Agenda item - BH2018/02751-Enterprise Point & 16-18 Melbourne Street, Brighton -Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2018/02751-Enterprise Point & 16-18 Melbourne Street, Brighton -Full Planning

Demolition of all existing buildings and electrical substation and erection of building of between 5 to 8 storeys comprising office floor space (B1), student accommodation including 330no student bedrooms (Sui Generis), 24no residential flats (C3), ancillary residents' amenity space, associated plant and electrical substation, landscaping, access, cycle spaces, parking and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected :Hanover & Elm Grove

Minutes:

              Demolition of all existing buildings and electrical substation and erection of building of between 5 to 8 storeys comprising office floor space (B1), student accommodation including 330no student bedrooms (Sui Generis), 24no residential flats (C3), ancillary residents' amenity space, associated plant and electrical substation, landscaping, access, cycle spaces, parking 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 Principal Planning Officer, Mick Anson, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, floor plans, block plans, elevational drawings and photographs detailing the proposed scheme and showing it in the context of the neighbouring vicinity and in longer views. Drawings were also shown showing the profile of the existing building and those proposed on site. Samples of the materials, including cladding materials proposed were also displayed.

 

(3)          The application proposed the demolition of all of the existing buildings on site and the relocation of an electrical sub-station on the site and the erection of a new building of between 5 to 8 storeys comprising 1,048sqm. of business floor space (B1), 330 no. student bedrooms (Sui Generis) with a student hub space of 348 sqm., 24 residential flats (C3), residents and student amenity space, associated plant and electrical substation, landscaping access, cycle spaces, parking and associated works. The proposals originally submitted had proposed a development of up to 9 storeys in height but had been amended during the course of consideration of the application by reducing the height of the north block by a storey from 9 to 8 storeys and the west block by a storey from 7 to 6 storeys. As a result the number of the impact student units had been reduced from 350 to 330 rooms and the number of affordable housing units proposed had been increased from 20 to 24 units. The tallest element of the site would be at the northern end backing onto Woodvale cemetery.

 

(4)          It was noted that the main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of the proposed development, the impact of the proposed development on the visual amenities of the site and the surrounding area, proposed access arrangements and related traffic implications, air quality, impacts upon amenity of neighbouring properties, standard of accommodation, ecology, and sustainability implications which needed to be addressed.

 

(5)          It was considered that the level of housing proposed would be too low and would not fulfil its housing potential. It was not considered that the applicant’s case that allowing this proposal would free up other housing currently in multiple occupation enabling it to return to class C3 family housing had been evidenced which might have allowed an exception to be made. The development proposed, at a maximum 8 storeys, would be defined as a tall building as was the existing 6 storey building on site and when seen would be in the immediate context of the 7 storey Viaduct Lofts. This scheme would be built at very high density tight to the boundaries on 3 sides of the site, but had also been considered in the context of a site which was constrained by small scale terraced housing. The wider townscape impacts had been mitigated such that the scale of the scheme would not cause harm in longer views, by some height reduction and by improving the design, appearance and materials. Notwithstanding, this however, it was considered that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents due to its siting, overbearing nature and impact on residents’ outlook and would result in unacceptable daylight losses to residents contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan. It was also considered that the proposal was contrary to the City Plan site allocation for mixed housing and employment use. Due to this and the proposal’s impact on the amenity of and adjoining residents, including the school and lack of suitable amenity space it was considered that it should be refused. It was noted that the Officer recommendation had been amended and that the recommendation was now Minded to Refuse to allow officers to determine whether proposed reason 3 should remain in view of additional information recently received.

 

              Public Speakers

 

(6)          Councillor Daniel spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the proposed scheme. She stated that residents and local ward councillors were not anti-student nor opposed to housing provision on the site but considered that as currently framed it represented over-development, was far too dense, would be far too close to the pavement edge with access/egress onto a single lane road and would also give rise to potential noise and other nuisance due to the number of units proposed on-site and their very close proximity to neighbouring more modestly scaled terraced dwellings. A robust transport plan needed to be in place in order to ensure pedestrian safety.

 

(7)          Councillor Gibson, also spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objections to the proposed scheme. He concurred with the points made by Councillor Daniel, also referring to the significant loss of daylight to a number of the neighbouring properties which remained to be addressed. Whilst acknowledging that there were positive elements to the scheme he considered that it would be appropriate for its consideration to be deferred to enable the outstanding issues to be addressed.

 

(8)          Councillor O’Quinn having noted the comments made by both ward councillors sought clarification whether it would be permissible to defer the application in order for the applicants to effect amendments to the scheme which might make it more acceptable. The Chair, Councillor, Councillor Cattell, stated that it would be appropriate for the Committee determine the application as submitted.

 

(9)          Councillor Moonan sought confirmation that the main objections in respect of the application related to its bulk and massing rather than the element of student housing proposed.

 

(10)       Mr Hoskins spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application and was accompanied by Mr Wallace and Ms Steele in order to respond to any questions on which they might be better placed to respond. Mr Hoskins stated that the scheme had been designed in order to respond to an identified need and had sought to provide flexible modern co-working spaces, independent daylighting/sun-lighting assessments had been undertaken. The developers were committed to effecting improvements within the area as they had committed a sum of £1.3 m towards off-site provision.

