SUMMARY OF APPLICTIONS AT BENFIELD BARN AND BENFIELD …present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/Data/Planning Applications... · 2010-10-20 · plans list – 28 june 2006 brighton and hove

PLANS LIST – 28 JUNE 2006

BRIGHTON AND HOVE CITY COUNCIL

LIST OF MAJOR OR CONTROVERSIAL APPLICATIONS

OR APPLICATIONS CONTRARY TO COUNCIL POLICY

SUMMARY OF APPLICTIONS AT BENFIELD BARN AND BENFIELD VALLEY GOLF COURSE, HANGLETON LANE, HOVE.

The following pages of the Plans List contain four reports associated

with the Benfield Valley Golf Course, a 7 hectare site to the east of the Hangleton Link Road (A293). The applications are for: • BH2006/00989: Full Planning application for change of use of Barn and restoration/rebuilding of the derelict outbuildings to form licensed café/restaurant and overnight lodge accommodation, associated landscaping works to Barn complex and car park.

• BH2006/00986: Listed Building Consent for the restoration and rebuilding of the Barn and derelict outbuildings to form licensed café/restaurant and overnight lodge accommodation, associated landscaping works to Barn complex and car park.

• BH2006/00990: Outline application for a semi sunken building to provide golf course reception, changing rooms, bar, pro-shop, gym with swimming pool.

• BH2006/00988: Full Planning application for the construction of timber structures for proposed driving range, 3m fence to part perimeter, laying out of all weather sports pitches to south side.

The course was previously part of the West Hove Golf Course which was severed from the application site with the construction of the bypass and continues to operate as a private club on the Downs. Benfield Valley Golf Course is a 9 hole facility leased by the Council, and includes land north and south of Hangleton Lane, bounded by the Sainsbury’s superstore to the south. This land has been used for many years as informal open space. Existing built development within the site is limited to the grade 11 listed Benfield Barn, the only remaining structure of a farmhouse and its outbuildings dating from the 18th century. The remains of the other buildings are derelict and overgrown. The complex and immediate surroundings form the Benfield Valley Conservation Area. The Barn is intact and weatherproof, having benefited from improvements funded by the Sainsbury’s development in the southern part of the site. The Barn houses a portacabin which acts as a reception area and store. An extant approval, granted October 2005, permits a two year temporary consent for the erection of a building to replace the existing


facilities within the Barn to be located adjacent to the car park, north of Hangleton Lane. The northern part of the Golf Club is within the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In addition to the listed building and conservation area status the area is designated in the Brighton and Hove Local Plan as reserved for outdoor recreation, consistent with wildlife habitats, the landscape and safe use of rights of way to the public. All of the sites lie outside of the boundary of the built-up area, within the countryside/downland, are of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) and designated as a Greenway, a largely car free off-road route connecting facilities and open spaces. The proposal is for the regeneration of the area by constructing an extension to the Barn to provide a restaurant/café, forming an hotel complex within a group of buildings surrounding the Barn consisting of a main building and chalets with 58 bedspaces, forming a partly sunken golf course centre and gym adjacent to the existing car park, and a 39 station driving range and several multi-marked all-weather sports pitches, which could include five-a-side football, netball, cricket practise nets and tennis courts. The applications follow a pre-submission exhibition held by the applicants at Hove Park School on the evenings of 8 & 9 February; pupils of the school and over 10,000 households in the area received an invitation. Letters of support and a petition in favour of the scheme from the meetings have been submitted as part of the applications. Comments received as part of the Council’s consultations are summarised in the report for each application.


No: BH2006/00989 Ward: HANGLETON & KNOLL

App Type Full Planning

Address: Benfield Valley Golf Course, Hangleton Lane, Hove

Proposal: Change of use of Barn and restoration/rebuilding of derelict outbuildings to form licensed café/restaurant and overnight lodge accommodation, associated landscaping works to Barn complex and car park.

Officer: Paul Earp, tel: 292193 Received Date:

24 March 2006

Con Area: Benfield Barn Expiry Date: 16 June 2006

Agent: Miles Broe Architects, Coronation Studios, 104 North Road, Brighton

Applicant:

Benfield Valley Golf Course, C/o Agents

1 SUMMARY

This application is to be the subject of a Sub-Committee site visit. The proposal is for the regeneration of the area by constructing an extension to the Barn to provide a restaurant/café, forming an hotel complex within a group of buildings surrounding the Barn consisting of a main building and chalets with 58 bedspaces. The proposed development is considered to be an overintensive use, contrary to the non-intensive uses proposed in the local plan, which would have a radical impact on the rural character of the barn complex and detrimental to the occupiers of surrounding properties and the natural habitat of the area. Whilst it is recognised that the existing golf club lacks basic facilities and is in need of investment, and that a use for the listed Barn which would provide an income to secure future maintenance is required, it is considered that this application, together with the cumulative effect of the current proposals for the area (see covering report), represent a large commercial development of an intensity inconsistent with the vision for Benfield Valley as embodied in policy NC9 of the local plan which aims to promote outdoor recreation consistent with wildlife habitats, the landscape and safe use of rights of way by the public. This policy was informed by the outcome of public meetings held in September 2005 to discuss a “Vision for Benfield”, in which it was found that most people like the Valley for its open space, fresh air, countryside and wildlife.


2 RECOMMENDATION That the Sub-Committee refuse planning permission for the following reasons: 1. Benfield Barn is a grade 11 listed building, which together with the

former outbuildings lie within the Benfield Barn Conservation Area. Policies NC10 & NC11 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan encourage the sympathetic repair and conversion of the Barn and land and buildings in the vicinity and permit non-intensive community and recreation uses compatible with the local natural environment. It is considered that the scale of the development is an overintensive use which does not accord with these policies and that insufficient evidence has been submitted to justify the nature and scale of the proposal which departs from the adopted plan.

2. The site lies outside of the built-up area boundary and within Benfield Valley Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). Development will be permitted only where there will be no significant impact on the countryside and to the nature conservation features. It is considered that the proposal would be damaging to the nature conservation value of the Benfield Valley SNCI. For these reasons the proposal is contrary to policies NC4, NC6, NC9, NC10 & NC11 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

3. Residential development adjoins the site to the north and east. It is considered that proposed use and scale of development would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of the area by way of noise and general disturbance and is contrary to policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

4. The applicants have failed to demonstrate efficiency in the use of resources contrary to policies SU2 and SU13 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

5. In the absence of a Transport Assessment in relation to this development there is insufficient information to determine the likely effect of generated traffic on the local road network and parking.

Informatives: 1. This decision is based on drawing nos. PL/01, 02, 02.1, 02.2, 02.3 &

EX/01, 02, and the supporting statement submitted 24 March 2006. 3 THE SITE

The application relates to an area north of Hangleton Lane including the existing car park, the Barn and surrounding derelict buildings all of which are within the Benfield Valley Conservation Area. The site is 1.24 hectares and is bounded by residential properties in Hangleton Valley Drive and Sylvester Way to the east and Meads Avenue to the north. The golf course adjoins the site to the west. The buildings are reached from the road by a bridle path which is partly nettled. Extensive


vegetation runs along the eastern boundary. 4 RELEVANT HISTORY

Land south of Hangleton Lane: 3/93/0530(F): Change of use from golf course to driving range and construction of 28 golf driving range bays including administration annexe, lighting and protective screen fencing, at part of Benfield Valley golf Course, south of Hangleton Lane, refused 21 September 1993. Appeal dismissed 29 June 1995. Benfield Barn: BH2000/02027/FP, BH2000/02029/FP, BH2000/02067/LB & BH2000/02068/LB: Conversion and extension of barn to proposed pub/restaurant (Vintage Inn), with associated vehicular and pedestrian access, provision and layout of 101 space car park for pub/restaurant and golf course. Proposed landscaping and open space. Withdrawn. Land adjacent to Benfield Barn: BH200/02106/FP & BH2000/02108/CA: Erection of five new dwelling houses with parking and vehicular and pedestrian access and demolition of outbuildings. Withdrawn. Car Park: 3/94/0519(F): 100 car parking spaces north of Hangleton Lane for Benfield Valley Golf course. 15 spaces to be available for the general public. Refused 20.10.04. Allowed on appeal 29.6.95. BH2005/01362/FP: Erection of a temporary single storey building to for reception for 2 years. Granted 19 August 2005. Other applications relating to the Golf Course which are currently under consideration are listed in the covering summary report.

5 THE APPLICATION

The proposal is for conversion and extension of the barn to form a café/restaurant and construction of further buildings to form accommodation with 58 bed spaces. The scheme consists of: Restaurant / Bar use: Barn: • Conversion to restaurant/bar. Formation of mezzanine level.

Indicative layout shows 28 tables, bar and lounge seating (within linked conservatory extension) for approximately 146.

• Formation of outdoor terrace/courtyard with 10 tables, providing seating for approximately 76.

• Barn to be available for hire for parties, weddings and conferences. Indoor and outdoor space to be available for art exhibitions etc.

• Proposed hours of use: 08.00 to midnight.


• Details of external alterations not submitted. Barn extension / restored piggeries: • Structures to measure 33.0m in length x 6.0m wide, single storey

6.3m in height, to form seating within the conservatory, with sliding doors on to the courtyard, and toilet, staff and kitchen facilities, gated delivery bay.

Accommodation: proposed within 4 building: Lodge: • A three storey building to measure 25.0m x 10.6m x 9.0m in height,

to provide 16 double rooms. Building to incorporate central projection with gable, two storey side extensions, pitched roof, dormers front and rear.

• Materials: roof: slate; walls: brick and flint: doors/windows: painted softwood.

3 detached Chalet buildings: • Building adjacent to courtyard, to measure 16.6m x 6.8m, single

storey, to form 5 rooms. • Single chalet within former store to provide 2 bedspaces, building

to measure 6.8m x 5.5m. • Bunk bed chalet within former store to form 2 rooms at budget

rated. Building to measure 7.0m x 9.2m. • Materials: roof: slate; walls: brick and flint: doors/windows: painted

softwood. Groundsman and tractor store: • Located 80m south of barn off the access track. • Building to measure 4.0m x 4.3m, no elevations given. Parking: • Existing car parking area off Hangleton Lane with parking for 83

car, 2 disabled spaces and 32 cycle spaces. • Alterations to the existing bridle path to link to car park. • New gravel surface. • Proposed parking bay adjacent to proposed Lodge, 4 spaces

including l disabled, and 32 cycle parking spaces. 6 CONSULTATIONS

External: Neighbours: A total of 52 letters have been received objecting to the proposed development, of which 38 relate specifically to this application. The addresses of the objectors are listed at the end of this report. The grounds of objection to the whole development proposals are: • Benfield Valley is almost the last open green space, one of the few

remaining Urban Natural Areas linking the city centre to the South Downs. Access to Benfield Valley is important as a great many people use the adjacent footpaths as an area of safe recreation in


a natural and wildlife enriched environment, which is a green lung of the city. The development would only be of benefit to golfers, already well established in the Brighton area, and would deprive a community of thousands cherished and established open space. Benfield Valley is for the benefit of the whole community and not a few sports minded people, and should be preserved as such for future generations.

• The loss of this open space would create added pressures for the neighbouring park, Greenleas. The park would then have to cope with pressures from additional users and a particularly large increase in the number of dog walkers. This will cause an increase in fouling, making the park and playground unsafe for families, children and babies.

• Question the supporting papers submitted with the application, particularly with regards comments on earth bank and debris which were built by local children; the land is clean and clear with no evidence of alleged fly-tipping; and, the presence of extensive planning fields at Hove Park School which often appear underused.

• The Wild Park area is a haven for wildlife such as lizards, butterflies, birds, plants and others; many of which are protected species and will be affected by the development. Furthermore there are a number of badger sets in the area, and the Badger Group should therefore be consulted.

• The car park at Benfield Valley Golf Course does not have the capacity to cater for current clients with cars regularly parked outside the designated car park. The enhanced facilities will increase the demand for parking and result in overflow to the surrounding area. This is worsened by the small access road resulting in increased traffic and congestion.

The grounds of objection specific to this application are: • The proposed hotel and restaurant would result in considerable

noise from machinery, arrivals and departures, and disturbance and odours. With overlooking also resulting from first and second floor windows on the northern elevation of the hotel building which would severely intrude upon privacy.

• This is the financial gain of the development to the detriment of the local residents and the environment, and represents commercial overdevelopment of the site which is unnecessary and out of character with this quiet area of natural beauty and wildlife. If any development takes place it should be housing.

• The additional leisure facilities offered, such as a swimming pool, are so small as to be of little value to the community and is a token gesture to encourage support for the application. Concerns regarding ‘planning gain’ from the development.

• There is limited parking at present to the park area, the proposal


will result in congestion. No traffic survey was included in the supporting documents submitted. There are no bus routes in close proximity to the site and the majority of users will do so by car. The plans do not make it clear if the bridleway is to become a road, if so this would remove the privacy and security of those residents whose gardens back onto the scheme.

• Policy NC10 (Benfield Barn) does not include a restaurant / bar as an appropriate permitted use, this proposed use is not suitable in a sensitive natural environment and changes the character of the area and buildings. Note that excavation has increased the size of the car park without apparent planning consent. The erection of a Travelodge style building, conservatory and the windows in the Barn will ruin a Grade II listed building, with the three-storey hotel exceeding the height of neighbouring properties.

Support A total of 58 letters of support have been received, of which 2 relate specifically to this application. The addresses of the supporters are listed at the end of this report. The general grounds of support to the whole development proposals are: • The local area of Portslade and Hangleton does not have many

facilities which families can use for days out, all other facilities in the area are expensive, elitist and for members only usage.

• The scheme couples job creation, renovation of disused buildings and creation of new leisure facilities with significant long term health benefits.

• The current facilities are run-down and if renovated would be an improvement to the area and provide the local community an improved facility to be proud of.

• The area is of little recreational use apart from dog walking, although excavation should be carefully monitored as there is badger activity in the area.

• Tourists are a major revenue in Brighton and Hove and the proposal will encourage further visitors.

• The current limited use of the site is wasteful, leaving the site underdeveloped will not benefit anyone or the economy of the area. The proposal fits the Council plan of commercial development by staying the right side of the A27 and turning down such an application will adversely affect the surrounding community.

• The facilities will be made available to local schools and it is important to offer the widest range of facilities and encourage children to take up as wide a range of sporting options. Without approval of the plans the much needed pitches will not be provided for Hove Park School. With the Olympics coming to England in six years, any enterprise that aims to train the next


generation of sports men and women is to be welcomed. • The additional facilities may also reduce the number of malcontents

that congregate around the Grenadier area and obviate the need for CCTV cameras.

• There would be no objection subject to the retention of the tree line adjoining Hangleton Valley Drive, being annually trimmed to an acceptable height to prevent loss of light.

The grounds of support specific to this application are: The barn building is in disrepair, and may fall into other occupation if not restored and regenerated. The proposals are supported providing a reasonable limit is set on licensing hours, limits are set regarding hours of vehicular access to the barn, with the exception of emergency vehicles, provision to reduce noise levels with soundproofing the barn and limit the hours of use for outdoor areas, and the installation of an effective extractor system in the kitchen area was completed. Councillor Dawn Barnett: Object – letter attached. Councillor Peter Willows: Comments awaited at the time of writing the report. Sussex Police: This location does suffer from criminal activity, particularly theft and damage to unattended vehicles. Do not identify any major concerns with the proposal but would like to see crime prevention discussed. English Heritage: No objection. English Nature: On the basis of the information provided, this application does not appear to have implications for protected species or sites with statutory nature designations. No objection. Southern Gas: No objection. Southern Water: No objection. EDF Energy: No objection. South Downs Society: Comments awaited. South Downs Conservation Board: Comments awaited. County Archaeologist: Comments awaited.


CAG: Welcome the potential of the scheme but concerned over the details of the restoration works (how to avoid the restored buildings appearing as new build) and the details associated with the new uses such as ventilation, exterior lighting, flues etc. Wish to see further details of the lowering of the floor and alterations to the barn door. Not satisfied that the barn will be sufficiently well converted. The Georgian Group: No objection in principle, welcome the restoration of the grade 11 listed Benfield Barn and the rebuilding of the derelict adjacent farm building. Accept that a new use is required to be installed in the barn to ensure that the historic fabric is safeguarded against future neglect and deterioration, through lack of a sustainable use. Consider the use is an appropriate one, following the guidance set out in “The conversion of historic farm buildings”, English Heritage. The success of the scheme with regard to the conversion of the listed barn lies in the detailed design issues, and further information is required to assess how the installation of mezzanine floors and staircases would impact on the special interest of the interior space of the barn. No objection to the reconstruction of the derelict farm building which would restore the setting of the listed barn but question the necessity and appropriateness of the proposed conservatory linking the barn to the reconstructed piggery buildings which would entail a significant interruption in the historic roofscape and result in the barn ceasing to be a stand-alone structure. Benfield Wildlife and Conservation Group: support the application provided the following points are taken into consideration: • Protected badgers, slow worms and bats will be disturbed and must

be protected in accordance with acts or parliament; • Lighting should be kept to a minimum; • Noise limitation measures should be introduced; • Kitchen doors and windows should be kept shut to prevent smells; • Hangleton Lane could become a pedestrian and cycle danger

point due to increased car parking and deliveries. Internal: Traffic Manager: No objection to the principle of the scheme subject to clarification on issues including improvement to the current access, formalisation of the layout of the car park, and a travel assessment of all the functions. Environmental Health: Comments awaited.

Planning Policy: The proposed change of use of Benfield Barn and outbuildings would be contrary to policies NC4, NC5, NC6, NC8, NC9, NC10 and NC11. Policy NC10 (Benfield Barn) lists a number of appropriate uses for the Barn, including improving non-intensive


community or recreational facilities appropriate to the area. Policy NC11 requires that the change of use of the land and buildings surrounding the Barn is compatible with the local natural environment and its conservation, improves public access and minimises the need for car parking. The applicaion fails to effectively incorporate into the proposal the kind of uses Policy NC10 seeks to secure for the Barn.

Relating to the outbuildings policy NC11 proposes and/or recreational activities. Whereas the reconstruction of outbuildings is welcomed, there are serious concerns that the scale of the proposed new development is excessive. The change of use of the Barn and outbuildings is part of a larger development that also includes the insertion of a golf-course reception centre and gym with swimming pool, the cumulative impact of the various components of the development upon the Barn and its natural surroundings would be significant and likely to increase traffic with potential impact upon air and noise pollution levels. More relevantly, it is likely to have a considerable impact upon the natural environment. Ecologist: The application site is wholly within Benfield Valley Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). The application is supported by a comprehensive ecological survey report which fully supports the SNCI designation of the Valley. A supplementary bat survey report is included in the supporting material to the application. Although the survey is comprehensive and provides a reasonably accurate assessment of the value of the SNCI as a whole, it is poor in assessing the ecological effects of this proposal and no specific mitigation proposals are included. The supporting statement states a vague intention to “landscape and plant the area behind the former cottages”. Paragraph 9 of PPS 9 protects ‘Local Sites’ (SNCIs), stating that they “have a fundamental role to play in meeting overall national biodiversity targets; contributing to the quality of life and the well-being of the community; and in supporting research and education.” Policy NC4 establishes a clear set of criteria for assessing development proposals within SNCIs. There is a general presumption against proposals where an adverse impact is likely. It is clear from the supporting ecological survey that this proposal would, if implemented, damage the nature conservation value of Benfield Valley SNCI. The nature of the proposal mean that it cannot be subject to conditions that would prevent such damaging impacts and the application therefore fails test ‘a’ of NC4. Concern is expressed over the cumulative effects of this proposal with others currently affecting the Valley and recommend that an


Environmental Impact Assessment be requested.

Property Services: Comments awaited. Conservation & Design: The whole of the land and buildings need to be dealt with in an integrated manner. A long term viable scheme for the restoration, reuse and management of the land and buildings is needed. There are concerns about the intensity of the combined uses proposed in all the associated applications, with their substantial parking requirements (see covering summary report).

Benfield Barn is the last unconverted Listed barn in Brighton and Hove. Unlike many that survive converted, it still retains its original character and all of its original structure, therefore special care is needed over its conversion. Any use would be welcome that is sympathetic to the character of the barn, does not require it to be subdivided internally, and provides a financially secure future for it. The proposed restaurant/bar use of the barn appears to satisfy most of these criteria, provided that the outdoor seating areas are confined to the courtyard area to the east of the barn. However, there are concerns about the intensity of this use which, together with the hotel use, would have a radical impact on the rural character of the barn complex. The new openings through the north end of the barn's isle are too large. There are serious concerns about the lowering of the barn's floor. Otherwise the alterations to the barn are acceptable, subject to details.

The reconstruction of the cottages and the derelict farm buildings could be justified if all the surviving structures are retained and restored and those that have to be rebuilt are based on the original buildings' footprints and are close replicas of them with only limited extensions. The proposals do not entirely follow these principles and some aspects of the design do not respect the local agricultural character of the site and need to be revised. In addition, the demolition of the small round cornered flint barn and the brick base of the cart lodge/granary has not been justified. Elsewhere, more of the surviving walls should be retained and reused. Chalet Building 4 should be moved south to correspond with footprint of the original building.

7 PLANNING POLICIES

East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011: LT1 Leisure and tourism – general LT2 Leisure and tourism – general LT3 New facilities LT4 Measures to enhance the environment for tourists LT9 Tourist accommodation LT10 Visitor information LT18 The Arts LT11 Sporting facilities and activities


LT16 Maintenance and improvement of rights of way, open access land S5 Definition of development boundaries S7 Rural areas S10 The Countryside S13 Area policies – Brighton and Hove EN7 Urban fringe areas EN17 Nature conservation Brighton & Hove Local Plan: NC4 Sites of nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) NC5 Urban fringe NC6 Development in the countryside/ downland NC8 Setting of the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty NC9 Benfield Valley NC10 Benfield Barn NC11 Land and Buildings in the vicinity of Benfield Barn TR1 Development and the demand for travelTR14 – Cycle access and parking TR2 Public transport accessibility and parking TR14 Cycle access and parking SR12 Large Use Class A3 (food and drink) venues and Use Class A4 (pubs and clubs) TR19 Parking standards SU1 Environmental impact assessment SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and materials SU10 Noise nuisance SU13 Minimisation and re-use of construction industry waste SU16 Production of renewable energy QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements QD2 Design – key principles for neighbourhoods QD4 Design – strategic impact QD6 Public Art QD15 Landscape design QD16 Trees and hedgerows QD17 Protection and integration of nature conservation feature QD18 Species protection QD19 Greenways QD20 Urban open space QD27 Protection of amenity QD28 Planning obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes / Documents: SPGBH16: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy SPGBH21: Brighton and Hove Sustainability Checklist SPD03: Construction and Demolition Waste


The following national planning advice is also relevant: PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development sets out the Government’s key planning principles to encourage sustainable development and addresses crime and safety issues. PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas provides a positive framework for facilitating sustainable development that supports traditional land based activities and makes the most of new leisure and recreational opportunities that require a countryside location. PPG9: Nature Conservation emphasises the importance of both designated and undesignated areas for nature conservation. PPG15: Planning for the Historic Environment recognises that new uses may often be the key to a building’s or area’s preservation PPG17: Sport and Recreation is generally supportive of development of sports and recreation facilities but, with stresses that development in or near a site of Special Scientific Interest should only be granted subject to conditions that will prevent damaging impact.

8 CONSIDERATIONS

The main considerations in the determination of the application relate to the impact of the proposed use upon the nature and character of the area, upon residential amenity and the ecology, and traffic implications. This application is one of four proposing the development of a large area of Benfield Valley. The application needs to be considered both on its individual merit, together with the cumulative impact that the developments as a whole would have upon the area. Principle of development: The grade 11 listed Barn and derelict unlisted outbuildings form the Benfield Barn conservation area, designated July 1989. The site, as all of Benfield Valley, is located outside of the defined built up area and is wholly within Benfield Valley site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). The site is located in the countryside but outside the AONB and the current boundary of the Designation Order area for the proposed South Downs National Park, although the City is seeking its inclusion. Regardless of whether the boundary is amended, the area will lie on a key access to the National Park. National planning guidance recognises that new uses may often be the key to a building’s or area’s preservation (PPG15) whilst PPG9 emphasises the importance of both designated and undesignated areas for nature conservation. Structure Plan policies support the strengthening and development of leisure and tourist facilities, measures to protect the countryside and


areas of ecological importance.

Policy NC10 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan relates to Benfield Barn and NC11 to land and buildings within its vicinity. NC10 lists a number of appropriate uses for the Barn, including improving non-intensive community or recreational facilities appropriate to the area. Policy NC11 requires that the change of use of the land and buildings surrounding the Barn is compatible with the local natural environment and its conservation, and the need to improve public access and minimises the need for car parking.

The applicants do not consider that the uses proposed in NC10 would be financially viable or sustainable in the long term. The proposal is for a ‘café, restaurant, bar, and outside terrace with a total seating capacity in excess of 200, to open from 8am to midnight, and hotel use within 4 buildings with approximately 58 bedspaces. The Barn will be available for private hire for parties, weddings and conferences, space will be available for art exhibitions actively promoted for use by the local and wider community, including schools and, when operational, the National Park. The building will be promoted as a set-off point for local and wider walk / nature trail. One chalet is to provide bunk-bed accommodation at budget rates, similar to hostel accommodation, aimed at visitors primarily wishing to enjoy the countryside The incorporation of such community activities is welcomed. However, in general terms the application fails to effectively incorporate into the proposal the kind of uses Policy NC10 seeks to secure for the Barn. No financial scenarios including the incorporation of the uses contained in Policy NC10 have been submitted, nor evidence that consideration has been given to a mixed-use development that would seek the inclusion of the kind of community/recreation uses sought by this policy. The financial overview submitted states that on taking over the golf course the applicants have invested to improve facilities, with total overheads exceeding income, and that to make the course pay green fees need to be increased from £5 to £8 (depending on day of week and time) to £7 to £10, but with the current facilities this cannot be justified. To bring it into line with a proper golfing facility the course requires a restaurant, shop, improved toilet facilities, a driving range to warm up and practice on. Improved leisure facilities and accommodation is needed to increase attendance to the site. Existing facilities are limited to a portacabin within the barn providing reception and vending machine; planning permission was granted for a single storey building to form reception, adjacent to the car park, for a period of two years, August 2005.

Relating to the use of the outbuildings in the Barn site, policy NC11 proposes community and/or recreational activities. The policy states


that new buildings will only be granted where necessary for a scheme considered to be appropriate to the site and that the height and design of any new buildings should reflect that of the original and should not detract from the character of the barn itself and its setting. Whilst the reconstruction of outbuildings is welcomed, there are serious concerns that the scale of the proposed new development is excessive. As the supporting statement indicates, the change of use of the Barn and outbuildings is part of a larger development that also includes the insertion of a golf-course reception centre and gym with swimming pool (application BH2006/00990 and a driving range and all-weather sports pitches (application BH2006/00988). The cumulative impact of the various components of the development upon the Barn and its natural surroundings would be significant as the proposed uses are most likely to attract users from both the new reception/sports facilities and driving range. Such increased activity is likely to give rise to increased traffic with potential impact upon air and noise pollution levels, more relevantly, it is likely to have a considerable impact upon the natural environment. There is no evidence to suggest the improvement of public access to the site as required by criterion ‘e’ of Policy NC11 is being properly addressed.

The Georgian Group accept that a new use is required for the barn to ensure that the historic fabric is safeguarded against future neglect and deterioration, and welcome the restoration of the listed Barn and the rebuilding of the derelict adjacent farm buildings which would restore the setting of the barn. The Group considers the proposed use to be appropriate but question the necessity and appropriateness of the proposed conservatory linking the barn to the reconstructed piggery buildings which would entail a significant interruption in the historic roofscape and result in the barn being a stand alone structure. The conservation officer also considers that the reconstruction of the cottages and the derelict farm buildings could be justified if all the surviving structures are retained and restored and those that have to be rebuilt are based on the original buildings' footprints and are close replicas of them. Concerns are expressed about the intensity of this use which, together with the hotel use, would have a radical impact on the rural character of the barn complex. Impact on residential amenity: Policy QD27 aims to protect residential amenity. Residential development adjoins the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. The proposed extension to the barn, to form the conservatory and service area would, at the closest point, be 10m from the rear gardens of properties in Meads Avenue. The proposed extension to the barn would be highly visible from these properties. Due to differences in ground levels and existing vegetation, the development would not be


visible from properties along the eastern boundary in Sylvester Way and Hangleton Valley Drive. Many public objections raise concern that a large venue with restaurant, bar, hotel and function facilities, operating until midnight, will lead to noise, disturbance and increased traffic, to the detriment of the residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Whilst many issues could be resolved by condition, it is considered that the level of activity, including outdoor seating area, likely to be generated by the proposed use as a 58 bedroomed hotel and restaurant/bar in close proximity to residential development will result in undue disturbance. Ecological issues: Public concern has been expressed stating that the area around the barn is a habitat for a wide variety of animals and birds including badgers and foxes and with bats roosting in the barn, objecting to this commercial proposal which would result in the loss of this natural green lung. Concerns are raised that the bridleway leading to the barn may have to be widened for serve deliveries which would damage the ancient hedgerows and trees leading to further destruction of wildlife habitats. The application site is wholly within Benfield Valley Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). The application is supported by a comprehensive ecological survey report which fully supports the SNCI designation of the Valley. The Ecologist considers that whilst the survey is comprehensive and provides a reasonably accurate assessment of the value of the SNCI as a whole, it is poor in assessing the ecological effects of this proposal, that no specific mitigation proposals are included, and that it is clear from the supporting ecological survey that this proposal would, if implemented, damage the nature conservation value of Benfield Valley SNCI. The nature of the proposal means that it cannot be subject to conditions that would prevent such damaging impacts and the application therefore fails test ‘a’ of NC4. Although the submission includes statements referring to the conservation and interpretation of biodiversity in the Valley as a whole, with the possible exception of bats, no definite mitigation proposals relating to this proposal are included whatsoever. Concern is expressed over the cumulative effects of this proposal with others currently affecting the Valley and an Environmental Impact Assessment has been requested. Traffic Implications: The existing car park which serves the golf course is situated south of the barn, off Hangleton Lane. Approval was granted on appeal in 1995 for the 100 space car park which has a maximum width of30m and length of 100m.


The current car park is laid out with a gravel surface. The proposal includes several designated disabled bays and cycle provision. A drop-off point is proposed next to the main Lodge building. Objections have been made stating that the volume of development will lead to an increase in traffic to the detriment of the area. The Traffic Engineer raises no objection to the principle of the scheme subject to clarification on issues including improvement to the current access, formalisation of the layout of the car park, and a travel assessment of all the functions. In the absence of a such an assessment there is insufficient information to determine the likely effect of generated traffic on the local road network and parking. Sustainability: The applicant has completed the Sustainability Checklist (SPGBH 21) explaining how the development addresses issues contained in Policies SU2 and SU13. However, the development does not meet a key requirement concerning sustainable energy sources nor as required by SPD03 (construction and demolition waste), submitted a Site Waste Management Plan. Public Art:

Policy QD6 requires major developments to incorporate public art. Given that the development, together with others proposed in the Valley, would have a major impact on important public spaces it is considered that the scheme should include an art component.

9 CONCLUSIONS

Whilst the restoration of the grade 11 listed barn and rebuilding of the derelict adjacent farm buildings is welcome in principle, the proposed hotel, restaurant and bar uses are contrary the non-intensive community or recreational facilities favoured in the Local Plan to be appropriate to the area. The scale of the development, with indoor seating for approximately 176 people, outdoor seating for 76, to form a venue for receptions, conferences etc, and hotel with 58 bed spaces within a group of 4 buildings, is considered to be an over intensive use which would have a radical impact on the rural character of the barn complex and detrimental to the occupiers of surrounding properties and the natural habitat of the area.

10 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

The development would have to meet the requirements of Part M of the Building Regulations. Designated disabled parking spaces are proposed.


Addresses of respondents to public consultations on BH2006/00989 Letters of Objection

23 Fairfield Gardens 59, 77 Northease Drive

74, 79 Hangleton Road 7 Pipers Close

36, 38 (x2), 42, 46 (x2), 48

Hangleton Valley Drive

18 Reeves Hill

2 York Court Nizells Avenue 62 Sherbourne Road

2, 14, 22 (x2), 26, 30, 31, 32, 36, 38, 39, 43 (x2), 45 (x2)

Meads Avenue 1, 4, 10, 11 Sylvester Way

6 Meyners Close

3 Northease Close 1 Tibbs Farm Cottage

Udimore

Letters of Support

19 Pipers Close

30 (x2) Woodland Drive

Addresses of general respondents to public consultations on

BH2006/00986, 00988, 00989 and 00990 Letters of Support

1 Aymer Road 14 Mansfield Road

122 Balfour Road 39 Mortimer Road

Engagers Ltd, Maritime House

Basin Road North 1 Nevill Close

24 Berrieale Avenue Bellerbys Higher Education Centre

Old Shoreham Road

22 Bishops Road 224-226 Portland Road

73 Church Road 5 Radinden Drive

28 Petworth House Davigdor Road 17 Reynolds Road

59 Dean Court Road

58 Sheppard Way

18 Downside 73 Shirley Street

38 Dyke Road Avenue

25 The Droveway

Flat 4 Finsbury Lodge

Finsbury Road 30, 72 Tisbury Road

4 Gardener Street 134B The Ridgeway

75 Hangleton Road 8 Vallance Road

185 (x2) Hollingdean Terrace

115 Western Road


2 Hove Manor Hove Street No address 11 letters

6 Northbrooke Ashfield

55 South Street Eastbourne

1 Anderson Close Harefield

1 Railway Cottages (x2) Itchen Abbas

196 Old Street London

87 Malines Avenue Peacehaven

92 Brighton Road, 47 Harbour Way, St. Peter’s Catholic Primary School (x2)

Shoreham-by-Sea

55 Cross Road, 36 The Crescent Southwick

137 Lyndhurst Road Worthing

Letters of Objection

38 (x2) Dean Close

147 (x2) Elm Drive

2, 11 Farmway Close

87 Hangleton Road

1 Maytree Close

3, 26 Poplar Avenue

115 St Leonards Road

3, 7, 8 Sylvester Way



App Type Listed Building Consent


Proposal: Restoration and rebuilding of Barn and derelict outbuildings to form licensed café/restaurant and overnight lodge accommodation, associated landscaping works to Barn complex and car park.


24 March 2006

Con Area: Benfield Barn Expiry Date: 16 June 2006


Applicant:


1 SUMMARY

This application is to be the subject of a Sub-Committee site visit. This listed building application relates to works to the grade II listed Barn and other farm buildings which although not listed in their own right comprise buildings of a pre-1947 date within the curtilage of a listed building and therefore require listed building consent for their demolition or alteration. Given the lack of detailing to both the exterior and interior of the Barn and survey drawings or report of surrounding buildings, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed works would not have any adverse effect on the architectural and historic character or appearance of the buildings and their setting. Whilst it is recognised that the existing golf club lacks basic facilities and is in need of investment, and that a use for the listed Barn which would provide an income to secure future maintenance is required, it is considered that this application, together with the cumulative effect of the current proposals for the area, represent a large commercial development of an intensity inconsistent with the vision for Benfield Valley as embodied in policy NC9 of the local plan which aims to promote outdoor recreation consistent with wildlife habitats, the landscape and safe use of rights of way by the public. This policy was informed by the outcome of public meetings held in September 2005 to discuss a “Vision for Benfield”, in which it was found that most people like the Valley for its open space, fresh air, countryside and wildlife.


2 RECOMMENDATION That the Sub-Committee refuse listed building consent for the following reasons: 1. Benfield Barn is a grade II listed building and the other farm

buildings whilst not listed in their own right comprise buildings of a pre-1947 date within the curtilage of a listed building which require listed building consent for their demolition or alteration. Given the lack of detailing it is considered that the applicants have failed to demonstrate that the proposed alterations to the Barn and re-building of surrounding buildings would not be detrimental to the character or appearance of the listed Barn or its setting contrary to policies NC10, NC11, HE1 and HE3 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and SPGBH11 (listed building interiors) and SPGBH13 (listed building).

Informatives: 1. This decision is based on drawing nos. PL/01, 02, 02.2, 02.3 and

EX/02, and MP/01, 02 and the supporting statement submitted on 21 April 2006 and EX/01 and PL/02.1 submitted on 24 March 2006.

3 THE SITE

The application relates to an area north of Hangleton Lane including the existing car park, the Barn and surrounding derelict buildings all of which are within the Benfield Barn Conservation Area. The site is 1.24 hectares and is bounded by residential properties in Hangleton Valley Drive and Sylvester Way to the east and Meads Avenue to the north. The golf course adjoins the site to the west. The buildings are reached from the road by a bridle path which is partly nettled. Extensive vegetation runs along the eastern boundary.

4 RELEVANT HISTORY

Land south of Hangleton Lane: 3/93/0530(F): Change of use from golf course to driving range and construction of 28 golf driving range bays including administration annexe, lighting and protective screen fencing, at part of Benfield Valley golf course, south of Hangleton Lane, refused 21 September 1993. Appeal dismissed 29 June 1995. Benfield Barn: BH2000/02027/FP, BH2000/02029/FP, BH2000/02067/LB & BH2000/02068/LB: Conversion and extension of barn to proposed pub/restaurant (Vintage Inn), with associated vehicular and pedestrian access, provision and layout of 101 space car park for pub/restaurant and golf course. Proposed landscaping and open space. Withdrawn. Land adjacent to Benfield Barn:


BH200/02106/FP & BH2000/02108/CA: Erection of five new dwelling houses with parking and vehicular and pedestrian access and demolition of outbuildings. Withdrawn. Car Park: 3/94/0519(F): 100 car parking spaces north of Hangleton Lane for Benfield Valley Golf course. 15 spaces to be available for the general public. Refused 20.10.04. Allowed on appeal 29.6.95. BH2005/01362/FP: Erection of a temporary single storey building to for reception for 2 years. Granted 19 August 2005. Other applications relating to the Golf Course which are currently under consideration are listed in the covering summary report.

5 THE APPLICATION

The proposal seeks listed building consent for alterations to the barn and for the proposed conservatory and restored piggeries which adjoin this grade 11 listed building. The scheme consists of: Restaurant / Bar use: Barn: • Conversion to restaurant/bar. Formation of mezzanine level.

Indicative layout shows 28 tables, bar and lounge seating (within linked conservatory extension) for approximately 146.

• Formation of outdoor terrace/courtyard with 10 tables, providing seating for approximately 76.

• Barn to be available for hire for parties, weddings and conferences. Indoor and outdoor space to be available for art exhibitions etc.

• Proposed hours of use: 08.00 to midnight. • Details of external alterations no submitted. Barn extension / restored piggeries: • Structures to measure 33.0m in length x 6.0m wide, single storey

6.3m in height, to form seating within the conservatory, with sliding doors on to the courtyard, and toilet, staff and kitchen facilities, gated delivery bay.

Accommodation: proposed within 4 building: Lodge: • A three storey to measure 25.0m x 10.6m x 9.0m in height, to

provide 16 double rooms. Building to incorporate central projection with gable, two storey side extensions, pitched roof, dormers front and rear.

• Materials: roof: slate; walls: brick and flint: doors/windows: painted softwood.

