Agenda item - BH2018/02854-41 and 42 Park Wall Farm Cottages, Station Approach, Falmer, Brighton -Full Planning

Demolition of existing houses and erection of a 4 storey student accommodation building with 71no bed spaces and associated access arrangements, cycle parking, car parking and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Moulsecoomb & Bevendean

              Demolition of existing houses and erection of a 4 storey student accommodation building with 71no bed spaces and associated access arrangements, cycle parking, car parking and landscaping.

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

            Officer Presentation

(2)          The Senior Planning Officer, Eimear Murphy, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans and elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme. The site was located within the development boundary for the city, to the south side of the A27 adjacent to Falmer Station and was positioned between the A27 dual carriageway and the railway line with access from Station Approach, a partly private road which also served Falmer Railway Station and the station carpark. Beyond this and to the south was the University of Brighton Falmer Campus. The University of Sussex campus was located to the north of the A27. The station was located to the west, with a stadium car park to the east and a small number of residential properties located towards the west on the opposite side of Station Approach, beyond which was Stanmer Court which was purpose-built student accommodation. The application site comprised a pair of unoccupied boarded up semi-detached flint cottages which were positioned towards the back of the site with the main gardens to the north and access to the east side of Station Approach. Apart from the boundary to the east, the remaining boundaries were defined by the existing vegetation and trees.

(3)       It was noted that the main considerations in determining the application relate to the principle of the development including the loss of the two existing units of accommodation, the proposed provision of student accommodation; the impact on the street scene, character and appearance of the area which included the setting of the South Downs National Park and Stanmer Village Conservation Area; amenity for existing and new occupants; sustainability and sustainable transport, traffic generation, parking and pedestrian safety; landscaping; ecology/biodiversity and contribution to other objectives of the development plan.

(4)       Given the close proximity of the site to the two university campuses its sustainable location and the provision of 71 student bed spaces in a purpose built building it was considered that the proposed form of development would not only add to the much needed stock of accommodation for this sector but would also reduce pressure on the existing family housing stock which often become small HMOs. Since the withdrawal of the previous application the footprint, scale, mass and appearance of the proposed scheme had been amended to produce a building which respected the setting of the SDNP in part by retaining planting to the boundary with the verge to the A27 including 2 mature trees and hedgerows. A revised design had been submitted and the material proposed would improve its appearance and its mass was alleviated by the staggering of windows to sections of the main road facing elevations. It was also considered that and in conjunction with appropriate conditions and Travel and Management plans that the building and its use for student accommodation would not cause detriment to the immediate area, the amenities of existing dwellings, traffic flow or pedestrian movement. As there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development the proposal accorded with the City Plan Part 1 and the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005, represents sustainable development and approval was therefore recommended.

            Public Speakers

(5)       Councillor Yates spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objections in relation to the scheme and those of neighbouring objectors.

(6)       It was noted that both the applicant and the agent both based in Manchester and who had been contacted at short notice had advised that regrettably they were unable to attend. The Chair had agreed therefore that the Democratic Services Officer, Penny Jennings, would read out a statement provided by them on their behalf in support of their application. This was done.

            Questions of Officers

(7)       Councillor Littman referred to the concerns of the arboriculture team and sought clarification regarding protection to be afforded to the trees on site, particularly in relation to the Wych Elm, sycamore tree(s) and to the hedgerow group in the light of them. It was explained that updated information had been provided and that the proposed pre-commencement and pre-occupation conditions 9, 11 and 12.were intended to address those points. Councillor Littman asked for confirmation that these conditions were considered to be sufficiently robust.

(8)       Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the lighting to be provided on-site seeking confirmation that there would not be any detrimental light spillage in view of its close proximity to the national park. In respect of the proposed green wall assurances were sought that planting to this would be hardy as in other locations where this had been used in sheltered or north facing locations this had not survived. Also, regarding measures to be put into place to address additional traffic associated with the nearby football ground on match days. As to the duration of the contribution towards bus travel, in his view in order to be successful it needed to be in place for a reasonable amount of time.

(9)       Councillor Mac Cafferty also sought detail of the rationale for the decision by English Heritage not to list the buildings on site and how the grounds for the site to be considered as an exception under HO8 had been met.

(10)     Councillor Miller also referred to the support provided by Planning Policy which set out that cumulatively it was considered that an exception to HO8 was justified in this instance.

(11)     Whilst noting the considerations made in respect of HO8 Councillor Gilbey asked whether the fact that permission had been given for other student accommodation relatively close to the site had been taken account of. Also, to the access/egress arrangements and to the fact that only one disabled parking space was proposed on site.

(12)     Councillor Littman stated that notwithstanding what had been said he was struggling to see on what basis an exception to policy HO8 could be justified. It was explained that the scheme had been considered in the context of planning policy overall.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(13)     Councillor Robins considered that the proposed scheme was of poor design and stated that he would not support it.

(14)     Councillor C Theobald stated that whilst regretting the loss of the existing cottages and their replacement with buildings of a “boring” design she recognised that this provision would free up family sized homes which were increasingly being used as HMOs for students.

(15)     Councillor Miller concurred in that view considering that whilst far from perfect the proposed scheme did represent good use of the site and could result in less HMOs being used as student accommodation in the in the city centre.

(16)     Councillor Hyde agreed stating that provided the red brick used was of a muted tone she considered that the proposed scheme would be acceptable. Councillor Hyde also considered it was important that adequate measures for soundproofing were provided for the windows.

(17)     Councillor Morgan considered that as the existing buildings on site were in a derelict condition their loss would be acceptable. This provision in close proximity to the University campus was welcome.

(18)     Councillor Mac Cafferty was of the view that loss of two handsome knapped flint buildings was to be regretted as was the fact that these buildings had not been listed either by English Heritage or locally. If approval was given it was important that the amended s106  terms and conditions set out in the Late/Additional Representations List were adhered to and that samples of materials particularly those to be used for external finishes be brought back to Members for approval. Councillor MacCafferty was also of the view that full strong measures to mitigate any potential for flooding due to surface water were necessary.

(19)     The Chair, Councillor Cattell, stated that in her view the criteria for the buildings on site to be listed had not been met as the site was in close proximity to two university campuses it would ease pressure on existing family housing stock elsewhere in the city and she supported the officer recommendation.

(20)     A vote was taken and the 11 Members who were present when the vote was taken voted by a vote of 9 to 2 that minded to grant planning permission be given.

101.1              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 agreement on the Heads of Terms set out in the report and to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report and in the Late/Additional Representations List  and to the additional conditions and informative set out below SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 29th May 2019 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 10 of the report.

            Additional Conditions:

            Add additional conditions agreed by Committee requiring details of soundproofing to windows and connection to district heating network.

            Additional Informative:

Condition 4 requiring the approval of samples of external materials will be determined by the Head of Planning following consultation with Members attending the Planning Committee Chair’s meeting.

            MINOR APPLICATIONS