Agenda item - BH2019/01258 -30 - 36 Oxford Street, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing medical centre and erection of a four storey medical centre (D1) with integrated pharmacy (A1), access via Oxford Court & Oxford Street, landscaping & parking.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected:St. Peter's & North Laine

              Demolition of existing medical centre and erection of a four storey medical centre (D1) with integrated pharmacy (A1), access via Oxford Court & Oxford Street, landscaping & parking.

(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, Wayne Nee, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site location plans, elevational drawings and photographs. It was explained that revisions had been made to the floor plans and to side elevations and the entrance to the building was to be relocated onto the Oxford Street frontage. The application site relates to a two-storey building in use as a medical centre (Class Use D1) on the corner of Oxford Street and Oxford Court. The site also includes a car park to the south of the medical centre, which is accessed via Oxford Court. It was explained that the main considerations in the determination of this application relate to the principle of development, the impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and nearby local heritage assets, its impact on neighbouring amenity, sustainability and transport issues.

(3)       It was noted that the site was within the immediate setting of two locally listed buildings. No.26 Oxford Street is a two-storey terraced cottage to the east of the site, and the Church of Christ is a double-height single storey flat roof building located immediately opposite the site to the north. The roof form, cobbled flint façade, brickwork and decorative tiles are highlighted as important features of no. 26. The flat roof, parapet wall and decoration elevation features were important historical elements of the Church of Christ. Although these locally listed buildings were in close proximity to the application site, given the scale and massing of the proposed development, it was considered that the settings of the buildings would be preserved. The view looking west along Oxford Street towards the Grade I listed St Bartholomew’s Church was also important but given the scale and massing of the proposed development it was not considered that there would be any significant harmful impact on this or on the nearby Valley Gardens Conservation Area. The main mass of the building would be set back from the neighbouring terraced buildings and although there would be movements from the site with in creased numbers of visitors it was not considered that that this would be greater than from the existing building. It was also considered that there was sufficient distance between the site and the nearest dwelling houses that they would not be significantly impacted in terms of loss of light, outlook or privacy

(4)       Overall it was considered that the proposed development was of a suitable scale and design that would make a more efficient and effective use of the site without harm to the surrounding townscape. The resulting development would provide health services and facilities to meet local demand without significant harm to the amenities of adjacent occupiers and without resulting in an unacceptable increase in parking pressure; approval was therefore recommended.

              Questions of Officers

(5)          Councillor Fishleigh asked how traffic movements would be controlled by the stipulations set out in the legal agreement.

(6)          The Chair, Councillor Hill, asked for confirmation as to whether in consequence of the entrance having been moved the pavement area to the rear would not now be widened. It was confirmed that would no longer be required and that the highway available for vehicles would not be reduced.

(7)          Councillor Simson queried whether it would not be preferable to widen the pavement as those parking behind the building needed to access the front entrance. It was confirmed, however, that area of the car park would be available for staff only.

(8)          Councillor Miller referred to the fact that a number of measures had been identified in order to combat the potential for anti-social behaviour, asking whether it was proposed for cctv cameras to be fitted. It was explained that whilst that had not been confirmed that the access gates were to be locked outside opening hours and that full details of the arrangements to be put into place would be in the car parking management plan.

(9)          In answer to further questions it was explained that access arrangements from the Ditchling Road and locations of the bin storage area remained unaltered and that potential increase in demand for parking spaces had been addressed by the additional spaces to be provided.

(10)       Councillor Yates sought further confirmation in respect of proposed access arrangements stating that he did not consider that the applicants would be prepared to accept unrestricted access to the site. It was explained that fell outside the remit of planning and was a matter for agreement by the relevant parties.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)       Councillor Miller stated that he fully supported the scheme which would result in improved doctor’s surgery.

(12)       Councillor Yates concurred in that view whilst considering that further amendments to the proposed parking/servicing arrangements might be required.

(13)       A vote was taken and the 9 members who were present when the vote was taken voted unanimously that minded to grant planning approval was given. It was also agreed that the Planning Manager be given delegated powers to negotiate further in respect of the sum allocated for transport.

46.1       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 GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report, including the additional s 106 obligations, and amended conditions set out in the Late/Additional Representations List SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 29^th January 2020 the Head of Planning is authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 11 of the report.

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