Agenda item - BH2020/01968 - Land & Buildings on Wellington Rd & Camden St, & Former Flexer Sacks Factory on North St, Portslade - Hybrid Planning Application

1.         The Principal Planning Manager, Wayne Nee, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to enhanced visuals. The constituent elements of this Hybrid scheme and the phasing of them was explained in detail. It was explained that 18 further letters of objection had been received, none of them had raised any new issues. The Officer report had sought to address them all.

            Speakers

2.         Mr Page spoke in objection setting out his objections to the proposed scheme and those of neighbouring residents. The consultation process had been negligible and as the site occupied an elevated position it would have a major detrimental impact on the locality.

3.         Councillor Hamilton spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objection to the scheme. Whilst re-development of the site was welcomed this scheme was of an excessive height and size for the plot. The limited number of on-site parking spaces was inadequate and would exacerbate the existing parking problems in the area. There was already insufficient on-street parking on nearby roads and there were double yellow line restrictions in place. Only 38 spaces were proposed for such a large number of units and the local a proper assessment had not been made either of the impact on the local traffic network or availability of public transport. Councillor Hamilton suggested that consideration of this application should be deferred in order for full and proper consultation to take place, the consultation which had been carried out had been seriously flawed, otherwise it should be refused.

4.         Mr Williams spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. Notwithstanding that the limitations placed on the process by the pandemic the appropriate level of consultation had taken place including an event in a local church hall in 2019 and other leafleting more recently.

            Questions of Speakers

5.         Councillors Theobald and Fishleigh sought clarification from the applicant’s representative in respect of the level of consultation which had taken place and whether and how the constituent phases had been explained. Both Councillors considered that any consultation which had occurred in 2019 was out of date.

6.         Councillor Miller asked Councillor Hamilton regarding how had become aware of the application and the process by which residents had been made aware of the constituent elements of this complex scheme.

            Questions of Officers

7.         In answer to questions by Councillor Miller with particular reference to the proposed roofing materials, elements of the scheme were set out as were details of the constituent phases of the scheme.

8.         Councillor Williams sought details regarding the level of affordable housing provision proposed and clarification regarding whether that would be provided in each phase or across the scheme as a whole.

9.         Councillor Fishleigh also sought clarification in respect of phasing of the scheme, the level of affordable housing and in relation to the level of on-site parking proposed. She considered that scheme was complex and that there were a number of potential unknowns.

10.       Councillor Shanks sought clarification in relation to the sustainable elements of the scheme including the means by which heating and hot water were to be provided.

11.       Councillor Osborne referred to the close proximity of the site to Shoreham Port and to the proposed development plans for other sites in close proximity and to the number of housing units proposed.

            Debate

12.       Councillor Miller stated that on balance he supported the scheme he considered that the site could take a high density development.

13.       Councillor Shanks considered that there was an acknowledged need for affordable housing and that this represented good use of a brownfield site.

14.       Councillor Yates stated that he was unable to support the development in view of the under provision of parking in an area where it was acknowledged that there was a lack of on-street parking provision.

15.       Councillor Theobald stated that she had serios concerns about the scheme which could impact significantly beyond the immediate area.

16.       Councillor Fishleigh considered that the density of the proposed form of development and impact of the existing road network and on parking were all too great. In her view the scheme needed to go back to the drawing board.

17.       Councillors Childs and Williams considered that ultimately there were uncertainties regarding the  level of affordable housing which would be provided. The negative impact on the neighbouring dwellings and severe under provision of parking for them, outweighed any potential benefits from the scheme.

18.       Councillor Osborne stated that notwithstanding potential benefits his concerns around parking provision needed to be resolved and he could not therefore support the scheme in its current form.

19.       The Chair, Councillor Littman stated that there were positives and negatives but on balance he considered that more details were needed in respect of Phase 2 and Phase 3. In depth consultation with residents was also required.

20.       The option of deferring consideration of the application in order to obtain more information about future phases was considered but Members wished were of the view that they wished to determine the application as submitted.

21.       A vote was taken and the 9 Members present voted on a vote of 7 to 2 the officer recommendation was not carried. An alternative recommendation was then sought and it was proposed by Councillor Fishleigh and seconded by Councillor Theobald that planning permission be refused on the grounds that:

(1) the proposed consultation undertaken by the applicant with residents was insufficient and of poor quality, and is therefore contrary to Section 4, paragraph 39 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) before submitting an application;

            (2) The proposed development would provide a lack of provision of parking spaces, resulting in significant levels of parking overspill on surrounding streets which would be detrimental to highway safety, and therefore contrary to policy TR7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, Policy DM36 of the Proposed Submission City Plan Part Two and paragraph 109 of the NPPF;

            (3) The proposed housing mix in Phase 1, by reason of a lack of provision of three-bedroom units, would fail to provide an appropriate mix of accommodation. The scheme would therefore fail to deliver a balanced community, contrary to policies SA6 and CP19 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One and Policy DM1 of the Proposed Submission City Plan Part Two; and

            (4) The proposed Phase 1 development by reason of its poor quality design, appearance and height in relation to neighbouring buildings, would result in an unacceptable visual impact that would fail to respect the character of the area, the streetscene and prevailing pattern of development. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policy CP12 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One and DM18 of the Proposed Submission City Plan Part Two.

--          A further recorded vote was taken on the grounds for refusal put forward by the proposer and seconder. Councillors Childs, Fishleigh, Littman (Chair), Osborne (Deputy Chair), Theobald, Williams a d Yates voted that planning permission be refused. Councillors Miller and Shanks voted that planning permission be granted. Planning permission was therefore refused on a vote of 7 to 2.

133.2    RESOLVED – That planning permission be REFUSED on the grounds that :

(1) the proposed consultation undertaken by the applicant with residents was insufficient and of poor quality, and is therefore contrary to Section 4, paragraph 39 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) before submitting an application;

            (2) The proposed development would provide a lack of provision of parking spaces, resulting in significant levels of parking overspill on surrounding streets which would be detrimental to highway safety, and therefore contrary to policy TR7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, Policy DM36 of the Proposed Submission City Plan Part Two and paragraph 109 of the NPPF;

            (3) The proposed housing mix in Phase 1, by reason of a lack of provision of three-bedroom units, would fail to provide an appropriate mix of accommodation. The scheme would therefore fail to deliver a balanced community, contrary to policies SA6 and CP19 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One and Policy DM1 of the Proposed Submission City Plan Part Two; and

            (4) The proposed Phase 1 development by reason of its poor quality design, appearance and height in relation to neighbouring buildings, would result in an unacceptable visual impact that would fail to respect the character of the area, the streetscene and prevailing pattern of development. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policy CP12 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One and DM18 of the Proposed Submission City Plan Part Two. The final wording of the Decision Notice to be agreed by the Planning Manager in consultation with the proposer and seconder.,

            MINOR APPLICATIONS