Agenda item - BH2018/03629 - Belgrave Training Centre, Clarendon Place, Portslade - Full Planning

Demolition of existing building (D1) and erection of one part 4, 5 and 6 storey building and one part 5 and 7 storey building, with solar arrays and lift overruns, comprising 104 apartments incorporating, 11no studios, 50no one-bedroom, 39no two-bedroom, and 4no three-bedroom apartments (C3) with vehicle and cycle parking.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: South Portslade

Demolition of existing building (D1) and erection of one part 4, 5 and 6 storey building and one part 5 and 7 storey building with solar arrays and lift overruns, comprising 104 apartments incorporating, 11 studios, 50no one-bedroom, 39no two-bedroom, and 4no three-bedroom apartments (C3) with vehicle and cycle parking.

(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, Eimear Murphy, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation in respect of the proposed scheme by reference to site plans, floor plans, elevational drawings and photographs showing the site from various perspectives. Reference was also made to the amendments set out in the Late/ Additional Representations List.

(3)       It was explained that the main considerations in the determination of this application related to:

·      Principle of residential development on the site

·      Housing mix, tenure and space standards

·      Design and Appearance

·      Amenity Space Provision

·      Access Movement and Parking

·      Sustainability

·      Landscaping

·      Neighbour Impacts

·      Tall Building Statement

·      Environmental Impacts

·      Viability

(4)       Paragraph 11 of the NPPF made it clear that planning application decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development and set out that where relevant development policies were out-of-date planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The Council was currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing supply as well as a 20% buffer year-on-year and as such the relevant planning policies relating to housing delivery were considered to be out-of-date and the tilted balance of paragraph 11 therefore applied. Consideration had been given to the acceptability of the principle of development with a substantial uplift in the indicated units numbers as set out in Policy DA8, SHJAAP Policy CA3 and emerging Policy H1 of CPP2. In the current climate, this scheme would make a significant contribution to the housing shortfall and the provision of affordable housing for the city. There is also a realistic opportunity for its delivery through the Joint Venture and with funding mechanisms that are in place. As a result, and in applying the tilted balance, it was considered that there is considerable public benefit to be gained from the proposed 100% affordable housing provision. This position would therefore demonstrably act to outweigh or counterbalance any harm that was identified. The issues identified and addressed were set out in the report. The proposed development would make a significant contribution towards sustainable development in the City and complied with the NPPF and contributed towards meeting the objectives of City Plan Part One Policy CP1 and approval of planning permission was therefore recommended subject to the completion of a s106 planning agreement.

Public Speakers

(5)          Councillor Hamilton spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objections to the proposed scheme. Councillor Hamilton stressed his strong opposition to the scheme which in his view represented massive overdevelopment and would set a precedent for further overdevelopment, was premature as consultation in respect of implementation of a controlled parking zone had yet to commence later in the year, the scheme should be deferred pending the outcome of that. Parking in the vicinity already represented a serious problem and would be further exacerbated by the proposed development and was premature in that in his view the appropriate consultation had not taken place.

(6)          Mr Hobson and Mrs Coulter spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors stating that whilst the area was in dire need of development and affordable homes for local people the proposed scheme would result in total overdevelopment to the detriment of the local community and future residents themselves. There was a lack of parking and there would be a dramatic increase in traffic which would represent a road safety hazard and would result in cramped accommodation.

(7)          Mr Dixon, spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He explained that the site provided an opportunity to develop a brown-field site. The scheme represented a joint venture and the scheme put forward that day had been amended significantly during the course of the application process in order to address issues raised. The development had been set back in order to preserve the existing green corridor and in terms of parking a balance had been sought between the need to provide parking and to address sustainable transport and air quality concerns and so a compromise had been sought.

(8)          Councillor Theobald sought clarification regarding how the 10 parking spaces on site had been allocated and how they would be managed.

(9)          Councillor Simson enquired regarding the tenure arrangements and the manner in which the dwellings would be arranged. It was explained that development would remain in the ownership of the Brighton and Hove Partnership and that the parking on site would be subject to a management scheme. Accommodation would be made available to those who had a local connection and were on the living wage. Rent would not exceed 37.5% of income for a household earning a living wage.

              Questions to Officers

(10)       Councillor Littman sought clarification of the rationale for the density proposed and any impact that it would have in the context of the Joint Shoreham Action Plan, also the arrangements which would be put into place to ensure that the trees on site would be properly protected and maintained. It was confirmed that although acknowledged as being of high density, the development was considered to be appropriate to the neighbouring urban grain. The County Ecologist had been consulted and had given advice with regard to the proposed planting scheme.

(11)       Councillor Yates referred to the comments that had been made in respect of parking and in respect of the controlled parking zone consultation. As discussions on this had yet to take place he wondered whether/how this could be carried forward and whether it would be possible to future proof the scheme. The Legal Adviser to the Committee stated that a condition could not be included in any permission granted at this stage which took account of this as it was not possible to mitigate with something which might not take place.

(12)       Councillor Simson sought asked regarding location of the 10 on-site parking spaces and whether it was proposed to provide electrical charging points, also, the layout of the scheme to seek to avoid noise nuisance and potential overlooking and location of the bin storage area and arrangements for collection of refuse from the site.

(13)       Councillor Theobald enquired regarding servicing/ delivery arrangements and measures undertaken to minimise loss of daylight to properties situated in Clarendon Place. Notwithstanding that the building had been set back and cantilevered on that frontage, which would be of five storeys in height.

(14)       Councillor Hill, the Chair, sought further clarification of measures to ensure adequate air quality control, as clearly this was a sensitive and important issue in this part of the city. Clearly it was an issue of balance and parking/vehicular movements needed to be factored into that.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(15)       Councillor Simson stated that she had some concerns in respect of parking and in respect of vehicular movements, the potential impact on existing neighbours and in terms of the public/play space available for future occupiers a number of whom would have children.

(16)       Councillor Theobald stated that whilst recognising the need for housing, she considered the provision of 10 parking spaces to be inadequate and the density of the proposed development to be too great and was also concerned about the impact on daylight to neighbouring development.

(17)       Councillor Littman considered that having balanced the concerns expressed against the benefits which would arise from the scheme he considered it acceptable. Unless larger schemes were permitted on appropriate sites the city would never be able to meet its housing needs.

(18)       Councillor Williams considered the scheme to be acceptable overall but considered that the option of providing more benches should be explored and thought also needed to be given to the treatment used for the children’s play areas.

(19)       Councillor Miller considered that it was important to maximise use of brown field sites that became available and that in this instance the scheme was acceptable.

(20)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 8 to 2 minded to grant planning permission was granted.

35.1    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 the following Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 8^th January 2020 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in Section 11 of the report.