Agenda item - BH2022/03892 - Moulsecoomb Place, Lewes Road, Brighton - Full Planning

1.         The Case Officer introduced the application and informed the committee that two late consultations had been received from South Downs National Park Authority and Fire & Safety Executive. The Planning Manager informed the committee that the Highways team had additional terms for the Heads of Terms.

Speakers

2.         Ward Councillor Fowler stated they had concerns with the application as 15 storeys was too high, resulting in overshadowing and impact on neighbours. A flint wall will be destroyed during the construction process at what is considered a perfect setting at the moment. The councillor did not consider tall tower blocks to be good and residents have objected to these proposals. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

3.         Richard Upton addressed the committee as the agent and stated they had worked in the city for seventeen years, had worked with the authority and won awards. They considered the application was to deliver something special. The neighbours have been listened too, as well as residents and councillors. The proposals will increase the

housing stock and give students more sustainable living. The applicant has redesigned the tower blocks to lessen the impact. The proposed park, pub, restaurant will be good for the community and bring in jobs. The development will be sustainable and viable and contribute to housing.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.         Councillor Theobald was informed by the case officer that the Health & Safety Executive cover fire service responses to consultations and they were fully satisfied. A vehicle drop-off will be located on Moulsecoomb Lane along with service bays. The existing lift will be clad externally. The daylight/sunlight assessment concluded there would be no impact on the neighbouring properties or the historic buildings. The Historic Buildings Officer stated the existing barns were tiled with slate and clay separately.

5.         Councillor Moonan was informed by the case officer that the land is private and semiprivate ownership at the moment. The proposals will allow public access across the site to buses, trains and the South Downs. The proposed community centre, cafe, pub and restaurant will be open to the public. The existing social club will remain private. A permissible path agreement will form part of the S106 agreement. The walled garden will be for the use of the pub and restaurant customers with parking along access road, including eight disabled spaces. The agent stated that the intention was to get as much of the site open to the public as possible, with the intention of allowing community access to the listed buildings. The councillor was informed that a lighting strategy would be supplied with a need to have a balance between safety and ecology.

6.         Councillor Appich was informed by the case officer that there are currently 168 rooms, and the proposals will supply 207 cluster rooms, with eight accessible rooms, some 116 will be half way between usual rooms and cluster rooms with shared kitchens and some cookers in rooms. There will be a visiting practice for student’s health and a new surgery at Preston Barracks. A traffic management plan will be supplied by condition to the authority.

7.         Councillor Hills was informed by the case officer that the development will deliver a 12% biodiversity net gain and the county ecologist is satisfied. There is existing and proposed open water on the site. It is considered the existing badgers and foxes will not be harmed by the development on a brownfield site. Ben Kimpton of East Sussex informed the councillor that bat licences will be required for the protected bats in the tithe barns and the roosts are to be retained. The councillor was informed that a new surgery formed part of the Preston Barracks development and it was not known of this was sufficient provision. The taller buildings were designed to be set back from the listed buildings. The Senior Design Officer considered the heritage assets were to be protected with a chamfered design and light coloured materials at the top. The Heritage Officer stated that only the southern end of the exiting flint wall will be lost.

8.         Councillor Hugh-Jones was informed by the case officer that motion sensor lighting will be included by condition. Emergency lighting will stay on 24/7 and there were no ling views of the proposed tall buildings.

Debate

9.         Councillor Moonan considered the site to be high density, although good accessible student housing was needed. The loss of the flint wall is regrettable. It was good to restore the listed buildings and make the green space accessible. The councillor supported the application.

10.      Councillor Theobald considered the inclusion of the pub and restaurant to be good, however the 15 storey block at the top of the hill was too high. The councillor did not support the application.

11.      Councillor Hugh-Jones noted the high density and the massing in one area to protect the heritage buildings on this brownfield site. The councillor considered the application to be sensitive with the opening up of the site to public access, community centre, pub, restaurant and café. The loss of the flint wall was regrettable. The councillor supported the application.

12.      Councillor Ebel considered the development would take students away from Homes of Multiple Occupancy (HMOs) and this would reduce the pressure on the housing market. The opening of the manor house was good. There are others nearby to the proposed 15 storey building. The councillor supported the application.

13.      Councillor Appich considered the proposals were good for the heritage buildings. The loss of the flint wall was regrettable. The public access was a gain, and the development would be good for 400 students. The councillor supported the application on balance.

14.      Councillor Hills considered the development was an improvement on the existing situation and considered the 15 storey building needed to go somewhere. The better access was good. The councillor supported the application.

15.      Councillor Littman considered the development would be good for the heritage assets. The loss of the flint wall was not great but acceptable. The 15 storey building was high; however, this was away from the heritage assets. The existing buildings are not good for students. The proposed open access would be good, as were the pub and restaurant. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

16.      A vote was taken, and by 6 to 1 the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

17.      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 as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 26 July 2023 the Head of Planning is hereby