Agenda item - BH2017/04050 -35-39 The Droveway, Hove -Full Planning

Change of use from former Dairy Crest depot (B8) to Mixed-use flexible commercial development of 1383sqm (Flexible between use classes B1(a), A1, A2, A3, D1) incorporating alterations including removal of northern extension and erection of a new wing with 14no residential units (C3). Erection of a new central wing to court yard, onsite car parking, cycle storage and areas for storage of waste and recycling.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected:Hove Park

              Change of use from former Dairy Crest depot (B8) to Mixed-use flexible commercial development of 1383sqm (Flexible between use classes B1(a), A1, A2, A3, D1) incorporating alterations including removal of northern extension and erection of a new wing with 14no residential units (C3). Erection of a new central wing to court yard, onsite car parking, cycle storage and areas for storage of waste and recycling.

(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, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs, elevational drawings and detailing the proposed scheme. It was explained that as the applicants had now lodged an appeal against non-determination that the Committee were unable to determine the application but would need to consider the application and to confirm whether they would have been minded to grant planning permission subject to a s106 Planning Obligation and the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report. The site was situated on the north side of the Droveway, and was a locally listed heritage asset comprising a single storey, early 19th century out-farm buildings associated with a larger dairy farm and had more recently been used as a dairy depot for a number of years.

(2)          It was noted that the main considerations in determining the application were the principle of development on the site, the impacts of the proposed dwellings on the character and appearance of the street, the impacts on the amenities of adjacent occupiers, the standard of accommodation to be provided and sustainability and traffic issues. The lawful use of the site was for storage/distribution (Use Class B8). The Applicant had cited restrictive conditions on the property as restricting its potential for employment use. In Planning Policy terms however it was clear that the activation of, or redevelopment of the site for, suitable employment uses such as those within the B1 Use Class would in principle be supported and notwithstanding lengthy discussions with the applicant evidence that the site had been marketed for employment use had not been forthcoming. However, significant information had been provided regarding the condition of the existing buildings and their suitability for conversion to employment or alternative uses. The proposed mix of uses would deliver a significant amount of modern office space alongside mixed uses which could include some further office space, and which would in themselves generate employment. Whilst the dilution of B-Class employment space was regrettable, the provision of housing units including dwellings suitable for family occupation and affordable housing would be of benefit to the city. Overall it was considered therefore that the proposed scheme could be supported in principle. The proposed development would provide a significant delivery of B Class employment floor space alongside mixed uses and 14 residential units including a provision of 4 affordable units with a policy compliant tenure mix. Furthermore the proposal would ensure the retention of much of the fabric and character of a locally listed heritage asset and would secure an active use of the site for the future. The proposed development was also considered to be acceptable in transport, sustainability and ecological terms, subject to the s106 requirements referred to in the report being met. On that basis the officer recommendation had been that Minded to Grant planning approval be given.

              Public Speakers

(3)          Mr Hunt spoke as a neighbouring resident setting out objections to the proposed scheme. He stated that his property located at 6 Mallory Road would be detrimentally impacted by the proposed form of development as 8 units would be facing directly towards his property and in consequence a high degree of overlooking would result. There were already existing traffic, highway safety and parking problems on the Droveway and the proposed development would worsen them.

(4)          Mr Dowsett spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application. He explained that careful thought had been given to the most appropriate means by which this redundant site could be sympathetically developed.

(5)          Councillor Mac Cafferty asked regarding marketing of the site which had been undertaken as it was not clear to him from the submitted report to what extent and for what period this had been undertaken.

              Questions of Officers

(6)          Councillor Bennett sought further clarification regarding the individual elements of the scheme and the uses to which each constituent element was to be put. It was complicated given the number of different buildings located on site.

(7)          Councillor Miller also asked for clarification regarding the access arrangements to the site and details regarding the rear access way which ran adjacent to Mallory Road, also whether the site could be included within a Controlled Parking Zone.

(8)          Members also sought clarification of the position in relation to the fact that they were unable to determine the application in the light of an appeal having been lodged against non-determination. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Alison Gatherer, confirmed the position.

(9)          Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the comments received in relation to the biodiversity of the site. It was confirmed that ecology impact assessments had been undertaken and that no rare or protected species had been identified, nor any plants or animals for whom special arrangements needed to be put into place. It was confirmed that the oldest of the barns located on site was listed as being of local interest, it was not a listed building. Notwithstanding the length of time over which the site had been in use much of its development had been piece meal. Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the requirements of CP3 had not been met in full and it was explained that account had been made of the practical constraints in relation to the site.

(10)       Councillor Hyde referred to the existing on site buildings which could be observed from Mallory Road enquiring regarding the height of the new buildings and the positioning of the windows looking out from the site.

(11)       Councillor Robins referred to the proposed on-site parking arrangements in relation to imposition of a CPZ enquiring regarding the current situation and the fact that it could change subsequently. It was explained that could always be the case in relation to any site; mechanisms were in place to address any changes which could occur in future.

(12)       Councillor Phillips referred to the objections raised by the Police and it was explained that generally the Police did not favour mixed use developments. However, notwithstanding their concerns it was considered that the amended scheme had sufficient spacing between the C3 elements and additional proposed uses.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(13)       Councillor Hyde stated that in her view there was much to commend the application, the applicants and that sought to minimise the impact on Mallory Road by providing adequate spacing between the new buildings. On balance she considered the scheme to be acceptable.

(14)       Councillor Miller stated that he considered the proposed scheme represented good use of a brownfield site and mitigation to minimise any potential negative impacts had been used. Whilst it was disappointing that CP3 had been unable to be met the rationale for that was understood. Overall he would have supported the scheme. However, he had grave concerns regarding pressure on the existing road network considering that this should be re-assessed and thought given to inclusion of the area into a CPZ.

(15)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he had listened carefully to the concerns of residents in Mallory Road and having the application site in the context of its neighbours and considering the potential benefits which would arise he would have supported the officer recommendation which would result in an imaginative scheme which would return this site which had been empty for some 8 years to use.

(16)       Councillor Phillips confirmed that she would have supported the scheme which she considered supported an imaginative range of uses.

(17)       Councillor Robins stated that he was in agreement with much that had been said considering that any flaws could be easily remedied.

(18)       Councillor Gilbey considered that the proposed development was acceptable although she shared the concerns which had been voiced in relation to potential parking issues which could arise. Notwithstanding that she would have supported the officer recommendation.

(19)       Councillor O’Quinn stated that whilst welcoming some elements of the scheme for example retention of the flint walls she would not have felt able to support the proposed scheme. She considered that the houses which would be provided facing towards Mallory Road would be overbearing particularly in relation to no 6 and that the houses themselves would have a poor aspect looking out towards a tall fence.

(20)       Councillor Bennett stated that she also considered the proposed scheme represented overdevelopment of the site and that she would not have voted in support of it.

(21)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, stated that in her view this represented an imaginative use of the site which had sought to address a number of complex elements, she would have supported it.

(22)       Councillor Miller suggested that in order to address Members concerns regarding potential parking issues in relation to the site that notwithstanding that the Committee were unable to determine the application that the Planning Inspectorate should have submitted to it suggested conditions for their consideration as to whether at that stage a condition could be suggested removing future occupants’ rights to parking permits, with regard to the progression of the CPZ adoption and legal advice at the time. It was voted that the decision on whether such a condition can be suggested be agreed by the Planning Manager in conjunction with the Chair and the opposition spokespersons. Councillor Hyde concurred in that view and was prepared to second that. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Alison Gatherer, confirmed that it would be in order for the Committee to vote on that.

(23)       A vote was taken and the 11 Members present when the vote was taken voted by 9 to 2 Members voted that had they been able to determine the above application they would have been Minded to Grant planning approval. A further vote was taken in respect of the proposed additional condition and that was agreed on a vote of 7 to 4.

89.1       RESOLVED – That had the Council determined the application prior to an appeal being lodged, the decision of the council would have been to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the expiry of the re-consultation period and no new planning considerations arising and subject to a s106 Planning Obligation and to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report and to the additional recommendations agreed as set out below:

              In addition the Committee resolved:

              That the Planning Manager be authorised to agree the s106 Planning Obligation to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

              The Committee also resolved:

At the time the council submits suggested conditions to the Planning Inspectorate, it should be considered whether at that stage a condition can be suggested removing future occupants’ rights to parking permits, with regard to the progression of the CPZ adoption and legal advice at the time. It was voted that the decision on whether such a condition can be suggested be agreed by the Planning Manager in conjunction with the Chair and the opposition spokespersons.

              MINOR APPLICATIONS