Agenda item - BH2023/02349 - Enterprise Point And 16-18 Melbourne Street, Brighton - Full Planning

1.         The Case Officer introduced the application to the committee.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

2.         Councillor Allen was informed that the flexible floor space conforms to policy and the use is considered more efficient. Co-living is new to Brighton and the concept is not referred to in policy. The use is sui generis and there is no strict requirement for mixed use. The Principal Planning Officer noted that there was a potential for the concept of co-living in the city as there a large number of residents in private rented accommodation, Homes of Multiple Occupancy (HMOs) and small flats. Co-living has the potential to free up housing stock.

3.         Councillor Winder was informed that the rooms vary in size with an average of 23.5sqm. The use is sui generis housing, and any change would require planning permission. The applicant stated that there would be 10sqm of storage space in each unit with flexible spaces within the units, and each would have a small kitchen and bathroom. Each floor will have a communal living space. There would be no age limit to the development.

4.         Councillor Nann was informed that the between 9 and 10 single persons would share the communal kitchen spaces located on each floor. It was noted that it was possible that as many as 24 could use the communal facilities if couples lived in the units. The case officer noted that student accommodation does have small cooking facilities in each room as well as the communal facilities. Units will be rented, and rent will cover all utilities and communal spaces and co-working areas. The Principal Planning Officer noted that the units will not be at the cheaper end of the market price. The Planning Manager noted the authority had no control over rents and this was not a planning matter.

5.         Councillor Robinson was informed that the desk units in the co-working space could be used by non-residents. The agent informed the councillor that council tax will be paid by the management of the building.

6.         Councillor Theobald was informed by the agent that similar schemes were starting up across the country.

7.         Councillor Hill was informed that 13 trees would be lost, and most were near the boundaries of the site. Six trees are to be pruned and replacement planting forms part of the development. Trees will be assessed before removing. It was noted that the condition covering biodiversity net gain would look at trees. The S106 agreement does not cover education improvements for the nearby school. The shared boundary with the school will be improved by condition, which includes screening. The school was consulted at pre application discussions. The agent confirmed that each unit had room for a small fridge/freezer. The agent confirmed that there would be a loading bay and drop off spaces. It was noted that Highways have no objections and details of deliveries were to come by condition.

8.         Councillor Earthey was informed that it was not possible to provide affordable housing on the site, but a commuted sum contribution has been calculated. A Community Infrastructure Levy would also be required. The Principal Planning Officer noted the development was sui generis, the sums offered were accepted and no viability assessment was undertaken. The Housing Enabling Officer noted the commuted sums would be used where they were most needed in the city.

9.         Councillor Loughran was informed by the agent that all the units would be accessible with flat entrances and exits so could in theory be used for accommodating older people. All of the studio flats will be adaptable.

Debate

10.      Councillor Theobald noted that they had voted for the scheme before, and they considered the current building to be blight on the city landscape. The councillor considered there were lots of facilities and the commuted sum was good. The councillor supported the application.

11.      Councillor Allen considered the existing building bleak, and the

principle of development was good. The loss of employment along Lewes Road was a concern. The councillor supported the application on balance.

12.      Councillor Thomson stated they have reservations about the scheme and the loss of trees but was reassured that the conditions were good. The scheme was experimental, and it was concerning that there was no policy for co-living. The councillor supported the application on balance.

13.      Councillor Sheard considered the existing building was not fit for purpose. A concern regarding demand for the building was expressed. The works space areas were good; however, the councillor did not support the application.

14.      Councillor Nann considered the development was profit orientated and deeply depressing, adults in student accommodation.

15.      Councillor Robinson was not depressed by the new concept, considered the development would serve a purpose and they supported the application.

16.      Councillor Winder wished the scheme was more creative in design and style. The councillor considered the area needed improvements.

17.      Councillor Earthey considered the development to not be inappropriate and will fill the gap in affordable housing.

18.      Councillor Hill considered if the committee voted against the scheme as the rents were too high, this reason would not stand at appeal. The councillor had reservations; however, they supported the application.

19.      Councillor Loughran expressed concerns regarding food cooking and storage. The councillor reluctantly supported the application.

Vote

20.      A vote was taken, and by 9 to 1 against, the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

21.      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 and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 31st July 2024 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 13.1 of the report.