Agenda item - BH2020/02801 - 27-31 Church Street, Brighton - Full Planning

1.             The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.       Ward Councillor Deane submitted a speech which was read out to the committee by a Democratic Services officer as follows: I write in my capacity of ward councillor in support of the North Laine Community Association and local residents in their objection to this application. While it is true to say that this site needs to be developed, having lain vacant for many years, it is important that it is not ‘developed at any price’. The proposed building is overly large and overbearing. It will totally dominate and overshadow this narrow street that adjoins the North Laine Conservation area, creating an unpleasant canyon.

There have been numerous applications for this site over the years, many containing proposals for retail and residential, i.e. mixed use. For this site to be used only for offices takes away the mixed use element in a way that will do nothing to enhance the local area or provide amenity for local people. The city does not need a monstrous office block at this location, it desperately needs new homes, and by granting this application today, the committee will be throwing away an opportunity to do something that might otherwise help to alleviate the city’s housing crisis.

I believe residents are right to point out that the pavement along Church Street is too narrow for the amount of footfall along it, the proposed bike stands will cause an obstruction, and the parking bays in front of the building will narrow the pavement even further. The frontage should be scaled back to allow for better pedestrian access.

While the site had lain dormant, it has developed a covering of wildflowers that attract insects and a potential habitat for small mammals and has acted as a small oasis in the urban environment. The landscaping suggested for this development is minimal and misses an opportunity to provide any significant outside space, as the footprint of the proposed building will cover almost the entire area.

The privacy of local residents in the immediate vicinity will be severely compromised by the outlook over Portland Street, the row of small, terraced houses will be completely overshadowed, and the homes in Windsor Street will lose too much natural light for the scale of this building to be acceptable.

In summary, this is an overbearing building that constitutes over- development, does nothing to alleviate the housing crisis and misses the opportunity to add to the city’s biodiversity. For these reasons, I would ask that the proposal be refused.

3.       Paul Burgess addressed the committee as the agent for the applicant and stated that the site had been derelict since 1990s and had been identified in the City Plan part 2 as a brownfield site. The site has two extant planning permissions. There is a shortage of grade A office space in the city and the sustainable office space will be flexible, creating approximately 350 new jobs. The development company has delivered other schemes in the city and has had detailed discussions with the council with support from the Heritage Team and Conservation Advisory Group (CAG). The development is considered to respect the location with a glazed ground floor area to add interest at street level. The proposals include two green walls and a green roof. The regeneration of the site is supported by the council. The committee are requested to approve the application.

Questions

4.       Councillor Yates was informed that the general advice was given regarding the mansard roof and dormer windows, requesting a reflection of the building opposite. The Senior Urban Design Officer stated that no detailed advice had been given regarding the scale of the dormers. A nod to the building opposite had been requested and a balance was to be struck in the design of the building.

Debate

5.       Councillor Barnett considered it a shame that no housing was proposed, however, she agreed there was little office space in the area, which needed to be made more respectable. The councillor supported the application.

6.       Councillor Yates acknowledged the resident’s concerns, however, the design was considered to understand the environment they are operating in. The design of the mansard roof is a good contemporary design. Mixed use would have been better; however, this is the scheme before the committee. The councillor supported the application.

7.       Councillor Ebel considered the site an eyesore at the moment and high quality office space was needed in the city. The site has good transport links. The councillor supported the application.

8.       Councillor Littman noted there was very little grade A office space in the city and the proposals were well designed.

Vote

9.       A vote was taken, and the committee agreed unanimously that planning permission be granted.

10.      RESOLVED: That 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 7 October 2021 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 13 of the report.