Agenda item - BH2012/02205 - Anston House, 137 - 147 Preston Road, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Demolition of existing building and erection of a new building ranging from 7no to 15no storeys providing 231 residential units, circa 2,019 sqm of non-residential floor space (including a mix of B1a Office, Retail and Community floorspace), 158 car parking spaces and 240 cycle spaces, landscaping and other associated works.

RECOMMEDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Demolition of existing building and erection of a new building ranging from 7no to 15no storeys providing 231 residential units, circa 2,019 sqm of non-residential floor space (including a mix of B1a Office, Retail and Community floorspace), 158 car parking spaces and 240 cycle spaces, landscaping and other associated works.

 

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

 

Introduction from Officer(s)

 

(2)                   The Senior Planning Officer, Anthony Foster, and the Head of Planning Strategy, Rob Fraser, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs, elevational drawings, photomontages, a model and a sample of materials. Attention was also drawn to items listed on the Late List, and it was noted that since the publication of the Late List a petition had been received with 380 signatures in opposition to the scheme. The application site currently contained Anston House a 7 to 9 storey purpose built block that had been vacant for almost 25 years. The site had a frontage to Preston Road, and the adjoining site was Telecom House to the south which was 10 storeys in height; the site also ran parallel to Dyke Road Drive which contained residential properties between 3 and 4 storeys. Preston Park, a Grade II listed park and garden, was also opposite the site. The Preston Village Conservation Area lies to the east of the site. Permission was sought for the demolition of Anston House and the construction of 231 residential units and 2,019 sqm of commercial space; the scheme would provide 30% affordable housing.

 

(3)                   Parking would be situated on the ground and lower-ground floors of the site, and the commercial space would be at the ground and first floors with an active frontage and accessed via a main central lobby. At first floor level there would be a landscaped courtyard, and the residential accommodation would be divided into five blocks of varied size and number of units. At the front of the building there would be a series of overhangs above the ground and first floor levels by 5 metres, and the rear of the property would be set away from the properties on Dyke Road Drive by a minimum of 21 metres. The scheme would also include roof top allotments. During the consultation period overhanging balconies had been removed at the rear of the proposed scheme, together with screening and half height obscured glazing to address overlooking and the amount of affordable housing had been increased from 26% to 30%.

 

(4)                   It was highlighted that the key policy issues related to the loss of office space; the provision of housing and the provision of affordable housing. The site was identified for use as high tech commercial space or general office space, and normally the planning authority would oppose the loss of the space; however, the Emerging City Plan had a strategic allocation on this site to allow for mixed use development of office and residential space, and Officers had sought to retain a minimum of 3000 sqm office floorspace. However the wider area was considered a secondary office location, rather than a primary, and the Council had an obligation to find more housing sites in line with the NPPF. In these circumstances significant weight had been given to the strategic allocation and the scheme proposed 2,019 sqm of commercial space which would be attractive to the digital media and creative sectors. An employment land study review had also highlighted that the financing of such office space in the current economic climate was challenging.

 

(5)                   In relation to the provision of housing the NPPF sought a significant boost in the housing supply and required local authorities to provide for the lifetime of plans. Policies in relation to housing delivery were out of date in the current agreed Local Plan, and the City Plan sought 11,300 new residential units by 2030, and set the trajectory for three 5 year phases for the life of the plan. Due to the economic climate it had become increasingly difficult to bring new development forward and the site was considered to be one of the critical sites. The provision of affordable housing was important given the needs of the city, and the 30% provided for in the application fell short of the 40% in the Local Plan and the emerging City Plan; however, the proportion was considered against a set criteria and the viability of schemes was key to the agreement of affordable housing. In this instance the applicant had been able to demonstrate – through the submission of evidence – that viability could not be achieved at 40% affordable housing; however, the District Valuer had stated that the scheme would be able to meet 40%. Officers had considered this, but were recommending an exception to policy as the scheme would enable delivery in the early life of the City Plan. It was felt that a rigid application of the policy would delay implementation on the site, and a two year permission had been recommended to encourage early delivery.

