Agenda item - BH2018/02583-Westerman Complex, School Road, Hove - Removal or Variation of Condition

Application for variation of condition 1 of BH2016/02535 (Outline application for Demolition of existing mixed use buildings and erection of 104 dwellings (C3) and 572 Sqm of office space (B1) and approval of reserved matters for access, layout and scale.) to allow amendments to the approved drawings including alterations to the car parking layout and internal layouts. Variation of condition 4 regarding the layout of the units to provide one additional one-bed unit, and one less two-bed unit and condition 6 regarding the maximum building heights to state that other than lift overruns the maximum buildings heights shall be as stated in the condition.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Wish

Application for variation of condition 1 of BH2016/02535 (Outline application for demolition of existing mixed use buildings and erection of 104 dwellings (C3) and 572sqm of office space (B1) and approval of reserved matters for access, layout and scale) to allow amendments to the approved drawings including alterations to the car parking layout and internal layouts. Variation of condition 4 regarding the layout of the units to provide one additional one-bed unit, and one less two-bed unit and condition 6 regarding the maximum building heights to state that other than lift overruns the maximum buildings heights shall be as stated in the condition.

(1)          It was noted that items C and D would be introduced together.

              Officer Presentation

(2)          The Senior Planning Officer, Eimear Murphy, introduced the application and informed the committee that the principle of development had been approved and that the 572sqm should read as 527sqm. The confirmed the number of units as 104 and alterations to the scheme had been submitted resulting from the retention of the onsite electricity sub-station, the removal of the undercroft office car parking, the closure of the access to Stoneham Road, the removal of the pathway running along the rear of the dwellings and the relocation of the bicycle store and refuse bins. The officer confirmed the total number of parking spaces to be 77; comprising of 6 disabled, 4 motorcycle bays, 14 on-street spaces and a car club space to be negotiated under S106 agreement. 40% affordable housing was also confirmed.

              Public Speakers

(3)          Ms Allen spoke as an objector and represented local residents. Ms Allen commented that residents were confused over what is the current application. It was also noted that residents felt that the on-street parking in the immediate vicinity was congested and that the proposed 77 car parking spaces were not enough, and the offices would add to the issue. The local school also adds to the impact at drop off and pickup times and the area could become gridlocked. Residents are interested in how the S106 will be spent. The removal of trees and the height of the proposals were considered to have an impact on neighbours from overlooking. It was also felt that the headlights of residents leaving the new dwellings would have an impact on existing neighbours.

(4)          Councillor Nemeth spoke as a Local Ward Councillor. The Member felt that the scheme was hard to follow, and this raised concerns. It was noted that residents did not want the pedestrian link to Stoneham Road or the proposed alleyway. It was felt that the parking plan was not ideal and that trees were an issue and overlooking from proposed balconies would have a negative impact. The Member asked that the materials should be conditioned.

(5)          Mr Bareham, the Applicant’s Agent, spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of the proposed scheme. The agent stated that the access to Stoneham Road and alleyway had been removed from the scheme, along with the balconies to the southern elevation. Opaque glazing has been introduced to the western elevation and the rendering removed in favour of softer materials. It was also noted that the originally proposed trees along Church Street are not a viable option due to utility services.

              Questions of Officers

(6)          Councillor Hyde asked if balconies were still included in the scheme and would this lead to overlooking to other properties.

(7)          It was confirmed that balconies were to be attached to the North West elevation. It was noted that this was not considered unusual to have some overlooking in a dense urban area such as this location.

(8)          Councillor Miller asked if materials would come to committee for approval.

(9)          It was confirmed that this would be the case and would include materials for the balconies.

(10)       Councillor Moonan requested if there were any changes to the S106 agreement.

(11)       It was confirmed that there were no changes to the S106 agreement as set out previously.

(12)       Councillor Gilbey asked if the balconies would have any screening.

(13)       It was confirmed that materials, including those for the balconies were to be approved by condition.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(14)       Councillor Theobald felt disappointed at the number of parking spaces in the scheme, that the overall design was good and the inclusion of some trees into the development was a positive.

(15)       Councillor Hyde agreed with Councillor Theobald and stated support for the scheme.

(16)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell, stated support for the scheme and was pleased that materials would be agreed at Planning Committee.

112.3  RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.