Agenda item - BH2020/00018, 19 Hollingdean Terrace, Brighton - Full Planning

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Hollingdean & Stanmer

            Demolition of the existing buildings (Sui Generis) and dwelling House and erection of buildings containing flexible floor space (B1 a/b/c) and four residential dwellings comprising 3, two bedroom two storey houses and a two bedroom flat with landscaping.

(1)              It was noted that an in-depth presentation had been provided by officers in advance of the meeting and was included on the council website detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs which showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development. The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the development, density, the design of the proposal, landscaping and biodiversity, its impact on neighbouring amenity and on highways as well as the standard of accommodation created. There was no objection to loss of the existing residential studio which was undersized and offered a poor standard of accommodation.

(2)              It was considered overall that the scheme made a welcome contribution to the Council’s housing targets and the city’s supply of B1 floorspace the standard of which would be of much compared to the existing. The scheme had successfully addressed the issues raised during the pre-application process and represented effective use of the site, without compromising on design, neighbouring amenity, standard of accommodation, highways safety and sustainability and as such was recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Public Speakers

(3)        Ms—spoke in her capacity as a local objector and by virtue of her involvement with the existing Coachwerks facility on site. She stated the site was currently home to a thriving community hub which would be lost as a consequence of the proposed development, it would also have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity.

(4)        Councillor Osborne spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objections to the proposed scheme and those of neighbouring residents. He objected for a number of reasons, on the grounds of additional traffic, overdevelopment and detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity. The proposal would result in loss of a valuable community hub and took no account of the existing free-lance office space use or the fact that the site was in active use in the evenings and at weekends. There would be no on-site parking and that would result in overspill parking would exacerbate existing problems. The valued whole foods grocery which was widely used locally would also be lost. Having spoken Councillor Osborne left the meeting and did not return until the application had been determined.

(5)        The Democratic Services Officer, Penny Jennings, read out a statement submitted by Councillor Fowler in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the proposed scheme. Councillor Fowler stated that it would be overdevelopment in area which already suffered from parking problems. The community space on site was regularly used by the community and loss of the wholefood shop would be a great loss as many local people enjoyed shopping there. It was important to support local shops and to encourage people to shop locally. During lockdown many people had said how good it had been to have such a local shop on their doorstep.

(6)        Mr Giles spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application stating that the application as put forward had been the result of a detailed pre-application process and had been subject to amendment in order to seek to provide the most appropriate on-site development. The existing buildings provided a very poor standard of accommodation, were in a poor state of repair and had reached the end of serviceable and safe life. The proposed scheme would provide a flexible up to date space and multiple conditions would be attached to any permission granted.

(7)        Councillor Theobald asked why it had  not been possible to provide any parking on site and I Mr Giles explained  that although that option had been explored that had not ultimately been considered to be a practical or safe option in view of the narrow frontage of the site and the need to cross the existing pedestrian walkway and the way that it could impinge on existing site lines. Support for sustainable transport modes had been pursued as a preferable option.

          Questions of Officers

(8)        Councillor Shanks referred to the objections of the local ward councillors and local residents in respect of loss of the existing community use, asking whether what protection would be afforded to existing tenants. In answer to further questions it was explained that the public did not have access to most of the existing site.

(9)        Councillor Fishleigh sought clarification of statements contained in the Additional/Late Representations List, as they seemed to indicate that the proposed site density would be too great, also in relation to proposed highways arrangements. It was explained that the amount of units per hectare proposed was considered acceptable, and that conditions to ensure that a suitable travel plan was in place were considered to be acceptable.

          Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)      Councillor Theobald stated that notwithstanding that the proposal would improve the  appearance of this run-down site, she considered that the number of housing units proposed was too great and would be cramped in view of the size of the site.

(11)      No further matters were raised and the Committee proceeded to the vote. A vote was taken and the 8 Members present voted by 6 to 2 that planning permission be granted.

27.1      RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.

Note: Having declared a prejudicial interest in the above application and having spoken in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor, Councillor Osborne left the meeting consideration of the above application and took no part in the decision making process.