3 detached Chalet buildings: • Building adjacent to courtyard, to measure 16.6m x 6.8m, single


storey, to form 5 rooms. • Single chalet within former store to provide 2 bedspaces, building

to measure 6.8m x 5.5m. • Bunk bed chalet within former store to form 2 rooms at budget

rated. Building to measure 7.0m x 9.2m. • Materials: roof: slate; walls: brick and flint: doors/windows: painted

softwood. Groundsman and tractor store: • Located 80m south of barn off the access track. • Building to measure 4.0m x 4.3m, no elevations given. Parking: • Existing car parking area off Hangleton Lane with parking for 83

car, 2 disabled spaces and 32 cycle spaces. • Alterations to the existing bridle path to link to car park. • New gravel surface. Proposed parking bay adjacent to proposed Lodge, 4 spaces including l disabled, and 32 cycle parking spaces.

6 CONSULTATIONS

External: Neighbours: A total of 22 letters of objection have been received, of which 8 specifically relate to this application. The addresses of the objectors are listed at the end of the report. The grounds of objection to the whole development proposals are: 1. Benfield Valley is almost the last open green space, one of the few

remaining Urban Natural Areas linking the city centre to the South Downs. Access to Benfield Valley is important as a great many people use the adjacent footpaths as an area of safe recreation in a natural and wildlife enriched environment, which is a green lung of the city. The development would only be of benefit to golfers, already well established in the Brighton area, and would deprive a community of thousands cherished and established open space. Benfield Valley is for the benefit of the whole community and not a few sports minded people, and should be preserved as such for future generations.

2. The loss of this open space would create added pressures for the neighbouring park, Greenleas. The park would then have to cope with pressures from additional users and a particularly large increase in the number of dog walkers. This will cause an increase in fouling, making the park and playground unsafe for families, children and babies.

3. Question the supporting papers submitted with the application, particularly with regards comments on earth bank and debris which were built by local children; the land is clean and clear with no evidence of alleged fly-tipping; and, the presence of extensive planning fields at Hove Park School which often appear


underused. 4. The Wild Park area is a haven for wildlife such as lizards, butterflies,

birds, plants and others; many of which are protected species and will be affected by the development. Furthermore there are a number of badger sets in the area, and the Badger Group should therefore be consulted.

5. The car park at Benfield Valley Golf Course does not have the capacity to cater for current clients with cars regularly parked outside the designated car park. The enhanced facilities will increase the demand for parking and result in overflow to the surrounding area. This is worsened by the small access road resulting in increased traffic and congestion.

The grounds of objection specific to this application are: Benfield Barn is a grade II listed building built in the 18th century, whilst the barn should be restored in a sympathetic way the proposed use is not appropriate. More suitable uses would be a reception for the golf club or small café / museum. Support A total of 56 letters of support have been received, none of which relate specifically to this application. The addresses of the supporters are listed at the end of this report. The general grounds of support to the whole development proposals are: • The local area of Portslade and Hangleton does not have many







• The facilities will be made available to local schools and it is important to offer the widest range of facilities and encourage


children to take up as wide a range of sporting options. Without approval of the plans the much needed pitches will not be provided for Hove Park School. With the Olympics coming to England in six years, any enterprise that aims to train the next generation of sports men and women is to be welcomed.

• The additional facilities may also reduce the number of malcontents that congregate around the Grenadier area and obviate the need for CCTV cameras.


Councillor Dawn Barnett: Objects – letter attached. Councillor Peter Willows: Comments awaited at the time of writing the report. English Heritage: No objection. English Nature: On the basis of the information provided, this application does not appear to have implications for protected species or sites with statutory nature designations. No objection. South Downs Society: Comments awaited. South Downs Conservation Board: Comments awaited. County Archaeologist: Comments awaited. CAG: Welcome the potential of the scheme but concerned over the details of the restoration works (how to avoid the restored buildings appearing as new build) and the details associated with the new uses such as ventilation, exterior lighting, flues etc. Wish to see further details of the lowering of the floor and alterations to the barn door. Not satisfied that the barn will be sufficiently well converted. The Georgian Group: No objection in principle, welcome the restoration of the grade 11 listed Benfield Barn and the rebuilding of the derelict adjacent farm building. Accept that a new use is required to be installed in the barn to ensure that the historic fabric is safeguarded against future neglect and deterioration, through lack of a sustainable use. Consider the use is an appropriate one, following the guidance set out in “The conversion of historic farm buildings”, English Heritage. The success of the scheme with regard to the conversion of the listed barn lies in the detailed design issues, and further information is required to assess hoe the installation of mezzanine floors and staircases would impact on the special interest of the interior space of


the barn. No objection to the reconstruction of the derelict farm building which would restore the setting of the listed barn but question the necessity and appropriateness of the proposed conservatory linking the barn to the reconstructed piggery buildings which would entail a significant interruption in the historic roofscape and result in the barn being a stand alone structure. Internal: Traffic Manager: No objection to the principle of the scheme subject to clarification on issues including improvement to the current access, formalisation of the layout of the car park, and a travel assessment of all the functions.

Planning Policy: Whereas the reconstruction of the outbuildings is welcomed, there is serious concern that the footprint and scale of the proposed new development (involving kitchen and staff accommodation, lodge accommodation and the large paved external patio)which seems excessive to the site. The cumulative impact of the various components of the development upon the Barn and its natural surroundings is significant and the proposed uses are most likely to attract users from both the new reception/sports facilities and driving range. Conservation & Design: Benfield Barn is the last unconverted listed Barn in the city. Unlike many that survive converted, it still retains its original character and all of its original structure. Therefore, special care is needed over its conversion. There are concerns about the intensity of this use which, together with the Hotel use, would have a radical impact of the rural character of the Barn complex

The reconstruction of the cottages and the derelict farm buildings could be justified if all of the surviving structures are retained and restored and those that have to be re-built are based on the original building’s footprints and are close replicas of them with only limited extensions. The proposals do not entirely follow these principles and some aspects of the design do not respect the local agricultural character of the site. In addition, the demolition of the small round cornered flint barn and the brick base of the cartlodge/granary have not been justified.

No detailed large-scale internal or external elevations of the proposals have been provided. The conversion of this building will need very careful attention to techniques, materials and details. There are strong reservations about the extent of the lowering of the Barn floor as this could be below the level of the footings.

No information has been provided of external finishes. The new openings through the north end of the Barn’s aisle are too large.


7 PLANNING POLICIES East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011: EN26 Built Environment. Brighton and Hove Local Plan: NC9 Benfield Valley NC10 Benfield Barn NC11 Land and Buildings in the vicinity of Benfield Barn HE1 Listed Buildings HE3 Development affecting the setting of a Listed Building Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes / Documents: SPGBH11: Listed buildings interiors SPGBH13: Listed buildings The following national planning advice is also relevant: PPG15: Planning for the Historic Environment recognises that new uses may often be the key to a building’s or area’s preservation

8 CONSIDERATIONS

The main consideration in the determination of the application relates to the impact of the proposed alterations and re-building on the architectural and historic character and appearance of the interior and exterior of the listed grade II Barn and its setting. Planning Policies permit alterations and extensions to listed buildings which would not have any adverse effect on their character and appearance and respect the scale, design and materials of the building and preserves its historic fabric and recognise that new uses may often be the key to a building’s or area’s preservation. Benfield Barn is the last unconverted listed Barn in the city. Unlike many that survive converted, it still retains its original character and all of its original structure. Therefore, special care is needed over its conversion. Any use would be welcome that is sympathetic to the character of the Barn, does not require it to be sub-divided internally, and provides a financially secure future for it. The proposed restaurant/bar use of the Barn appears to satisfy most of these criteria, provided that the outdoor seating areas are confined to the courtyard area. However, there are concerns about the intensity of this use which, together with the Hotel use, would have a radical impact of the rural character of the Barn complex, and lack of detailing.

Both the land and buildings have a problematic history and the cottages and other farm buildings are now derelict. The small flint barn with rounded corners largely survives intact albeit in poor condition. The flint walled and slate roofed cow biers have been largely demolished by vandals, as have the piggeries. The four farm cottages


are now in complete ruins. They were originally constructed in yellow stock brick in a Regency/early Victorian terraced style with small paned sash windows and four-panelled front doors. The two-storey granary and cartlodge has lost its timber boarded upper storey, the brick base survives. These other farm buildings are not listed in their own right, but comprise buildings of a pre-1947 date within the curtilage of a listed building and so listed building consent is also required for the demolition or alteration. The whole complex is within the Benfield Barn Conservation Area and if they are not regarded as curtilage buildings, would require Conservation Area consent to demolish.

The reconstruction of the cottages and the derelict farm buildings could be justified if all of the surviving structures are retained and restored and those that have to be re-built are based on the original building’s footprints and are close replicas of them with only limited extensions. The proposals do not entirely follow these principles and some aspects of the design do not respect the local agricultural character of the site. In addition, the demolition of the small round cornered flint barn and the brick base of the cartlodge/granary have not been justified.

The listed Barn is a single aisled construction with flint walls and a clay tiled roof. Its oak timber-framed structure of posts, tie beams, braces, purlins, rafters and struts survive. The aisle is partially partitioned off from the main part of the Barn with a low flint wall with wide oak boarding above. It was restored some years ago under a Section 106 Agreement relating to the development of the Sainsbury’s supermarket at the south end of Benfield Valley. However, it once again is falling into disrepair with many slit and missing tiles. Its current use is as facilities serving the Pay- and Play-Golf Course and WC. Inside it is a portacabin serving as ticket office and storage containers. The remainder of the Barn is used to store the grounds maintenance machinery.

No detailed large-scale internal or external elevations of the proposals have been provided. The conversion of this building will need very careful attention to techniques, materials and details. There are strong reservations about the extent of the lowering of the Barn floor as this could be below the level of the footings. There may be risks to the structure of the building in undertaking this work as it may require underpinning. The extent of ground lowering outside the Barn also needs clarification.

The proposed removal of large sections of the low masonry walling between the main part of the Barn and the side aisle at the northern end, and the widening of an opening in the outer wall leading through into the new link building would result in an unacceptable loss of fabric and internal plan form. The existing opening should be retained at its current width and any new opening through the internal wall should be no wider than a normal door.


No information has been provided of external finishes. The proposed insertion of mezzanine floors and access stairs at each end would reflect traditional hay lofts and are acceptable subject to being formed in oak and to details of their design and construction. However, this would increase its seating area and hence the intensity of use and its impact on its character and setting.

The Georgian Group, CAG and the Conservation Officer have no objection in principle to the proposed use and welcome the restoration of the listed Barn and the re-building of the derelict adjacent farm buildings. However, concern is expressed over the lack of details to ensure that the Barn will be significantly well converted. The Georgian Group questioned the necessity and appropriateness of the proposed conservatory linking the Barn to the reconstructed piggery buildings which would entail a significant interruption in the historic roofscape and result in the Barn ceasing to be a stand-alone structure.

9 CONCLUSIONS

In principle, the restoration of the grade II listed Barn and the rebuilding of the adjacent derelict farm buildings is to be welcomed. It is accepted that a new use is required to be installed in the Barn to ensure that the historic fabric is safeguarded against future neglect and deterioration. The proposed conversion of the Barn would not require substantial destructive changes and externally the appearance and character of the structure would be maintained. With regard to the proposed works to the interior of the Barn further detailed design information is required to assess the impact of the proposed mezzanine floors and staircase on the special interest of the interior spaces of the listed Barn. The proposed conservatory would result in alterations to the extensive roofscape and the Barn would cease to be a stand-alone structure. No detailed large scale internal or external elevations of the proposals have been provided. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposed alterations would be detrimental to the historic character and appearance of the listed Barn.


Disabled toilet facilities are proposed at ground floor level within the Barn.



74 Hangleton Road 3 Northease Close

31 Meads Avenue 77 Northease Drive

6 Meyners Close 18 Reeves Hill

2 York Court Nizells Avenue

1 Tibbs Farm Cottage

Udimore

Addresses of general respondents to public consultations on BH2006/00986, 00988, 00989 and 00990

Letters of Support






Old Shoreham Road




59 Dean Court Road

58 Sheppard Way


38 Dyke Road Avenue

25 The Droveway






115 Western Road










Shoreham-by-Sea





38 (x2) Dean Close

147 (x2) Elm Drive

2, 11 Farmway Close

87 Hangleton Road

1 Maytree Close

3, 26 Poplar Avenue





App Type Outline


Proposal: Outline application for semi sunken building to provide golf course reception, changing rooms, bar, pro shop, gym with swimming pool.


24 March 2006

Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 21 July 2006


Applicant:


1 SUMMARY

This application is to be the subject of a Sub-Committee site visit. This application relates to the provision of a building to form a reception for the golf course and a sports centre. It is considered that a building on this site, adjacent to the car park in an area of grassland, would be detrimental to the ecology of the area, to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and harmful to the existing Greenway network. The proposed building, whilst providing a reception to the golf course also provides a range of complementary sports facilities which would serve the wider community which the applicants have not demonstrated could not be provided within the built up area. Whilst it is recognised that the existing golf club lacks basic facilities and is in need of investment, and that a use for the listed Barn which would provide an income to secure future maintenance is required, it is considered that this application, together with the cumulative effect of the current proposals for the area, represent a large commercial development of an intensity inconsistent with the vision for Benfield Valley as embodied in policy NC9 of the local plan which aims to promote outdoor recreation consistent with wildlife habitats, the landscape and safe use of rights of way by the public. This policy was informed by the outcome of public meetings held in September 2005 to discuss a “Vision for Benfield”, in which it was found that most people like the Valley for its open space, fresh air, countryside and wildlife.


2 RECOMMENDATION That the Sub-Committee refuse outline planning permission for the following reasons: 1. The site lies outside of the built-up area boundary and within

Benfield Valley Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). The area should remain free from built development and should be reserved for outdoor recreation consistent with wildlife habitats, the landscape and safe use of rights of way for the public. It is considered that the proposed development would damage the nature conservation value of the SNCI and is therefore contrary to Policy NC9 and NC4 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

2. The proposed building is to provide a range of sports related activities which would complement, but are not directly related to the existing golf course use. Insufficient justification has been given to demonstrate that these uses need to be located on the site and that no alternative locations within the built up area are suitable. For these reasons the proposal is contrary to Policies NC5, NC6 and NC9 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

3. The proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of this part of Benfield Valley by the introduction of a prominent structure and increase activity into this area of open green landscape. The development would be contrary to Policies NC6 and NC9 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

4. The site is in close proximity to neighbouring residential development. It is considered that the proposed use and scale of development would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of the area by way of noise and general disturbance and is contrary to Policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

5. The applicants have failed to demonstrate efficiency in the use of resources and is contrary to Policies SU2 and SU13 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

6. In the absence of a Transport Assessment in relation to this development there is insufficient information to determine the likely effect of generated traffic on the local road network and parking.

Informative: 1. This decision is based on drawing nos. PL/02 and 03 and the

supporting statement submitted 24 March 2006 and drawing nos. EX01A and PL/01A submitted 5 April 2006.

3 THE SITE

The application relates to an area of land adjoining the golf club car park to the west, and is accessed from Hangleton Lane to the south. The site, 0.14 hectares, is scrub land adjoining the golf course, surrounded by large groups of bushes and vegetation. Benfield Barn


and Conservation Area lies in close proximity to the north. The site is within the Benfield Valley Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI).

4 RELEVANT HISTORY

Land south of Hangleton Lane: 3/93/0530(F): Change of use from golf course to driving range and construction of 28 golf driving range bays including administration annexe, lighting and protective screen fencing, at part of Benfield Valley golf Course, south of Hangleton Lane, refused 21 September 1993. Appeal dismissed 29 June 1995. Benfield Barn: BH2000/02027/FP, BH2000/02029/FP, BH2000/02067/LB & BH2000/02068/LB: Conversion and extension of barn to proposed pub/restaurant (Vintage Inn), with associated vehicular and pedestrian access, provision and layout of 101 space car park for pub/restaurant and golf course. Proposed landscaping and open space. Withdrawn. Land adjacent to Benfield Barn: BH200/02106/FP & BH2000/02108/CA: Erection of five new dwelling houses with parking and vehicular and pedestrian access and demolition of outbuildings. Withdrawn. Car Park: 3/94/0519(F): 100 car parking spaces north of Hangleton Lane for Benfield Valley Golf course. 15 spaces to be available for the general public. Refused 20.10.04. Allowed on appeal 29.6.95. BH2005/01362/FP: Erection of a temporary single storey building to for reception for 2 years. Granted 19 August 2005. This application is one of four relating to Benfield Golf Course. The brief covering report further explains the mix of new development proposed.

5 THE APPLICATION

The application seeks outline planning permission for the construction of a partly sunken building to form reception for the golf course, together with additional sports facilities. The building consists of: • Lower ground floor to measure 24.0m x 20.8m, to house pool (12.0m

x 7.5m) and changing rooms, gym, staff facilities and kitchen. • Ground floor level to measure 31.0m x 13.3m, to house reception,

café (approximately 32 seats), bar (floor area approximately 35m2), treatment rooms and golf shop (floor area approximately 50m2). Elliptical shape with domed roof to be grass over.

• Glazed entrance to face car park, east elevation. • Glazed viewing terrace to face golf course, west elevation, to


measure 16.0m x 4m. • Total floor are of development 846m2. • Flush entrance, lift to lower floor. • Hours of use: not stated.

6 CONSULTATIONS

External: Neighbours: A total of 27 letters of objection have been received, of which 13 relate specifically to this application. The addresses of the objectors are listed at the end of this report. The grounds of objection to the whole development proposal are: • Benfield Valley is almost the last open green space, one of the few




• The Wild Park area is a haven for wildlife such as lizards, butterflies, birds, plants and others; many of which are protected species and will be affected by the development. Furthermore there are a number of badger sets in the area, and the Badger Group should therefore be consulted.


The grounds of objection specific to this application are:


• The subterranean development has no place here and can only devastate the existing wildlife within the area, which should be considered as SNCI, and features numerous badger setts. From an environmental standpoint it would be a disaster. Spoil storage and removal presents enormous problems particularly with added traffic flows during construction.

• The proposal is too much development for an open space area which has no qualified need for this type of facility. There are sufficient sports and leisure facilities provided for all ages at Portslade Sports Centre. The lower level facilities would therefore be superfluous.

• The proposed facilities represent ‘Planning Gain’ and is nothing germane to the golf course itself. The proposal represents a Country Club and is not a valid change of use in this conservation, amenity and residential area.

• Housing development on Pipers Close, Meads Avenue, Sylvester Close and Hangleton Valley Drive may well be affected by noise from the proposed facilities.

Support A total of 56 letters of support have been received, none of which relate specifically to this application. The addresses of the supporters are listed at the end of this report. The general grounds of support to the whole development proposals are: • The local area of Portslade and Hangleton does not have many







• The facilities will be made available to local schools and it is important to offer the widest range of facilities and encourage


children to take up as wide a range of sporting options. Without approval of the plans the much needed pitches will not be provided for Hove Park School. With the Olympics coming to England in six years, any enterprise that aims to train the next generation of sports men and women is to be welcomed.



Benfield Wildlife and Conservation Group: Object to the application which is too large, in the wrong place and unsuitable for such a quiet area. • The building works and finished building will bring devastation to the

existing wildlife. Protected Badgers and Slow Worms will not return due to a lack of feeding area and general disturbance. Relocation is usually unsuccessful.

• The erosion of rural type wildlife habitat in Brighton and Hove is diminishing faster than ever before, soon nothing will remain.

• The sunken building will involve much spoil, question where the spoil will be put and removed without extending into paddocks which are an SNCI.

• Hangleton and Portslade have an exceptional number of affordable sports centre and leisure facilities, 2 community centres, Greenleas park and many more. North of Hangleton Lane is the only provision of quiet leisure for both the elderly and very young.

• Hangleton Lane is extremely difficult to cross as it has a blind bend, the vast development will increase car usage and lorry deliveries and make it a pedestrian and cyclist danger point.

Councillor Dawn Barnett: Object – letter attached. Councillor Peter Willows: Comments awaited at the time of preparing this report. Sussex Police: This location does suffer from criminal activity, particularly theft and damage to unattended vehicles. Do not identify any major concerns with the proposal but would like to see crime prevention discussed. English Heritage: No objection. English Nature: On the basis of the information provided, this application does not appear to have implications for protected species or sites with statutory nature designations. No objection.


Southern Gas: No objection. Southern Water: No objection. EDF Energy: No objection. South Downs Society: Comments awaited. South Downs Conservation Board: Comments awaited. County Archaeologist: Comments awaited. Internal: Traffic Manager: No objection to the principle of the scheme subject to clarification on issues including improvement to the current access, formalisation of the layout of the car park, and a travel assessment of all the functions. Environmental Health: Comments awaited.

Planning Policy: The developments are likely to have an adverse effect on the nature conservation features and wildlife of the site. There are serious concerns as to the impact that the uses would have on the wildlife of the site. The proposal is contrary to Policy NC4.

Policy NC9 relates to Benfield Valley stating that the area should remain free from further development and be reserved for outdoor recreation consistent with wildlife habitats, the landscape and safe use of rights of way by the public. This Policy seeks to protect one of the city’s most important open spaces and urban Greenway from development. The proposal is contrary to this aim.

There are three Greenways cutting across the whole of the Benfield Valley site which could be interrupted by the proposed developments.

The cumulative effect of the proposed developments is likely to have significant impact upon the transport of the area and should be assessed with accordance with Policies TR1 and TR2.

Policy NC5 relates to the urban fringe and states that development will only be acceptable which makes a contribution to the overall enjoyment of the countryside, integrates and enhances nature conservation features, secures environmental improvements, provides a sense of being in the countryside, and facilitates leisure and recreational uses and public access to the countryside without increasing traffic. Policy NC6 relates to development in the countryside/downland. An exception to development outside of the


built up area is made where there is no significant adverse impact on the countryside. The proposal is contrary to these policies.

The proposals qualify for public art contribution required by Policy QD6 as it involves a development that would have a major impact on important public spaces. Public art provision should have been incorporated in the design at the early stages of the proposed development

Ecologist: Object. The application site is wholly within Benfield Valley Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). The application is supported by a comprehensive ecological survey report which fully supports the SNCI designation of the Valley and identifies the area affected by this proposal as including an area of dense scrub and of semi-improved neutral grassland. These habitats are assessed in the ecology report as being of County importance. The siting of the building means that it is inevitable both of these areas of habitat would be lost. Paragraph 9 of PPS 9 protects ‘Local Sites’ (SNCIs), stating that they “have a fundamental role to play in meeting overall national biodiversity targets; contributing to the quality of life and the well-being of the community; and in supporting research and education.” Policy NC4 establishes a clear set of criteria for assessing development proposals within SNCIs. There is a general presumption against proposals where an adverse impact is likely. It is clear from the supporting ecological survey that this proposal would, if implemented, damage the nature conservation value of Benfield Valley SNCI. The nature of the proposal mean that it cannot be subject to conditions that would prevent such damaging impacts and the application therefore fails test ‘a’ of NC4. No justification has been given for siting the proposed building at this location and no alternative locations have been assessed. Concern is expressed over the cumulative effects of this proposal with others currently affecting the Valley and recommend that an Environmental Impact Assessment be requested.

Property Services: Comments awaited.

7 PLANNING POLICIES

East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011: LT1 Leisure and tourism – general LT2 Leisure and tourism – general LT3 New facilities


LT4 Measures to enhance the environment for tourist LT9 Tourist accommodation LT10 Visitor information LT18 The Arts LT11 Sporting facilities and activities LT16 Maintenance and improvement of rights of way, open access land S5 Definition of development boundaries S7 Rural areas S10 The Countryside S13 Area policies – Brighton and Hove EN7 Urban fringe areas EN17 Nature conservation Brighton and Hove Local Plan: NC4 Sites of nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) NC5 Urban fringe NC6 Development in the countryside/ downland NC8 Setting of the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty NC9 Benfield Valley TR1 Development and the demand for travelTR14 – Cycle access and parking TR2 Public transport accessibility and parking TR14 Cycle access and parking SR12 Large Use Class A3 (food and drink) venues and Use Class A4 (pubs and clubs) TR19 Parking standards SU1 Environmental impact assessment SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and materials SU10 Noise nuisance SU13 Minimisation and re-use of construction industry waste SU16 Production of renewable energy QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements QD2 Design – key principles for neighbourhoods QD4 Design – strategic impact QD6 Public Art QD15 Landscape design QD16 Trees and hedgerows QD17 Protection and integration of nature conservation feature QD18 Species protection QD19 Greenways QD20 Urban open space QD27 Protection of amenity QD28 Planning obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes / Documents:


SPGBH16: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy SPGBH21: Brighton and Hove Sustainability Checklist SPD03: Construction and Demolition Waste The following national planning advice is also relevant: PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development sets out the Government’s key planning principles to encourage sustainable development and addresses crime and safety issues. PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas provides a positive framework for facilitating sustainable development that supports traditional land based activities and makes the most of new leisure and recreational opportunities that require a countryside location. PPG9: Nature Conservation emphasises the importance of both designated and undesignated areas for nature conservation. PPG15: Planning for the Historic Environment recognises that new uses may often be the key to a building’s or area’s preservation PPG17: Sport and Recreation is generally supportive of development of sports and recreation facilities but, with stresses that development in or near a site of Special Scientific Interest should only be granted subject to conditions that will prevent damaging impact.

8 CONSIDERATIONS

The main considerations in the determination of the application relate to the impact of the proposed building and use upon the nature and character of the area, upon residential amenity and traffic implications. This application is one of four proposing the development of a large area of Benfield Valley (see covering report). The application, which is for outline consent, seeks to establish the principle of development on the site, and needs to be considered both on its individual merit, together with the cumulative impact that the developments as a whole would have upon the area. Principle of development/ecological impact: The site, as all of Benfield Valley, is located outside of the defined built up area and is wholly within Benfield Valley site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). The site is located in the countryside but outside the AONB and the current boundary of the Designation Order area for the proposed South Downs National Park, although the City is seeking its inclusion. Regardless of whether the boundary is amended, the area will lie on a key access to the National Park. National planning guidance aims to conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of wildlife and geology by sustaining, and where possible improving, the quality and extent of natural habitat. The key principles of PPS9 include a requirement that where granting planning permission


would result in significant harm to nature conservation interests, Local Planning Authorities will need to be satisfied that the development cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm. Structure Plan policy EN17 states that sites of demonstrable wildlife importance will be protected from damage. Local Plan Policy NC4 establishes a clear set of criteria for assessing developments within SNCIs. There is a general presumption against proposals where adverse impact is likely. Policy NC9 states that Benfield Valley should be reserved for outside recreation consistent with wildlife habitats, the landscape and safe use of rights of way by the public. The protection and enhancement of the site is considered to be of particular importance. The policy recognises that Benfield Valley is an important green wedge into the urban area much-used by the general public for outdoor recreation and contains significant wildlife habitats. The Valley helps to act as a green lung and is an important part of the urban Greenway, providing a broad linear open space running through Benfield Valley towards Benfield Hill. Biodiversity is a key component of the site and any use that has a significant impact upon the area’s wildlife habitats would be contrary to policy. The application is supported by a comprehensive ecological survey report which fully supports the SNCI designation of the Valley and identifies the area affected by this proposal as including an area of dense scrub and of semi-improved neutral grassland. These habitats are assessed in the ecology report as being of County importance. The Council’s Ecologist comments that the siting of the building means that it is inevitable that both of these areas of habitat would be lost and damage the nature conservation value of Benfield Valley SNCI. Concern is expressed over the cumulative effects of this proposal with others currently affecting the Valley (see covering report) and recommend that an Environmental Impact Assessment be requested. This application follows approval for a two year temporary single storey building to be located within the car park granted August 2005. The car park suffers for a lack of security and vandalism and relocating the existing facilities from a portacabin within the Barn to the car park would increase security and be beneficial to the character and appearance of the listed Barn. The work has yet to be implemented. This proposal is for a much larger building to be sited beyond the car park on open ground, with one floor below ground level; the ground floor level measures 31.0m x 13.3m within an elliptical shape and would have a grassed domed roof. The building has a floor area of 846m2 to house the reception, changing rooms, gym, staff facilities and kitchen, café (approximately 32 seats), bar (floor area approximately 35m2), treatment rooms and golf shop (floor area approximately 50m2). The


indicative drawings show a glazed entrance to face the car park (east) and glazed viewing terrace to face the golf course (west) to mesure16.0m x 4m. Whilst the green roof would reduce the impact of the building in the landscape, the structure remains essentially a large single storey building (above ground level) which, with two glazed elevations would be intrusive in this undeveloped area, particularly when lit. The applicant’s justification for the building/facility, together with the need for a driving range, is to bring the golf course into line with other courses and to increase attendance to the site. However, alternative locations have not been assessed. It is considered that the building would provide a sports facility, with gym and swimming pool, which whilst complimenting the golf course is not necessarily related. Such a facility could be provided within the built up area and insufficient evidence has been submitted to justify development within the countryside. Given the sensitivity of the site, within a SNCI and of ecological importance, with no mitigation or compensation proposals included, the proposal is contrary to conservation policies. Traffic implications: This sports facility and clubhouse form part of the redevelopment of the Valley for which no specific parking is designated. Parking for all elements of the development is to be within the existing car park north of Hangleton Lane. The Traffic Engineer requests a traffic assessment for all of the functions which should consider the implications of the generated traffic on the A293 Hangleton Lane/Hangleton Link Road roundabout, junction with Hangleton Valley Drive, the A270 junction, A27 and any modifications that may become necessary, and including other measures to ensure sustainable transport measures are to be utilised as a consequence of the development. In the absence of a Transport Assessment there is insufficient information to determine the likely effect of generated traffic on the local road network and parking. Public concern has been raised that the proposal, together with the other uses proposed within the Valley, will have major impact on traffic generation, causing nuisance and congestion. Impact on residential amenity: Policy QD27 aims to protect residential amenity. Residential development adjoins the eastern boundary of the site and public concern has been raised over the impact of the development on residential amenity. Whilst the proposed building would not be adjacent to residential development, as would the driving range and hotel and restaurant complex also under consideration, it is considered that the impact of the use, considered to be a destination use in its


own right and not just ancillary to the golf club, would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the area Sustainability: The applicant has completed the Sustainability Checklist (SPGBH 21) explaining how the development addresses issues contained in Policies SU2 and SU13. Given the location of the proposed building within a SNCI it is not considered that the development protects and maintains the biodiversity of the site, that the use secures the re-use of a vacant, underused or derelict site, as suggested by the applicant. Public Art: Policy QD6 requires major developments to incorporate public art. Given that the development, together with others within the Valley, would have a major impact on important public spaces, it is considered that the scheme should include an art component if considered acceptable on all other respects.

9 CONCLUSIONS

Planning policies generally resist development outside of the built up area. The site is of Nature Conservation Importance and includes an area of dense scrub and semi-improved neutral grassland which is of County importance. The proposed use, whilst providing a reception to the golf course also provides a range of complementary sports facilities which would serve the wider community which the applicants have not demonstrated could not be provided within the built up area. The Council’s Ecologist considers that the principle of building on the site is unjustified and would damage the nature conservation of Benfield Valley. The proposal, together with others also under consideration, would substantially change the nature of the area from one of quiet enjoyment of the countryside to a major commercial development. For these reasons the proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the area.


This is an outline application to establish the principle of development, further details could be considered in depth in the submission of reserved matters. However, the indicative plan show disabled toilet facilities, a lift and disabled parking.



29 Elder Close 3 Northease Close

79 Hangleton Road 31 (x2) Meads Avenue

31 (x2) Meads Avenue 6 Meyners Close

6 Meyners Close 77 Northease Drive

2 York Court Nizells Avenue 19 Pipers Close

1 Tibbs Farm Cottage

Udimore








Old Shoreham Road




59 Dean Court Road

58 Sheppard Way


38 Dyke Road Avenue

25 The Droveway






115 Western Road










Shoreham-by-Sea





38 (x2) Dean Close

147 (x2) Elm Drive

2, 11 Farmway Close

87 Hangleton Road

1 Maytree Close

3, 26 Poplar Avenue







Proposal: Construction of timber structures to provide shelter for proposed driving range, 3m fence to part perimeter, laying out of all weather sports pitches to south site.


24 March 2006

Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 21 July 2006


Applicant:


1 SUMMARY

The application is to be the subject of a Sub-Committee site visit. This application relates to the golf driving range and all-weather sports pitches to the southern end of the site. It is not considered to be consistent with the need for recreation facilities to be compatible with wildlife habitats and the landscape. The uses would be detrimental to the ecology of the area, to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and harmful to the existing Greenway network. Whilst it is recognised that the existing golf club lacks basic facilities and is in need of investment, and that a use for the listed Barn which would provide an income to secure future maintenance is required, it is considered that this application, together with the cumulative effect of the current proposals for the area, represent a large commercial development of an intensity inconsistent with the vision for Benfield Valley as embodied in policy NC9 of the local plan which aims to promote outdoor recreation consistent with wildlife habitats, the landscape and safe use of rights of way by the public. This policy was informed by the outcome of public meetings held in September 2005 to discuss a “Vision for Benfield”, in which it was found that most people like the Valley for its open space, fresh air, countryside and wildlife.

2 RECOMMENDATION

That the Sub-Committee refuse planning permission for the following reasons:


1. The site lies outside of the built-up area boundary and within Benfield Valley Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). The area should remain free from built development and should be reserved for outdoor recreation consistent with wildlife habitats, the landscape and safe use of rights of way for the public. It is considered that the proposed use would damage the nature conservation value of the SNCI and is therefore contrary to Policy NC9 and NC4 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

2. The proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of this part of Benfield Valley by the introduction of unsightly and unsympathetic buildings and fencing and increase activity into this area of open green landscape. The development would be contrary to Policies NC6 and NC9 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

3. Residential development adjoins the site to the east. It is considered that the proposed use and scale of development would be detrimental to the residential amenities of the occupiers of the area by way of noise and general disturbance and is contrary to Policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

4. The applicants have failed to demonstrate efficiency in the use of resources contrary to Policies SU2 and SU13 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

5. In the absence of a Transport Assessment in relation to this development there is insufficient information to determine the likely effect of generated traffic on the local road network and parking contrary to Policy TR1 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

Informative: 1. This decision is based on drawing nos. PL/01A, 02 and EX/01 and

unnumbered drawing of proposed driving range shelter, and the supporting statement submitted 24 March 2006.

3 THE SITE

The application relates to the southern part of the Benfield Valley Golf Course, south of Hangleton Lane and bounded by Sainsbury’s superstore to the south, the Hangleton Link Road (A293) to the west and residential development, the Greenleas Recreation Ground and Hove Park Secondary School to the east. The site is 5.65 hectares in size and is private land with no public right of access apart from the public footpath that runs along the eastern boundary. The lawful planning use remains as golf course. For the most part the site is grassland with some scrub at the south and along part of the footpath and dense Broadleaved Woodland to the remaining edges.

4 RELEVANT HISTORY

Land south of Hangleton Lane:


3/93/0530(F): Change of use from golf course to driving range and construction of 28 golf driving range bays including administration annexe, lighting and protective screen fencing, at part of Benfield Valley golf Course, south of Hangleton Lane, refused 21 September 1993. Appeal dismissed 29 June 1995. Benfield Barn: BH2000/02027/FP, BH2000/02029/FP, BH2000/02067/LB & BH2000/02068/LB: Conversion and extension of barn to proposed pub/restaurant (Vintage Inn), with associated vehicular and pedestrian access, provision and layout of 101 space car park for pub/restaurant and golf course. Proposed landscaping and open space. Withdrawn. Land adjacent to Benfield Barn: BH200/02106/FP & BH2000/02108/CA: Erection of five new dwelling houses with parking and vehicular and pedestrian access and demolition of outbuildings. Withdrawn. Car Park: 3/94/0519(F): 100 car parking spaces north of Hangleton Lane for Benfield Valley Golf course. 15 spaces to be available for the general public. Refused 20.10.04. Allowed on appeal 29.6.95. BH2005/01362/FP: Erection of a temporary single storey building to for reception for 2 years. Granted 19 August 2005. Other applications relating to the Golf Course which are currently under consideration are listed in the covering summary report.

5 THE APPLICATION

The proposal is for construction of a golf driving range and layout of all weather sports pitches, consisting of: Golf Driving Range: • Erection of a timber shelter to north of site, adjacent to Hangleton

Lane, to provide a 39 station driving range. • Structure to measure 120m in length x 4.3m in height x 6.0m deep

with curved roof, with bench seating at rear. • Mesh fencing 3 m high around site which is approximately 150m in

length. • Planting proposed behind the shelters. • Floodlighting is not proposed. • Hours of uses: 8am to 8pm. All weather pitches: • To be located to southern part of site, between proposed golf

driving range and Sainsburys superstore. • Area of pitches to measure 30m x 30m, to provide a range of

facilities which could include five-a-side football, netball,


basketball, tennis etc. The final mix of sports to be accommodated to be subject to agreement with the Council.

• Pitches to be available for hire to the public, but during off-peak times will be offered for use to Hove Park School but could be made available to other schools.

General: • Car and cycle parking is to be located within the existing car park

north of Hangleton Lane Remaining area: • To be maintained as open space and community playing fields.

6 CONSULTATIONS

External: Neighbours: A petition of 700 signatures has been received objecting to the proposed plans, as, ‘this open green space is one of the few remaining urban natural areas linking the city centre to the South

Downs. Adjacent footpaths are well used by residents as an area of

safe recreation in a natural and wildlife enriched environment and the

area should be preserved as such.’ A total of 51 letters of objection have been received, 37 of which relate specifically to this application. The addresses of the objectors are listed at the end of this report. The grounds of objection to the whole development proposals are: • Benfield Valley is almost the last open green space, one of the few




• The Wild Park area is a haven for wildlife such as lizards, butterflies,


birds, plants and others; many of which are protected species and will be affected by the development. Furthermore there are a number of badger sets in the area, and the Badger Group should therefore be consulted.


The grounds of objection specific to this application are: • A public range exists nearby at West Hove Golf Club, in addition to

numerous local sporting facilities, the need for further facilities is questioned. Particularly as permission for a driving range on the site was refused in 1994 and again at a subsequent appeal.

• Without floodlighting the viability of the scheme would be questioned, especially as it is proposed to operate for 12 hours a day. The use of floodlighting would then significantly add to light pollution and be nuisance to local residents and wildlife. If approved, proper restrictions would have to be placed regarding the hours in which any floodlights can be used.

• The high fences which are planned will make the adjoining footpath / cycle path dangerous, and create difficulties for passing and manoeuvring; particularly for the disabled and less agile.

• A great concern would be wildlife negotiating the area, Badger gates and access under fencing and barriers would be a priority. The proposed fences also deny free access to this green lung which people have enjoyed for generations. It is understood that when the lease was first granted for the site it was envisaged a 9 hole golf course would be created with no requirement for fencing, with the area of land also not to be built on following the Sainsbury’s development. The decision has been pre-empted by the erection of 2m high steel fencing blocking access to the land near the Fox Way roundabout, which should be removed.

• The existing footpath does not continue through the area of the proposed driving range. This footpath links with others to Portslade and onto the South Downs and is used by walkers of all ages and abilities. Alternative routes are much longer through Benfield Valley, which runs through a heavily wooded area, or along the spur road’s grass verge. These routes would be unsuitable for elderly shoppers, mothers with children and school children from Downs Park.

• The use as a driving range alongside the bypass to Old Shoreham Road is highly dangerous, with the possibility of golf balls bouncing on the road and hitting vehicles. To the other side is Greenleas Park is a children’s play area, in addition to a footpath providing pedestrian access to Sainsbury’s. There is no mention in the


applicants business plan that the balls used on the range would be quieter when hit and would follow a lower trajectory.

Support A total of 57 letters of support have been received, 1 of which relates specifically to this application. The addresses of the supporters are listed at the end of this report.. The grounds of support are: • The local area of Portslade and Hangleton does not have many







• The facilities will be made available to local schools and it is important to offer the widest range of facilities and encourage children to take up as wide a range of sporting options. Without approval of the plans the much needed pitches will not be provided for Hove Park School. With the Olympics coming to England in six years, any enterprise that aims to train the next generation of sports men and women is to be welcomed.



Benfield Wildlife and Conservation Group: Subject to the following points no objection to the planning application:- • There is Badger activity in the area, the Badger group should be

consulted. • Access under any fencing or barriers should be made to enable


badgers to forage. • Any clearance of the site must be monitored. • No trees should be felled. • No lighting should be allowed. Councillor Dawn Barnett: Object – letter attached. Councillor Peter Willows: Comments awaited at the time of writing the report. Sussex Police: This location does suffer from criminal activity, particularly theft and damage to unattended vehicles. Do not identify any major concerns with the proposal but would like to see crime prevention discussed. English Heritage: No objection. English Nature: On the basis of the information provided, this application does not appear to have implications for protected species or sites with statutory nature designations. No objection. Southern Gas: No objection. Southern Water: No objection. EDF Energy: No objection. South Downs Society: Comments awaited. South Downs Conservation Board: Comments awaited. County Archaeologist: Comments awaited. Internal: Traffic Manager: No objection to the principle of the scheme subject to clarification on issues including improvement to the current access, formalisation of the layout of the car park, and a travel assessment of all the functions. Environmental Health: Comments awaited.

Planning Policy: The development is likely to have an adverse effect on the nature conservation features and wildlife of the site. There are serious concerns as to the impact that the use would have on the wildlife of the site. The proposal is contrary to Policy NC4.

Policy NC9 relates to Benfield Valley stating that the area should


remain free from further development and be reserved for outdoor recreation consistent with wildlife habitats, the landscape and safe use of rights of way by the public. This Policy seeks to protect one of the city’s most important open spaces, and on urban Greenway, from development. The proposal is contrary to this aim.

There are three Greenways cutting across the whole of the Benfield Valley site. The north-south Greenway running through this site could be interrupted by the proposed developments.

The cumulative effect of this application along with other proposed developments is likely to have significant impact upon the transport of the area and should be assessed with accordance with Policies TR1 and TR2.

Ecologist: The application site is wholly within Benfield Valley Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). It is clear from the supporting Ecological survey that this proposal would damage the nature conservation value of the SNCI. The nature of the proposal means that it cannot be subject to conditions that would prevent such damaging impacts and the application is therefore contrary to Policies NC4 and NC9 of the Local Plan. Concern is expressed over the cumulative effects of this proposal with others currently affecting the Valley and recommend that an Environmental Impact Assessment be requested.

Property Services: Comments awaited.

7 PLANNING POLICIES

East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011: LT1 Leisure and tourism – general LT2 Leisure and tourism – general LT3 New facilities LT4 Measures to enhance the environment for tourist LT11 Sporting facilities and activities LT16 Maintenance and improvement of rights of way, open access land S5 Definition of development boundaries S7 Rural areas S10 The Countryside S13 Area policies – Brighton and Hove EN7 Urban fringe areas EN17 Nature conservation Brighton and Hove Local Plan: NC4 Sites of nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) NC5 Urban fringe


NC6 Development in the countryside/ downland NC8 Setting of the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty NC9 Benfield Valley TR1 Development and the demands for travelTR14 – Cycle access and parking TR2 Public transport accessibility and parking TR14 Cycle access and parking TR19 Parking standards SU1 Environmental impact assessment SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and materials SU10 Noise nuisance QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements QD2 Design – key principles for neighbourhoods QD4 Design – strategic impact QD6 Public Art QD15 Landscape design QD16 Trees and hedgerows QD17 Protection and integration of nature conservation feature QD18 Species protection QD19 Greenways QD20 Urban open space QD27 Protection of amenity QD28 Planning obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes / Documents: SPGBH16: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy SPGBH21: Brighton and Hove Sustainability Checklist SPD03: Construction and Demolition Waste The following national planning advice is also relevant: PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development sets out the Government’s key planning principles to encourage sustainable development and addresses crime and safety issues. PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas provides a positive framework for facilitating sustainable development that supports traditional land based activities and makes the most of new leisure and recreational opportunities that require a countryside location. PPS9: Biodiversity emphasises the importance of both designated and undesignated areas for nature conservation. PPG17: Sport and Recreation is generally supportive of development of sports and recreation facilities but stresses that development in or near a site of Special Scientific Interest should only be granted subject to conditions that will prevent damaging impact.

8 CONSIDERATIONS

The main considerations in the determination of the application relate


to the impact of the proposed driving range and sports pitches upon the nature and character of the area, upon residential amenity and traffic implications. This application is one of four proposing the development of a large area of Benfield Valley (see covering summary). The application needs to be considered both on its individual merit, together with the cumulative impact that the developments as a whole would have upon the area. Principle of development/ecological impact: The site, as all of Benfield Valley, is located outside of the defined built up area and is wholly within Benfield Valley site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). The site is located in the countryside but outside the AONB and the current boundary of the Designation Order area for the proposed South Downs National Park, although the City is seeking its inclusion. Regardless of whether the boundary is amended, the area will lie on a key access to the National Park. National planning guidance aims to conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of wildlife and geology by sustaining, and where possible improving, the quality and extent of natural habitat. The key principles of PPS9 include a requirement that where granting planning permission would result in significant harm to nature conservation interests, local planning authorities will need to be satisfied that the development cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm. Structure Plan policy EN17 states that sites of demonstrable wildlife importance will be protected from damage. Local Plan Policy NC4 establishes a clear set of criteria for assessing developments within SNCIs. There is a general presumption against proposals where adverse impact is likely. Policy NC9 states that Benfield Valley should be reserved for outside recreation consistent with wildlife habitats, the landscape and safe use of rights of way by the public. The protection and enhancement of the sits is considered to be of particular importance. This application follows a refusal in 1995 which was also dismissed on appeal (application 3/93/0530(F)) for change of use of this site from golf course to driving range and construction of 28 golf driving range bays, including administrative annexe, lighting and protective screen fencing. The facility was to be in a similar location as this current proposal with the driving range shelter in close proximity to Hangleton Lane, with about two-thirds of the site used for driving range and the remainder as public open space and sports pitches. The driving range


bays were sited at the highest part of the site and angled to ensure driving towards the target greens set out on the range. In the determination of the appeal, the Inspector commented that the site contributes significantly to the openness of the area and is an important element in its present character and appearance. In this context, it was considered that the driving range would be materially harmful as the proposed bays would be built at the highest part of the site, across most of its width, and would be prominent when seen from the south from the linear walkway. The Inspector commented that whilst the development could be screened to an extent by landscaping mounds, the mounds themselves would contribute to the loss of the area’s open character and accepted that whilst the bays would not project above the trees behind them, this would not reduce their prominence when seen from the south. It was acknowledged that Development Plan policies encouraged the recreational use of the area. However, in considering the impact of such uses, a distinction between the existing golf course and the proposal with the driving range operating on a wholly commercial basis over a 14-hour day, to be lit at night and with internal lighting for the bays, was considered harmful. The harmful impact of the bays would be further reinforced by the fencing. It was recognised that the use of the site would be more intensive than the existing, resulting in significantly more activity. The Inspector’s overall conclusion is that the proposal would materially harm the character and appearance of the area and was also considered unacceptable without adequate off-street parking. The main difference between the current proposal and the appeal is that the current application does not propose flood-lighting. It is considered that the principle and nature of development proposed is of the same nature as that considered on appeal and that the proposal does not overcome the previous reasons for refusal. Policy NC9 recognises that Benfield Valley is an important green wedge into the urban area much-used by the general public for outdoor recreation and contains significant wildlife habitats. The Valley helps to act as a green lung and is an important part of the urban Greenway, providing a broad linear open space running through Benfield Valley towards Benfield Hill. Biodiversity is a key component of the site and any use that has a significant impact upon the area’s wildlife habitats would be contrary to policy. The Council’s Ecologist is of the opinion from the supporting ecological survey that this proposal would damage the nature conservation interest of Benfield Valley SNCI and that the form of development means that it cannot be subject to conditions that would prevent such damaging impacts and is therefore contrary to policy. The Ecologist is particularly concerned about the cumulative effects of this large proposal with others currently affecting the Valley and recommends that they should be considered together


with an Environmental Impact Assessment. The proposed all-weather sports pitches are to be made available to the adjacent Hove Park School at various times. Whilst the provision of sports/community facilities is generally welcomed, the proposed facilities are essentially part of the commercial development of the Valley providing a comprehensive range of facilities to complement the golf course. As with the driving range, concern is expressed that the location of the facilities would be detrimental to the ecological value of the Valley. Traffic implications: The driving range and sports facilities form part of the redevelopment of the Valley for which no specific parking is designated. Parking for all elements of the development is to be within the existing car park north of Hangleton Lane. The Traffic Engineer requests a traffic assessment for all of the functions which should consider the implications of the generated traffic on the A293 Hangleton Lane/Hangleton Link Road roundabout, junction with Hangleton Valley Drive, the A270 junction, A27 and any modifications that may become necessary, and including other measures to ensure sustainable transport modes are to be utilised as a consequence of the development. In the absence of a Transport Assessment there is insufficient information to determine the likely effect of generated traffic on the local road network and parking. Much public concern has been raised that the proposal, together with the other uses proposed within the Valley, will have major impact on traffic generation, causing nuisance and congestion. Impact on residential amenity: Policy QD27 aims to protect residential amenity. Housing adjoins the eastern boundary of the site and public concern has been raised over the impact of the development on residential amenity. Although flood-lighting is not proposed to the driving range, it is considered that the impact of a driving range structure of 39 bays, in such close proximity to the houses in Hangleton Valley Drive, would cause noise and general disturbance. Sustainability: The applicant has completed the Sustainability Checklist (SPGBH 21) explaining how the development addresses issues contained in Policies SU2 and SU13. However, the development does not meet a key requirement concerning sustainable energy sources nor as required by SPD03 (construction and demolition waste), submitted a Site Waste Management Plan.


Public Art: Policy QD6 requires major developments to incorporate public art. Given that the development, together with others within the Valley, would have a major impact on important public spaces, if considered suitable in all other respects, the scheme should include an art component. Other issues: The facilities will be operated from the proposed club house within the semi sunken building proposed to the north of Hangleton Lane (see BH2006/00990).

9 CONCLUSIONS

Planning Policies relating to Benfield Valley state that the area should remain free from further built development and should be reserved for further outdoor recreation consistent with wildlife habitats, the landscape and safe use of rights of way by the public. The area is wholly within the Benfield Valley site of Nature Conservation Importance. There is also a Greenway cutting through the site which would be interrupted. It is considered that the proposed uses are inconsistent with the need to protect wildlife habitats and the landscape, particularly given the need for fencing around the site. Additionally, it is considered that the driving range would be detrimental to neighbouring residential properties in terms of traffic, noise and general disturbance.


No details are given as to disabled access to the facilities. The proposed use of the all-weather pitches by Schools and the community is to be welcomed.


APPENDIX 1 OF BH2006/00988


69 Amberley Drive

43 Applesham Avenue

4 Badger Close

4 Benfield Way

119 Dean Gardens

4 Drovers Close

29 Elder Close

16 Flint Close

58, 74, 79, 113 Hangleton Road

4, 10 Hangleton Valley Drive

16 Links Road

30 Lynchets Crescent

28, 38, 39, 40 Meads Avenue

2 York Court Nizells Avenue

41 North Lane

3 Northease Close

59, 77 Northease Drive

113 Portland Road

11 Romany Close

11, 62 Sherbourne Road

14 Sherbourne Way

19 Summerdale Road

11 Trafalgar Road

51 (x2) Worcester Villas

2 Letters No address given

Petition of 700 signatures

1 Tibbs Farm Cottage Udimore

Letters of Support

19 Pipers Close



1 Aymer Road

122 Balfour Road

Engagers Ltd, Maritime House Basin Road North

24 Berrieale Avenue


22 Bishops Road

73 Church Road

28 Petworth House Davigdor Road

59 Dean Court Road

18 Downside

38 Dyke Road Avenue

Flat 4 Finsbury Lodge Finsbury Road

4 Gardener Street

75 Hangleton Road


2 Hove Manor Hove Street

14 Mansfield Road

39 Mortimer Road

1 Nevill Close

Bellerbys Higher Education Centre Old Shoreham Road

224-226 Portland Road

5 Radinden Drive

17 Reynolds Road

58 Sheppard Way

73 Shirley Street

25 The Droveway

30, 72 Tisbury Road

134B The Ridgeway

8 Vallance Road

115 Western Road

No address 11 letters








Shoreham-by-Sea




38 (x2) Dean Close

147 (x2) Elm Drive

2, 11 Farmway Close

87 Hangleton Road

1 Maytree Close

3, 26 Poplar Avenue





No: BH2005/00162 Ward: STANFORD

App Type: Outline

Address: 77 Dyke Road Avenue

Proposal: Outline application for erection of 3 detached dwellings.

Officer: Guy Everest, tel: 293334 Received Date:

04 January 2005

Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 01 March 2005

Agent: Jon Andrews Ltd, Chilcote, Threals Lane, West Chiltington Applicant:

Mr and Mrs J S Vig, 77 Dyke Road Avenue

This application was deferred at the last meeting for a site visit. 1 RECOMMENDATION

That the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of this report and resolves to grant outline planning permission subject to the following Conditions and Informatives: Conditions: 1. 01.02A Outline Planning Permission. 2. Details of the reserved matters set out below shall be submitted to

the Local Planning Authority for approval within three years from the date of this permission: a) siting / levels of the buildings and access thereto; b) design and external materials; c) landscaping and surfacing of the site.

Approval of all reserved matters shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3. Full details of refuse and recycling storage facilities shall be submitted as part of the application for the approval of reserved matters. The works shall be carried out in full as approved prior to the occupation of the dwelling and the refuse and recycling storage facilities shall thereafter be retained for use at all times. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory facilities for the storage of refuse and to comply with policies SU2 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

4. Full details of secure cycle storage facilities shall be submitted as part of the application for the approval of reserved matters. The


works shall be carried out in full as approved prior to the occupation of the dwelling and the cycle storage shall thereafter be retained for use at all times. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory facilities for the parking of cycles are provided and to encourage travel by means other than the private car and to comply with policy TR19 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

5. 04.02 Lifetime Homes. 6. 05.01 BREEAM / EcoHomes. 7. Full details of a landscaping scheme, which includes hard

surfacing, means of enclosure and planting of the development, shall be submitted as part of the application for the approval of reserved matters in respect of landscaping. The scheme shall make particular provision for the retention of existing screening to the south west (rear) boundary of the application site, which shall thereafter be maintained at all times and protected during the construction phase in accordance with BS5837 and Arboricultural Practice Note 1 (PAN1). Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area, protect residential amenity and comply with policies QD1, QD2, QD16 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

8. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. All hard landscaping and means of enclosure shall be completed before the development is occupied. Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to comply with policies QD1 and QD2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

9. The existing trees along the south-western (rear) and south-eastern (side) boundaries of the site shall be protected to BS 5837 (trees in relation to construction sites) standards. Reason: In order to protect the trees at the application site and neighbouring property, and to comply with policy QD16 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

10. The application for Reserved Matters shall include further details in respect of access, which shall include pedestrian sight lines of 2m x 2m to the rear of the footway. The works shall thereafter be completed in full as approved prior to the occupation of the dwelling.


Reason: To ensure that adequate and safe access to the site for pedestrians and vehicles is provided in accordance with policy TR7 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

Informatives: 1. This decision is based on amended drawing no. 477/02 rev. A

submitted on the 17th October 2005. 2. This decision to grant Outline Planning Permission has been taken: i) having regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton & Hove

Local Plan set out below: TR1 Development and the demand for travel TR7 Safe development TR14 Cycle access and parking TR19 Parking Standards SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and minerals SU10 Noise nuisance QD1 Development design QD2 Neighbourhood design QD3 Efficient and effective use of space QD14 Extensions and alterations QD16 Trees and hedgerows QD27 Protection of amenity HO3 Dwelling type and size HO4 Dwelling densities HO5 Provision of private amenity space in residential development HO13 Accessible housing and lifetime homes; and

ii) for the following reasons:-

The development will make a more efficient and effective use of land within the built up area and the dwellings could be accommodated without detriment to the character and appearance of the site, or surrounding area.

3. The applicant is advised that the footway crossover should be

constructed in accordance with the Council's specification; please contact the Council's Streetworks Team (tel: 01273 292462).

2 THE SITE

The application site relates to a large area of garden on the south-western side of Dyke Road Avenue which extends behind no. 79 Dyke Road Avenue. The site adjoins properties to the rear on Hill Brow, which are at a significantly lower level. The surrounding area comprises detached properties set within large plots.


3 RELEVANT HISTORY

An outline application at the site for the erection of three detached dwellings was refused in 2004 (ref: BH2003/01057/OA), as it was considered:-

The proposed means of access would result in damage to or

destruction of trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order.

A subsequent appeal was dismissed; the Inspector agreed with the above reason for refusal but raised no objection to the principle of development on the site. Relevant history for adjoining plots of a comparable size to the application site include the erection of a new dwelling with driveway and parking on land to the rear of 75 Dyke Road Avenue, which was approved in 2005 after a sub-Committee site visit (ref: BH2005/01026/FP). The demolition of a dwelling and erection of three houses and one bungalow with new vehicular access on land to the rear of 73 Dyke Road Avenue and 10 Dyke Close, which was approved in 2002 (ref: BH2001/01895/FP) (now known as Yorklands).

4 THE APPLICATION

Outline planning permission is sought for the construction of three detached dwellings in the rear garden of no. 77 Dyke Road Avenue, with access through a new drive adjacent to the shared boundary with no. 75. All matters are reserved for later approval except for access, however, the applicant has submitted an indicative site layout plan, which suggests the dwellings will have an approximate width of at least 10 metres and a depth of 8 metres, be orientated on north-west / south-east axis and be two-storey in height. To accommodate the access drive serving the new dwellings a single-storey rear extension at no. 77 will be demolished.

5 CONSULTATIONS

External: Neighbours: 55, 57, 59, 61, 63 Hill Brow; 75, 79 Dyke Road Avenue; and Hove Civic Society object for the following reasons: • the proposal amounts to overdevelopment of the site, a more

sympathetic solution would be for two houses on the site; • the positioning of the dwellings indicated is in close proximity to

boundaries and may encroach on neighbouring land; • the positioning of any buildings more than one-storey in height will

dominate adjoining gardens; • due to differences in ground level, with the application site some 10

metres higher than Hill Brow, there will be a total loss of privacy; • increased noise and disturbance which would result from three new

dwellings and vehicles;


• established wildlife in the area will virtually disappear altogether; • the unsatisfactory access onto Dyke Road Avenue which will add

more traffic and congestion; • security and amenity problems associated with the new access

road being in close proximity to neighbouring boundaries; • the proposed cul-de-sac appears to have no pavement; • if the development proceeds there will be a loss of privacy to a

number of houses in Hill Brow; • if approved would set a precedent for every single property on this

side of Dyke Road Avenue, as such the application should be considered in relation to the whole of the area;

• if granted should be subject to conditions for obscure glass on elevations directly overlooking Hill Brow and require a greater distance between Hill Brow and the envisaged houses;

• understand the trees / shrubs on the eastern boundary would be preserved, if any were to be lost it would be highly detrimental to the environment and landscaping of the area;

• wish to know that fully and permanently effective screening be made a condition of any permission.

Cllr Jayne Bennett: Objects - letter attached. Cllr Vanessa Brown: Objects - letter attached. Internal: Traffic: No objections. Environmental Health: Should consent be granted would recommend conditions to ensure satisfactory refuse storage for each of the three dwellings. Southern Water: No adverse comments. Arboriculturalist: Although the trees to the rear of the property do not meet the criteria for a TPO they should be retained in accordance with BS5837. The main concern is the trees / shrubs along the eastern boundary with no. 75 which form a useful screen between the properties and it is likely their root systems extend into no. 77. The risk of damage to these roots will be high as this will be the main access for plant and materials during construction. Therefore recommend precautions are taken in accordance with BS5837 and APN1 (Arboricultural Practice Notes). On construction of the driveway attention to the same document should be had with regards level changes and the use of permeable surfaces.

6 PLANNING POLICIES

Brighton & Hove Local Plan:


TR1 Development and the demand for travel TR7 Safe development TR14 Cycle access and parking TR19 Parking Standards SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and minerals SU10 Noise nuisance QD1 Development design QD2 Neighbourhood design QD3 Efficient and effective use of space QD14 Extensions and alterations QD16 Trees and hedgerows QD27 Protection of amenity HO3 Dwelling type and size HO4 Dwelling densities HO5 Provision of private amenity space in residential development HO13 Accessible housing and lifetime homes

7 CONSIDERATIONS

The main issues of consideration are firstly, whether the proposed works will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers; and secondly the suitability of the principle of development on this site. The previous reason for refusal dismissed at appeal are also material planning considerations. The principle of three detached dwellings on this site was not a reason for refusal of the earlier application or accompanying appeal decision. Similarly in this instance it is considered the proposal for three detached dwellings would make a more efficient and effective use of the site, and subject to being in accordance with other development plan policies would be acceptable in principle. A number of concerns have been received regarding the likely impact of the proposed dwellings on amenity, particularly for residents in Hill Brow, which is significantly lower than the application site. However, this is an outline application and details of the precise siting and design have not been submitted at this stage. Notwithstanding this, the indicative layout submitted with the application shows dwellings orientated in a way that it would be possible to minimise any overlooking. This, coupled with the extensive plot depths on both Hill Brow and Dyke Road Avenue and the possibility of retaining a significant proportion of the existing boundary treatment, means the site could accommodate three dwellings without significant harm to neighbouring amenity. The principal cause for concern with the previous application was the location of the proposed access between no.s 77 and 79 Dyke Road


Avenue which would have caused significant harm to the health and life expectancy of trees the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. In response, the position of the proposed access and drive has been revised and is now located between 77 and 75 Dyke Road Avenue which requires the demolition of a single-storey side extension at no. 77. Later amendments have subsequently increased the drive width, increased the distance from the shared boundary with no. 79 to approximately 1.3 metres, and incorporated planting adjacent to this boundary. It is considered this revised location has overcome the previous reason for refusal, and the subsequent amendments will prevent any significant harm resulting for occupiers of adjoining properties. The Arboriculturalist considers that whilst the trees to the rear of the site are not worthy of a Preservation Order they should nonetheless be protected during construction works. This is important as the retention of the screening provided by the trees will minimise the impact of the development for occupiers of adjoining properties on Hill Brow. As such, condition 7 of the recommendation requires a landscaping scheme to be submitted with a reserved matters application which makes provision for the retention of the existing screening to the south-west boundary of the site. Condition 9 requires the trees to be protected to the above standard during construction. Whilst neighbours concerns relating to traffic congestion and the access arrangements are noted, no objections have been raised by the council’s Traffic Engineer.

8 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PERMISSION

The development will make a more efficient and effective use of land within the built up area and the dwellings could be accommodated without detriment to the character and appearance of the site, or surrounding area.


The new dwellings would be required to conform with Part M of the Building Regulations and condition 9 of the recommendation requires Lifetime Home standards be incorporated in their design.




Address: Cardinal Newman School, The Upper Drive, Hove

Proposal: New hockey centre pavilion including changing facilities & 2 all-weather floodlight pitches, play area for school.


03 April 2006

Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 06 June 2006

Agent: Nicola Thomas, 9 Cumberland Lodge, Cumberland Road, Brighton

Applicant:

Cardinal Newman Catholic School and Brighton & Hove Hockey Club, Cardinal Newman School, The Upper Drive, Hove

1 SUMMARY

This is a joint application made by Cardinal Newman School and the Brighton and Hove Hockey Club. The land forms additional playing fields for the School and is grassed with vegetation along part of the boundaries. The Hockey Club, which has 300 members and competes just below national level, has no dedicated pitches. The proposal is for the provision of a sports pavilion and two all weather, floodlit, pitches which will be available to the School during the school day, for Club use during the evenings and at weekends, and available for other Schools and groups in the locality, including disabled sports. The site is to the north side of Old Shoreham Road; the south side of the street and the surrounding area is residential in character. Public concerns have been expressed relating to the impact of the use, particularly of the pavilion which includes a bar area, floodlighting and traffic generation on the amenities of the area. Also much support has been received stating that the proposal would greatly enhance sport and education services in the area and enable the club to compete at national level. The proposal conforms with planning policies a subject to conditions relating to use of the pavilion, floodlighting and traffic, it is considered that the development would not unduly harm residential amenity and would provide much needed sports facilities to the benefit of the City.

2 RECOMMENDATION

That the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 10 of this report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the


following Conditions and Informatives: Conditions 1. 01.01AA Full Planning Permission. 2. 06.02A Cycle parking details to be submitted. 3. Prior to the commencement of development, full details, including

colour of the floodlights and columns and fencing hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in strict accordance with the agreed details and thereafter maintained. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to comply with policies QD1, QD2 & QD26 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

4. Prior to the floodlights hereby approved being brought into use, the floodlights shall be tested and adjusted to minimise light spillage and impact upon surrounding dwellings. The lights shall be maintained in the approved position thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard residential amenity and to comply with policies QD26 & QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

5. The floodlights hereby approved shall conform to British Standard Class 2 with a maintained average horizontal illuminance of 200 Lux & an Emin/Eav of 0.7. Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of lighting, minimal lighting spillage to safeguard the residential amenities of nearby residents and to comply with policies QD26 and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

6. The floodlights hereby approved shall only be used between the hours of 10am to 9:30pm Monday to Friday; 10am to 6pm Saturdays and 10am to 4pm Sundays. Reason: To safeguard residential amenity and to comply with policies QD26 & QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

7. The pavilion hereby approved shall only be used between the hours of 10am to 10:30pm Monday to Friday; 10am to 11pm Saturdays and 10am to 4pm Sundays. Reason: To safeguard residential amenity and to comply with policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

8. This permission shall enure for the benefit of the Brighton and Hove Hockey Club only and shall not be available for hire to other parties. Reason: This permission is granted exceptionally and only in view of the personal circumstances of the applicant and to comply with policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

9. Details of the replacement tennis courts shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and available for use before the hockey pitches and pavilion hereby approved are


brought into use. Reason: To ensure the provision of replacement facilities and to comply with policy SR20 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

10. Details of the shutters to the pavilion, shall be submitted at a scale of 1:50 for written approval by the Local Planning Authority before works commence and thereafter retained in accordance with its agreed details. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to comply with policies QD1, QD2 & QD26 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

11. Details of site levels and the cut and fill to provide level pitches, including details of the disposal of soil which should be retained within the site, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before works commence. Reason: In the interests of the minimisation and re-use of construction waste and to comply with policies SU2 and SU13 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

12. Details of a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before works commence. Reason: To ensure that the development provides for the demand for travel it will create and maximise the use of public transport, walking and cycling and to comply with policies TR1 and TR4 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

13. Details of access for deliveries to the pavilion shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before works commence. Reason: To ensure adequate means of servicing and to comply with policy TR1 and TR7 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

14. No vehicular access to the site shall be formed from Old Shoreham Road. The existing access shall continue to be used for emergency use only. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

15. A detailed survey of existing trees and the soil levels around them, and the proposed levels following grading of the site, and of the gabian wall, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before works commence. Reason: To safeguard the trees and to comply with policy QD16 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

16. 04.01 Landscaping/planting scheme. Reason: Add “and in accordance with policy QD15 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.”

17. 04.02 Landscaping/planting (implementation/maintenance). Reason: Add “and in accordance with policy QD15 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.”

18. 04.02 Landscaping/planting (protection of existing trees). Reason: Add “and in accordance with policy QD15 of the Brighton


and Hove Local Plan.” 19. 02.06A Satisfactory refuse storage. 20. 03.01A Sample of materials. 21. 05.01 BREEAM. 22. 03.03 Odour control equipment. Reason: Add “and in accordance with policy QD27 of the Brighton

and Hove Local Plan.” 23. 03.03 Odour control equipment – sound insulation Reason: Add “and in accordance with policy QD27 of the Brighton

and Hove Local Plan.” 24. No open storage.

Reason: Add “and in accordance with policy QD1 & QD2 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.”

25. 03.14 Control of amplified equipment. Reason: Add “and in accordance with policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.”

26. 03.15 Control of amplified music – not to be audible at all times. Reason: Add “and in accordance with policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.” 27. A Community Use Agreement between the Brighton & Hove

Hockey Club and Cardinal Newman School, which commits to providing access to the pitches as broadly set out in the Business Plan and secures access for the community, shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority before the use commences. Reason: To ensure access to the facilities to the benefit of all parties and to comply with policy SR17 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

28. A Sport Development Plan for the Hockey Club and the School which demonstrates how the pitches will benefit the development of hockey and other sports in the School, including objectives, targets and timetables, shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority before the use commences. Reason: To ensure access to the facilities to the benefit of all parties and to comply with policy SR17 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.”

Informatives: 1. This decision is based on drawing nos.HC01/01,02D, 03A & 05 and

the accompanying statement submitted on 3 April 2006. 2. Sport England should be consulted in the preparation of the

Community Use Agreement and Sport Development Plan. 3. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken:


i. having regard to the policies and proposals in the East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan, the Brighton & Hove Local Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011: EN1 General EN14 Light pollution EN15 Noise pollution LT11 Sports facilities and activities Brighton & Hove Local Plan: TR1 Development and the demands for travel TR4 Travel Plans TR7 Safe development TR14 Cycle access and parking TR2 Public transport accessibility and parking TR14 Cycle access and parking TR19 Parking standards SU1 Environmental impact assessment SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and materials SU10 Noise nuisance SU13 Minimisation and re-use of construction industry waste SU16 Production of renewable energy QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements QD2 Design – key principles for neighbourhoods QD15 Landscape design QD16 Trees and hedgerows QD17 Protection and integration of nature conservation features QD19 Greenways QD20 Urban open space QD25 External lighting QD26 Floodlighting QD27 Protection of amenity SR17 Smaller scale sporting and recreational facilities SR20 Protection of public and private outdoor recreation space Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes / Documents: SPGBH16: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy SPGBH21: Brighton and Hove Sustainability Checklist SPD03: Construction and Demolition Waste; and

ii) for the following reasons: The development makes efficient use of an existing recreation facility by providing all weather surfaces to be floodlit, will provide an expansion of existing school facilities and dedicated facilities for Brighton and Hove Hockey Club which will be available for use by the wider community and to disabled users. The facility is located close to the community it is intended to serve, is well served by


public transport and has adequate levels of parking. The building, a structure set within the earth is sensitively designed for its location within a sports field. For these reasons the development is highly sustainability and should operate without detriment to the amenities of the neighbouring residential areas.

3 THE SITE

The application relates to an area of open recreational land 2.16 hectares in area situated between Cardinal Newman School to the west and Brighton, Hove and Sussex Sixth Form College to the east, used by the school for games and sports. The land is leased to the School by the City Council and although often used by the general public it does not form public open space. The site is accessed through Cardinal Newman School with access off The Upper Drive. A railway line, largely within a cutting bisects the school fields from north to south, which forms the western boundary of the site and is screened by a tree/hedge belt. The southern boundary adjoins the Old Shoreham Road and is formed by a low open fence; the south side of the street and adjacent area is residential. To the north is Dyke Road Park and the northern boundary of the site is defined by a hawthorn hedge and within the north-west corner are hard surfaced tennis and basketball courts surrounded by a 3m chain link fencing. The boundary to the east is undefined and runs along the back of an existing marked out football pitch. Apart from the landscaped features around the boundaries and the courts, the area is laid out as grass with groups of trees to the south of the courts, within the south-west corner of the site and along the southern boundary opposite Glendale Road. The site slopes down from north to south by 8.5m.

4 RELEVANT HISTORY

3/74/0244: Change of use of 0.46ha (1.15 acres) of land for all-weather games area. Granted. BH1998/00419/FP: Cardinal Newman Lower School, Radinden Manor Road: Multi purpose artificial turf sports pitches, incorporating ground works and levelling, timber retaining walls with planting, 3m high galvanised /plastic coated fencing. Granted 15.5.98

5 THE APPLICATION

The proposal is for the construction of 2 artificial sports pitches, with associated pavilion, floodlighting, emergency access and parking. This is a joint application made by Cardinal Newman School and the Brighton and Hove Hockey Club. The school has 2030 pupils aged 11 – 18 years, and uses 4 grass pitches, limited by weather conditions and the time of year. The Hockey Club, founded in 1896 has 300 members, with 9 men’s, 7 women’s, youth and children’s teams. The adult teams compete just below national level and the Club is one of the premier


clubs within the county. The vast majority of the membership is drawn from the west Brighton area who meet at the Old Pavilion Building in Preston Park, opposite Preston Drove, who travel to Sussex University and the Stanley Deason Leisure Centre to play. The Club is in competition with other users to use these venues, the standard of the pitches are variable, and has no control over their management. All pitches currently used by the Club are sand-based, in contrast to this proposal for one sand-based pitch and one sand-dressed pitched, the latter of which is a requirement for a club playing National League hockey. The proposal is to support and enhance curriculum and competitive sports activities at Cardinal Newman School and will be available to the School during the school day, to address the current lack of control the Club has over its venues and to enable its members to play at the highest possible level. The facility would be available for other schools and groups in the locality to enhance sports development in the wider area and could be used for other sports, including disabled sports. The proposal is for the construction of: Sports Pitches / floodlighting: • 2 artificial pitches to measure 63m wide x 102m in length, orientated

east-west, parallel to Old Shoreham Road. • Pitches to be surrounded by green polyester powder coated mesh

fencing 1.2m high along the long sides, 3m to the shorter sides, and 5m in height to the area 20m in length behind the goals.

• Both pitches to be floodlit with 8 lights, 4 along each length, on lighting columns 13m in height.

• To form a level playing surface a cut and fill will redistribute material around the site. Pitch no.2, adjacent to Old Shoreham Road, will be approximately 3m above road level; pitch no.1, between proposed pavilion and pitch no.1, 5.5m above road level.

• Hours of use: Weekdays: 10am to 9:30pm; Saturdays: 10am to 6pm; Sundays: 10am to 4pm.

Pavilion: • To house changing facilities, toilets, meeting/social room, kitchen,

bar. Hot food is to be prepared and served, particularly in winter. • Building 36m long x 13m deep x 4.7m in height to be set into the

ground, using the slope of the land. Floorspace 352m2. • Roof to be grassed, to incorporate 9 rooflights. • Viewing platform above roof with balustrade the length of the

building. • Front glazed elevation to be the only visible part of the structure;

curved in form. Shuttered at night. • Hours of use: Weekdays: 10am to 10:30pm; Saturdays: 10am to

11pm; Sundays: 10am to 4pm. Access / Parking: • Access to the site is via the existing access serving Cardinal


Newman School from The Upper Drive. • School has 114 parking places in 2 main areas, with general parking

in southern parking area of the site. • Disabled parking is within the smaller northern car park. The single

flight of steps to the site will be ramped to form disabled access. • Emergency access is via the existing crossover onto Old Shoreham

Road. • No new access points to the highway or parking provision are

proposed. • Existing cycle parking, 30 spaces. Proposed, 18 racks south of the

Pavilion. Employment: • 1 full time post (facilities manager), 2 part time (sports coaches). Existing tennis/basketball courts (at north western corner of site): • To be replaced with new hard surfaced area adjacent to the

western boundary. 6 CONSULTATIONS

External: Neighbours: A total of 119 letters of have been received, 101 supporting the development and 18 against; the addresses of the respondents are listed in Appendix below. The grounds for objections are: • The development, incorporating raised viewing areas, floodlights

and pavilion, will be intrusive and completely change the character of this green open space.

• The adjoining residential areas largely consist of family houses and good use is made of this space. The developer’s suggestion that children could walk another half mile to Hove Park is not reasonable or safe.

• Hockey itself is not a major sport. Even if the School can make use of the facilities, as the School has a restrictive admissions policy most people in the area could not send their children there so could not use the proposed facilities.

• The site with its present low-level use by Cardinal Newman School for games periods, both formal and informal, has not caused any problems for residents. This commercial development will result in over-intensification and undoubtedly lead to future pressure to infill the area between the proposed development and BHASVIC gymnasium to the east. The city needs to keep its green and open spaces.

• The proposal will cause a material nuisance in terms of both light and noise, potentially until 10 pm every week-day night. This land is currently not used at all after dark, which should remain the case.

• Local people have long been supportive of the recreational and sporting use of the field which provides a highly valued and much-needed area of greenery. However, the development is too


obtrusive and in the wrong place. The immediate local infrastructure will not be able to adequately support it without it seriously undermining the quality of life for local residents.

• Loss of amenity, particularly taking into account the high fence along the Old Shoreham Road frontage.

• The bar with late-night opening will lead to disturbance and noise in this predominantly residential area, especially in the Summer months when doors and windows will no doubt be left open. Also, no doubt if approved, an extension will be sought to the opening times during the week.

• The floodlighting, mounted on high poles, would be a devastating intrusion to residential properties, an eyesore and used all year round.

• The development will exacerbate levels of crime in the area. • Increased volume of traffic along the Old Shoreham Road. • Increased parking. • Adverse impact on adjacent trees. • Proposed planting to screen the development will take many years

in order to grow to a sufficient height to hide the 13 m high floodlights.

• Creating a new access road onto the Old Shoreham Road will lead to a higher volume of traffic on what is already a very busy, dangerous and narrow road and one that is very difficult to cross near Silverdale Road.

The reasons for support are: • The new facilities will significantly enhance sports and educational

services within the area. • The application appears to comply with planning regulations,

particularly with regard to its appearance, size and suitability, minimal impact upon local residents, disabled access, use of existing access and the availability of pedestrian, cycle and public transport.

• The School has good outdoor sports facilities for its 2,000 pupils. However, being grass, there are times when these are unusable. The proposed artificial pitches will allow sports to take place year-round. Other local Schools will also have access to these facilities.

• The Hockey Club has achieved considerable success in recent years. In order to maintain this and progress further, it needs improved facilities. It is committed to achieving national league status and improving coaching to local children. This serves the needs of the local community with respect to healthy living, encouraging excellence, child development and protection.

• There are often times when existing facilities in the local area are fully booked which indicates that there is more demand than supply for astro pitches and community facilities for all types of sporting activity, not only hockey. The new facilities are badly needed by the Club which plays at Stanley Deason and the University which are


difficult to reach at times, particularly by young players. There is a high drop-out amongst the junior section primarily because of the lack of late-night public transport links to the current pitches.

• There will be minimal impact upon the limited number of local residents who overlook the site. The floodlighting has been designed to minimise spillage light on to surrounding properties and the use of padded boards will minimise potential disturbance. The planting of extra trees will further assist in these respects.

• The entire site would be accessible and fully usable by disabled people.

• The proposal makes use of the School’s existing access and extensive parking facilities. The only new access will be for emergency vehicles.

