Agenda item - BH2012-00114 Park House Old Shoreham Rd

Demolition of former residential language school and erection of 5 storey block of 71 flats incorporating basement car park and surface car parking to provide 71 parking spaces, including landscaping and other associated works.

(1)                   It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)                   The Area Planning Manager (West), Nicola Hurley, drew Members’ attention to items listed on the late list and gave a presentation detailing the scheme as set out in the report by reference to plans, photographs, elevational drawings and concept images. The site had been the subject of previous applications, in 2008 & 2009, which had both been refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal; the appeal decisions had not raised issue with the footprint or bulk of the building, but stated that the design of the attic storey was in poor relation to the rest of the proposals. Since the dismissal of the 2009 application the Council had adopted a planning brief which was referred to in the report. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of the existing buildings on site, and the construction of a five storey building with 71 units; 30 of which would be affordable housing; the site would also have 71 car parking spaces and 126 cycle parking spaces.

(3)                   The design of the proposed development had been deemed acceptable by the Planning Inspector in principle, who had not referred to density in the dismissal of the appeal of the 2009 application, and both the height and setback were in accordance with the planning brief. The scheme proposed a second vehicular access point from Goldstone Crescent; and was committed to meeting code level 4 for sustainable homes. In relation to ecology it was explained that there were badgers on the site; however, the current proposals would not interfere with the habitat, and the demolition would take place outside of the badger breeding season. There were 33 trees to be felled on site, but this would be mitigated by additional planting which was considered acceptable. The application was recommended to be minded to grant subject to the S106 Agreement and for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speakers and Questions

(4)                   Mr D. Barker, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application stating that there was still local opposition to the scheme. The proposals were not significantly different, and only included the provision of an underground car park, and a reduction in the number of units by one. The proposals were not screened and would be highly visible from Hove Park opposite; furthermore the balconies facing out onto Old Shoreham Road would be unusable. Mr Barker also stated his belief that there unresolved right of way issues, and there would be a loss of parking facilities for local residents.

(5)                   Councillor Hawtree asked for further information on why Mr Barker felt the balconies would be unusable, and it was explained that residents with front gardens facing Old Shoreham Road were not able to use them due to the traffic noise.

(6)                   Councillor Hawtree also asked a further question in relation to the proposed material of the development, and in response Mr Barker said that the yellow brick was not an appropriate choice for the development.

(7)                   Councillor Davey and Councillor Bowden asked questions in relation to the loss of parking. It was explained that local residents had been using Hove Park Gardens for parking in excess of 20 years, and it was his opinion that this constituted established use. The Head of Development Control highlighted that the parking arrangements would be private matter for the landowner and local residents, and was not something the Committee should give any weight to in their decision.  Officers also clarified that there was a bridleway adjacent to the application site, but the proposals did not affect it.

(8)                   Councillor Brown spoke in her capacity as the Local Ward Councillor, and stated that despite improvements to the number of parking spaces there were still a number of local objections to the scheme. The proposals were an over-developed of the site which was in a popular recreational area, and the scheme was too dominating and too close to the road. The proposed density was much higher than the neighbouring flats; 206 dwellings per hectare (dph) compared with 70dph, and there was little room for adequate gardens and tree space. The proposed new entrance on Goldstone Crescent was too close to the busy junction with Old Shoreham Road where traffic often stacked during busier times, and there would a detrimental effect on local parking and local infrastructure. Reference was also made to comments from Southern Water in relation to the inadequate capacity in the local network.

(9)                   Councillor Hawtree asked for clarification on Councillor Brown’s objection to traffic around the site, and it was explained that that she felt the entrance on Goldstone Crescent would be too close to the junction with Old Shoreham Road; however, she noted that the lack of parking on previous applications had been addressed in this latest application.

(10)               Councillor Bowden asked what level of density would be appropriate, and in response Councillor Brown stated that she felt something closer to the 70dph of the neighbouring buildings would be more acceptable.

(11)               Mr T. Shaw, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application, and stated that the developers were fully aware of the local strength of feeling in relation to the site and the application, and the proposals had been the subject of extensive discussion, particularly with Natural England and qualified ecologists in relation to the badger habitats; if planning permission was granted a formal licence application would follow to Natural England. The developers wanted to ensure the site could be bought back into use, but were committed to protecting the wildlife. The scheme had been supported by the Southeast Regional Design Panel and  Hove Civic Society and been recommended for approval by Planning Officers, and this was a testament to high standard and quality of the design.

(12)               Councillor Carden expressed his concerns in relation to the protection of the badger habitat on the site, and the applicant’s ecologist, Mr J Newton, explained that steps would be taken to not disturb the existing habitat, and a sanctuary area would be created. Councillor Farrow also asked for more information on the sanctuary arrangements and it was explained there would be a protected area to the north side to allow the badgers to move between the green spaces. A small amount of work would need to undertaken to demolish a derelict shed near the badger set, and some work would be carried out to ensure building works did not disturb tunnels.

