Agenda item - BH2018/03697- Sackville Trading Estate and Hove Goods Yard, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition and redevelopment of Sackville Trading Estate and Hove Goods Yard, with erection of buildings ranging from 2 to 15 storeys comprising 581no residential units (C3) and 10no live/work units (Sui Generis) with associated amenity provision; a care community comprising 260no units (C2) together with associated communal facilities; 3899m2 of flexible office accommodation (B1); 671m2 of flexible retail floorspace (A1 and/or A3) and community facilities including a multi-functional health and wellbeing centre (946m2) (D1/D2). Associated landscaping, car and cycle parking, public realm and vehicular access via existing entrance from Sackville Road.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected:

 

1.            Principal Planning officer, Chris Swain, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme. The main considerations in the determination of this application relate to:

·The principle of re-development of the site, and type and scale of uses proposed in this location,

·Housing: layout, mix, viability and affordable housing provision,

·Impact on the amenity of existing neighbouring occupiers,

·Standard of accommodation including provision of private and communal amenity space,

·Design: including scale, form, density, materiality and impact on the character and appearance of the locality, including the setting of heritage assets,

·Sustainable transport: parking, access and highway safety,

·Air Quality,

·Sustainability, biodiversity, ecology and flood risk,

·Accessibility.

 

Public Speakers

 

2.            Ms C Bennet and Ms C Graham spoke to the committee to object to the application on behalf of Artist’s Corner residents which adjoins the Sackville Road industrial estate. It was stated that requests to meet the planning officers have been refused. The residents are not opposed to development but have serious concerns about the parking and traffic implications. Parking in the area is currently difficult especially in the evenings and any further parking would increase the issues. The Sackville Road junction with Old Shoreham Road is one of the most congested in the city. The single access point onto the application site will result in increased traffic issues. A second access was requested along with car free development.

 

Questions for the speaker: None

 

3.            Valerie Paynter spoke to the committee to object on behalf of the freeholder of units 1 – 4 Newtown Road trade park. The owner believes that the proximity of the proposed block C will result in curtailed use of the current lawful activities. A previous application was recommended for refusal on noise grounds. This would apply to this application. Two huge blocks of flats will create noise. When will changing offices to flats end. A second access is needed. Please refuse on CMP3 grounds and overdevelopment in excess of CP14 requirement.

 

Questions for speaker

 

4.            Councillor Daniel Yates was informed that Newtown Road was not properly assessed for noise issues in the speaker’s opinion. The Old Shoreham Road has very heavy noisy traffic.

 

Ward Councillor speaker

 

5.            Ward Councillor Samer Bagaeen spoke to the committee in objection to the application. The committee were reminded that housing targets are opinion based. The buy-to-rent market is booming. It is curious that the submitted statement concluded that the scheme could not provide any affordable housing. The Councils own policy for Community Infrastructure Levy tests the viability of the scheme. Brighton and Hove should mark out its own validations for a development of this size against metrics, such as where the water for the homes come from? Social impact is not subjective. Waste management will be a huge challenge. City Clean performance report highlights access issues due to density of parking. In London waste crews have been unable to gain access to new developments, where private contractors have then been employed. A marginal rise in costs will result in the loss of affordable housing. Let’s build homes not 5-star hotels for people to live in.

 

Questions for speaker: None.

 

6.            Neighbouring Ward Councillors Jackie O’Quinn and John Allcock were granted time to speak by the Chair and spoke to the committee in objection to the application. The development of the site was welcomed in principle as the city needed more housing in order to meet the government target of 13,200 homes by 2030. The height of some of the blocks is overwhelming. This style of development can lead to ghettoization of the area, with little reference from its context. ‘Air brushed’ views paint a beautiful picture which can be deceiving. The development is far too dense with major traffic and parking issues in the surrounding area. One access point to egress and ingress the site is not enough, gridlock will be the result. Genuinely affordable housing is needed.

 

Questions for speakers: None

 

7.            James Blackley spoke on behalf MODA Living Ltd, with Jenny Baker of Markides Ltd and Dan Jestico of ICENI Projects. The applicant has worked with officers to amend and refine the scheme. It was stated that sustainability is important, and this scheme includes homes and jobs. A village hall, library, swimming pool, new trees and space for creative industries are also included. The S106 heads of terms includes affordable housing at 10%. The scheme is to open to all with no deposit required. It is noted that bird and bee spaces are provided in the scheme, along with communal lighting, photovoltaic panels, electric car charging points, car club, onsite health care etc. The scheme was supported by local groups.

 

Questions from Councillors to speakers

 

8.            Councillor Joe Miller was informed further employment space is to come. 2,000 sq. metres has been allocated for jobs. Co-working has been included in the scheme.

 

9.            Councillor Carol Theobald was advised that a bridge to Hove Station has been designed but not included in this scheme. This may be looked at in the future.

 

10.         Councillor Mac Cafferty was informed that talks with Network Rail are ongoing regarding the bridge to Hove Station from the south east corner of the application site. A wind assessment has been included in the report. The amount of daylight to each of the units in the care home is considered sufficient given the open plan design of the units.

 

11.         Councillor Siriol Hugh-Jones was informed that the 10% of affordable housing may be reviewed in the future to assess possible increase.

 

12.         The Conservation Area Group representative was informed that a small part of the wall facing Sackville Road will be removed and the materials re-used elsewhere on the site.

