Agenda item - BH2018/01738- Land to rear of Lyon Close, Hove-Full Planning

Demolition of existing buildings (B8) to facilitate a mixed use development comprising of the erection of 4no buildings between 5 and 8 storeys to provide 152 dwellings (C3), 2 live/work units (sui generis) and 697sqm of office accommodation (B1) with associated car and cycle parking, landscaping and other related facilities.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Goldsmid

              Demolition of existing buildings (B8) to facilitate a mixed use development comprising of the erection of 4no buildings between 6 and 8 storeys to provide 152 dwellings (C3), 2 live/work units (sui generis) and 697sqm of office accommodation (B1) with associated car and cycle parking, landscaping and other related facilities.

(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, Chris Swain, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme. Reference was made to additional representations received which had been referred to in the Late/Additional Representations List, this did not introduce any new issues which were not covered in the report.

(3)          It was noted that the main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of the use including the loss of employment floor space, financial viability and affordable housing provision, the impacts of the proposed development on the visual amenities of the site and surrounding area; the proposed access arrangements and related traffic implications, impacts upon amenity of neighbouring properties, standard of accommodation, housing mix and density, ecology, sustainable drainage, arboriculture and sustainability impacts. Notwithstanding that there would be a significant change to the existing built form as this would be seen in the context of the higher density development to the south it was not therefore considered harmful to the character of the area. Although of a very different scale, form, and massing to the traditional terraced housing to the north it is considered that there is sufficient visual separation provided by the railway line and embankment to ensure that the proposal does not significantly jar with or visually overwhelm the existing properties. The staggered siting of the four blocks and the predominantly north south orientation ensure that there is a degree of permeability of light and outlook through the scheme and reduced the sense of massing from the north. The variation in heights of the blocks provided further visual interest to the scheme especially when seen in longer views. The scheme was therefore considered to be acceptable and was recommended minded to grant subject to the conditions and informatives set out and completion of a S106 Planning Obligation.

Public Speakers

(4)          Mr Linn and Mr Goult spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors setting out their objections to the proposed scheme which would in their view have a significant detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity and would be overly dominant in an area which was not designated for tall buildings. The aims of the scheme could be achieved with less impact by building to a lower height and could include more affordable units.

(5)          Councillor O’Quinn spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor re-iterating her concerns set out in her letter of objection which had been circulated with the agenda. Whilst some of the points raised during the pre-application/consultation process had been addressed, many had not. The height of the blocks would be overwhelming and an overdevelopment of the site, would result in loss of light to neighbours and would be seriously out of character with the prevailing street scene. There was a lack of parking which would exacerbate existing problems and additional pressure on the overstretched local GP surgeries. Councillor O’Quinn also referred to the Workshop Document Produced in relation to the draft policy in the City Plan Part Two. The proposed development appeared to be contrary to that. It was clarified by officers that the document referred to by Councillor O’Quinn was not actually a formal submission to the City Plan Part 2 but something which had been adapted for a training workshop.

(6)          Mr Dixon was in attendance accompanied by other members of the applicant’s team who were available to answer questions. He explained that the proposed scheme was considered to represent the most effective use of this brownfield site, there had been a significant level of pre-application consultation and although I high density scheme it, it was appropriate to the site, well designed in accordance with its typography and had taken account of the emerging City Plan, Part Two.

(7)          Councillor Wealls referred to the loss of light which had been alluded to by objectors and sought clarification regarding the calculations which had been used. The Chair, Councillor Cattell, also sought clarification regarding how the assessments referred to had been made. Different calculations were used to arrive at sunlight and daylight calculations. It was also important to know the status of the policy document referred to in order to establish what weight if any should be attached to it. It was explained that this document was to be tested and consulted upon further and was to be re-submitted in the Autumn of 2019 and was not therefore current policy.

(8)          Councillor Miller stated that he had concerns regarding the height and impact of some of the blocks and asked the applicants representatives why they had not located the tallest of the proposed blocks at a greater distance from the neighbouring dwellings; also in relation to remedial measures proposed to address noise emanating from the nearby railway line. Councillor Moonan expressed the same concerns.

(9)          The applicant’s representatives explained that blocks had been located throughout the site in order to take account of the changing levels across it and the adjacent railway line.

(10)       Councillor Littman referred to the significant reduction in the proposed level of affordable housing and it was explained that the current uncertain market had impacted on the viability of the scheme as originally conceived. As amended it had however sought to retain its original concept.

(11)       Councillor Miller asked regarding phasing of the scheme and how/ whether s106 funding would be released sequentially during construction of the scheme.

              Questions of Officers

(12)       Councillor Wealls expressed concern regarding impact of the scheme on neighbouring dwellings and sought information regarding compliance with BRE Guidelines, whether it was at the margins of acceptability or fell well within them. Also, the configuration of the blocks across the site in relation to each other and the neighbouring dwellings. It was noted that the position of windows and location of some rooms had been reconfigured to address concerns regarding neighbouring amenity.

(13)       Councillor Gilbey sought confirmation of the height of the blocks proposed along the Holland Road frontage.

(14)       Councillor C Theobald stated that one of the tallest blocks appeared to be located in close proximity to the railway line asking whether any special measures had been required to any potential damage which could occur due to noise vibration. It was confirmed that these buildings would be at a greater distance from the boundary than the commercial units and that enhanced glazing was to be provided to mitigate any potential nuisance.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(15)       Councillor Miller stated that he considered that the locations of Blocks C and D should be juxtaposed. He also sought confirmation that materials could be brought back to a Chair’s meeting for final approval and that ,materials used for the balcony treatments could be conditioned. He considered that slatted balconies or those with clear glass should be avoided as they impacted detrimentally on the appearance of the blocks themselves and on neighbouring amenity. Whilst the loss of employment space was to be regretted he supported the scheme overall.

(16)       Councillor C Theobald stated that she was unhappy that the level of affordable units had reduced from 40% to 10 %, and that the scheme was of too great density too tall and provided insufficient parking. The nearby Artisan flats by the same developer remained largely unsold and she was concerned that could be the case in respect of this development.

(17)       Councillor Moonan stated that whilst supporting the principle of development she considered that the current scheme was too high, too dense and that the loss of employment/office space/jobs was too great. The proposals would impact on the infrastructure of the area and would result in loss of amenity. On balance she could not support this scheme.

(18)       Councillor Littman noted that mitigation measures had been undertaken, but in his view that would not be enough, there would be overlooking and loss of privacy. He was in agreement with Councillor Moonan that the buildings would be too high and too dense; the external treatments were also lacking in interest. If the application was refused the applicant would have the opportunity to address the concerns expressed and to come back with a better scheme.

(19)       Councillor Page noted concerns raised relating to the perceived deficiencies of the scheme. He was of the view however, that although not perfect the scheme was acceptable noting that the applicant had indicated that 10% of the housing to be provided on site would be affordable, notwithstanding that the District Valuer had indicated that 0% would be acceptable.

(20)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell, stated that the scheme as now presented had gone through several iterations and was of a good design. The employment space provided would be flexible and provide for current needs. She considered that this was a good scheme citing that it would be necessary to build upwards in order address the city’s housing needs where it was appropriate to do so.

(21)       A vote was taken and the 9 Members who were present when the vote was taken voted that Minded to Grant planning permission be given on a vote of 5 to 3 with 1 abstention.

112.1    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 hereunder, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 26th June 2019 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 9 of the report subject to the Amendments to Conditions and Informatives and the s106 Heads of Terms set out on the Additional/Late Representations List and as set out below:

              Amend Condition 17:

              17. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, a scheme shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide that (1) the residents of the development have no entitlement to a resident’s parking permit; and (2) that the annual entitlement of each dwelling to a visitor parking permit shall be reduced to 25 permits.

              Reason: To ensure that the development does not result in overspill parking and to comply with policies TR7 and QD 7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and CP9 of the City Plan Part One.

              Additional Informative:

              Condition 11 requiring the approval of samples of external materials will be determined by the Head of Planning following consultation with Member’s attending Planning Chair’s Meeting.

              Note 1: Having declared a prejudicial interest in respect of the above application and having spoken in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor, Councillor O’Quinn withdrew from the meeting during consideration of the application and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

              Note 2: Councillors Inkpin-Leissner and organ were not present at the meeting.