Agenda item - BH2018/03356 - KAP Limited, Newtown Road, Hove BN3 7BA - Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2018/03356 - KAP Limited, Newtown Road, Hove BN3 7BA - Full Planning

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected : Hove Park

Minutes:

            Demolition of existing buildings in association with car dealership (sui generis) to facilitate the erection of a mixed use redevelopment to provide 148 dwellings (Class C3), 954sqm of office floorspace (Class B1), within a scheme of 3no blocks ranging from 4 to 11 storeys in height with associated underground car parking, cycle parking and landscaping and 22sqm of cafe floorspace (Class ;A3).

 

(1)              It was noted that an in depth presentation had been provided by officers in advance of the meeting and was included on the council website detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, floor plans, elevational drawings and photographs which also showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development.

 

(2)        The application site was located to the north eastern side of Newtown Road on a prominent corner plot. There was a collection of single storey buildings on site with a large expanse of hardstanding and although currently vacant the site had operated until recently as a car dealership which had included sales, servicing/repairs and vehicle recovery.

 

(3)      The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of re-development of the site and type and scale of uses in that location; the mix, layout viability and affordability of the housing provision; impact on amenity of neighbouring occupiers, standard of accommodation; provision of private and communal amenity space; design; sustainable transport, parking, access and highway safety, air quality, sustainability, biodiversity, ecology, accessibility, infrastructure and developer contributions. Overall, it was considered that the public benefits of the scheme taken as a whole, which included the provision of a significant amount of housing were such that they outweighed any planning policy conflicts, the impact of overspill parking and any harm to the neighbouring occupants and approval was therefore recommended.

 

Public Speaking

 

(4)        Professor Gibson spoke on behalf of the local neighbourhood forum setting out their objections to the proposed scheme. They had no objection to a scheme on this site in principle. This scheme was however, too dense, too high and would have a detrimental impact on existing neighbouring development which would be overshadowed and overlooked by it and would suffer loss of amenity. It would be overly dominant and would impact negatively on the neighbouring street scene. The applicants had not consulted fully either with the forum itself or neighbouring residents in the manner he expected for such a major scheme.

 

(5)        Councillors O’Quinn and Allcock spoke in their capacity as neighbouring Ward Councillors setting out their objections to the scheme. Councillor O’Quinn stated that the proposed development would have a severe and unacceptable impact on the adjacent New Wave development which would suffer considerable loss of light, in some instances to main habitable rooms and BRE guidelines would not be met. Whilst the office space provided had been cited as “good quality”, the space allocated for café use within the development was very small, it appeared that it would simply be a kiosk. The solid massing of the two blocks fronting Newtown Road was unattractive and would totally dominate the street scene. The area was already blighted by excessive traffic and on-street parking and this scheme would exacerbate that situation. Councillor Allcock referred to the mix within the development, the affordable element was insufficient and any benefits from the scheme did not mitigate the potential harm in his view.

 

(6)        Mr Dixon spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application. He explained that the area was one which it was considered could take high buildings and that care had been taken to seek to design a modern fit for purpose development and to configure the buildings in such manner to mitigate any potential harm both in terms of neighbouring amenity and in terms of parking and traffic. Following the viability assessments made the applicant had sought to provide the optimum amount of affordable housing that it was able. The scheme sought to make efficient use of a challenging corner site.

 

(7)        Councillor Miller sought clarification regarding location of the balconies within the development and whether they would have opaque glazing. Mr Dixon explained that the balconies would have patterned glass panels which were partly opaque confirming that the applicants would be prepared to provide an opaque film too.

 

(8)        Councillor Fishleigh referred to comments made that there had been a woeful lack of consultation asking for clarification regarding consultation which had taken place. Mr Dixon explained that there had been exhibitions and preliminary discussions prior to the application being submitted.

 

          Questions of Officers

 

(9)        It was noted that questions which had been submitted by Members prior to the meeting had been responded to by officers and that those Member questions and the responses received to them had been uploaded and were attached to papers relating to this meeting on the council website.

 

(10)      In answer to further questions it was explained that in addition to balconies some of the properties would also benefit from private gardens. The Chair, Councillor Hill, sought confirmation regarding access and location as they appeared to be unclear.

 

(11)      Councillor Mac Cafferty enquired whether it would be possible to defer consideration of the application in order to determine these points. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, stated that in order to do so Members would need to be of the view that they had insufficient information before them in order to make a decision and that this could not be provided by the applicant’s representative or officers.

 

(12)      Councillor Littman sought clarification of the housing mix within the development, as the number of family sized units seemed to have reduced dramatically in his view. Information was also sought regarding the internal layout of the proposed units.

 

(13)      Councillor Hill, the Chair, asked for clarification regarding loss of sunlight/daylight to dwellings in the New Wave development and regarding the number of units which would be affected. If lighting levels were already poor was it acceptable for them to be reduced further? It was confirmed that whilst there would be loss of lighting to some units, they were still well lit. Light to some of the units in the New Wave development was impacted by their own balconies and that would not be impacted further by this development.

 

            Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(14)      Councillor Fishleigh stated that she considered that the proposed scheme represented overdevelopment, would result in worsened air pollution, and would have insufficient infrastructure to support the number of new dwellings proposed.

 

(15)      Councillor Theobald concurred with the views expressed by Councillor Fishleigh considering that the scheme would be an overly dominant structure, which would impact negatively on neighbouring development and the street scene.

 

(16)      Councillor Littman stated that he was concerned at the height of the development, the lack of family sized dwellings and the amount of overspill parking which could be generated by the scheme. For him there were too many negatives.

 

(17)      Councillor Miller considered that the scheme would provide much needed housing and welcomed the underground parking and the fact that balconies would be obscurely glazed.

 

(18)      Councillor Shanks stated that she supported the scheme. Councillor Mac Cafferty considered that overall, the scheme was acceptable and although there remained a gap in the level of affordable housing provided, this went some way towards addressing that.

 

(19)      Councillor Yates stated that the scheme provided a good use of the site and would provide much needed housing.

 

(20)      Councillor Childs stated that he considered that the scheme represented overdevelopment and he could not support it.

 

(21)      Councillor Janio considered the scheme was acceptable, and the fact that there was an affordable element was welcomed.

 

(22)      The Chair, Councillor Hill, stated that whilst she had some concerns about the potential impact on some units in the New Wave development, on balance she considered the scheme was acceptable.

 

(23)      A vote was taken and on a vote of 6 to 4 minded to grant planning approval was given.

 

119.3    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 and Conditions and Informatives set out in the report SAVE THAT should the s106 planning obligation not be completed on or before 12 August 2020 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set  out in section 10.1 of the report.

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints