Agenda item - BH2018/02598 - Longley Industrial Estate,New England Street & Elder Place, Brighton-Full Planning

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide: 3,270sqm of office/research/development floorspace (B1 (a)/(b) use), 308sqm of flexible commercial/retail floorspace fronting Elder Place (B1 (a)/(b) and A1-A4 use), 201 residential units (C3 use) in buildings ranging between 3 and 18 storeys plus roof plant level, together with associated car and cycle parking, further plant at lower ground level, supporting facilities and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: St Peter’s & North Laine

              Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide: 3,270sqm of office/research/development floorspace (B1 (a)/(b) use), 308sqm of flexible commercial/retail floorspace fronting Elder Place (B1 (a)/(b) and A1-A4 use), 201 residential units (C3 use) in buildings ranging between 3 and 18 storeys plus roof plant level, together with associated car and cycle parking, further plant at lower ground level, supporting facilities and landscaping.

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

Officer Presentation

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Maria Seale, introduced the application and gave detailed presentation by reference to site plans, elevational drawings, floorplans, block plans, photographs and aerial photographs showing perspectives across the site and its typography in the context of neighbouring development in the New England Quarter and in longer views including the bottom of Ditchling Road. It was noted that 8 further letters/emails had been received in support of the scheme and objections had been received from the CAG expressing concern that the height of the proposed tower would interrupt views of the listed heritage asset, St Bartholomew’s Church. Reference was also made to the proposed amendments to the s106 Heads of Terms and Conditions as set out in the Additional/Late Representations List.

(3)          The existing building on site which had a total floor area of 3000sqm was located on the east side of New England Street between New England House and Vantage Point and was the equivalent of about three domestic storeys high on New England Street (although it appeared to be two as it was set down into the site) and about four storeys high on Elder Place. There was vehicular access from Elder Place to the east and New England Street to the west.

(4)          The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of redevelopment of the site and type and scale of uses in the proposed location, layout, mix and viability and affordable housing provision of the housing element of the scheme; design, including scale and density, impact on the character and appearance of the locality, including the setting of heritage assets; sustainable transport, parking, highway safety, sustainability, biodiversity and flood risk and accessibility of the site.

(5)          This was undoubtedly a substantial development proposal of a significant scale in its local context and reservations had been expressed regarding the proposed overall scale and height. However, on balance, for the reasons outlined in the report, the proposal was considered acceptable. The site lay within an area identified as having capacity for significant development and the proposals made effective use of an underused brownfield site. Living conditions for prospective residents were considered to be generally acceptable and internal light levels whilst not ideal were characteristic of a densely built up central location. The housing mix and servicing provision were also not ideal but were not considered to sufficient to warrant refusal and could largely be mitigated by condition. Evidence submitted with the application demonstrated that the height and massing of the proposal would not have an unduly harmful impact in wider views and would have no direct impacts on any heritage assets and limited impact to their setting. It was therefore considered that any harm caused to the setting of heritage assets would be less than substantial and could in this instance be outweighed by the public benefits which were considered to be substantial and had been given significant weight. Therefore approval was recommended subject to the proposed s106 agreement on the Heads of Terms set out in the report and to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.

Questions of Officers

(6)          Councillor Theobald sought clarification of the heights of the blocks across the site.

(7)          Councillor Miller asked for clarification regarding allocation of the affordable housing, he was of the view that ideally preference in allocation should be given to those who had a local Brighton and Hove connection Also, the criteria used when allocating social housing, whether that was based on income. The Empty Property Officer, Emma Kumar, explained that the new tenure arrangements would be set up and the units would be made available to a registered social landlord and allocations would be made in accordance with their criteria. Officer’s would convey the Committee’s thoughts as part of their liaison with them; there were certain specified criteria which had to be met in allocating affordable housing.

(8)          Councillor Miller also enquired regarding the balcony treatments proposed. He was concerned that depending on the materials used the appearance of a building could be detrimentally impacted when occupants personal effects could be viewed from the street below. The Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, explained that it had been indicated that a bronze coloured treated metal would be used and that it could be conditioned that details be provided for consultation at Chair’s Briefing meeting.

(9)          Councillor Wealls sought clarification in relation to the sum allocated for education by the S106 agreement. He noted that no separate allocation had been made for special needs provision. It was explained that the amount provided was assessed using an agreed formula with the education department, Councillor Wealls hoped that this could form the basis of discussions in respect of future applications. Councillor Wealls also asked whether there would be a requirement for bird boxes to be provided on site and it was confirmed that this matter was dealt with by proposed Condition 35.

(10)       Mr Amerena, CAG, requested to see slides giving perspectives of the site in longer views. He remained of the view that impact of the scheme would have a detrimental impact on the listed buildings in its vicinity.

(11)       Councillor Gilbey sought clarification of the contract period in relation to the rented housing, if known and the basis on which that accommodation would be made available, noting that it was indicated that this would be available at 75% of market rent when the council’s own rented accommodation for example, was available at 65% of market rent. It was explained that Government Guidance indicated that up to 80% of market rent could be charged and that the Council would have no control over that.

(12)       Councillor Moonan stated that she appreciated that this scheme represented a new initiative but hoped that it would be possible for a requirement that preference be given to those who had a local connection could be included in the wording of the Heads of Terms. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, stated that this could not be required.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(13)       Councillor C Theobald stated that whilst liking some elements of the scheme she considered the proposed tower to be too high, representing a retrograde step, in her view representing a 1960’s tower block. In her view it would act as a wind tunnel and very little would grow there. She was also concerned that the percentage of affordable housing was relatively low. She would have been minded to vote in support of the application minus the tower which she considered to be too high.

(14)       Councillor Miller stated that he considered the proposed scheme to be acceptable notwithstanding its height. There were some locations in the city where it was appropriate to have high density development and in his view the application site was appropriate for that. Whilst the affordable housing element was lower than he would have liked, he considered it to be acceptable. He was anxious however that a condition be added relating to final approval of the balcony materials by Members via the Chair’s Briefing Meeting, also that the hours of use of the roof terraces be conditioned to avoid the potential for late night noise nuisance.

(15)       Councillor Littman concurred in that view stating that there were a few locations in the city where tall buildings were appropriate and at this location

(16)       Councillor Gilbey stated that she considered that the proposed development would be in a location where there were already a number of tall buildings including New England House which was nearby. She was also pleased that this scheme would provide for the city’s broader housing needs.

(17)       Councillor Catell, the Chair commended the scheme stating that latterly the council had been criticised for providing too much “student” accommodation, this scheme represented an exciting first by providing a mix which included rented accommodation. She was not averse to tall buildings and considered that this scheme was appropriate to its location, well designed and would contribute towards an identified housing need within the city.

(18)       A vote was taken and the 8 Members who were present when the vote was taken voted on a vote of 6 to 2 that minded to grant planning approval be granted.

123.2    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement on the Heads of Terms set out in the report and as amended in the Additional/Late Representations List the Conditions and Informatives as also set out in the report and also as amended in  the Additional/Late Representations List SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 26^th June 2019 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 11.2 of the report and the additional Condition(s) and Informatives set out below:

              Additional Condition(s):

              AdditionaIInformatives:

              Note: Councillors Hyde, Inkpin-Leissner, Mac Cafferty and O’Quinn were not present at the meeting during consideration or determination of the above application.