the site well and whilst the scheme was not perfect and some issues remained to be addressed he was confident that these could be dealt with by imposing the proposed conditions.

(32)       Councillor Moonan concurred with all that had been said confirming that she would be voting in support of the scheme.

(33)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, stated that she would be voting in support of the scheme which although not perfect would effect improvements to the area.

(34)       A vote was taken and the 11 Members who were present when the vote was taken voted unanimously that Minded to Grant Planning Permission be given

78.1       RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and in the Late/Additional Representation List and as part of the verbal update given at Committee 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 the 27th March 2019 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 10.8 of the report: