Agenda item - BH2018/02126 -29-31 New Church Road, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of existing synagogue, detached buildings providing Rabbi accommodation, synagogue social hall and children’s nursery. Erection of mixed use development comprising central single storey synagogue and four, five and six storey buildings to provide replacement children’s nursery, 2no classrooms for shared use by St Christopher’s school, offices, meeting rooms and cafe, underground car park and 45no residential dwellings (C3) comprising 35no flats and terrace of 10no houses to rear.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Westbourne

              Demolition of existing synagogue, detached buildings providing Rabbi accommodation, synagogue social hall and children’s nursery. Erection of mixed use development comprising central single storey synagogue and four, five and six storey buildings to provide replacement children’s nursery, 2no classrooms for shared use by St Christopher’s school, offices, meeting rooms and cafe, underground car park and 45no residential dwellings (C3) comprising 35no flats and terrace of 10no houses to rear.

 

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

 

Officer Presentation

 

(2)             Senior Planning Officer,Nick Eagle, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs, site plans elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme. Reference was made to additional representations received which had been referred to in the Late/Additional Representations List, these 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 relate to the principle of the development, its scale, layout and access, affordable housing and viability considerations. In addition, the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the adjoining conservation areas and the setting of the nearby locally and statutorily listed buildings, impact on the street scene and wider views, neighbouring amenity, noise and anti-social behaviour/security considerations, pedestrian permeability, sustainable transport impacts including cycle parking demand, highway safety, impact on existing trees, and contribution to other objectives of the development plan.

 

Public Speakers

(4)           Local Residents: (x3) Mr Stairs commented that the development appeared to be a ‘city’ on a small site and stated that hundreds of residents disagree with the proposals. The resident felt that residents had taken second place to greed. Mr Coomber felt that the proposals were an over development of the site, resulting in loss of daylight and privacy for neighbours. Mr Coomber also felt that the affordable housing was an issue. Mr Spirou felt that the development would have an adverse effect on the neighbours and that over 700 objections had been received. The resident also felt that St Christopher’s School would be overlooked, and the scheme would be overbearing and lead to a loss of privacy for neighbours. It was suggested that a smaller scheme would be more suitable for the site.

 

(5)           Councillor Cobb stated deep objections to the scheme with over 700 objections. It was noted that some parents at St Christopher’s were concerned about the impact on pupils resulting from overlooking. The scheme is considered to be overbearing, lead to a loss of privacy and daylight for neighbours, and having an enclosed feeling for the residents. The impact on the conservation area and loss of amenities to Carmel House were a concern.

 

(6)             The applicant’s agent, Mr Rainer, stated that the scheme was an asset to the Jewish Community and others in the area as the new synagogue will have a community café, work spaces and new housing. This will be a place of worship and more. Mr Rainer assured the committee that impact assessments had been taken place and the scheme is supported by a construction management plan.

 

Councillor Questions for Speakers

 

(7)             Councillor Joe Miller was informed by Mr Coomber that the proposals were 25 metres from closest property. Councillor Miller was also informed by the Mr Rainer that the number of affordable homes was a philanthropic driven part of the scheme to benefit the local community.

 

(8)             Councillor Hyde asked whether the statistics for loss of daylight did not reveal is 35% of daylight was lost everyday or one particular day.

 

(9)             Councillor Wealls was informed by the Mr Rainer that the impact on the school had been carefully assessed with a construction management plan in place and the design of the scheme including apartment windows facing away from the school. It was also noted that two new classrooms where to be built for the school.

 

(10)          Councillor Littman was informed that by Mr Rainer that the design of the synagogue was to accommodate the congregation and would be big enough to house events as a multi-function space.

 

(11)          Councillor Theobald was informed by the Mr Rainer that the existing stain glass would be reused in the proposed synagogue and the existing boundary wall and trees along the boundary will be retained.

 

(12)          Councillor O’Quinn was informed by the Mr Rainer that the nursery school will be on the ground floor of a proposed apartment block and all faiths would be welcome.

 

(13)          Councillor Mac Cafferty was informed by the Mr Rainer that the scheme would have an impact, however the trees are to be retained to protect the amenities of the area an reduce the visual impact. It was noted that the trees on site are to be protected during construction.

 

(14)          Councillor Moonan was informed by Mr Riner that there would not be a significant loss of daylight to the school or privacy as the apartment windows will not face the school.

 

(15)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner was informed Mr Rainer that five affordable housing units would be included in the scheme.

 

(16)        Councillor Cattell was informed by Mr Rainer that a daylight impact assessment scheme had found the percentage loss of daylight for existing neighbours to be acceptable.

 

Questions of Officers

 

(17)     Mr Amerena, CAG, was informed that the forward building line was agreed as the best for the site.

 

(18)     Councillor Inkpin-Leissner was informed that the location of the supporters and objectors was data protected.

 

(19)     Councillor Mac Cafferty was informed that officers had considered that it was appropriate for some trees to be removed. The trees had been assessed by the arboricultural officer and they had raised an objection. Officers had carefully balanced the application and felt that the loss of some trees was outweighed by the other benefits of the scheme.

 

(20)     Councillor Littman was informed that the number of parking spaces was within standards, the floor space was within living standards, the trees on site had been assessed on balanced considerations, and the amenity space included the café, kitchen and classroom.

 

(21)     Councillor Theobald was informed that the loss of daylight to neighbours and the school was considered acceptable. It was noted that the proposed rear elevations would be 5 metres from the rear site boundary.

 

(22)     Councillor Moonan was informed that the vehicle access was to the underground parking only, any loss of daylight would be to the smaller toilet windows at the school and the window design in the scheme prevents overlooking from the proposed apartments.

 

(23)     Councillor O’Quinn was informed that Sussex Police had given advice on how to ‘design out crime’, and any further parking would be found within the surrounding area. The office space was available to all members of the public and the design massing was similar to other buildings in the area. It was noted that the minimal number of vehicle movements into and out of the underground car park was not considered to have a detrimental impact on the pupils attending the school.

 

(24)    Councillor Hyde was informed that there are other buildings of a similar height to the proposals in the area.

 

(25)     Councillor Gilbey was informed that there are other flats near the development.

 

(26)     Councillor Miller was informed that materials would be agreed by the officers following consultation with Members attending Chair’s Briefing meeting as would the details of the trees to be planted.

 

Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(27)     Councillor Miller felt that the improvements to the scheme since pre-app were positive and the development was a good use mix. It was also considered that the development was needed in the city.

 

(28)     Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that he supported the scheme which was good for the community.

 

(29)     Councillor Mac Cafferty liked the design however he felt that the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site, with the removal of trees being an issue and the density to great for the area.

 

(30)     Councillor Hyde felt that the development could have a negative impact on Carmel House, however, offered support for the philanthropic ideals shown in the scheme and supported the scheme. It was considered that the trees were not an issue.

 

(31)     Councillor Littman stated there was a lot to be said for the scheme, however the bulk and massing of the development was too much.

 

(32)     Councillor O’Quinn welcomed the housing, however felt that the proposals were an overdevelopment of the site and objected to the removal of trees.

 

(33)     Councillor Moonan expressed concerns about the removal of trees on the site, however on balance the scheme was considered acceptable.

 

(34)     Councillor Gilbey felt that the height of the development was an issue and expressed concerns for the neighbours. The trees were not an issue and the scheme was supported.

 

(35)     Councillor Theobald expressed concerns regarding the height of the development, the bulk and massing, and the impact on the school and neighbours. The number of objections was noted and support for the scheme could not be given.

 

(36)     Councillor Bennett considered the proposals to be good in design. Concerns related to the height, the street scene appearance and the removal of trees.

 

(37)     A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to 5 Members voted that minded to grant planning approval be granted.

 

 

123.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agreeswith the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves toGrant planning permission subject to a s106 Planning Obligation and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the26th June 2019 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission forthe reasons set out in section 11.2 of the report subject to the Amendments to Conditions and Informatives set out on the Additional/Late Representations List and as set out below:

 

Additional conditions recommended by Environmental Health: Soundproofing of Building

Measures shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details and recommendations contained within the Planning Noise Assessment submitted by Anderson Acoustics, Dated, 8th June 2018 and referenced as Project No: 3773. These include the minimum acoustic performances required for the glazed elements of the façade, found on pages 16 and 17 of the assessment, specifically ‘Residential - Table 3.11: Minimum sound reduction performance (dB) for the glazed elements of the façade’, ‘Commercial / Offices - Table 3.12: Minimum sound reduction performance (dB) for the glazed elements of the façade’, ‘Education / Worship - Table 3.13: Minimum sound reduction performance (dB) for the glazed elements of the façade’. It also includes the ventilation recommendations found on pages 17 and 18 of the assessment, specifically ‘Residential - Table 3.14: Minimum element normalized level difference Dn,e (dB) for the trickle ventilators’ and the recommended hybrid or a mechanical ventilation system for the Education units. The ‘Design Criteria’ found on pages 22 – 27 shall also implemented. This includes internal walls and floors within residences, reverberation in common parts, separating walls between residential units and communal corridors, doors and the separating floor between basement car park and acoustically-sensitive spaces directly above.

             Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the future occupiers of the development and to comply with policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

             Plant & Machinery

Noise associated with any plant and machinery incorporated within the development shall be controlled such that the Rating Level measured or calculated at 1 metre from the façade of the nearest existing noise sensitive premises, shall not exceed a level of 5dB(A) below the existing LA90 background noise level. The Rating Level and existing background noise levels are to be determined as per the guidance provided in BS 4142:2014. In addition, there should be no significant low frequency tones present.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of future occupiers of the development and the occupiers of neighbouring/adjacent properties and to comply with policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

The Developer must not commence development until it has submitted to Brighton & Hove City Council’s Development & Regeneration Team for prior approval a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which should provide the following information;

 

(i) The phases of the Proposed Development including the forecasted completion date(s);

 

(ii) A commitment to apply to the Council for prior consent under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and not to Commence Development until such consent has been obtained;

 

(iii) A scheme of how the contractors will liaise with local residents to ensure that residents are kept aware of site progress and how complaints will be dealt with reviewed and recorded (including details of any considerate constructor or similar scheme);

 

(iv) A scheme of how the contractors will minimise complaints from neighbours regarding issues such as noise and dust management, vibration, site traffic and deliveries to and from the site;        

 

(v) A plan showing construction traffic routes.

 

On receipt of written confirmation from the Council stating approval of the CEMP the Developer shall use its reasonable endeavours to implement the commitments set out in the CEMP during the construction period.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties and to comply with policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.