Agenda item - BH2020/01403 - 64-68 Palmeira Avenue & 72-73 Cromwell Road, Hove - Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2020/01403 - 64-68 Palmeira Avenue & 72-73 Cromwell Road, Hove - Full Planning

Minutes:

1.    It was noted that an in-depth presentation had been provided by officers in advance of the meeting and was included on the council website detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs which also showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development. The main considerations in the determination of this application relate to the principle of development including the loss of the existing residential buildings on site, the proposed residential units and affordable housing contribution, the impact of the design on the character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area and on the street scene and wider views, neighbouring amenity, sustainable transport impacts including parking demand, landscaping, ecology/biodiversity and contribution to other objectives of the development plan.

 

2.    The Planning Officer updated the committee informing the Members that 13 further letters of objection had been received from neighbouring residents. The issues mentioned had already been covered by previous letters.

 

Speakers

 

3.    Charles Harrison noted the development was controversial with no affordable housing as part of the windfall development; that is not in the BHCC Development Plan. The development will place more pressures on schools, roads etc. The existing houses are fine family homes and are not ready for demolition. Concerns were raised regarding thermal insulation and sunlight criteria for all units, as these are not currently met. The development will appear dominant on Cromwell Road, where parking will be an issue. The deep base excavations will be an issue for the neighbouring properties. The proposals are inconsistent and inaccurate. The committee are requested to reject the application.

 

4.    Paul Ashwell considered that the amenities of the neighbouring Bellmead Court will be damaged as the development will be overbearing. It was noted that the report states the side windows will impact on Bellmead Court where vulnerable residents live. It is considered that there is a balance for and against the scheme, however the design is considered harmful to the heritage of the area. The development is considered to have a material loss of amenities for neighbours and the public consultation could have been better.

 

5.    Ward Councillor Allcock stated that they did not consider this to be a windfall as described, it was the worst type of opportunistic overdevelopment, designed with a cavalier disregard for its impact on the neighbourhood. The developers bought sound houses as a speculative investment in the hope that they would get planning permission to build a hotel. Having failed, they have brought forward their Plan B - to generate a substantial profit from the gross overdevelopment of this site. The project is not considered to comply with the Council’s policy for tall buildings, which in Hove is to concentrate high rise redevelopment on brownfield sites. The committee has just approved Ellen Street for 216 apartments, which is a significant contribution to the city’s housing supply target and also provides 10% affordable housing units. Prices will be beyond the reach of residents and it does nothing for the 9100 people on the housing waiting list. Committee colleagues should draw a line now and refuse permission, or at the least defer the application until officers can give a view about the extent that developments in the area are contributing to the City’s 5-year plan.

 

6.    Ward Councillor O’Quinn considered that the planning application had gone through several stages, first a hotel with 80 rooms plus 80 flats, then when it was obvious that the planners would refuse it morphed into an application for 94 flats and questioned whether they would be AirBnB?) and then it was changed again in an effort to make it more palatable. The planning report on this application constantly states that there are issues that are not policy compliant, but they can be over-ridden due to housing need in the city. The Councillor asked: ‘What is the point of planning policy if it’s constantly ignored’?  The loss of sunlight and daylight and private amenity for local residents particularly those at the top of Holland Road and those opposite in Cromwell Road, are dismissed as being of little consequence. This dense, cheap, unattractive and over high block of flats is set far too close to the front in Cromwell Road, and are out of sync with the building line of flats in that area, which are well set back from the road, so that they don’t create a tunnel effect. It considered that this application turns that section of the road into a dark and oppressive area.

 

7.    Ward Councillor Ebel spoke about the negative impact that this proposed development will have on the environment. The developer intends to install gas boilers, just before they are being phased out in 2025. The developer has failed to suggest a more environmentally friendly way of generating energy. The development will also result in demolishing the existing buildings. The property in 64 Palmeira Ave was recently rebuilt to a high standard after a fire. Tearing down a newly built house is a waste of resources and contradicts our city’s aim to become carbon neutral by 2030. The development will also result in the loss of habitats and biodiversity as established gardens will be demolished. The new development is not car-free, and whilst this is not a reason to refuse planning permission by itself, it shows how little consideration the applicant has for the environment and our city’s aim to become carbon neutral by 2030. For the reasons detailed by all three Ward Councillors the Committee was asked to refuse planning permission for this application.

 

Questions to Ward Councillors

 

8.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed that none of the ward councillors were consulted on the scheme.

 

9.    Paul Jenkins, agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated their support for the scheme. It was noted that numerous consultations have taken place between the applicant and the Planning officers. Following this the hotel was removed from the scheme and the scale and massing of the development have been reduced to fit into the urban context. The development includes the maximum number of off street parking spaces allowed under policy. The standards of each unit are good with no objections from statutory officers. The development will contribute £800,000 to the local services with £384,000 contribution to affordable housing. The environmental and green measures in the scheme include green roofs, solar panels, and cycle parking in a sustainable location. The development will contribute to the 5 year housing supply targets and will aid recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Having worked with officers on the application the committee are requested to support the application.

