Agenda item - BH2020/00239, 186-187 Lewes Road, Brighton - Full Planning

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Hanover & Elm Grove

Demolition of existing 3no. storey commercial and residential building. Erection of a 4no. storey mixed use development consisting of 9no. two bed flats (C3) over the four floors and 1no. commercial unit with A1-A5 use on the ground floor, with associated works.

(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, elevational drawings and photographs which showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development. The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the proposed development, the suitability of the site to accommodate the proposed development having regard to the amenity requirements of the dwellings, affordable housing, the affect upon character of the area and neighbouring residential amenity, traffic impact and sustainability. In view of the decision of the Planning Inspectorate relating an earlier application and the extant permission it was recommended that minded to grant planning approval be given.

            Questions of Officers

(2)              Councillor Shanks referred to the level of affordable housing to be provided asking whether it would be possible for the council to have allocation rights for one of the units.

(3)              Councillor Fisheigh queried the level of contribution being sought from the developers in respect of the affordable housing contribution. The level of contribution being sought appeared to be very low. It was explained that the level of contribution sought was in line with the formula agreed by the TECC Committee. Councillor Fishleigh asked whether it would be possible for a greater level of contribution to be sought from the developer but it was explained that would not be appropriate as level of contributions being sought were policy compliant in line with the scale of the development.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(4)              Councillor Yates stated that he considered that the scheme as proposed represented an improvement.

(5)              Councillor Theobald agreed stating that what was proposed would be an improvement to the existing building and would improve the appearance of the site.

(6)              Councillor Miller stated that whilst he supported the officer recommendation he considered that the materials and finishes to be used were crucial referring to nearby development where the materials used had not weathered well. As Member briefing meetings were not taking place in the traditional manner currently, he considered it important to flag this up and to seek to ensure that Members were able to see and approve the materials to be used and asked whether to that end an informative to that effect could be added to any permission granted. Councillor Shanks concurred in that view.

(7)              It was confirmed that officers could put arrangements in place to enable that to occur.

(8)        Councillor Miller proposed formally proposed that an informative be added requiring submission and approval by Members of the materials to be used and that was seconded by Councillor Shanks. A vote was taken and the 9 Members present voted unanimously that an informative be added to ensure that materials were agreed by Members in the manner deemed most appropriate by officers. A further vote was then taken on the substantive recommendation to include reference to submission and approval of materials. The 9 Members present voted unanimously that planning permission be granted in those terms.

27.6      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 set out in the report and the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report. SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 2 October 2020 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 9.1 of the report.