(13)               Councillor Hawtree asked for more information on how the design had evolved since the previous application and how its relation to the local area had been addressed. It was explained that the design had been through a process of change and consultation and now included additional balconies and gardens; one of the car parks was now below ground and the building was set back further from the road. The materials had been changed to predominantly brickwork, and changes had been made to move the design closer to the planning brief.

(14)               In response to queries from Councillor Bowden it was explained that approximately 60 local residents had attended the public consultation; the developers had taken on some of the views expressed and this was reflected in the predominant use of brick and changes to the roof design. At the public exhibition the levels of density had been highlighted and the developers had explained that the Planning Inspectorate had not raised objection the bulk and density; the applicant also expressed that the figure of 206dph hectare could be misleading as the proposals made efficient use of the land in a considerate way that did harm the quality of living for the existing neighbours. In terms of the potential impact locally of the development the applicant highlighted the breakdown of the proposed S106 Agreement, and noted that their civil engineer had deemed the potential effect on the local highway network minimal.

(15)               Councillor Hyde asked how the proposed development reflected the planning brief in relation to the bulk and mass. In response it was explained that the brief talked about a generalised height line, and it would still be possible to see buildings behind the development from across Hove Park, and the proposal was only one storey difference in height to the neighbouring flats.

(16)          Councillor Summers and Councillor Bowden asked questions in relation to the rationale behind a development of five storeys, and if this related specifically to the viability of the scheme. In response it was explained that the applicant had discussed the height with Officers and it was considered that five storeys was acceptable in principle and would not harm the street scene. The applicant went on to state that it was felt the design stood on its own merits and did not need to be justified on the basis of viability; furthermore, the parking needs and the impact on the local infrastructure would be addressed through the S106 Agreement.

(17)          Councillor Davey asked for further information on how the applicant had sought to address the inspector’s decision to uphold the previous refusal of the scheme. It was explained that work had been undertaken to address the design of the roof. Following a further question from Councillor Davey it was explained that a code level 4 for sustainability would be achieved on the site.

Questions for Officers, Debate and Decision Making Process

(18)          Councillor Farrow asked for further information in relation to the badger sets on the site, and it was explained that there was no objection from the Ecologist, as set out in the report, and the recommendation included a condition in relation to the badger set. The Senior Lawyer, Hilary Woodward, also explained that it was a legal requirement for the developers to have a licence from Natural England before commencement of works.

(19)          Councillor Cobb asked questions in relation to the funding for open spaces, and the current capacity of both Hove Park and Hove Recreational Ground. It was explained that £180k would be allocated for use in both these sites, and there were no objections from the Policy Team.

(20)          Councillor Carol Theobald asked for confirmation on the distance from the site entrance on Goldstone Crescent to the junction with Old Shoreham Road, it was clarified that this distance was 25 metres.

(21)          Councillor Hawtree asked for more information on why the site proposed such a high number of parking and cycle spaces. In response Officers explained that the planning brief had been prepared after a public inquiry, and comments had been incorporated in the context of local and national policy; it was also confirmed that Officers did not set levels of parking, but rather tried to ensure they were in line with national guidance.

(22)          In response to a query from Councillor Hyde it was explained that 33 trees were to be felled on the site and 12 new ones were to be planted; however, it was expected that the new trees would be mature and of better quality than the existing ones.

(23)          Councillor Davey enquired about the parking arrangements on the site and it was explained that there was mixture of lower-ground and ground floor spaces with secure cycle parking, and all parking spaces would have an electric charging point.

(24)          Councillor Hawtree felt that more could work could have been done at the design stage to produce a sensitive modern design and something of ‘architectural interest’, but he did not object to the number of units on the site.

(25)          Councillor Carol Theobald stated that the proposals were an improvement from the last scheme, but noted she still had concerns in relation to the loss of the existing villa on the site and the height, bulk and density. She went on to state that she was pleased with the level of car parking on the site, but felt that that the level of contribution through the S106 Agreement was excessive.

(26)          Councillor Farrow expressed his concern that similar applications had already been refused twice on the site, and he was still not satisfied with the proposed design; however, he would support the scheme due the number of housing units it would provide.

(27)          Councillor Davey noted that the design was much improved from the previous schemes and the principles of the scheme had already been deemed acceptable by the inspector; and he would support the Officer’s recommendation as he felt that there was little justification for refusal.

(28)          Councillor Hyde agreed with the comments made by Councillor Davey, and suggested that there should be more trees proposed at the front of the development.

(29)          Councillor Carden noted his general support for the scheme, but stressed that it was important the badgers on site were protected.

(30)          On a vote of 6 to 4 with 2 abstentions planning permission was granted.

169.1RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation and the policies and guidance set out in the report and resolves it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement and the conditions and informatives set out in the report.