Agenda item - BH2019/03700 - 39 - 47 Hollingdean Road, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    It was noted that the application site was the subject of site visit before the committee meeting.

2.    Luke Austin (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site location plans, elevational drawings and photographs. It was noted that the main considerations in the determination of this application relate to the principle of development, including the loss of the former car sales/repair unit, the loss of the existing dwelling and houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), the proposed PBSA, the design of the proposed building and the impact on the streetscene, wider views and heritage assets, the standard of accommodation proposed, the impact on neighbouring amenity, land contamination, sustainable transport, sustainability, landscaping and ecology/biodiversity.

Speakers

3.    Simon Bareham (Lewis & Co Planning) spoke on the application and stated that the site will be professionally managed. It was noted there is a lack of student accommodation an this puts a huge amount of pressure on the city. The current application is significantly different to the previous refused application. Education providers have not yet committed to the scheme, but it is hoped they will. The enlargement of the development by 10% is felt to improve the impact on the street scene as a stand-alone building lower than others in the area that have been approved. The scheme is considered to preserve and improve the residential amenities with a reduction in proposal density near neighbouring properties.

Questions for Speaker

4.    Councillor Joe Miller was informed the application site would be car free with parking spaces for disabled units only. The proposal would mean that the highway access would be used less than the current use as a garage. It was noted that the ‘back to back’ relationship with neighbouring properties had been improved with 15 metres between nearby cottages and the proposal.

5.    Councillor Sue Shanks was informed by Lap Chan (Morgan Carn Architects) that the site would be aimed at post graduate students.

6.    Councillor Tracey Hill was informed that ‘soft’ discussions had taken place with three education providers.

Questions for officer

7.    Councillor Joe Miller was informed that no expressions of interest by education providers had been included in the application.

Debate

8.    Councillor Joe Miller stated that they felt the proposal was better than the previous scheme and an improvement on the current garage business with less traffic movements. The application had received only two objections. The scheme was lower in design than others in the area and student accommodation is much needed. Councillor Miller felt it was a good use of the site and supported the application against the officer recommendation to refuse.

9.    Councillor Tracey Hill stated they supported the officer recommendation as the development would have a greater impact on neighbouring properties than the current situation. Concerns were expressed regarding the impact on the properties on the opposite side of the street, which it was felt did not impinge on neighbours, the lack of letters of interests from education providers and the accommodation being high-end studio flats not the less costly cluster schemes.

10.Councillor Sue Shanks stated that they supported the scheme which is lower than neighbouring buildings.

11.Vote: The Committee voted against the officer recommendation to refuse by 2 to 1.

12.A motion was put forward by Councillor Joe Miller to approve the application as the scheme was a benefit in providing further student accommodation whilst not significantly impacting on neighbouring occupiers. Councillor Sue Shanks seconded the motion. It was agreed that conditions and s106 terms would be agreed by the Planning Manager.

13.Vote: The Committee voted to approve the application by a vote of 2 to 1. The recorded vote was: For = Councillors Miller and Shanks, Against = Councillor Hill.

14.Resolved: The Committee have taken into consideration the officer’s report and reasons for refusal and has decided to Grant Planning Permission for the reasons given by Councillor Miller.