 

13.         Councillor Gill Williams was informed that the height of the scheme has been reduced following negotiations with officers. It is considered that the living wage earner could afford the rent. £354 per month for someone sharing a unit is affordable. Other expenses are given such as internet, TV, gym and wellbeing centre on site. Roughly £120/150 per month could be saved. A furniture package is available, and no deposit would be required.

 

14.         Councillor Daniel Yates was informed that the unit rental prices were £1,250 one bed, £1,600 for two beds and £2,100 for 3 beds. 

 

15.         Councillor Bridget Fishleigh was informed that the cost of the scheme would be £300 million. It is considered that build-to-rent is a long-term project.

 

Questions to officers

 

16.         Councillor Daniel Yates was informed that with regard to noise, Environmental Health found the scheme acceptable. It was noted that two conditions require the submission of further noise reports.

 

17.         Councillor Joe Miller was informed that both bird and bee boxes are to be included in the scheme. The highways will not be adopted. Extra care home units have been included. Materials for the proposed balconies have not been submitted yet. It was noted that generally the balconies are to be recessed and not on street frontages. The affordable housing will be in perpetuity. Councillor Miller was also informed that S106 Heads of Terms restricted that all homes held as build-to-rent by covenant for 15 years. The 15 years could be extended; however, the 15 years came from national guidance. It was noted that a report on viability can’t compare with other schemes of buying homes not buy-to-rent.

 

18.         Councillor Carol Theobald was informed that no objections had been received from City Clean.

 

19.         Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty was informed that details regarding the protection of the aquifer will need to be submitted by the applicant. The access from Sackville Road improvements have been deemed acceptable. Higher levels of traffic movements are to be expected. City Transport have not objected to the scheme.

 

20.         Councillor Sue Shanks was informed that traffic restrictions can be included by condition. Consultations have taken place in line with requirements.

 

21.         Councillor Siriol Hugh-Jones was informed that there are no green roofs included in the scheme, however, there are green terraces across the site.

 

22.         Councillor Bridget Fishleigh was informed that the visitor permits had not been removed and 25 per unit per year would be available.

 

Debate

 

23.         Councillor Bridget Fishleigh stated their support for Councillor Bagaeen and went on to say that good design was wanted, and the number of affordable homes was not enough.

 

24.         Councillor Joe Miller felt that the design was good, however, not enough employment space had been created. It was noted that the 15 years covenant should be changed to perpetuity. The amendments, retail and residential mix are good. It was stated that the proposed S106 terms were good. Balconies should be conditioned.

 

25.         Councillor Carol Theobald would like to see the site developed and felt that the care community element was good. The access and height issues are not good. The overall feeling was that the scheme was too much in general.

 

26.         Councillor Daniel Yates felt that this was a key site for delivering housing in the city. The sharing of flats to make the rent achievable was not good. The homes need to be genuinely affordable. The Councillor felt the cost of homes was very high and would not support the scheme.

 

27.         Councillor Gill Williams expressed density concerns and was open to a re-design to include a high ratio of affordable homes.

 

28.         Councillor Dee Simson liked parts of the scheme, however the access from Sackville Road is a problem. The height of the development is an issue in the long views of the site from the surrounding area. This is a good site, but a bad scheme. The Councillor would not be supporting.

 

29.         Councillor Sue Shanks felt the rents were high, however young professionals want to rent, not buy. The Councillor would be supporting the scheme.

 

30.         Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty felt the scheme provided want Brighton and Hove needs. The amount of daylight into units, noise and the impact on Hove Station are issues. The overall design is not in keeping with the area and transport is an issue for the area. Please come back with something better.

 

31.         Councillor Siriol Hugh-Jones felt the scheme was a good use of a brownfill site. The density of the scheme was a good idea; however, the viability was not good and would not be supporting.

 

32.         Councillor Tracey Hill shared concerns relating to viability and felt that the benefits did not outweigh the harm to the heritage sites and the surrounding area. The scheme is too dense and would not support.

 

33.         Councillor Joe Miller proposed the following amendments: Materials to be approved at Committee chair meeting; balcony materials to be approved by condition; and to change 15 years on covenant to perpetuity. Councillor Daniel Yates seconded the motion.

 

34.         The Committee were invited to vote on the above amendments.

 

Vote: For = 9, Against = 0, Abstentions = 1. The amendments are carried.

 

35.         The Committee were invited to vote on the officer’s recommendation to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission.

 

Vote: For = 2, Against = 8, Abstentions = 0.

 

36.         Councillor Tracey Hill proposed a motion to refuse the application on the grounds of housing mix, heritage harm, lack of employment space, daylight issues, lack of amenity and lack of affordable housing, seconded by Councillor Siriol Hugh-Jones.

 

The meeting was adjourned for the Chair to seek legal and planning advice.

 

37.         The meeting reconvened 15 minutes later. The Chair advised that a reason on the grounds of lack affordable housing was no longer being proposed.

 

38.         The committee were invited to vote on the motion to refuse the application for the reasons proposed by the Chair and authorise the Planning Manager to word the refusal on the reasons proposed and that were the application to go to appeal, the S106 Planning obligation, heads of terms set out in the report are agreed.

 

Vote: For = 9, Against = 1, Abstentions = 0.

 

Recorded Vote: Councillors for: Hill, Williams, Hugh-Jones, Theobald, Fishleigh, Mac Cafferty, Shanks, Simson and Yates. Against: Miller.

 

RESOLVED: That planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons proposed by the Chair and the amended conditions proposed by Councillor Joe Miller.