Agenda item - BH2018/02749 -George Cooper House, 20 - 22 Oxford Street, Brighton- Full Planning

Change of use from office (B1) to create 10no residential units (C3), including the erection of an additional storey and partial demolition of rear ground floor and basement to create lightwell. Replacement of existing cladding.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: St Peter’s & North Laine

              Change of use from office (B1) to create 10no residential units (C3), including the erection of an additional storey and partial demolition of rear ground floor and basement to create lightwell. Replacement of existing cladding.

(1)             It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

Officer Presentation

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Wayne Nee introduced the application by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application site related to a three storey (plus basement) 1960/70s end of terrace building situated on the northern side of Oxford Street the exterior of which consisted of a flat roof, red brick walls, timber clad cantilevered bay windows on the upper floors, and a glazed shopfront on the ground floor. The property had a planning use of B1 office, although it is currently vacant. When previously in use, offices were located on the ground, first and top floors. Part of the ground floor was in use by the Council as a housing office (Use Class A2), and the basement used as archive storage. The building had not been in use since 2014 and is currently boarded up. The site was set within an area of an Article 4 Direction, which in 2014 removed the permitted development rights of the change of use from office (Use Class B1a) to residential (Use Class C3) in some central areas of the city, including the Central Brighton, New England Quarter and London Road area.

(3)          During the application process, amended plans were submitted in relation to the further setback of the additional storey, reduction of number of residential units from 12 to 10, alterations to the layouts of flats, rear fenestration alterations, and further submissions were made in relation to office viability and daylight/sunlight assessment It was considered that the proposed development was of a suitable scale and design that would make a more efficient and effective use of the site without harm to the surrounding townscape. The development would provide housing units, including affordable housing, without significant harm to the amenities of adjacent occupiers and without resulting in an unacceptable increase in parking pressure. Approval of planning permission was therefore recommended subject to the completion of a s106 planning legal agreement and to the conditions within the report.

              Public Speakers

(4)          A statement was read out by the Democratic Services Officer on behalf of Mr Phillips and other neighbouring objectors in respect of the proposals. It was considered that the proposed form of development represented overdevelopment of the site and would result in unacceptable levels of overshadowing, loss of light, loss of privacy and overlooking.

(5)          Mr Lunn and Ms Horne spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their proposal stating that they had sought to provide a good standard of accommodation within the envelope of the site whilst seeking to minimise any potential negative impact.

(6)          Councillor Miller referred to the fact that the building had been left empty for some time and enquired as to what marketing had taken place, particularly in relation to the office space use. It was explained that following vacation of the building a number of options for future use of the site had been explored and in view of its location a housing option had been favoured and in this instance the loss of commercial space in favour of a housing use had been considered acceptable.

(7)          Councillor Theobald referred to the proposed materials to be used and whether the option of providing a lift had been explored, also the alignment and set back with neighbouring development. It was confirmed that provision of a lift would not be practical in view of the configuration of the existing building and that it would be set back to follow the neighbouring building line.

(8)          Councillor Fishleigh asked why the earlier scheme had not been proceeded with and it was confirmed that had not proved viable.

              Questions of Officers

(9)          Councillor Yates requested information regarding configuration of the upper storeys of the building and regarding marketing history of the site. It was confirmed that the market appraisals undertaken had indicated that there was no demand for office accommodation of the specification that could be provided by the development.

(10)       Councillor Theobald sought clarification regarding buggy/ pram storage and where that would be provided within the development at ground floor level.

(11)       Councillor Littman sought clarification in respect of the wording of proposed condition 8 and it was explained that this had been addressed by comments set out in the Late/Additional Representations List.

(12)       Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the planning history of the site stating that it would have been helpful for details to have been provided in relation to earlier scheme(s) although it was noted that these had not been proceeded with on the basis of non-viability.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(13)       Councillor Miller supported the scheme but requested that samples of materials be brought back to a Chair’s meeting for approval.

(14)       Councillor Theobald stated that the proposed scheme would result in re-use of a poor semi-derelict site and would provide much needed housing.

(15)       Councillor Simson considered that the proposed scheme made good use of the site and would be well located, her preference would however have been for permanent housing to be provided.

(16)       Councillor Littman supported the officer recommendation and considered that more extensive marketing could have been carried out but that the case for loss of the office space had been made in this instance.

(17)       Councillor Yates supported the recommendation but was in agreement that more should have been done to market or find alternative uses which would have prevented it remaining unoccupied for a long period of time.

(18)       Councillor Williams supported the application considering that it represented the best use for the site.

(19)       A vote was taken and Members voted unanimously that Minded to Grant planning permission be granted. Samples of materials to be brought back to a Chair’s meeting for approval.

6.2         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 and to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 2 October 2019 the Head of Planning is authorised to refuse planning permission for the  reasons set out in section 11 of the report.