Agenda item - BH2022/01490 - Enterprise Point and 16-18 Melbourne Street, Brighton - Full Planning

1.       The Planning Manager Introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.       Ward Councillor Gibson addressed the committee and stated the developer was waiting for planning approval to buy the site and existing property owners have expressed concerns regarding loss of light. The co-living appears to be student accommodation, and this was not good.

3.       Ward Councillor Hills addressed the committee and stated that they concerned at the density of the proposals. A transient population would not be good for the community. The height of the proposals would lead to overshadowing, overlooking and impact on the safety of the children in the school next door. The local residents are not in favour of the scheme and the councillor backed them. The councillor stated that co-living was not wanted in the city.

4.       Holly Beeston addressed the committee an objecting neighbour and stated that they represented the residents of Melbourne Street, and they were concerned that the area would be saturated with students. The one way street will not cope with more traffic and the drop offs to the school will be an issue. The proposals are an overdevelopment of the site. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

5.       Mike Evans addressed the committee as an objecting neighbour and stated that 3 months minimum contracts were not right for the development. There are concerns over safety. The scheme adds nothing to the community with the possibility of just student living.

6.       Julian Howland wished to address the committee an objecting neighbour, however, due to technical difficulties they were unable to speak. With the Chairs agreement Holly Beeston spoke again and stated that residents were concerned as the proposed high rise blocks proposed would be too close to neighbours.

7.       Robert Shaw addressed the committee as the agent and stated that they were the representative of Cosy Co-Living and Co-Working scheme. Phase one of the development has already received planning permission on this sustainable site. The accommodation is by condition not for students, but for young professionals on 12 month leases. There will be a single monthly payment for all residents. £2.5m has been set aside as a commuted sum for affordable housing. Cosy will pay for the relocation of existing residents and propose a new playground for the school next door. The agent has worked with officers to reduce issues. There will be 24/7 on site management. The committee were requested to approve the application.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

8.       Councillor Janio was informed by the case officer that the 12 months would be the standard time for a short lease, and it was not usual to control the length of time. A condition limiting minimum term of leases to 3 months was suggested by condition.

9.       Councillor Moonan was informed by the case officer that the ground floor would be used for co-working, gym, laundry, cycle store and vehicle access with disabled parking spaces. The main areas would have individual seating, informal seating, meeting rooms, quite rooms, tea making facilities and guest rooms. The agent noted there were also toilets and kitchen facilities on the ground floor, with a variety of open and private spaces with a 24/7 management scheme. The areas will have key card access with limited times. Daylight will enter the ground floor via windows on one side of the ground floor and rooflights. Guest rooms can be rented by residents. The case officer stated the co-working area had daylight/sunlight with level access. The roof gardens are at first floor and for residents only, with rooflights within the amenity spaces. Condition 51 clarifies the units are not for students in full time education.

10.      Councillor Ebel was informed by the agent the units were 24sqm and communal areas are large. The applicant stated that they had looked at the overall market in Brighton and Hove and considered all types of housing was needed. This new model would broaden choice. The Planning Manager confirmed that the applicant would need planning permission to change the use class by condition.

11.      Councillor Yates was informed by the agent that Cosy Co-Living leases states the resident should not be in education. The intention is to attract those living in house shares and others coming out of education. The case officer confirmed the tenancy agreement was not a planning matter. Council Tax would be included in the monthly charges.

12.      Councillor Shanks was informed that the relocation of existing occupants was not a planning consideration.

13.      Councillor Theobald was informed by the agent that the existing tenants will be relocated. The existing building is substandard. A similar scheme exists in London, and the style of living was growing fast.

14.      Councillor Moonan was informed that the design fulfilled a particular need for those in flat shares and Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs).

15.      Councillor Littman was informed by the case officer that the previous application had been refused as it was not suitable for the site, and the standard of accommodation was not good enough. The current scheme of co-working and co-living suited planning policy. The new scheme improves the layout and amenities. During the pre-application

process amendments have been made, with the higher elements reduced to six floors, not 7/8 as before. The blocks have been relocated further away from the neighbours. Block D is half a floor higher, however, the impact on Shanklin Road is considered acceptable.

16.      Councillor Ebel was informed by the Highway Agreements Officer that a loading bay was included in the scheme and a travel plan was required by condition. It was noted that demand for parking was to be reduced and not exceeded. A traffic management plan would be

required.

Debate

17.      Councillor Yates considered the development to be an intense use of the site. Co-living was not new and already existed in the city. Concerns related to no students or children. A mix of tenants would be better. The inclusion of council tax in the monthly payments was good. The councillor considered that the Housing committee should come up with a co-living policy for guidance. The numbers of residents would be very large in one place and HMOs are not together and in one place.

18.      Councillor Ebel considered the impact on the area and neighbours. Flat sharing would be better financially. The councillor considered that the developer may put in a planning application to change use to AirBnB or similar. The councillor was against the application. The impact on Shanklin Road would be great and the councillor was not reassured about the potential traffic issues.

19.      Councillor Theobald considered there were some good points to the scheme as the design was good, however the height of the proposed blocks was an issue.

20.      Councillor Moonan considered there were some good arguments for co-living spaces, however the bulk and scale was an issue on this confined site with limited access. 75% of the scheme would be better.

21.      Councillor Janio considered the scheme was better than flat sharing and they supported the application, with sympathy for the residents.

22.      Councillor Littman considered the model to be fine and was not similar to HMOs. The size and height were close to neighbours and boundaries. The bulk of the design was too big for the site. The councillor was against the application.

23.      Councillor Janio proposed a condition restricting tenants to at least 3 months and was seconded by Councillor Yates. The committee agreed to the additional condition.

Vote

24.      A vote was taken, and by 2 to 4 the committee voted against the officer

recommendation.

25.      Councillor Ebel proposed a refusal on the grounds of overdevelopment, impact on neighbours, loss of privacy/amenities, traffic issues, scale and intensification of site.

26.      A vote was taken, and the following Councillors voted for the refusal: Ebel, Moonan, Shanks, Yates and Littman. The following Councillors voted against the refusal: Janio and Theobald.

27.      RESOLVED: That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. The intensification of the development, by reason of the scale and bulk of the development and the intensification of uses and large number of units proposed in the development would represent an overdevelopment of this constrained site. This is contrary to policies CP12 and CP14 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One and DM18 and DM19 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two, and SPD17: Urban Design Framework.

2. The development by reason of excessive scale and bulk and close proximity to neighbouring occupiers would result in an unneighbourly development resulting in overshadowing and loss of privacy. This is contrary to policy DM20 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two.