 

(6)                   It was highlighted that the site was located in a tall buildings corridor of the city where the principle of taller buildings was accepted; in the context of this corridor the scheme would be considered ‘very tall’, and would have an impact on the surrounding area, but this was considered acceptable. The scheme had emerged in consultation with the South-East Design Panel and they had suggested reconfigurations which had lead to the current proposed design. The key to the success of the scheme would be the considerable landscaping at ground floor level and at the podium, and the height of the building at the rear did not exceed 9 storeys. The overall height of the building in close proximity to Preston Road was not seen as an issue, and it was considered that it was a slim building when approaching the road edge. Officers acknowledged it would be impossible to overcome the bulk of the scheme, but the setbacks had been carefully used to emphasis the vertical lines. The design was considered an efficient and effective use of the land; and providing a high quality building.

 

(7)                   The Heritage Officer had expressed concern in relation to the height and the front building line as well as concern about the impact on the Conservation Area; the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) had also raised an objection. English Heritage had raised no objection, but had acknowledged there would be some impact; however, this was alleviated on the medium and longer distance views. The units would be capable of achieving lifetime homes standards, and most had private amenity space – with the exception of those to the rear where the balconies had been removed following consultation. There would also be a children’s play area and full details of this were sought through condition.

 

(8)                   The rear of the proposals would be between 21-24 metres from the rear of the flank elevations of the properties on Dyke Road Drive, and this distance was with within guidance. Daylight and sunlight assessments had been undertaken which had shown the majority of properties would continue to receive the same level of light, and where there was an impact this was not considered to be significant. As well as the removal of balconies to the rear, the windows at the rear would be obscured to half height to help prevent overlooking. A revised shadow study to Preston Park and an independent assessment had also been undertaken, and this had identified a difference in the length of shadows; however, it concluded the shadowing would be for a limited part of the day and within guidelines. The scheme also proposed the loss of three trees on the site – 2 limes trees and 1 sycamore tree – two of which were protected by TPOs, and the aboricultralist had objected to this. The scheme sought to provide 9 new trees on the site, and this was considered acceptable – a detailed landscape plan had also been submitted.

 

(9)                   The application proposed 158 parking spaces for commercial and residential use, and it was considered that parking at the scheme would not cause problems in relation to displacement parking, and there would also be a car park management plan. The scheme proposed 24 disabled spaces, and the Sustainable Transport Officer sought an additional 10 spaces which could be secured through condition, and the provision of parking would be monitored through the travel plan. The net increase of traffic levels would fall within day to day variations. The scheme was proposed to achieve BREEM level excellent, and there was a low carbon energy solution that could be upgraded at a later date. In summary it was highlighted that the scheme proposed 30% affordable housing; was located in a tall buildings corridor; the site had been vacant for almost 25 years; proposed a two year consent and was considered high quality design with a mix of uses. The recommendation was minded to grant for the reasons set out in the report

 

Public Speakers and Questions

 

(10)               Mr Shaw and Ms Dadkhah spoke in objection to the scheme in their capacity as local residents. They stated that they welcomed development on the site, and were aware of the need for housing across the city; however, they noted that this one site would provide 40% of the annual housing requirement. Standards had been lowered; there was a loss of character and it was felt the viability argument put forward by the applicant could set a precedent for future development in the city. Reference was made to the emerging City Plan and comments around protecting and enhancing character, and the scheme was likened to the ‘Holiday Inn’ on the Brighton seafront. The scheme would sit close to the pavement; was considered grossly dominant and ‘scraped’ the minimum guidelines in relation to overshadowing of the park. It was also noted that in justifying tall buildings alternate plans proposing lower and medium height buildings should be provided. The Committee were asked to not accept a scheme that fell short of local and national standards, and that was dictated by financial constraints.

 

(11)               Councillor Littman spoke in his capacity as the Local Ward Councillor and stated that local residents were not being unreasonable. He did not doubt that development was necessary on the site; however, the proposals were for a scheme that was too tall and too dense and would overshadow Preston Park – as well as the loss of light and privacy. The scheme only proposed 75% of the minimum level of affordable housing that would be expected, and the District Valuer felt that the scheme would be viable with the full 40%. Councillor Littman questioned how the application could be recommended for approval and stated that in this instance he thought Officers were wrong, he emphasised that the District Valuer had said that the scheme would not be viable. Approval of this scheme could set a precedent for other developers, but felt that this scheme would be an ‘early loss’ in the lifetime of the City Plan. Despite the building being derelict for a number of years a better scheme could be bought forward.

 

(12)               Mr Latham spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the proposals were the culmination of two and a half years of work; which had been undertaken with local people. In October 2010 a competition had been held in relation to the design, and since then a number of options had been considered. Consultation had been done with the South-East Design Panel, and a public exhibition had been held. The proposal before the Committee was the result of all this work, and it was considered this was the ‘best deal’. The scheme provided much needed homes for the city and new flexible employment space for digital and media centres; there would also be a direct financial investment in local facilities. The applicants were proud of the scheme they were proposing, and the site had been derelict for some years. There had been a careful collaborative process, and a balancing of all elements. The importance of the scheme was recognised and approval would send a strong message about development within the city.

 

(13)               Councillor Carol Theobald asked about the height of the flats, and it was confirmed the average ceiling height would be 2.6 metres, and the penthouses would be higher.

 

(14)               At this point in the proceedings Officers become aware that some Members of the Committee had been sent information by both objectors and the applicants directly that the officers themselves, they had been party to. The Senior Solicitor, Hilary Woodward, noted that any information Members were sent that could potentially influence how they might vote needed to be shared with Officers to be verified. Councillor Hawtree expressed concern that information had been submitted from both objectors and the applicant, and Councillor Bowden noted that he had received additional information, but had decided not to read this. The Committee agreed to a short adjournment to allow Officers to consider the information. Following the adjournment the Deputy Development Control Manager, Paul Vidler, highlighted there were two documents – one from Urban Splash (the applicant) and one from the Brighton Society – that had not been seen by Officers; it was confirmed that these did not raise any new material considerations that had not already been considered, and it was recommended that the Committee continue to determine the application. The Committee resumed asking questions of the applicant in relation to their submission.

 

(15)               Councillor Cobb asked for more information on the location of the office and work spaces in relation to the children’s play areas. In response it was explained that it would largely be at street level overlooking Preston Road; there were some areas in the courtyard, but none of this overlooked the children’s play area.

 

(16)               In response to queries from Councillor Hyde it was explained that consultation had been undertaken with residents, and there had been a public exhibition. The applicant understood the strength of feeling from residents, but it was felt on the whole the scheme was a positive contribution to the neighbourhood. A great deal of work had been undertaken on the best way to arrange the building, and the design was such that it stepped away from the properties on Dyke Road Drive, and the height would be similar at the rear to the existing properties. A great deal of analysis had been undertaken, and – with the exception of the two front towers – the blocks were similar height to surrounding buildings.

 

(17)               It was confirmed for Councillor Jones that the rear of the proposals would be approximately 21-25 metres away from windows at the rear of the properties on Dyke Road Drive – this was within guidelines. The lower half of the windows would be obscurely glazed and it was confirmed they would be a mixture of living rooms and bedrooms.

 

(18)               It was confirmed for Councillor Bowden that the building was partially masked by two large trees that aligned with each of the two towers; however, it was acknowledged that the building was still visible above the trees and the Senior Planning Officer confirmed the images used in the presentation by Officers had been verified and their locations agreed with the Conservation Team.

 

(19)               Councillor Robins asked for more information in relation to the allotments, and it was confirmed they would be more in the form of raised planting beds up to 800mm deep, but they could be used to grow food.

 

(20)               Following queries from Councillor Davey the following points were made: a large majority of the residential units would be above recommended minimal guidelines for units nationally; however, there were 37 1no. bedroom flats that would be below this guideline, but these would not be the affordable homes units. The smaller units would create more affordable homes across the development as a whole. In relation to the overshadowing of the rose garden it was highlighted that the assessments had shown this would be minor, and where it did occur it would track with the movement of the sun – the majority of the overshadowing would also take place in late afternoon when there was already overshadowing from mature trees.

 

(21)               It was confirmed for Councillor Bowden that a number of the affordable homes units would have direct views of Preston Park, and the stepped design had been used to accommodate this.

 

(22)               Following a query from Councillor Cobb it was confirmed the height of the ceiling in the penthouses was 5 metres in part – stepping down to 2.6 metres at the rear.

 

Questions to Officers

 

(23)               Mr Breckell asked about the pressure on the local authority to meet housing targets, and if this had been used by the developer as a means to justify a reduction in the standards at the site. In response the Head of Planning Strategy explained that the local authority wanted to see an effective and efficient use of sites, and this sometimes resulted in challenging levels in relation to density due to the lack of sites across the city. The current economic climate also had made meeting targets more difficult, but this did not affect the design approach and position of the local authority. Mr Breckell went on to ask if the local authority were of the view that the building was too tall, and in response it was explained that the design was discussed by the South-East Design Panel who encouraged the developer to go higher on one of the towers to provide a clear differential. The original configuration of the site was different, but it was felt this would establish a new building height on Preston Road rather than present a single one off case for a very tall building.

 

(24)               The differences in width at the front and rear of the scheme were clarified for Councillor Cobb.

 

(25)               Councillor Hyde asked for more information in relation to the recommendation to grant, and in response the Head of Planning Strategy explained that the reference to the building line came from the tall building guidance and this was an important element in the consideration of the impact on the site. There were some more unattractive buildings in this corridor, and it was envisaged the scheme could set a new standard for design on other potential sites.

 

(26)               Councillor Jones asked for more information in relation to the disparity of the views from the applicant and the District Valuer in relation to the viability and level of affordable housing. In response it was explained that the issue was the technical viability of the scheme; Officers had considered whether the housing would actually be delivered to allow the Council to deliver a 5 year land supply.

 

(27)               Following questions from Councillor Bowden it was explained that the emerging City Plan had been drafted with flexibility to demonstrate it could remain valid for a significant period of time, and there was flexibility with the criteria that would be taken into consideration. In assessing the appropriate level of affordable housing consideration needed to be given to a series of factors to ensure the delivery of schemes and housing in the city.

 

(28)               In response to Councillor Robins in relation questions about the trees it was explained that the aboricultralist objected to the loss of the 3 trees; however, the proposed replacement trees were considered to be acceptable. Further details had been requested on the protection of other trees on the site.

 

(29)               In response to queries about the access for Fire Services from Councillor Gilbey it was confirmed that this matter fell under the remit of the Building Regulations. It was also clarified that the overhangs at the front of the scheme would be 4.25 metres from Preston Road.

 

Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(30)               Mr Breckell stated that CAG had been of the view that this application should not have reached the point of determination at Committee, and it was a scheme based on the necessity to meet targets. It was the first building to use the Tall Building Policy, and the design was ‘second rate’. Mr Breckell asked that the Committee to refuse the application for reasons in relation to the height and design.

 

(31)               Councillor Carol Theobald stated that it had taken a very long period of time for proposals to come forward in this site, and she felt the proposals were ugly, and a softer design would have been more appropriate. The s106 contributions sought were too onerous, but the landscaping in the centre of the scheme was good. The scheme was too high and would overshadow Preston Park, and it was to close to the building to the rear. There was also concern about access for the Fire Services, and that the aboricultralist rarely objected to schemes. Councillor Carol Theobald stated she wanted to see the site developed, but could not support this scheme.

