Agenda item - BH2017/01873-45 & 47 Hollingdean Road, Brighton -Full Planning

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a part 2,3,4 and 5 storey building including basement to form 88 student rooms (Sui Generis), communal student facilities, plant room, cycle storage, 1no disabled parking spaces, recycling and refuse facilities, vehicular access and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Hollingdean & Stanmer

              Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a part 2,3,4 and 5 storey building including basement to form 88 student rooms (Sui Generis), communal student facilities, plant room, cycle storage, 1no disabled parking spaces, recycling and refuse facilities, vehicular access and associated works.

(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, Luke Austin, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans photographs, including aerial photographs and elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme and showing views into and across the site from various perspectives.

(3)       The application related to a triangular shaped site located to the south of Hollingdean Road which currently contained a two storey hipped roof building to the east of the site, 45 Hollingdean Road and a two storey end of terrace building to the north of the site which formed 47 Hollingdean Road. Both buildings were currently vacant and had been used previously for the sale/repair of motorcycles and parts. No 47 had an extant permission for conversion to a dwelling. It was noted that the main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of development, including the loss of the former car sales/repair unit, the student accommodation, the design, the impact on street scene and wider views, heritage assets, the standard of accommodation, the impact on neighbouring amenity, environmental health issues, transport, sustainability, landscaping, and ecology/biodiversity impacts.

(4)       The proposed development would provide 88 student studios/cluster rooms which would provide a substantial contribution towards the need for purpose built student housing in the city. The site was in a good location within the city for such developments; being in close proximity to University teaching accommodation and on the sustainable transport corridor of Lewes Road. Whilst student accommodation on this site was not objected to in principle, the current proposal was considered overly scaled and would fail to address the constraints of the site. As a result, the development would impact on local dwellings from overlooking/overshadowing; in addition there was a poor standard of accommodation for a number of the units due to restricted outlook and a failure to demonstrate that a scheme of this size would not adversely impact on the local highway network. It was acknowledged that there would be a number of benefits associated with the proposal, including the provision of purpose built student accommodation in an area allocated for such development, however the benefits were not considered to outweigh the harm associated with the proposed overdevelopment of the site. Accordingly, refusal of the application was recommended.

Public Speakers

(5)          Mr Birtles spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application and was accompanied by Mr Chan to answer any questions on which he would be better placed to respond. Mr Birtles stated that the proposed scheme would provide much needed student accommodation which would help support local universities, being in an appropriate location and would provide for the effective re-use of a brown field site.

(6)          Councillor Moonan referred to the fact that whilst considered acceptable in principle the application was recommended for refusal asking whether/what discussions had taken place with officers to ascertain whether amendments could be made to the scheme in order for it to be recommended for approval. The applicant stated that they whilst willing to work with officers there had been limited dialogue.

Questions of Officers

(7)          Councillor Miller sought further clarification regarding dialogue which had taken place and it was explained that several potential options/designs had been discussed and it had had been indicated that a scheme not exceeding 5 storeys could be considered acceptable depending on how it was configured within the site. Pre-application discussions had taken place and piecemeal amendments had been made but not progressed.

(8)          In answer to further questions by Councillors Miller and Moonan, the Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, advised that notwithstanding any discussions which had taken place the applicants had put forward the scheme as presented and Members needed to determine it on that basis. The Legal Adviser to the Committee concurred in that view.

(9)          Councillor C Theobald asked whether formal discussions had taken place with the Universities and it was confirmed that no formal discussions had taken place nor was any formal agreement in place with them in respect of take-up of accommodation on site.

(10)       Councillor Littman enquired regarding access/egress arrangements in relation to the site. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager, David Farnham, stated that the site was not permeable but that given its restricted nature with tall retaining walls and adjacent properties it was not considered in practical terms that the site could be made permeable. No analysis or survey had been submitted of on-street parking, taking into account the development and other recent completed development within the vicinity. The applicant’s had therefore failed to demonstrate that there would not be an unacceptable increase in over-spill parking in the area.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)       Councillor Moonan considered that the scheme as put forward was unacceptable but considered that with more work an acceptable solution could be achieved which would satisfy an identified need for student housing in a location where such provision was appropriate given its relative proximity to university campuses.

(12)       Councillor Miller stated that having attended the site visit it was clear that this brownfield site was ripe for redevelopment. His preference would be for the application to be deferred in order to enable further discussions to take place with the applicants in order to facilitate submission of an amended scheme.

(13)       Councillors Hyde and C Theobald were of the view that the scheme as presented was unacceptable. Some of the accommodation would provide a very poor standard of accommodation for those living there as it would be permanently over shadowed with views onto tall blank walls. By virtue of the height of the proposed development there would be a detrimental impact on the adjacent terraced houses which were of a more modest height.

(14)       Councillor O’Quinn stated that she supported the officer recommendation. The application sought to cram a lot into a site which had constraints, the proposed development would be overbearing on neighbouring development.

(15)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner considered that what was proposed would result in overdevelopment of a cramped site and would result in a very poor standard of accommodation; he would be supporting the officer recommendation.

(16)       Councillor Littman sated that whilst he supported the principle of student housing being provided on the site, he was of the view that the level of accommodation proposed combined with the fact that overspill parking issues remained to be addressed represented overdevelopment. A less ambitious scheme might be acceptable.

(17)       Councillor Wealls noted the concerns expressed but considered that it would provide for student accommodation on a redundant site with close proximity to the Universities, he was therefore minded to support it.

(18)       Councillor Gilbey stated that in her view the height of the proposed blocks and their close proximity to the neighbouring smaller scale development was overbearing.

(19)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair stated that she considered that the scheme was contrived and sought to place too much onto a constrained site. She considered that the scheme should be determined as presented, the applicants were free to submit an amended scheme which sought to address the reasons for refusal. She considered that would be the most appropriate course of action. Advice was sought and the Planning Manager and Legal Adviser to the Committee confirmed that whilst Members were being asked to determine the application as it stood, it was within their gift to defer it.

(20)       Councillors Moonan and Miller were in agreement that the scheme as currently put forward was flawed but considered that their preference would be for its determination to be deferred in order to enable the applicants to address concerns regarding the scale of the scheme and other potential reasons for refusal.

(21)       A vote was taken in respect of the amendment put forward by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Moonan that consideration of the application be deferred for the reasons set out above. That was defeated on a vote of 2 to 5 with 1 abstention.

(22)       A further vote was then taken on the substantive recommendation set out in the officer report, that the application be refused. The 11 Members present when the vote was taken voted 9 to 2 that planning permission be refused.

123.5    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons also set out in the report.

              Note: Councillor Mac Cafferty was not present at the meeting during consideration of the above application.