Agenda item - BH2020/00011 - West Slope, University of Sussex, Falmer - Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2020/00011 - West Slope, University of Sussex, Falmer - Full Planning

Minutes:

1.       Nicola Hurley (Planning Manager) informed the Committee that following finalising of the report, the applicant has submitted additional information in respect of the cycle storage and accessible parking provided. The additional information has been reviewed by the transport team who maintain their objection. They considered that insufficient information has been submitted in respect of the disabled parking and that the cycle parking provision has not increased. Whilst the objection of the transport team is noted, the recommendation of minded to grant remains. The accessible parking provision is similar to the previous outline application. In addition, the University is required to separately meet the Equalities Act which is separate to planning. Also, SPD14 does allow for flexibility. In terms of cycle provision, the late list includes an amended Heads of Term to include monitoring and review for the travel plan to include cycle parking. The information submitted by the applicant warrants a flexible approach which is allowed by SPD14. The benefits of the scheme overall outweigh the objection of the transport team.

 

Public Speakers

 

2.       There were no public speakers on item A (the agenda contained only one Planning application).

 

          Member Questions

 

3.       Councillor Shanks was informed by Allan Spencer, the agent, that the heating to be installed would match the existing onsite system and the launderettes would use gas fired heating.

 

4.       The Senior Solicitor informed the committee that the agent was on hand to answer questions only when the case officer was not able to supply the answers to Member questions and that questions should be asked of the case officer first. The Chair agreed, and the meeting proceeded.

 

5.       Councillor Theobald was informed by the case officer that should Planning permission be granted the applicant had a period of time set by the decision notice in which to commence the development. It was noted by the legal officer that the amount of rent that students would pay and the projected number of students from other countries were not relevant to the Planning application. The case officer went onto informed Councillor Theobald that the proposed units would mostly be for first year and post grad students. The scheme reduced the number of rooms available in the family units by two. The campus supermarket is to be enlarged as part of the scheme and the onsite bank will remain with no alterations. The agent for the applicant informed the Member that the University of Sussex understood the need for affordable rents for students. The rents would be same as the East Slope development. The high demand for ensuite units had been noted and informed the design of the development. The development is likely to be delayed by one year as a result of the current COVID-19 guidelines.

 

6.       Councillor Yates was informed by the case officer that the family units conformed to space standards and were intended for students with families. Following the Councillor’s request, it was noted that a condition to restrict the units for students and families only, to prevent selling of units to non-student families, could be added to the decision notice. The Councillor was also informed that the family units did not attract any monies for the community under the S106 agreement. The external family play area was considered to be safe and within guidelines for proximity to the family dwellings. The family rooms in the family units would be family use only.

 

7.       Councillor Mac Cafferty was informed that the Environment Agency had been consulted and that relevant conditions had been agreed by the case officer. Cycle parking at the development was considered sufficient with 481 spaces on the site meeting the standard for a small town. It was noted that a large number of cycle spaces are currently not used. A review of usage could result in more being created in the future. The landscaping has been agreed with the spaces provided in the scheme.

 

8.       The Planning Manager informed the Committee that the under policy SPD14 - 1400 cycle parking spaces would be needed. The policy allows for a flexible approach by case officers and stated that a review mechanism was in place.

 

9.       The Senior Solicitor stated that the Highway Authority were a statutory consultee and their response has been taken into account by officers and the application has been recommended for approval. Members should weigh up for themselves the Environment Agency advice.

 

10.      Councillor Mac Cafferty was informed by the applicant’s agent that only enabling works have been suspended at this time. Ground works were to have been started this summer, however, the current COVID-19 pandemic guidelines have result in a stoppage of works. Meeting are continuing between the developer and the construction company and are ongoing. The project has not been entirely suspended. It is hoped to restart the works in March 2021.

 

11.      Councillor Littman was informed by the case officer that the functions currently covered by Kulukundis House would be incorporated into other buildings across the new campus buildings. 5% of the scheme will be for severe disabilities with 2% for wheelchair users and 3% for other needs such as visual impairment. The services in Kulukundis House will be reprovided. Accessible paths, lifts and walkways will be provided across the site. The agent reiterated the case officer’s comments that the services currently at Kulukundis House would be spread across campus.