• The site is conveniently located to take advantage of walking, cycling and public transport routes, thus reducing the potential for extra journeys.

• The location and design of the proposal offers a large number of significant benefits for the local community with very little social cost.

• The existing Club lacks proper training facilities and basic amenities, such as an astro pitch connected to the Club. The proposal provides these needs.

Councillor Anne Giebeler: Supports residents in their objections. Sussex Police: No objections - do not identify any major security concerns. The security measures to the pavilion, including shutters, are appropriate to minimise crime risk. Suggest that School pupils are invited to design a decorative finish to the shutters which could be accomplished by way of a competition within the School. In this way pupils will ‘buy’ into the ownership of the development. The pitches will be protected by weldmesh fencing which is durable. The floodlight specification is to a standard that is unlikely to cause pollution; the Police are aware of other similar sites where lighting barely spills outside of the pitch area. Sport England: Have reviewed the Business Plan and consider the proposal acceptable subject to conditions to secure a Community Use Agreement jointly signed by Brighton & Hove Hockey Club and Cardinal Newman School which commits to providing access to the pitches as broadly set out in the Business Plan and secures access for the community, and a Sport Development Plan (SDP) for the hockey club and the school which demonstrates how the pitches will benefit the development of hockey and other sports in the school. This should provide objectives, targets and timetables. On the basis of the above conditions, Sport England will withdraw its original objection as the proposal could be considered to meet the following criteria of Sport


England’s Playing Fields Policy E5. Sussex County Sports Partnership: (Sussex Disability Sports Development Officer): Support the application which will improve disabled sports services in the area and designed with disabled users in mind. The pavilion has dedicated disabled changing/toilet facilities, shower cubicles wide enough for wheelchairs, the hallways have a simple straight through layout making them easy to negotiate by wheelchair and visually impaired users, entrance doors are sliding for ease of use. Pitches have gates wide enough for wheelchairs and the pathways linking the facilities have been designed to be use by people with disabilities. This development will support strategic planning to increase access and inclusion in sporting opportunities for disabled people in Sussex. Sussex Hockey Foundation: Support the facilities which will significantly enhance hockey in the area. Brighton and Hove Hockey Club have achieved considerable success in recent years and are committed to achieving National League status and improving the level of junior coaching offered to local children. In order to maintain this and progress further they need improved facilities. The proposal serves the needs of the School, Club and community as a whole. Existing arrangement, using a Pavilion in Preston Park and pitches at East Brighton and the University for the largest Hockey Club in Sussex, with 16 teams in Sussex and regional leagues, is not ideal. Internal: Traffic Manager: No objection subject to a Travel Plan as the proposal introduces activities beyond school hours. Details of means of access for deliveries / parking for the pavilion and floodlighting will need to be submitted and agreed by condition. The access to Old Shoreham Road should remain solely as an emergency access only. Sustainable Transport (Street Lighting Engineer): No objection. Recommend that the pitches be lit to the British Standard Class 2 with a maintained average horizontal illuminance of 200 Lux & an Emin/Eav of 0.7 that covers training, local and regional levels of competition. Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions. Planning Policy: No objection. The proposal involves an open and green natured area that is well used by schools as an overspill of play space and an informal recreation area for nearby residents. The proposal involves only a minimal loss of playing field to accommodate al club house and involves the enhancement of the areas already used to all-weather pitches. There are no policy objections in terms of policy SR20. Justification of the need for the large bar area is required


for a facility associated with a school playing field. The provision of new sports facilities to be shared with the community which is welcomed. The pavilion is designed to be set into the slope is aesthetically positive.

In respect of the floodlighting regard should be given to policies QD25 and QD26. Policy TR1considers development and the demand for travel. The proposal provides an additional 18 secure cycle spaces on site and that the proposal benefits from good transport links. The applicants state that provision of such a facility at the school will decrease the need to travel to Preston Park and East Brighton and Falmer to play hockey games as the majority of the club members live in closer proximity to The Upper Drive. Car parking provision is provided on site. Policy QD17 considers protection and integration of nature conservation features. The applicant states that they will be planting some new trees including common ash and thin oak. Further enhancements should be considered in order to mitigate any effects of the proposal such as hedging etc to soften the appearance of the proposal. Policy QD20 relates to Urban Open Space. The proposal does not result in the loss of any significant open space and is not considered contrary to QD20. Arboriculturist: As the site is in Council ownership trees within the grounds are not subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). However, several trees are fine specimens worthy of a TPO. Concerned that trees close to the pitches may be damaged by the proposal, particularly by changes in level gradings and the removal of spoil. Should approval be granted request an accurate tree survey and of the levels around the trees, and details of the disposal of soil to ensure that it is not does cause damage to trees within the site. Ecologist: Comments awaited. Quality of Life and Green Spaces: Support the proposal. Over the past few years the Department has been working with the club in trying to secure a site where the club’s home base and pitches could be brought together in one location. This action was originally detailed in the draft Sport & Recreation Strategy (1999) action plan.

7 PLANNING POLICIES

East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011: EN1 General


EN14 Light pollution EN15 Noise pollution LT11 Sports facilities and activities Brighton and Hove Local Plan: TR1 Development and the demands for travel TR4 Travel Plans TR7 Safe development TR14 Cycle access and parking TR2 Public transport accessibility and parking TR14 Cycle access and parking TR19 Parking standards SU1 Environmental impact assessment SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and materials SU10 Noise nuisance SU13 Minimisation and re-use of construction industry waste SU16 Production of renewable energy QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements QD2 Design – key principles for neighbourhoods QD15 Landscape design QD16 Trees and hedgerows QD17 Protection and integration of nature conservation features QD19 Greenways QD20 Urban open space QD25 External lighting QD26 Floodlighting QD27 Protection of amenity SR17 Smaller scale sporting and recreational facilities SR20 Protection of public and private outdoor recreation space Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes / Documents: SPGBH16: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy SPGBH21: Brighton and Hove Sustainability Checklist SPD03: Construction and Demolition Waste The following national planning advice is also relevant: PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development sets out the Government’s key planning principles to encourage sustainable development, promotes good design and addresses crime and safety issues. PPG17: Planning for Space, Sport and Recreation, states that open space, sports and recreational facilities should be easily accessible and has a vital role to play in promoting healthy living and can be a focal point for community activity.

8 CONSIDERATIONS

The main considerations in the determination of the application relate


to the principle of the proposed development and its impact on neighbouring residential amenity, including potential light and noise pollution, traffic implications and the benefit of the facilities to the city. Principle of development: The application seeks to form two artificial sports pitches and a pavilion on the site of open land currently forming overspill playing fields for Cardinal Newman School. This is a joint application between the School and the Brighton and Hove Hockey Club which, whilst one of the premier clubs in the county, does not have its own facilities. The pitches are to be floodlit with perimeter fencing and landscaping and the pavilion incorporates a bar and social room. The pitches will be available for school use during the day in term time and for the Club and community use out of school hours, at weekends and in the evenings. The development will make use of current car parking facilities, provide additional cycling facilities and improve disabled access. Planning policies QD20 and SR20 aim to resist the loss of areas of public or private open space and protect public and private recreational space. The land forms playing fields for the School who permit local residents to use the area on an informal basis. In the circumstances, it is not considered that the proposal will result in a loss of public open space. The proposal involves only a minimal loss of playing field to accommodate a pavilion. The requirement for two pitches is driven by the size of the Club and its aspirations to develop and grow. At present, 4/5 match time slots (1.5 hours each) are required per pitch on Saturdays, with 12-16 hours of mid-week training. Two pitches would facilitate flexibility of use, particularly for developing the junior sections and after-school clubs. The Club states that it has carried out an extensive search of other sites within the City which have good proximity to public transport links and to members, which would reduce the need to travel, and with close proximity to schools to encourage participation. No alternative suitable locations were found. Sport England originally raised concerns for the need for two pitches on the basis that an oversupply of artificial pitches in the City could result in some becoming unviable, falling into disrepair and unusable. A Business Plan has been submitted indicating that sufficient income would be built up in a ‘sinking fund’ to maintain the pitches which usually require the surface to be replaced after 8-12 years usage and consider the proposal acceptable subject to conditions to ensure the submission of a Community Use Agreement and a Sports Development Plan; these are requested by conditions 27 & 28.


The proposal, which would enhance an existing sports/recreational area, conforms with planning policies and is welcomed in principle and supported by Quality of Life and Green Spaces who have been working with the club in trying to secure a site where the club’s home base and pitches could be brought together in one location. Impact on residential amenity: The site is opposite Old Shoreham Road, the south side of which with adjacent streets are residential in character. Many objections have been received stating that the use, floodlighting, pavilion with bar, and increased traffic, will be detrimental to the residential amenities of the area, detracting from the existing open and green nature of the site. Floodlighting: Policy QD27 aims to protect residential amenity; policy QD26 relates to floodlighting and states that whilst floodlighting can help to enable land to be used more efficiently by increasing the hours of use that a sports pitch can be used, care needs to be taken that it is not detrimental to the amenities of the surrounding area and does not create a dangerous distraction for highway users. Floodlighting is required to enable use of the pitches in the evening, particularly in winter, to satisfy League safety regulations, and secure additional streams of funding. The proposal is for 8 x 13m high columns to each pitch, to enable use until 21.30 on weekdays, 18.00 on Saturdays and 16.00 on Sundays. The applicant has submitted technical data on existing levels of lighting in the area and details of the proposed floodlights which have been designed with cowls to limit light spillage beyond the pitches. The report states that given the existing lighting along Old Shoreham Road the impact of light spillage from the proposal on the residential properties along the road will be minimal. The Council’s Lighting Engineer is of the opinion that the proposal is acceptable subject to a condition to ensure that it is in accordance with specific standards, which is requested by condition 5. Sussex Police comment that the floodlight specification is to a standard that is unlikely to cause pollution and are aware of other similar sites where lighting barely spills outside of the pitch area. Pavilion: The proposed pavilion is to provide changing facilities, refreshments and enable the social element of the Club to be fostered. Hours of use are proposed from 10.00 to 22.30 midweek, until 23.00 on Saturdays and 16.00 on Sundays. The applicant’s state that the proposed hours are required to ensure the facility is used to its full potential and be financially viable. One of the Club’s aims is to promote healthy living and education and whilst it is important to ensure revenues at least


match running costs, any surpluses would be reinvested towards this aim. Additionally they state that there is generally little demand for the bar midweek and that they have no objection to limiting use on these days to two hours, closing no later than 22.30. This would be a licensing issue. With regard to impact on local amenity, the Club states that it has a proven track record of being considerate to the needs of local residents. The current Club’s pavilion is within 20m of housing and there have been no complaints of disturbance; the proposed location is 170m from the nearest residents. The proposed bar would operate as the existing which is for members and visiting teams only with guests required to sign a guest-book and abide by the rules of the Club. The facility will not be sublet for parties. Given the distance from the nearest neighbouring properties which are along the Old Shoreham Road, with vehicle access from The Upper Drive only, it is considered that the use should operate without causing undue disturbance to the residential amenities of the area. The Environmental Health Team has no objections to the scheme subject to conditions controlling hours of use. Visual Impact: Planning policies state that all new development must be of a high standard of design and make a positive contribution the visual quality of the environment. The site is currently grassed, sloping down from north to south, to Old Shoreham Road, with landscaping along the western boundary and other groups of trees around the site. This landscaping will remain; the major change to the site’s appearance will be to create level surfaces for the pitches. It is proposed to cut and fill with all soil remaining on site. The pavilion building is designed to fit within the contours of the land and is to be grassed over; only the front elevation, which will be curved, will be generally visible. The building is of an innovative design suitable for it setting within a recreational area. Sussex Police consider that security measures to the pavilion, including shutters, are appropriate to minimise crime risk. Lighting columns and fencing can be of a colour to reduce visual impact. Additional landscaping along Old Shoreham Road is proposed and will provide additional screening to the development. Trees / wildlife: Existing trees around the site are to be retained and new landscaping proposed. The Arboriculurist raises no objections to the proposal. The Ecologist confirms that no wildlife habitats would be affected by the development. Traffic Implications: Policy TR1 requires development to provide for the demand for travel


they create. The proposal utilises existing parking facilities within the School with vehicular access restricted to the current entrance to The Upper Drive. Additional cycle parking and improved disabled access is proposed. The Traffic Engineer raises no objection to the proposal and requests that a Travel Plan be required for the Club use; this is requested by condition 14. The applicants state that the site is in close to the homes of the majority of users and that the facility will reduce current travel needs. It is of major concern to the Club that many young members find difficulty in travelling from the area to Sussex University and East Brighton to play and that this is a major factor for young people in particular leaving. It is considered that the provision of a site for the Club within its main catchment area will alleviate these problems. Sustainability: Against the Council’s Sustainability checklist this development scores highly. The proposal makes efficient use of the land as a sports resource, will reduce the current need for travel and is well served by public transport. The site slopes 8.5m from north to south and the proposed pavilion, to be an earth shelter within the banks of the site would benefit from insulation, keeping it warm in winter and cool in summer. The south facing glazing provides passive solar gain and the building is designed to use no more than 50% of the energy of comparable buildings. Building materials will be sourced locally where possible, grey water will be recycled, timber products will be from renewable sources.

9 CONCLUSIONS

The application has attracted objections and support. The area is currently grassed over and used as an additional recreational area by the School. Whilst the proposal would result in the land being much more intensively used, it is considered that with conditions to ensure that lighting spillage is minimised, that the pavilion is used for the benefit of the Hockey Club only, and that vehicular access remains as existing, from The Upper Drive, that the use would operate without undue disturbance to the surrounding area. The provision of a sporting facility to facilitate competition at a national level, and which is available to the School and the local community, is to be welcomed.


The development makes efficient use of an existing recreation facility by providing all-weather surfaces to be floodlit, will provide an expansion of existing School facilities and dedicated facilities for Brighton and Hove Hockey Club which will be available for use by the wider community and to disabled users. The facility is located close to the community it is intended to serve, is well served by public transport


and has adequate levels of parking. The building, a structure set within the earth, is sensitively designed for its location within a sports field. For these reasons the development is highly sustainability and should operate without detriment to the amenities of the neighbouring residential areas.


Planning policies state the need for proposals to cater for the needs of people with disabilities. The pavilion has dedicated disabled changing/toilet facilities, shower cubicles wide enough for wheelchairs, the hallways have a simple straight through layout making them easy to negotiate by wheelchair and visually impaired users, entrance doors are sliding for ease of use. Pitches have gates wide enough for wheelchairs and the pathways linking the facilities have been designed to be use by people with disabilities. The Sussex Disability Sports Development Officer supports the proposal stating that it increases access and inclusion in sporting opportunities for disabled people in Sussex.


Addresses of respondents to public consultations Letters of Support

27 Barrhill Avenue Flat 2 - 12 Salisbury Road

1 Bates Road 9 Sandringham Close

115 Beatty Avenue 79 Sandringham Drive

32 Bigwood Avenue 31 Selborne Road

Flat 1, 26-28 Brunswick Street East

9 Shanklin Road

22 Buller Road 100 Shirley Street

61 Burstead Close 20c Stafford Road

5 Canterbury Road The Manse, 51a Surrenden Crescent

62 Chester Terrace 36 Surrenden Park

27a Palmeira Avenue Mansions

21-23 Church Road

Newtimber, 64 Surrenden Road

56 Cleveland Road 21 Tennis Road

40 Compton Road Flat 17 - 87 The Drive

4 Court Close 17 Tivoli Road

65 Cranmer Avenue 10 Manhattan Court

Tongdean Lane

Flat 8, Centenary House

Cumberland Road

12 Vale Avenue

1 Pinewood Curwen Place 5 Westfield Rise

67, 78 Dudley Road 2 Whippingham Street

23 Prestonville Court

Dyke Road Flat 3 - 27 Wilbury Villas

22 Elizabeth Avenue 73 Woodland Avenue

9 Evelyn Terrace 72 Woodland Drive

56 Fernwood Rise Alistair Thomson No address

17 Furze Hill Court Furze Hill Prasad Sasidharan

BN1 5BE

65 Gordon Road Leigh Bond BN1 6SR

19 Graham Avenue 32 Hamilton Court

BN1 6RN

128 Hartington Road South House BN2 9WW

3 Acacia Court Herbert Road Tara Rogers BN2 7LA

18a Highcroft Villas Geoffrey Wheeldon

BN2 3LP

68 Highdown Road 44 Sovereign Court

BN2 5SH


41 Hollingbury Rise Studio Cottage BN3 6EF

21 Hove Park Road Flat 3, Wilbury Lodge

BN3 3PA

36 Hythe Road 3 The Daisycroft, Henfield

32 Jordan Court Ingram Crescent West

14 Semley Road, Hassocks

177 Ladies Mile Road Little Copyhold Henfield Road, Albourne

30 Lansdowne Place

11 Park Cottages BN6 9UW

26 Lauriston Road 16 Laganvale Court

BT9 5BH

39, 109 Loder Road 29 Carnegie House

BN13 1MW

2 Medmerry Hill 7 Lakeside 126 Brighton Road, Lancing

161 Nevill Avenue Flat 11, Saxon Court

43-51 Ceylon Place, Eastbourne

35 New Church Road

24 Sheppard Way

BN41 2JD

10 Newmarket Terrace

227 Old Shoreham Road, Southwick

73 Oaklands Avenue

18 Hancock Way, BN43 5JG

110 Old London Road

1 Clyde Terrace, Station Road, Steyning

14, 25 Old Shoreham Road

10 Courtyard Forest Grange, Colgate

34 Overhill Gardens 3 Coullstock Road, Burgess Hill

50 Over Street 76a North Street, London

75 Pembroke Crescent

29 Princess Street, Palmerston North, New Zealand

34 Queen Alexandra Avenue

Flat 19 - 50 Rochester Gardens

46 Rose Hill Close

74 Rugby Road


Garden Flat, 15 St Catherine’s Terrace

Flat 3 - 9 St Michael’s Place

TOTAL ADDRESSES: 101


32 Chanctonbury Road

9, 12, 28 Silverdale Road

44 Veric 16-18 Eaton Gardens

87 Wilbury Crescent

22 Glendale Road

4, 6, 10, 12, 18, 20, 22 (joint owners), 24 (first floor front), 34, Flat C - 36, 38a (The Bungalow)

Old Shoreham Road

TOTAL ADDRESSES: 18


No: BH2006/01430 Ward: ST. PETER'S & NORTH LAINE


Address: Block G, Brighton Station Site

Proposal: Development of Block G for 21 Town Houses and 14 apartments with 1,138 sq metres of B1 office/workspace development with associated access and car parking.

Officer: Andy Watt, tel: 292102 Received Date: 28 April 2006

Con Area: Expiry Date: 28 July 2006

Agent: White Young Green, Academy House, 36 Poland Street, London, W1

Applicant:

QED Brighton Ltd, 1 The Parade, High Street, Findon, West Sussex

1 SUMMARY

This report considers an application for full planning permission on land to the east of Brighton Station. This application is located within the area of land known as the Brighton Station Site (BSS) or New England Quarter (NEQ). Planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment of the entire Quarter through outline consent with certain reserved matters approved. A regulatory Masterplan was also approved as part of that outline consent. Works have commenced on site and the new station car park is complete and the highway works have also been completed. The planning application (which is referred to as the Masterplan), together with the signed section 106 agreement, is a material consideration. Block G has been identified in the Masterplan as a strip of land running north to south, located on the eastern edge of the upper ‘plateau’ of the site. It sits between the approved language school (Blocks L-M, currently under construction) to the west and a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) to the east. The application represents an additional 11 residential units and 255 extra sq m of B1 office/workshop floorspace from that permitted as part of the Masterplan. Together with a small (1.07 m) increase in height of the buildings at each end of the scheme, the proposal also incorporates an additional 12 car parking spaces, both on- and off-site. The outline application was supported by an environmental statement and a screening opinion was conducted before this application was lodged. It was established that a further environmental statement was not required, because the new application would not further exceed any of the relevant thresholds, so would not be significant in terms of


generating additional environmental impacts. The key issues considered in this application include: the acceptability of the land uses on this site, the design of the buildings, the conservation of the retaining wall, housing type and size, public realm, sustainability, ecology, increased numbers of parking spaces, outdoor recreation space and accessibility. Amended plans have been received to address concerns over accessibility, design, transport and ecology. Limited re-consultation was carried out and views are awaited. The report concludes that the proposed development is acceptable when considered against the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance, outline planning application and relevant planning policies, and that, subject to the satisfactory resolution of a number of outstanding issues, planning permission should be granted.