 

(32)               Councillor Jones stated he did not feel the design was ‘terrible’, but the developers had tried to work within a brief dictated by finance; he welcomed the landscaping and the mixed use, but had concerns with the scale and the overlooking of the rear of Dyke Road Drive. He also had concerns in relation to the affordable housing here, and felt there was a ‘slip’ in standards to provide housing at the site quickly. He stated he was still considering his final position on the matter.

 

(33)               Councillor Hyde stated she largely agreed with the comments made by CAG, but she had an appreciation of the reasons for the Officer recommendation, and she was concerned this scheme could set a precedent. She believed it could be overdevelopment of the site, and was too close to Preston Road.

 

(34)               Councillor Gilbey highlighted the potential impact of the scheme on other areas of the city – in particular the New England Quarter; she also expressed concern about the amount of play space and the shortage of schools in that part of the city.

 

(35)               Councillor Carden stated that, in his view, the Committee turned down a number of applications, and he thought the scheme was ‘beautiful’. There had been proper consultation on the proposals, and the recommendation would not have been in support if Officers were of the view that the design was below standards.

 

(36)               Councillor Mac Cafferty noted that appropriate mitigation would be sought through the s106 contributions in relation to facilities and schools. The scheme provided homes and employment space, and the 2 year consent would push the development forward helping provide economic benefits to the city. The city was excellent at creating start up business, but these often had problems when they reached a certain size and many relocated outside of the city. The developer was award winning, and the design was excellent. Councillor Mac Cafferty noted the evolution of design in the city, and stated this was a bold project which should be welcomed to the city.

 

(37)               Councillor Davey expressed concern that ‘the bar had been set too high’ and he would be supporting the application – particularly the mixed use. This was a strong example of a consent that was viable.

 

(38)               Councillor Ken Norman stated the design was bold, but was more suited to the city centre. He acknowledged that the site needed to be redeveloped, but this was too much. It would be overpowering, and the site did not necessarily warrant such a large scheme, and a more suitable design was needed.

 

(39)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to be minded to grant was not carried on a vote of 4 in favour to 5 against with 3 abstentions. Councillor Cobb proposed reasons for refusal and these were seconded by Councillor Gilbey; a short adjournment was then held to allow Councillor Hawtree, Councillor Cobb, Councillor Gilbey, the Deputy Development Control Manager, the Senior Lawyer and the Senior Planning Officer and the Head of Planning Strategy to draft the reasons for refusal in full. These reasons were then read to the Committee, and it was agreed they reflected what had been put forward by Members. A recorded vote was then taken with the proposed reasons for refusal and Councillors Cobb, Gilbey, Ken Norman, Robins and Carol Theobald voted that planning permission be refused; Councillors Hawtree, Carden, Davey and Mac Cafferty voted that planning permission be granted and Councillor Jones, Hyde and Bowden abstained from the vote.

 

192.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken the Officer recommendation to be minded to grant into consideration, but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

 

  i.                        The proposed development by reason of its height, density, bulk and form is overbearing, out of keeping with the surrounding area and would have a detrimental effect on properties to the rear in Dyke Road Drive and the listed Preston Park and would set an undesirable precedent. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies QD1, QD2, QD4. QD27, HE6 and HE11 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005 and SPGBH15: Tall Buildings.

 

ii.                        It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that 40% Affordable Housing cannot be achieved and the proposal is therefore contrary to policy HO2 of the Brighton and Hove Local plan 2005 and policy CP20 of the Brighton and Hove Submission City Plan Part One.

 

iii.                        The amount of commercial floorspace proposed does not comply with policy DA4  the Brighton and Hove Submission City Plan Part One and policy EM2 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005  and would result in a potential shortfall of office space in the City.