Agenda item - BH2014/00331 - Willow Surgery, 50 Heath Avenue, Brighton- Removal or Variation of Condition

Application for variation of condition 2 of application BH2012/03818 (Demolition of existing surgery and residential accommodation and erection of new surgery and student accommodation comprising of 19 rooms) to permit internal alterations and changes to fenestration to increase accommodation to 24 rooms.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward: Moulsecoomb & Bevendean

Application for variation of condition 2 of application BH2012/03818 (Demolition of existing surgery and residential accommodation and erection of new surgery and student accommodation comprising of 19 rooms) to permit internal alterations and changes to fenestration to increase accommodation to 24 rooms.

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

(2)             The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans photographs and elevational drawings. The application site related to a triangular piece of land in lower Bevandean, and the site was a former residential property that was currently in use as a doctor’s surgery with a flat above. The surrounding area was predominately residential. Permission had been granted at appeal for the demolition of the existing surgery and erection of a new surgery with student accommodation; the reasons for the original refusal of the application by the local panning authority were listed in the report. This application now sought to vary condition 2 in relation to the number of student units on the site, and the alterations were outlined in the plans.

(3)             The approval of the previous scheme at appeal established the principle of the development; the matters for consideration related to design, amenity and sustainable transport. The proposed external changes were considered minor and considered acceptable in their own right without causing additional harm to the character of the area. In relation to amenity there would be no additional overlooking, and whilst it was considered student use had a greater potential for noise the increase in numbers would not make this material. There were no objections on the basis of sustainable transport. For the reasons outlined in the report the application was recommended for approval subject to an amendment to condition 1 and an additional condition to protect the willow tree.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(4)             Councillor Meadows spoke in objection to the application in her capacity as the local Ward Councillor; she noted that she would not speak to the principle of the development as this had already been established; however, her concerns related to the local infrastructure and highways traffic. The corner was opposite a school; on the main bus route and also the sole access to an industrial estate. Students were likely to own cars and would park on-street causing congestion. There were also concerns that the room sizes would not be adequate and those with kitchenettes would be too cramped. Councillor Meadows asked the Committee to refuse the application.

(5)             In response to Councillor Davey it was explained by Councillor Meadows that the property was located on the route of the No. 48 bus which was ‘not very frequent’ and there would be problems for elderly residents if the bus was full and they had to wait for the next one.

(6)             In response to Councillor Hamilton it was explained by Councillor Meadows that it was her view policy in relation to student density had not been applied consistently in this area, and she drew example of a nearby street with approximately 60% student accommodation.

(7)             Councillor Meadows confirmed for Councillor Bowden that she had dealt with many noise problems in her ward which related to students.

(8)             Mr Bareham spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent; he stated that the increase number of units had been looked at and contributions adjusted accordingly by the Sustainable Transport Team. It was emphasised that the rationale behind the scheme was to provide a new doctors surgery and the student accommodation was enabling development.

(9)             Mr Bareham explained, in response to Councillor Bowden, that the s106 agreement associated with the existing permission considered matters such as the temporary provision of the doctor’s surgery during construction. There were already discussions with other local community facilities in relation to potential sites to use for a temporary site for the doctor’s surgery.

(10)          Mr Bareham explained, in response to Councillor Davey, that the number of GPs would stay the same, but the new surgery would be able to offer additional services with more treatment rooms.

(11)          In response to Councillor Bowden it was explained by Mr Bareham that there would no onsite wardens associated with the student accommodation; however, there would be management plans and the accommodation would have to take on students from either of the two local universities.

(12)          At this point in the proceedings the legal advisor to the Committee, Alison Gatherer, highlighted that the application was for the additional 5 units; the principle of the development was already established and the mitigation measures agreed through the s106 agreement.

(13)          It was confirmed for Councillor Pissaridou that there would no loss of surgery space to accommodate the additional bedrooms.

(14)          It was explained to Councillor Jones by Mr Bareham that the applicant had considered other options as part of the development; however, the density of residential flats required to make the scheme viable was too high.

(15)          In response to Councillor Bowden it was explained by Mr Bareham that the level of parking on the site would be the same as outlined in the approved permission, and this would only be for use associated with the doctor’s surgery.

Questions for Officers

(16)          In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was clarified that the TRO would be for double yellow lines at the junction, and the s106 funds would be used to improve the bus stop facilities around the site.

(17)          In response to Councillor Hyde the date of the inspector’s decision was confirmed and it was noted that no extra weight could be placed on emerging policy now than could have been at the time that decision was taken. It was also confirmed that the shape of the building was no different from the previous approval.

(18)          In response to Councillor Hamilton it was clarified that the application had not been tested against emerging policy CP21 as the test density relating to HMO density and was not relevant in this instance.

(19)          In response to Councillor K. Norman it was confirmed that there was an additional condition to protect the large willow tree, and the local planning authority would liaise with the Arboriculturist to ensure this was enforced.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(20)          Councillor Pissaridou noted her view that the additional traffic would have an impact locally.

(21)          Councillor Wells noted that the area was already saturated with student accommodation, and he had concerns in relation to displacement parking caused by the new yellow lines – he stated he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(22)          Councillor Bowden noted there was already parking pressure in this area – especially in relation to displacement parking associated with the Amex Stadium; he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(23)          Councillor Davey noted that he could not see any grounds on which the application could be refused, and that the application was only for an additional five bedroom spaces. He hoped that this type of purpose built accommodation could free up family homes in the city and he would support the Officer recommendation.

(24)          Councillor A. Norman noted that she would normally support purpose built student accommodation; however, she felt the points made by Councillor Meadows in relation to the bus service were valid and she was not content with the application.

(25)          Councillor Jones noted that the principle of the development had been established, and that the payback would be the provision of a new surgery. He stated he would support the Officer recommendation on the basis that a refusal of the application would not be upheld at appeal.

(26)          Councillors Hamilton and Bowden raised concerns in relation to the viability of the scheme, and the Head of the Development Control, Jeanette Walsh, explained that the local planning authority had not been made aware of any issues in relation to financial viability, and the decision to increase the number of units had been made by the applicant for their own reasons. It was also confirmed that if the application were refused that the existing permission would still stand and could be implemented.

(27)          A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that planning permission be granted was not carried on a vote of 3 in support with 6 against and 3 abstentions. Reasons were then proposed and seconded to refuse the application by Councillors Bowden and Pissaridou. An adjournment was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Bowden, Councillor Pissaridou, the Head of Development Control, the Solicitor and the Area Planning Manager to draft the reasons for refusal in full. These reasons were then read to the Committee and it was agreed that they accurately reflected what had been put forward. A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors: A. Norman, Pissaridou, Hamilton, Bowden, K. Norman and Wells voted that permission be refused; Councillors Mac Cafferty, Jones and Davey voted that permission not be refused and Councillors: Hyde, Carden and Littman abstained from the vote.

55.1       RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation, but resolves to be REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below:

                    i.          The proposed variation of condition to increase the unit numbers by 25% does not take into consideration the additional and cumulative impacts of increased trips, visitors and noise and disturbance to the existing amenities to the detriment of the local community contrary to TR1, SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.