 

(11)       Councillor Miller referred to the SHLAA, and enquired regarding the number of units which would be provided. It was explained that just over 100 units were envisaged.

 

(12)       Councillor Mac Cafferty, referred to the level of off-site provision proposed seeking clarification of why it had not been possible to provide this on site as this was not policy compliant.

 

(13)       Councillor C Theobald noted that the level of on-site student housing was proposed in response to an identified need and asked whether/what negotiations had taken place with any of the local universities, notwithstanding the need for student accommodation, the number of units proposed within such a constrained site appeared to be very high. It was explained that discussions had taken place and had been positively received. Similar arrangements were envisaged to those which had been entered into in Southampton.

 

(14)       Councillor Mac Cafferty noted all that had been said and asked whether any formal agreements were in place with any of the universities and it was confirmed that at the present time there were not.

 

              Questions of Officers

 

(15)       In answer to questions diagrams were displayed which indicated the configuration of the proposed blocks within the site, the location of the 8 storey element, the distances between the blocks themselves and other buildings within the neighbouring street scene. Also, the proposed location of windows where it was considered overlooking would occur. It was confirmed in answer to further questions that these faced across the car park towards Shanklin Road, the greatest concern in respect of that block related to loss of daylight to neighbouring dwellings.

 

(16)       Councillor Miller referred to the proposed loss of office space and the proposed housing component seeking clarification regarding the assessments made. The Principal Planning Officer, Planning Policy, Steve Tremlett stated that a number of considerations had been balanced in assessing the application and these were set out in the report. Ultimately, the provision of Purpose Build Student accommodation (PBSA) in lieu of C3 housing was not supported. Design analysis of the site had indicated that the site would support a greater number of residential units than the 24 proposed, the PBSA element proposed did not therefore make any contribution to the city’s affordable housing requirements in addition to the other deficiencies which were set out. Whilst there were some positive elements they were not considered to outweigh the potential harm which had been identified in relation to such a dense scheme and it was not considered that a sufficiently compelling case for departure from policy had been made.

 

(17)       Councillor Moonan sought clarification regarding the assessment made in relation to road safety with particular reference to pedestrian access and the location of cross-over arrangements. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager, David Farnham stated that notwithstanding improvements which had been made, the main concern in respect of the site was the potential for competing demands between the needs of residents requiring parking bays and amenity space should demand for the former arise. It was accepted however that it would not be possible to fully meet the parking standards required by SPD14 on site.

 

              Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(18)       Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to cycle provision proposed on site and to the proposed trees; these did not appear to have been shown clearly on the submitted plans. Whilst there were some positive elements overall the proposed scheme was not policy compliant, was too dense and would result in overdevelopment.

 

(19)       Councillor Gilbey also referred to the location of trees located at the perimeter boundary of the site and it was confirmed that these fell outside the boundary of the site, however measures would need to be put in place to protect them. In relation to the housing Councillor Gilbey noted that whilst mixed use developments would usually include some 3 bedroom units none were proposed here. She considered that the proposed development built right up to the boundary and so close to neighbouring development was unacceptable.

 

(20)       Councillor Miller stated that whilst recognising the need for mixed developments including student accommodation a balance was necessary and in this instance he did not consider that a case for departure from policy had been made. The scheme was far too big and would have a severe detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity and that of 29 Shanklin Road in particular. However a better designed and more modest scheme could be acceptable

 

(21)       Councillor Cobb noted the need for additional student accommodation and considered that this site could support tall buildings. It was in a good location for such accommodation and she was minded to support the proposed scheme.

 

(22)       Councillor Moonan considered that the balance was wrong. Whilst the site could support some student accommodation the level proposed was too great and too overbearing, the existing scheme could be improved upon.

 

(23)       Councillor Littman stated that what was proposed in terms of its height, bulk and mix of uses was not appropriate to this site.

 

(24)       Councillor C Theobald considered that the existing site was an eyesore and was in need of redevelopment but the current scheme would be an overdevelopment, was too high and had too large a footprint, a more modest development with on-site parking would be preferable.

 

(25)       Councillor Hyde concurred with much of what had been said, whilst there were good points to the scheme it was just too much for the site.

 

(26)       Councillor O’Quinn considered that the scheme placed too great an emphasis on student housing in an area where there was already significant provision, this would drastically change the character of the area, was not policy compliant and could give rise to significant overspill parking.

 

(27)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell, stated that she whilst in agreement that the site was ripe for the right sort of redevelopment the current scheme was not acceptable. A more modest scheme with a better residential mix which was set back from the site boundaries would be preferable in her view.

 

(28)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 10 to 1, the 11 Members present at the meeting voted that they were Minded to Refuse planning permission.

 

134.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves that it is MINDED TO REFUSE planning permission for the reasons also set out in the report subject to the Principal Planning Officer determining whether proposed reason for refusal 3 had been addressed and for the decision notice to be issued accordingly.

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints