Agenda item - BH2019/01272 - 1 Moulsecoomb Way, Brighton - Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2019/01272 - 1 Moulsecoomb Way, Brighton - Full Planning

Minutes:

Demolition of existing industrial (recycling), community and residential buildings and erection of a new development with buildings ranging from 5 to 7 storeys providing a mix of new community (Class D1) and employment (Class B1) floorspace at ground floor level and 373 student bedrooms with communal facilities on the upper floors along with landscaping, public realm improvements and public and communal open space.

 

1)        It was noted that this item had been the subject of a site visit prior to the Committee meeting.

 

2)        The Principal Planning Officer, Mike Anson, introduced the application with a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to plans, site plans, photographs, elevational drawings and aerial views showing the site and its boundaries. Reference was also made to the additional representations received detailed in the Late/Additional Representations List.

 

   Public Speakers

 

3)        Councillors Kate Knight and Daniel Yates spoke on the item. Councillor Knight stated that they had attended the consultation and noted that some residents felt that accommodation for families would be more appropriate for the area. The existing over crowded parking meant that there were concerns from residents regarding the lack of parking allocated in the proposed development. A robust plan for student parking was requested. Councillor Yates stated that some elements of the scheme were not being opposed as the loss of the way transfer station was not generally opposed. No issues were expressed with the design and scale. It was noted that at a public meeting concerns were raised relating to the parking for the scheme and the late list included concerns from the Highways officer. The Councillor considered that the impact on the surrounding roads could be considerable.

 

4)        There were no questions from the Committee for the speakers.

 

5)        Grant Leggett – Planning Consultant spoke on behalf of the applicant. It was stated that the development would be a mixed use of employment and residential. A petition in March had raised concerns about the use of HGVs in the area. A replacement transfer station has been identified in Newhaven, were new jobs are to be provided. It was noted that a wood recycle project would be included at the new location. Community use areas would be included in the development along with 370 student rooms. Access to the universities is good. With regarding to parking the student management plan would cover this matter.

 

   Questions for the Speaker

 

6)             Councillor Joe Miller was informed that the location was good for buses.

 

7)        Councillor was informed that the church was to be retained.

 

8)        Councillor Sue Shanks was informed that the student management plan would cover the busy time of student drop off at the beginning of term and include spreading the drop off times across different days. The courtyard can be used as a drop off place and thereafter retained for community use.

 

9)        Councillor Nick Childs was informed that the management plan would deal with parking issues and that supermarket drops would be on the street. It was felt that students would not want to incur the extra charge for busy times and would therefore request other drop off times and this would reduce the impact. It was noted that in the traffic assessment only 10 movements would be likely by students per day. dents Noise and anti-social behaviour would be taken very seriously and would form part of the management plan. The students would be encouraged to be part of the community and sensitive to other residents regarding parking. It was noted that 3 trees were to be removed from the site as part of the scheme, including an Elm tree. These would be replaced as part of the development by 25 trees.

 

10)     Councillor Carol Theobald was informed that the Elm tree to be removed was located at the front of the scheme. It was also noted that there are 4 staff spaces included in the development and no decisions had been made regarding the use of the art funds.

 

11)     Councillor Leo Littman was informed that replacement trees would be agreed by condition.

 

12)     Councillor Tracey Hill was informed that the student management plan would be detailed with no loop holes regarding student car parking.

 

   Questions for Officers

 

13)     Councillor Leo Littman was informed that the Planning officer had weighed up all policies following professional opinions from the Transport Officer. It was agreed that the information provided to the transport officer was not comprehensive. A request has been made to repeat the parking survey at school term time.

 

14)     Councillor Nick Childs was informed by the Transport Officer that the emergency vehicle access had been included following talks with the applicant. It was noted that the transport audit was insufficient and there were overall concerns on the road loading. The Road Safety audit had not been verified at this time. It was confirmed that 19 wheelchair spaces were included in the scheme. Mike Anson stated that wheelchair using students often stayed on campus. 5% of the rooms would be wheelchair accessible and would be used by students of all abilities if not required for wheelchair users.

 

15)     Councillor Joe Miller was informed that transport was not the only consideration and that the proposed units were to modern standards and the transport to university campuses were good.

 

16)     Councillor Carol Theobald was informed that the on-street loading bay could be used for supermarket drop offs. It was noted that other city centre developments did not have drop off bays as part of the scheme.

 

17)     Councillor Nick Childs was informed that the development was more isolated than previous developments on other parts of the city and would not incur the same loss of privacy issues. The development is also set back on the site from the existing wide road. It was confirmed that no loss of capacity would result from using the waste station in Newhaven. The exact details of loading bays would be agreed in the management plan and the Transport Officer confirmed that free loading was already in the area.

 

   Debate

 

18)     Councillor Joe Miller felt the development would be good for the area as residential units would be preferred to the current waste site. It was also noted that the units would help by not increasing the number of HMOs in the city. The office space would be welcomed. The loss of three trees was acceptable given they will be replaced. The transport links are good, and the church will remain. A good application overall and will support.

 

19)     Councillor Leo Littman felt the proposals were better than the existing waste station. The loss of trees was a shame but understood. The Transport officer comments were a concern.

 

20)     Councillor Nick Childs felt the scheme had many positives. The environment impact seemed acceptable. The student accommodation was good and would reduce stress on HMOs. The transfer over to the waste station in Newhaven was acceptable. The drop off situation still remained an issue.

 

21)     Councillor Carol Theobald was sad at the loss of any trees on the site. Overall the development was seen as a benefit to the area and Councillor Theobald would support.

 

22)     Councillor Sue Shanks supported the application as there was a need for student accommodation.

 

23)     Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty supported the application and felt the decision to grant permission by the planning officer was well balanced. The scheme was considered good and would fulfil the need for business space and student accommodation.

 

24)     Councillor Tracey Hill felt enough information was provided to make a decision and agreed that parking in the area was an issue. It was noted that there is good bus service available. Councillor Hill would support.

 

         Decision

 

55.1    Resolved: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out below and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 Planning Obligation and the conditions and informatives as set out hereunder SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 26th February 2020, the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 9 of this report.

 

Note: Councillor Daniel Yates did not take part in the decision vote.

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints