Agenda item - BH2018/02926-113-119 Davigdor Road, Hove- Full Planning

Erection of a new part 5 storey, part 8 storey building providing 894sqm of office space (B1) at ground floor level, and 52no residential flats (C3) at upper levels. Creation of basement level car and cycle park, landscaping and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Goldsmid

Erection of a new part 5 storey, part 8 storey building providing 894sqm of office space (B1) at ground floor level, and 52no residential flats (C3) at upper levels. Creation of basement level car and cycle park, landscaping and other associated works.

(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, Wayne Nee, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings detailing the scheme. He also explained the complexities of the scheme detailing the differences between the scheme as originally submitted and as currently submitted.

(3)          It was explained that the main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the use including the loss of employment space, financial viability and affordable housing provision, the impacts of the proposed development on the visual amenities of the site and surrounding area, the proposed access arrangements and related traffic implications, impacts upon amenity of neighbouring properties, standard of accommodation, housing mix and density, ecology, sustainable drainage, arboriculture and sustainability impacts.

(9)          Whilst it had been acknowledged that the proposed development would increase pressure on local services the scale of the development was not such that the LPA could reasonable expect the provision of such services on site as part of the proposal. It was considered that the proposed condition which required additional flood risk modelling and a management plan would be sufficient to ensure that the scheme could adequately deal with any future flood risks in accordance with development plan policies. The proposed development overall was considered to be of a suitable scale and design which would make more effective use of the site without harm to the surrounding townscape, whilst providing a suitable mix of office and housing space including affordable housing without causing significant harm to adjacent occupiers or an unacceptable increase in parking pressure. The benefits of the scheme, which would provide a significant amount of housing were considered to outweigh any planning policy conflicts and limited harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers; approval was therefore recommended subject to completion of a s106 agreement and the conditions set out.

Public Speakers

(10)       A statement was read out on behalf of Councillor O’Quinn who was unable to attend the meeting but had submitted objections in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor, these had also been circulated to Members in advance of the meeting .Councillor O’Quinn considered that by virtue of the size bulk and massing of the proposed development it would be unacceptable and would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring street scene. The level of parking proposed was inadequate and would also impact negatively.

(11)       Mr Ranier was in attendance accompanied by Ms Bauer and spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. The scheme would enhance the offer provided by a local employer and would also provide housing. Ms Bauer was in attendance in order to answer any detailed questions in respect of the scheme.

(12)       Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the viability analysis that had been undertaken and to the lower level of affordable housing proposed than the 40% recommended by the City Plan. Whilst noting the comments received from the office of the District Valuer this was disappointing. He sought confirmation from the applicants regarding the process which had been undertaken bearing in mind that the number of residential units had decreased and the level of office space to be provided had increased from that originally proposed.

(13)       It was explained that a vigorous process had been undertaken and the proposed scheme balanced the need for office space against that for housing and was the most viable option. The proposed scheme had been subjected to independent assessment by the District Valuer.

(14)       Councillor Shanks sought clarification regarding whether any of the office accommodation would be available for rent.

(15)       Councillor Miller referred to the level of office accommodation proposed on the site and the applicant’s representatives responded that the level and type of accommodation sought had not been identified on any other suitable site after 18 months of seeking to do so.

(16)       Councillor Fishleigh referred to vacant office accommodation situated in the Artisan Building nearby, enquiring whether this indicated that there was an over-supply of such accommodation and that therefore there was no need for the level of accommodation being sought by this scheme. The applicants responded that the office accommodation would provide for a need identified by their clients.

(17)       Councillor Theobald referred to the rationale for reduction in the number of parking spaces and it was explained that the original provision had related to a larger number of residential units. The current scheme would result in larger coverage of the site by office accommodation. This would reduce the space available for parking, it was also considered that with fewer residential units the level of parking needed was less.

              Questions for Officers

(18)       Councillors Mac Cafferty and Shanks referred to the fact that the level of affordable housing was well below 40% and sought further clarification of the processes used in determining the level of housing which was acceptable bearing in mind the requirements of the City Plan and the footprint of the site.

(19)       Councillor Mac Cafferty also enquired regarding measures to be put into place to ensure that appropriate levels of planting were provided.

(20)       Councillor Yates sought clarification of review mechanisms in place to ensure that the optimum number of housing units were provided and viability assessments put forward were robust. It was explained that the District Valuer Service assessed applications and provided independent advice.

(21)       Councillor Yates also referred to the points made in Councillor O’Quinn’s letter regarding overlooking and also in respect of materials to be used and asked for clarification on those points. It was confirmed that Condition 20 related to materials  and that these would be referred back to a Chair’s Briefing meeting for final approval.

(22)       Councillor Littman sought clarification regarding landscaping treatments and measures in relation to protection/provision of trees on site as the comments received from the arboriculturist seemed to be at variance with one another. It was confirmed that whilst they had expressed concerns in respect of the original scheme, the current scheme was satisfactory subject to the Conditions and Informatives proposed.

(23)       Councillor Shanks asked whether any cost savings due to an applicant building additional accommodation (including offices) on their existing site would have been taken account of by the District Valuer. It was confirmed that their assessment would have taken account all relevant information.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(24)       Councillor Miller stated that he supported the officer recommendation and considered that the proposed form of development was of a suitable design and that the proposed conditions would safeguard existing jobs and provide towards the city’s housing needs.

(25)       Councillor Theobald concurred in that view and considered that the proposed scheme was acceptable albeit that she would have preferred a higher level of parking provision on site.

(26)       Councillor Littman supported the scheme but considered that the applicant should be encouraged to meet a BREAM “excellent” rating.

(27)       Councillor Mac Cafferty considered the scheme to be acceptable in this instance but considered it was important that applications were rigorously assessed for viability.

(28)       Councillor Fishleigh stated that she did not support the scheme as it would not provide 40% affordable housing and she considered that the applicant should have provided more housing and less office accommodation.

(29)       Councillor Williams stated that she was in agreement that applicants be required to meet vigorous viability tests, but considered that they had been met in this instance and would be voting in favour of the application.

(30)       A vote was taken and Members voted by 8 to 1with 1 Abstention that Minded to Grant planning approval be given in the terms set out in the report.

6.1         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 as set out in the report SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 2 October 2019 the Head of Planning is authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 11 of the report.