 

12.      The Development & Transport Assessment Manager informed the committee that the quantity and quality of the existing cycle parking was not up to standard and this may lead to less usage. Updates on cycle parking provision have not been received from the University of Sussex so Transport team objections are still in place. It has not been clarified how the proposed cycle parking will be accessed as via pedestrian areas only. Under Policy SPD14 cyclists should be able to ride to parking spaces. Long stay cycle parking should be secure and preferably indoors. If the cycle parking is not accessible it will be underused. The Transport team have requested more disabled parking spaces and informed the developer that the spaces need to be close to buildings. The University of Sussex have not been forthcoming on this matter. The agent has sited the existing need.

 

13.      The Planning Manager informed the committee that under the S106 agreement the Travel Plans would attract fees and the committee will be informed of the fee details.

 

14.      Councillor Shanks was informed that the Heads of Terms have not been agreed.

 

15.      Councillor Janio was informed that the playground proposed formed part of the landscaping scheme which agreed by condition. It was noted that diversity of accommodation formed part of the university requirements. The scheme includes town houses and cluster accommodation which will have lower rents. The Transport team comments on cycle parking have been considered in detail by the case officer and considered adequate as uplifts would be possible in the future following the conditioned review of cycle parking.

 

16.      The Development & Transport Assessment Manager agreed that the Transport comments submitted to the case officer had been understood.

 

17.      Councillor Henry expressed concerns that there appeared to be a shortfall in cycle parking spaces. The councillor was informed that Bike Share are already on campus and the Travel Plan referred to this. The number of spaces was considered sufficient with over 400 secure spaces and a further 200 on Sheffield stands.

 

18.      The Development & Transport Assessment Manager noted that the S106 agreement covered Bike Share.

 

          Debate

 

19.      Councillor Theobald commented that there should be some kind of art component incorporated into the scheme without the £98,000 allocated in the s106 for art. The University of Sussex used to be a lovely sylvan setting with plenty of green spaces, trees and the famous Sir Basil Spence buildings. Now it will look more like a built up town.

 

20.      Councillor Littman agreed that the previous development on the East Slope of the campus was of good quality and wanted this scheme to be the same. The existing sylvan setting created by the original architect Sir Basil Spence should be retained. It was noted that the Master Plan for the university was approved on appeal. The plans before the committee were considered to be an improvement on previous submissions. It was a concern that sufficient information had not provided by the university relating to disabled parking and cycle parking spaces. The Member was not sure to support or not.

 

21.      Councillor Mac Cafferty was pleased that the developers had learnt from the appeal and wished the original campus to be retained where possible. Cycle parking was a concern as this should be an aspirational development for the city. Periodic reviews of the cycle parking were welcomed. The scheme is not perfect however the committee need to look at the whole development. The Member supported the scheme and requested an informative regarding boring and pilling on site.

 

22.      Councillor Shanks supported the scheme and hoped that the scheme would lead to a reduction of Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) in the city.

 

23.      Councillor Janio felt the development was excellent although the cycle parking could be an issue. Student usage of bikes should be encouraged. The Member supported the scheme.

 

24.      Councillor Yates supported the scheme and felt the developers had learnt from past committee comments, although the lack of cycle parking was a concern. The cycle parking reviews would be good. A condition restricting the family units to student use only was requested.

 

25.      The Planning Manager confirmed that an informative did not need a committee vote and the wording would be agreed later, and the proposed condition would need a committee vote.

 

26.      Councillor Yates proposed the condition which was seconded by Councillor Janio that: At least one tenant of each of the family units to be a registered student at the University of Sussex.

 

27.      Vote: The Committee voted and unanimously agreed to accept the additional condition. (Councillor Fishleigh did not take part in the vote as they had left the meeting).

 

28.      Vote: The Committee voted unanimously to grant Planning permission. (Councillor Fishleigh did not take part in the vote as they had left the meeting).

 

29.      Resolved: The Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement on the Heads of Terms set out in the report and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 20thAugust 2020 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 13.1 of the report.

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