Agenda item - Application BH2017/02156 - 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Pelham Terrace,Brighton-Full Planning

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a part 1,6, 8 and 9 storey building to form 189 student rooms (sui generis) 1no one bedroom and 4no 2 bedroom residential dwellings (C3), shared community facilities, landscaped roof terraces, plant room, cycle storage, recycling/refuse facilities and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Moulsecoomb and Bevendean

              Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a part 1,6, 8 and 9 storey building to form 189 student rooms (sui generis) 1no one bedroom and 4no 2 bedroom residential dwellings (C3), shared community facilities, landscaped roof terraces, plant room, cycle storage, recycling/refuse facilities and associated works

Officers Introduction

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

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs elevational drawings and floor plans.

(3)       It was explained that the considerations in the determination of this application related to the principle of development, including the loss of the former Public House and garden, dwellings, retail unit and car sales unit, the proposed Community Hub/café, student accommodation and residential units, design, impact on street scene and wider views, heritage assets and the South Downs National Park, standard of accommodation, neighbouring amenity, environmental health issues, transport, sustainability, landscaping, and ecology/biodiversity including impact upon protected species (bats).

(4)       It was considered that the proposed building was of a high quality design which would have a positive impact on the Lewes Road street scene and that it was acceptable in transport, sustainability and ecological terms and that the proposed S106 requirements would address all other matters. It was recognised that the scheme would result in the loss of a former public house and garden which was valued by the community and had been registered as an Asset of Community Value. A number of trees to the rear of the Public House would also be lost. The proposed building would be of a considerable scale and would have an adverse impact upon the amenity of some neighbouring occupiers due to a loss of daylight to a number of windows, although these impacts had been fully assessed and it was considered that the loss of daylight would only be at a harmful level in a small number of cases.

(5)       Overall, whilst the scheme would cause harm in some respects, these concerns had been fully assessed, and overall it was considered that the scheme would deliver substantial benefits and that the concerns identified did not warrant refusal in this case. Approval was therefore recommended subject to the proposed conditions and s106 requirements set out in sections 1 and 10 of the report.

              Questions for Officers

(6)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner referred to the traffic management arrangements to be put into place and whether it would be possible to adapt/amend the travel plan to reflect any changes in demand.

(7)          Councillor Mac Cafferty enquired regarding arrangements to be provided in mitigation for use by the local community. He sought clarification regarding whether monies towards open space provision could be used in Saunders Park. Councillor Mac Cafferty also requested that serious thought be given to how access to community space/use could be provided. Also, how bats/other animals identified on site would be protected and in order to seek to ensure that loss of daylight/overlooking of adjacent properties to the rear was minimised. Councillor Mac Cafferty also requested that an informative be added requesting that bee friendly planting be provided.

(8)          Councillor Miller asked for further details of the floor plans and access arrangements to the blocks the dimensions of the units and details of those which could have a detrimental impact on daylight to properties to the rear and the number of properties which would be affected; and regarding mitigation measures proposed. Also, the net gain in units of accommodation and details of measures to ensure that Local Ward Councillors were fully involved in any on-going consultation.

(9)          Councillor Hyde enquired regarding the distance between the proposed development and the neighbouring Deco building and the lighting quality to neighbouring properties which were likely to receive less daylight than was currently the case and the percentage below the average where this was anticipated. Also, regarding access arrangements, future management of the building and who would be responsible for maintenance of the planting scheme.

(10)       Councillor Hill enquired regarding the number of letters in support of the scheme received from students, enquiring whether they had been received on time. It was confirmed that they had been in the form of a standard letter forwarded by the applicants. Councillor Hill also enquired regarding the anticipated rental cost of the units.

(11)       Councillor Moonan also enquired regarding this matter, noting that these units would be expensive and beyond the means of most students which might do little to alleviate the number of HMO’s in the area which were in use as student accommodation.

(12)       Councillor Morris enquired regarding the arrangements to be put into place to ensure that transport needs generated by the scheme would be monitored and incorporated into the travel plan.

(13)       Councillor Littman referred to the proposed planting arrangements requesting what evidence was available which indicated whether the planting measures proposed would mitigate the loss of trees on site with regard to the impact on air quality. Whilst recognising the student housing provision which would arise he was concerned regarding this issue. In response to requests for details of the trees which would be lost, it was explained that it would not be possible to retain all of them in situ; however, the proposed conditions were intended to address that in so far as it was practicable to do so.

(14)       Councillor Gilbey enquired whether the hours for community use were limited and it was confirmed that there was sufficient flexibility in the proposed conditions which would allow for additional use outside those hours and at weekends.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(15)       Councillor Moonan stated that overall she considered the proposed development to be a good one which would fit into the existing street scene. Whilst she was disappointed that the accommodation to be provided would be towards the higher priced end of student accommodation and at the number of trees that would be lost she nonetheless accepted that it would address an identified need. On balance she supported the scheme and would be voting in support of it.

(16)       Councillor Littman stated that in his view whilst elements of the scheme were good he remained to be convinced that there would not be a detrimental impact on air quality in this heavily trafficked part of the city where this was already an issue. He did not consider that sufficient evidence had been provided that the replacement trees and green roofs would be sufficient to mitigate that and in consequence he would be voting against the officer recommendation on this occasion.

(17)       Councillor Miller expressed disappointment that only minor amendments had been made as a result of the pre-application process. He considered it was crucial that the conditions designed to protect neighbouring amenity and seeking to provide community use/ facilities were sufficiently robust. Overall though he considered the scheme was of an appropriate scale and design.

(18)       Councillor Hill echoed Councillor Moonan’s concerns regarding the fact that the accommodation to be provided would undoubtedly be towards the high end of the student rental market considering that this would only have a small impact on the number of student HMO’s in the vicinity. She would however be voting in support of the application.

(19)       Councillor C Theobald regretted the loss of the public house, noting however that it had been boarded up for some time also the loss of some of the trees. She liked the frontage of the scheme, whilst not perfect she considered it was acceptable and would be voting in support.

(20)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner considered the scheme was acceptable whilst also considering that any issues arising in relation to additional traffic movements and air quality in the vicinity of the Vogue G yratory would need to be addressed.

(21)       Councillor Hyde stated that whilst considering there were imperfections with the proposed scheme overall it was acceptable and she would support it. It was important however, to ensure that suitably robust measures were in place to mitigate any potential harm to neighbouring residential properties including loss of light/outlook.

(22)       Councillor Gilbey, supported the officer recommendation but stated that she hoped that the proposed “green” roof would be properly maintained. She had observed a number of developments across the city where planting (particularly to roofs) had not been adequately maintained and impacted on their appearance.

(23)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he hoped that whilst he had some concerns regarding the appearance of the scheme, particularly to the rear on balance, given the identified need for student accommodation he would support the officer recommendation. He hoped that materials would be agreed in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons’ and considered that the conditions relating to provision of improvements to Saunders Park and in relation to community use needed to be robust and to be applied rigorously.

(24)       Councillor Morris stated that he welcomed the clarification that had been given regarding planting and provision of trees on site and although he had some concerns about the height of the scheme and considered that it was important to provide suitable public art on site he liked the design. On balance he was prepared to support it.

(25)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell, stated that she supported the officer recommendation considering that the proposed scheme would provide for an identified need for student housing and would be voting in support.

(26)       A vote was then taken and on a vote of 11 to 1 minded to grant planning permission was agreed.

86.1       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 also as set out in the report, with the s106 open space and indoor sport contribution to include tree planting in Saunders Park; also subject to the additional Condition and Informative set out below:

            Additional Condition 34:

              No development above ground floor slab level of any part of the development shall take place until full details of the proposed heating system and any required emission mitigation measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

              Reason: To ensure that the proposed heating system is of an appropriate nature and does not cause significant harm to air quality, and to comply with policy SU9 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan and Policy CP8 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One.

            Additional Informative 6:

              The applicant is advised that the scheme to enhance the nature conservation interest of the site required by Condition 26 should include planting or other measures to encourage bee activity.