Agenda item - BH2018/01622, 295-305 Portland Road, Hove - Outline Application

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2018/01622, 295-305 Portland Road, Hove - Outline Application

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Wish

Minutes:

Outline application for demolition of existing 6no dwellings (C3) to facilitate a mixed-use redevelopment comprising of the erection of 1no four storey building and 1no three storey building incorporating up to 1650sqm of commercial space (B1) and up to 47no dwellings (C3) with associated basement level vehicular and cycle parking with landscaping to include layout, scale and access (appearance and landscaping to be reserved matters)

 

(1)        The Planning Team Leader, Planning Applications, Chris Swain, explained that two further letters of objection had been received following publication of the agenda and the Late/Additional Representations List, no new matters had been raised. Proposed Condition 36 was to be revised as referred to in the Late/Additional Representations List and would now be a pre-commencement condition. Proposed Condition 25 duplicated another condition and was to be removed.

 

(2)        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, elevational drawings and photographs which also showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development. The main considerations in determining the application related to:

 

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

·     Scale, massing, density and layout and impact on the character and appearance of the locality,

·     Housing: layout, mix, affordable housing provision,

·     Impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers,

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

·     Sustainable transport: parking, access and highway safety,

·     Air Quality,

·     Sustainability, biodiversity, ecology and flood risk,

·     Accessibility,

·     Infrastructure and developer contributions.

 

(3)        The site predominantly consisted of 6 semi-detached properties and their respective gardens. The remainder of the site took in land to the west of the access to Portland Road Trading Estate. This land was designated as protected employment land CP3.4 which was allocated for mixed employment/residential development.

 

            Public Speakers

 

(4)        A statement was read out on behalf of Mr Paul Taylor a neighbouring resident and on behalf of other local objectors by the Democratic Services Officer, Shaun Hughes. The proposed form of development was considered to be out keeping with traditional family housing in the vicinity, was excessive in its massing, height and scale, was not in an area designated for tall buildings and would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity.

 

(5)        Councillor Peltzer Dunn spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objections to the scheme and those of his fellow ward Councillor, Councillor Nemeth which echoed and supported the concerns expressed by local residents. Councillor Peltzer Dunn cited the exceptionally large number of objections to the proposed scheme which indicated the level of very real concern regarding these proposals which would dwarf neighbouring development and represented complete over development of the site

 

(6)        Mr Landivar spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He explained that the configuration of the proposed development within the site had been considered carefully and the scheme had been put together following detailed discussions. The scheme would supply much needed housing for the city and would include 19 affordable units and make an employment contribution.

 

(7)        Councillor Fishleigh sought clarification regarding the appearance of the development once built. It was explained however that the final details of the scheme were to be agreed as it was an outline application at this stage.

 

(8)        Councillor Janio noted that it did not appear that any changes were proposed to the existing road network. Given the potential increase in traffic movements he wanted to know what mitigation measures were proposed. It was explained that parking would be provided at basement level and that a safety audit was to be carried out.

         

Questions of Officers

 

(9)        Councillor Miller asked for confirmation of the number of units to be provided and it was confirmed that the mix of units within the site had been improved and had been reduced from 50 to 47.

 

(10)      Councillor Shanks sought clarification as to whether any other outside/amenity space would be provided other than that provided by balconies. It was explained that had yet to be finalised but that it was anticipated dependant on the final mix within the development that it was possible limited amenity space could be provided at the rear.

 

(11)      It was confirmed that as this was an outline application, the principle of the development, access, layout and scale were the only matters for consideration at this stage, all other matters were reserved.

 

          Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(12)      Councillor Miller stated that he supported the proposed scheme which he considered represented a good use of the site.

 

(13)      A vote was taken and the 8 Members present voted by 5 to 1 with 2 abstentions to give minded to grant planning approval was given.

 

17.2      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 on the Heads of Terms and Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 30 September 2020 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 10.1 of the report.

 

            Note: Having declared a prejudicial interest in respect of the above application Councillor Theobald left the meeting and took no part I consideration of the application.

Supporting documents:

 


Bookmark this page using:

Find out more about social bookmarking

These sites allow you to store, tag and share links across the internet. You can share these links both with friends and people with similar interests. You can also access your links from any computer you happen to be using.

If you come across a page on our site that you find interesting and want to save for future reference or share it with other people, simply click on one of these links to add to your list.

All of these sites are free to use but do require you to register. Once you have registered you can begin bookmarking.

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