Agenda item - BH2017/03676-Land at Varndean College, Surrenden Road, Brighton -Outline Application

Outline application with some matters reserved for erection of 10no residential units (C3), comprising 1no two bedroom, 6no three bedroom and 3no four bedroom houses, with new access from Surrenden Road, associated car and cycle parking and approval of reserved matters for access and layout.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected:Withdean

              Outline application with some matters reserved for erection of 10no residential units (C3), comprising 1no two bedroom, 6no three bedroom and 3no four bedroom houses, with new access from Surrenden Road, associated car and cycle parking and approval of reserved matters for access and layout.

(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, Sonia Gillam, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, elevation drawings and photographs detailing the proposed scheme. It was noted that matters of appearance, landscaping and scale were reserved and therefore the main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of the proposed development, access and layout in relation to constructing 10 dwellings with associated parking on the site. It was considered that the proposed housing provision on site would contribute towards the city’s housing target, loss of this small part of the college campus would have little impact on the students with regard to their studies, was supported by sport England and the enhanced biodiversity measures proposed were considered to mitigate for loss of habitat on the application site. It was considered that the lower density proposed for the site was acceptable as it would fit with the general pattern and character of the area.

(3)          It was noted that since the Committee papers had been published 3 further letters of objection had been received, however they did not raise any new matters which had not been addressed in the officer report.

(4)          Overall, it was considered that the development would make a positive contribution to the City's housing needs, including policy compliant much needed affordable family housing, on a section of open space which was not used for sports, recreation or education purposes. There would be no harm caused to the living conditions of the occupants of surrounding properties and the creation of an on-site enhanced biodiversity area would mitigate for the loss of habitat on the application site. It was acknowledged that the open nature of the site and the strategic views to the sea would be impacted by the proposal; however given the above benefits it was considered that, on balance, the loss of the under-utilised open space was acceptable and residential development on the site could be supported in principle and minded to grant approval was therefore recommended.

Public Speakers

(5)          Ms Dibb spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors and “ Keep Varndean Green” and was accompanied by colleagues in order to respond to any questions which they were better placed to answer. Ms Dibb stated that Members of the Committee had been provided with supporting information. On the basis of that information it was hoped the application could be either deferred or refused. The proposed scheme would ruin the uninterrupted views across the site and would be detrimental to the existing butterfly habitat which could not be moved. The existing space was an important community facility and would be lost. The ten luxury properties proposed would make a minimal contribution to the city’s housing supply but the impact on the amenity of the area would be permanent and irreparable. This scheme was flawed and represented overdevelopment and there were significant gaps in information which should be available in order for a decision to be made.

(6)          Councillor Moonan sought clarification regarding use of the space. It was explained that there was no direct public access. However the whole area provided a green lung where people could exercise, walk their dogs and also provided a valuable amenity space and community asset which was also beneficial to students at the college. It was unclear what access arrangements would be put into place were the development to proceed and whether students would have access on a timed basis.

(7)          Councillor Littman referred to the habitat which had been created by the college in 2012 and provided a haven for blue butterflies enquiring regarding arrangements to secure/move them in order to ensure that they were protected. It was explained that there was a separate wildlife corridor currently undisturbed which would be compromised.

(8)          Councillor O’Quinn sought clarification regarding the biodiversity corridor its precise location in relation to the application site. The Legal Adviser to the Committee stated that questions to public speakers were to seek clarification on matters which had been raised by them and this question should be directed more appropriately to the applicants or officers.

(9)          Councillor Taylor spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objections to the scheme. He was in agreement with the concerns of objectors that the proposed form of development would be detrimental to the character of this open space and would have a permanent impact on it. Strategic views across the site would be lost, these were enjoyed by many people currently both in the immediate vicinity and beyond. This scheme was profit led and did not respect the open space overall. There were also concerns about the impact on the biodiversity of the site and on butterflies and other protected wildlife.

(10)       Mr Hoskins was accompanied by the Principal of the College, Mr Harland and spoke in support of the application. It was explained that the proposed scheme was not a speculative venture but would utilise an unused part of the site to generate money which would enhance facilities available to students and improve the offer available going forward which would enable the college to avoid any prospect of a hostile takeover. The scheme sought to respect the site with the resultant dwellings set down into the slope of the site and with adequate spacing between them. Whilst views across the site would not be uninterrupted it would still be possible to look across the site from strategic points.

(11)       Councillor Miller referred to the creation of the Stem building and other state of the art facilities which had been the subject of recent applications and asked whether those developments and the improved sporting facilities would be compromised should this development not proceed. It was explained that financing was an on-going issue for the college which was looking to continue to enhance the offer available for students in a competitive market place and to seek to secure the financial future of the college.

(12)       Councillors Moonan and Page sought clarification regarding where the biodiversity was to be relocated to. Councillor Moonan also enquired regarding the specific arrangements to be put into place to ensure that the biodiversity of the site was protected during the course of any building works and in future.

(13)       Councillor O’Quinn referred to enhancement works which she was aware had been undertaken at BHASVIC and other sixth form colleges in the city asking whether it was intended that these works would result in additional numbers of students. It was explained that works proposed to the college would update and modernise its facilities rather than to increase numbers.

Questions of Officers

(14)       Councillor Hyde asked to see perspectives showing the gaps which would exist and it was confirmed that some strategic views would remain.

(15)       Councillor Moonan sought information as to whether the number of dwellings proposed could change between this and a full planning application and regarding the mitigation measures to be controlled by condition should permission be granted, especially in relation to biodiversity to respect the existing butterfly bank and apropos bat activity although it was recognised that this was low. Also measures to respect woodland flowers on site and whether the existing elm hedgerow was to be retained and the potential impact of lighting/floodlighting.

(16)       The Planning Manager, Paul Vidler, confirmed that the scheme put forward was policy compliant and viable and that any changes to it would need to be considered on their merit.

(17)       Councillor Miller asked whether it was proposed that green roofs be provided and in relation to the strategic views referred to. It was confirmed that account had been taken of the impact on the site. It was confirmed that Nature England had not commented on this application.

(18)       Councillor Littman referred to the fact that the application site had been referred to as a non-functioning space which was no longer in use by the college and the criteria used when determining this. It appeared that the space and its use were being measured under two different sets of policies.

(19)       Councillor C Theobald sought clarification as to whether the site was enclosed as on plans it appeared to be open.

(20)       Councillor Miller enquired regarding the status of the open space as it had been referred to in correspondence as an Asset of Community Value. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, stated that such a listing did not of itself give access to the community.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(21)       Councillor Hyde had attended the site visit the previous day and stated that whilst understanding the concerns put forward by objectors she recognised the need to improve student facilities and noted the mitigation measures proposed and therefore felt able to support the officer recommendation.

(22)       In answer to further questions, the Planning Manager, Paul Vidler, confirmed that this application was a stand-alone and did not relate to any other applications including BH2017/04102 which would be considered elsewhere on the agenda.

(23)       Councillor C Theobald stated that she was concerned regarding detriment to the green open space which would result and could not therefore support approval of this scheme.

(24)       Councillor O’Quinn stated that whilst appreciating the needs of the college and their desire to improve the offer available to students and to replace the existing temporary classrooms she considered that building on college land in this way could set an unfortunate precedent. She was also concerned at the potential impact on biodiversity at the site and to the potential precedent which could be set.

(25)       Councillor Littman noted the mitigation measures proposed but was concerned that over time the site was being nibbled away which did impact on it as green lung which provided important views across the city.

(26)       Councillor Page stated that he could not support the development as it would impact detrimentally on the amenity provided.

(27)       Councillor Moonan stated that it whilst it was clear some disruption would result she was satisfied that the mitigation measures proposed were sufficiently robust. Although there would be some interruption to existing views, there would be gaps in the building line and a large amount of space would remain.

(28)       Councillor Gilbey stated that having listened to all of the debate on balance she did not feel able to support the application.

(29)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 5 to 4 by the 9 Members present at the meeting when the vote was taken planning permission was not approved An alternative recommendation was then sought and Councillor Page proposed and Councillor O’Quinn seconded the proposal that the application be refused. The reasons put forward for refusal were that the proposed form of development would result in breaking up of the existing open space, loss of amenity, loss of views across the site and would have a serious impact on biodiversity, butterflies and other protected insects; it would be contrary to Plan Policies CP10 and CP16.

(30)       A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors, Gilbey, Littman, O’Quinn, Page and C Theobald voted that the application be refused. Councillors Hyde, Miller, Moonan and Wealls voted that the application be grabted. Therefore on a vote of 5 to 4 planning permission was refused. It was agreed that the final wording of the grounds for refusal would be prepared by officers in consultation with the proposer and seconder and that should the refusal be appealed the Committee agreed a s106 planning obligation could be entered into on the heads of terms as set out in the report.

112.2    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out above and authorises that should the refusal as subsequently agreed with be appealed that a s106 obligation be entered into on the heads of terms set out in the report.

              Note(1): Having declared a prejudicial interest in this application, Councillor Cattell stepped down from the Chair and withdrew from the meeting during consideration of the above application and took no part in the debate or decision making process.

              Note 2: Councillors Inkpin-Leissner and Morgan were not present at the meeting during consideration or determination of the above application.