 

Questions for speaker

 

10. Councillor Shanks was informed that the viability study did not require any affordable housing. Contributions have been negotiated and accepted under the S106 agreement.

 

11. Councillor Yates was informed that the carbon reduction would be 21.4%, which was better than the target of 19%. The percentage was achieved using modelling as the scheme had not been built yet. It was noted that gas boilers were efficient at this time and electric heating will be better in the future. Two scenarios were modelled, one for today and one the future giving a total result of 21.4%.

 

12. Councillor Miller was informed that negotiations had been ongoing with the authority for 31/2 to 4 years. The first scheme was withdrawn following objections. The second scheme brock the development into smaller blocks. It was noted that the number of solar panels had been increased to the maximum possible. Green roofs have been added and the green spaces enlarged to 600sqm for communal use.

 

13. Councillor Hugh-Jones was informed that the number of solar panels had been vastly increased but the cost per user was not known. It was noted that the future use of electricity would be less expensive than now.

 

14. Councillor Childs was informed that 17.5% profit was less than the normal 20% under the NPPF.

 

15. The Planning Manager informed the committee that Policy CP20 allows for offsite contributions to affordable housing and that none of the current policies require developments to be carbon neutral at the current time. It was noted that the Local Planning Authority had carried out all the necessary consultation on the application. It was also confirmed that the NPPF acceptable range of profitability was 15% to 20%.

 

16. The case officer informed the committee that the gas boilers had now been replaced with electric heaters.

 

Questions of officers

 

17. Councillor Fishleigh was informed the Planning officers had carried out statutory consultations.

 

18. Councillor Theobald was informed that the empty property - 64 Palmeira Avenue -had been recently refurbished and the nursery previously at the address had relocated to a nearby property.

 

Debate

 

19. Councillor Miller offered their congratulations to the Planning officers. It was noted that the committee were not to judge the application by the number of letters of objection or support for the scheme. The government are looking at schemes having no affordable housing. The scheme submitted has more than others and the homes are needed to combat the housing crisis. The green credentials were good as was the underground parking. It was considered that the new homes were much needed, and the Councillor supported the scheme.

 

20. Councillor Childs noted the number of rough sleepers in the current housing crisis. The proposals offered no balance and was for profit only and was an overdevelopment of the site. The Councillor stated they were against the scheme.

 

21. Councillor Shanks understood the need for more houses, however the developers need to listen to residents. The area is a mix of flats and houses and the loss of 6 family houses would not be good for the area. The demolition of the houses was not good and with the lack of affordable housing the Councillor stated they were against the scheme.

 

22. Councillor Henry considered that the housing mix in this conservative area was good and would not support the scheme.

 

23. Councillor Yates considered that pre-application consultation with the community would have been good, and the applicant needed to listen to residents. The site is not a windfall. The development would add to the flats in the area and this was not good. The Councillor stated they were against the scheme.

 

24. Councillor Hugh-Jones considered that the affordable housing was missing, and the general design was overbearing. The use of electric panel heaters would be expensive, and the parking was not good. The Councillor stated they were against the scheme.

 

25. Councillor Janio considered it was a case of supply and demand and the profit did not need to be used for affordable housing. The Councillor supported the scheme.

 

26. Councillor Theobald stated they were not against the proposed flats or parking. It was considered that the loss of the 6 family homes was terrible. The scale and massing of the development was considered an issue for the surrounding area and the neighbouring conservation area. The lack of consultation was not good, and the objections should not be ignored. The design was considered terrible and the Councillor stated they were against the scheme.

 

27. Councillor Osborne considered the electric heaters were better. The number of objections was not a material consideration and agreed the lack of engagement was not great. The Councillor supported the scheme.

 

28. The Senior Legal officer informed the committee that pre-application consultation was not statutory on a scheme of this type. It was noted that the authority had complied with statutory consultations. The committee were also informed that should the committee be minded to refuse the application the reasons would need to be defendable at appeal. The matter of costs at appeal would be a matter of evidence.

 

29. The Planning Manager informed the committee that the demolition of the existing 6 family homes did not require permission and there was no policy to restrict the loss of the homes.

 

30. The Chair invited the Committee to vote on the application: The 10 Members present voted by 3 to 7 that planning permission be refused on the loss of existing housing, no affordable housing and scale.

 

31. Councillor Fishleigh formally proposed that the application be refused and seconded by Councillor Childs.

 

32. A recorded vote was taken in respect of the alternative recommendation that the application be refused. Councillors: Childs, Fishleigh, Henry, Hugh-Jones, Shanks, Theobald and Yates voted that planning permission be refused. Councillors: Miller, Janio and Osborne voted that planning permission be granted. The application was refused on a vote of 3 to 7.

 

33. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission on the grounds that the proposed development would result in loss of existing housing, insufficient affordable housing, height, scale, overlooking, overshadowing, loss of privacy and outlook. The final wording of the refusal to be agreed by the Planning Manager in consultation with the proposer and seconder.

 

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