2 RECOMMENDATION

That the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 10 of this report and resolves that it is minded to grant planning permission subject to: (i) Conditions: 1. 01.01AA Full planning permission. 2. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not

be initiated by the undertaking of a material operation as defined in section 56(4)(a)-(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development, until a Planning Obligation pursuant to s.106 of the said Act relating to the land has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority and it has notified the persons submitting the same that it is to Local Planning Authority's approval. The said Planning Obligation will provide: • £22,000 towards sustainable transport modes. • £16,694.78 for provision of recreational open space activities.

This includes provision for children’s play and adult/youth provision, to be divided between The Level (£4,954.84) and the top of the London Road car park (£11,739.94).

• £10,000.00 to assist with costs of managing the northern and southern SNCI and managed by B&HCC Countryside Management Team.

• £5,000.00 for Public Art. The developer to participate in the existing Public Art Steering Group, with an obligation to demonstrate art influence, and contribution to be used by the existing appointed artists.

• To secure 37% affordable housing (equating to 13 units).


• Sustainability measures, including: 40% carbon emission savings in accordance with the already agreed base case, bespoke EcoHomes and BREEAM Excellent, green procurement procedure in accordance with the already agreed Framework Green Procurement Procedure, solar panels and mechanism to utilise grey water system in the residential units and office block.

• Training Strategy for the provision of on site training (during the construction phase) in association with City College.

• Employment Strategy for the construction and operational phases in association with Constructing Futures at City College and recruitment links with City College.

• Provision and implementation of a Travel Plan for the B1 block, in accordance with the already agreed Framework Travel Plan, to include the monitoring of the use of the disabled spaces.

• Implementation of the southern and northern SNCIs prior to the occupation of Block G.

• Mitigation measures during construction phase to be in accordance with those in operation currently under the Masterplan S106.

• Phasing the development such that the residential units are not occupied until completion of the B1 units.

Reason: In the interests of the appropriate development of the site and mitigation of the impact of the development proposed and to comply with policies TR1, TR2, TR8, TR13, TR14, TR15, SU2, SU3, SU13, SU14, SU16, QD6, QD17, QD18, QD19, QD25, QD27, QD28, HO1, HO5, HO6, EM1, EM2, EM9, EM13 and NC4 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

3. The B1 premises shall not be open or in use except between the hours of 07.00 and 21.00 hours on Mondays to Fridays, and between 08.00 and 21.00 hours on Saturdays and between 09.00 and 19.00 hours on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with Policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

4. 02.01A No permitted development (extensions) 5. No part of the buildings hereby approved shall exceed the roof

heights as shown in the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to safeguard the appearance of the development, to comply with policies QD1, QD2, QD3, QD4 and HE3 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

6. Notwithstanding the details shown on the drawings hereby approved, details of the following shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development: i) samples of the external building finishes; ii) detailed drawings at a scale of 1:20 showing surface finishes,

junctions between materials, panelling, cill arrangements and


window treatments; iii) details of the hard and soft landscaping and lighting. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved. Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and to comply with policies QD1, QD2, QD3, QD4, QD15, QD25, HE3, HE6 and EM13 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

7. The railings hereby permitted shall match exactly the specification that is in the New England Quarter site. Drawings of this shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to first occupation of Block G, and thereafter shall be retained. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, to comply with Policy QD1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

8. No development shall take place until a detailed, measured survey of the existing retaining wall, showing detailed proposals of how existing parts of the retaining wall will be refurbished has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Once the local planning authority have given their written approval to such survey, the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter maintained. Reason: In the interests of the visual and ecological amenities of the area, to comply with Policies QD1, QD17 and QD18 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

9. 25.06A Method of piling 10. 25.07A Infill material 11. 05.02 Demolition and construction waste 12. 02.05A Refuse and recycling storage (facilities). 13. 25.02A Use of clean uncontaminated material. 14. 25.04A Contamination – Investigation and remediation. 15. 25.08A Scheme for surface water drainage. 16. Development shall not begin until drainage details, incorporating

sustainable drainage principles, and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, and the scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to improve water quality, to comply with Policy SU5 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

17. Development shall not begin until the applicant has demonstrated to the local planning authority that the existing sewerage infrastructure (i.e. the sewer’s storm overflows, sewage pumping stations and STWs), can accommodate the likely increase in sewage volumes as a result of this development without causing a deterioration in the quality of the receiving waters. This information


shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter maintained. Reason: It has not been demonstrated that the development’s foul sewage can be accommodated by the existing sewage infrastructure without causing deterioration in the quality of the receiving waters, and to comply with policy SU5 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

18. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the local planning authority, for an addendum to the Method Statement. This addendum to the Method Statement must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and from the date of approval the addendum(s) shall form part of the Method Statement. Reason: To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of the environment and harm to human health, and to comply with Policies SU9 and SU11 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

19. A scheme for the suitable treatment of all plant and machinery against the transmission of sound and/or vibration shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The use of the premises shall not commence until all specified works have been carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties and to comply with policy QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

20. 05.01 BREEAM / EcoHomes 21. 04.02 Lifetime homes 22. Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans, a further

1 (one) unit shall be identified for wheelchair accessible housing. Detailed plans showing its layout shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development and shall thereafter be retained. Reason: To secure such accommodation as part of an overall objective to meet the city’s housing needs and to provide a mix of accommodation that secures equal access to housing for people with disabilities, in accordance with Policy HO13 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

23. No development shall commence on site until a scheme for the landscaping of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall include details of hard landscaping, planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations


associated with tree, shrub, hedge or grass establishment), schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities and an implementation programme. Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development in the interests of visual amenities of the area and to comply with policies QD1, QD15 and EM13 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

24. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. All hard landscaping and means of enclosure shall be completed before the development is occupied. Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development in the interests of visual amenities of the area and to comply with policies QD1, QD15 and EM13 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

25. No development shall commence until details of nesting boxes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include position, number and type of boxes. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details proposed. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and to comply with policies QD17, QD18 and EM13 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

26. No development shall commence until details of the proposed green walls have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include a specification for construction, maintenance, irrigation and future maintenance. The development shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the details proposed. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and to comply with policies QD17, QD18 and EM13 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

27. 06.01A Retention of parking area. 28. 06.03A Cycle parking facilities to be implemented. 29. Vehicular movements for the purpose of loading and unloading,

and any unloading of vehicles for commercial units shall only take place between the hours of 07.00 to 18.00 hours on Monday to Friday, 07.00 to 13.30 hours on Saturdays and not at all any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining properties and to comply with policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

30. Detailed drawings of the area shown indicatively on drawing no. IMA-06-027-008 (submitted on 12 June 2006) for unloading shall be


submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted. If, for any reason, the Traffic Regulation Order is objected to, then the applicant shall provide such space within the car park of the B1 premises and submit these details for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of the Block G development. The development shall then be laid out in accordance with the agreed details and thereafter be retained. Reason: In the interests of highway safety, to comply with Policy TR7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

(ii) Informatives: 1. This decision is based on drawing nos. PL010; Plan 1, 2, 3 and 4;

IMA-06-027-001, 002 and 003; White Young Green Planning Statement; IMA Transport Planning Transport Statement; WCEC Architecture Design Report; NIFES Consulting Group Sustainability Statement; Watson Whittaker Partnership Construction Statement and Green Procurement Strategy; Site Waste Management Plan; Statement of Compliance with Original Environmental Statement; and Community Consultation Report submitted on 28 April 2006; drawing nos. PL020, PL030, PL100B, PL110B, PL120B, PL121B, PL122B, PL130B, PL131B, PL140B, PL141B, un-numbered montage submitted on 9 June 2006; and drawing nos. IMA-06-027-007, IMA-06-027-008, SK10 and SK11 and Hemsley Orrell Partnership Structural Report submitted on 12 June 2006.

2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken: i. having regard to the policies and proposals as set out in Section 7

below: Planning Policy Guidance/Statements: PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (Feb 2005) PPG3: Housing (Mar 2000) PPG4: Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms (Nov 1992) PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (Aug 2005) PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (Jul 2005) PPG13: Transport (Mar 2001) PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment (Sep 1994) PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (Jul 2002) PPS22: Renewable Energy (Aug 2004) Regional Planning Guidance for the South-East (RPG9): Q1 Urban areas – prime focus for new development Q2 Quality of life in urban areas Q3 Location and design of development RE1 Regional economy RE5 Sites for commerce and industry


RE7 Priority Areas for Economic Regeneration H4 Affordable housing H5 Housing on previously developed land T1 Minimising the distance people need to travel T2 Travel awareness and travel plans T3 Parking standards T4 Walking and cycling INF4 Energy conservation and renewable energy Draft South East Plan (2nd ed, 2006): CC1 Sustainable development CC2 Climate change CC3 Resource use CC4 Sustainable construction CC5 Infrastructure and implementation CC8 Urban focus and urban renaissance CC11 Supporting an ageing population CC12 Character of the environment and quality of life RE3 Human resource development RE5 Addressing intra-regional economic disparities H1 Housing provision H3 Location of housing H4 Affordable housing H5 Housing density and design H6 Type and size of new housing T5 Mobility management T7 Parking T8 Travel plans and advice NRM1 Sustainable water resources, groundwater and river water quality management NRM4 Conservation and improvement of biodiversity NRM7 Air quality NRM8 Noise EN1 Development design for energy efficiency and renewable energy EN2 Combined heat and power W2 Sustainable design, construction and demolition M1 Sustainable construction BE1 Management for an urban renaissance TC1 Development of town centres TC3 New development and redevelopment in town centres S3 Supporting healthy communities SCT1 Core sub-regional strategy SCT2 Enabling economic regeneration SCT7 Broad amount and distribution of future housing development East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011: S1 Twenty One criteria for the 21st Century


S13 Brighton & Hove S29 Implementation E1 Economy and Employment (General) E3 Land and premises (Quantity) E4 Land and premises (Quantity) E7 Regeneration of Existing Land and Premises H1 Housing Provisions H4 Affordable Housing H6 Lifetime Housing TR1 Integrated Transport and Environmental Strategy TR3 Accessibility TR4 Walking TR5 Cycling TR9 Public Passenger Transport TR11 Public Passenger Transport TR13 Redundant or Disused Transport Routes TR16 Parking Standards for Development TR17 Commuted Payments TR18 Cycle Parking EN1 The Environment (General) EN11 Water Quality and Conservation EN12 Water Quality and Conservation EN17 Nature Conservation EN20 Nature Conservation EN21 Nature Conservation EN26 Built Environment EN27 Conservation of Energy W10 Construction Industry Waste Brighton & Hove Local Plan: TR1 Development and the demand for travel TR2 Public transport accessibility and parking TR7 Safe development TR8 Pedestrian routes TR11 Safe routes to school and school safety zones TR12 Helping of independent movement of children TR13 Pedestrian network TR14 Cycle access and parking TR15 Cycle network TR18 Parking for people with a mobility related disability TR19 Parking standards SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and materials SU3 Water resources and their quality SU4 Surface water run-off and flood risk SU5 Surface water and foul sewage disposal infrastructure SU8 Unstable land SU9 Pollution and nuisance control


SU10 Noise nuisance SU11 Polluted land and buildings SU13 Minimisation and re-use of construction industry waste SU14 Waste management SU15 Infrastructure SU16 Production of renewable energy QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements QD2 Design – key principles for neighbourhoods QD3 Design – efficient and effective use of sites QD4 Design – strategic impact QD5 Design – street frontages QD6 Public art QD7 Crime prevention through environmental design QD15 Landscape design QD16 Trees and hedgerows QD17 Protection and integration of nature conservation features QD18 Species protection QD19 Greenways QD20 Urban open space QD25 External lighting QD27 Protection of amenity QD28 Planning Obligations HO1 Housing sites and mixed use sites with an element of housing HO2 Affordable housing – ‘windfall’ sites HO3 Dwelling type and size HO4 Dwelling densities HO5 Provision of private amenity space in residential development HO6 Provision of outdoor recreation space in housing schemes HO13 Accessible housing and lifetime homes EM1 Identified employment sites (industry and business) EM2 Sites identified for high-tech and office uses EM9 Mixed uses and key mixed use sites EM13 Brighton Station – mixed uses NC4 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) and Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS) HE3 Development affecting the setting of a listed building HE6 Development within or affecting the setting of conservation areas HE8 Demolition in conservation areas HE11 Historic parks and gardens HE12 Scheduled ancient monuments and other important archaeological sites Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents:


SPGBH3 Brighton Station Site Brief (Oct 1998) SPGBH4 Parking Standards (Sep 2000) SPGBH9 A Guide for Residential Developers on the Provision of Outdoor Recreation Space (draft, Jul 2002) SPGBH16 Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (Jul 2004) SPGBH21 Brighton & Hove Sustainability Checklist (May 2004)

SPD03 Construction and Demolition Waste (Jan 2006)

SPD06 Trees and Development Sites (Mar 2006); and

ii. for the following reasons: The principle of the uses proposed in this application is acceptable, having already been established and approved as part of the Brighton Station Site Masterplan application. It is considered that the design is acceptable and that the proposed development would not have any adverse impact on the nearby listed buildings or conservation areas. The proposal is considered to make effect and efficient use of the land and is sustainable. Although the parking provision could be lower, it is nevertheless consistent with local plan policy and additional compensatory measures have been secured to provide for more sustainable modes of transport in accordance with local plan policy. The proposal introduces nature conservation features adjacent and within the site, enhances the existing Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) and makes adequate provision for off-site recreation space contributions. The identified impacts and mitigation measures are considered to be appropriate and acceptable. The development generally accords with central government advice, Local Plan Policies and the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Station Site SPGBH3.

3. The applicant will need to contact EDF Energy, Connections,

Projects South, Bircholt Road, Parkwood, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 9XH (0845 234 0040), as their equipment is likely to be affected by the new development.

4. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the information and

disclaimer on the letter, plans and safety note provided by Southern Gas Networks, dated 16 May 2006.

5. Should any contaminants or unexpected findings be identified


during the construction phase, they should be investigated and made known in writing to the local authority.

6. The applicant is made aware of his legal obligation to secure the

consent of Network Rail’s Outside Party Engineers to all works on and adjoining the Block G site.

7. Under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, if it is proposed to

fill, divert, obstruct or culvert a watercourse, the applicant would require the prior consent of the Environment Agency (who seek to avoid culverting, and generally withhold consent for such works).

8. Under the terms of the Public Health Act 1936, culverting of a

watercourse also requires the prior written approval of the local authority.

9. Although the Environment Agency is not aware of any

watercourses on the site, should any be found, the applicant is advised that: they should not be culverted; a buffer zone should be left on either side of any watercourse; and culverted watercourses should not be built over, but should ideally be opened up and made a feature of the site.

10. The applicant is advised that the lounge/kitchen window to

Apartment 24 may not be sufficient in meeting Building Regulations, and that the external design should be amended to better reflect the internal amendments that were requested to meet accessibility standards.

(iii) The expiry of the publicity period on 27 June 2006 relating to amended plans (provided that no material planning considerations are raised, which are not already dealt with in the report).

3 THE SITE

The Brighton Station site comprises an area of 8.9 hectares and is located to the east of the Grade II* listed Brighton Railway Station. As detailed in Section 4 below, this site was subject to an outline application for comprehensive redevelopment for a mixed use scheme including retail, office, food and drink, offices and workshops, hotel, language school, community facility and residential uses. Outline planning consent was granted in 2003 (including reserved matters for Blocks A-D and O-R). Since then the basic site infrastructure has been laid out and further consents have been given on a block-by-block basis (K (full) and L-M (reserved matters)). The site subject of this application, Block G, is a rectilinear strip of land following the line of the greenway and Stroudley Road, which form its


eastern and western boundaries respectively. The site is between 10 and 14 metres in width and 205 metres long, and runs south to north, terminating adjacent to a Grade II listed single span railway bridge that crosses New England Road. Occupying 0.28 ha in area, the site sits atop the eastern extremity of ‘The Plateau’ of the Brighton Station Site (as described in the Masterplan). A series of retaining walls that run beneath the site and appear immediately adjacent, drops approximately 7 metres to a ‘greenway’ which runs through the entire Brighton Station site. This greenway made up of a number of parts, one of which is designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). Block G was once part of the locomotive works and has been formed by raised levels, above the old railway line that now forms the greenway. It is currently being used for storage of machinery and equipment for the main construction site. The land comprising the entire BSS/NEQ generally falls from west to east away from the station towards New England Street and on to London Road. Site Surroundings: Currently the site is enclosed by the new highway, known as Stroudley Road, and the greenway (northern SNCI), for which works have yet to be completed. To the west is Block L-M, which has permission for a Language School, on which construction is underway. To the north is New England Road, situated some 20 metres below the site levels, and a dense area of woodland, occupying the embankment slopes. To the east is a set of discrete industrial and commercial buildings (e.g. scrapyard, decorator’s trade outlet, office, place of worship), fronting New England Street. To the south is the southern SNCI, what will eventually be the Block E – F housing and community facility, plus the Block K hotel and office block (currently unbuilt, but full planning permission recently granted). The NEQ site is adjoined at its south-west corner by the West Hill Conservation Area, which includes Brighton Station, and along part of the southern side of Cheapside by the Valley Gardens Conservation Area. To the south of Trafalgar Street lies the North Laine Conservation Area. Aside from the Grade II listed railway bridge spanning New England Road and the Grade II* listed Brighton Station itself, the site is also in the vicinity of the Grade I listed St Bartholomew’s Church, on Ann Street, to the south-east of Block G. Policy Framework: The Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005 designates the Brighton Station Site as a whole for the following uses:


• EM1 – Identified employment sites (industry and business) (identifies

Brighton Station Site as mixed use site including business/industrial use, workshops, starter units and live work units amounting to 19,843-26,941 sq. m);

• EM2 – Sites identified for high-tech and office uses (identifies Brighton Station Site as mixed use site including business/industrial use, workshops, starter units and live work units amounting to 19,843-26,941 sq. m);

• EM9 – Mixed use and key mixed use sites, identifies Brighton Station Site for employment uses, both offices and small workshops; mixed housing tenures and accommodation types including live work units; public open spaces; retail uses; community services and education/training);

• EM13 – Brighton Station – mixed uses (states that permission will be granted for a fully integrated mixed-use development incorporating housing; employment; retail; community uses, including public open space; and a hotel in accordance with the development brief);

• NC4 – Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI’s) and regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS) (identifies Brighton Station Site as a SNCI).

4 RELEVANT HISTORY

The site has a long planning history, the most relevant of which is outlined below: 84/1941/OA and 84/1942/OA: On 17/09/85 two applications for Outline Planning Permission were refused for shopping facilities including unit shops, a department store and superstore with ancillary uses, the Preston Circus relief road and associated highway improvements, access roads and service areas, pedestrian malls and bridges, British Rail customer car parking, public and other parking, public transport facilities, housing, education facilities and light industrial uses. BH1997/00244/OA and BH1997/01178/OA: Two applications for Outline Planning Permission were submitted in 1997 by J. Sainsbury Developments and Railtrack (now Network Rail) for a superstore of 5,740 sq. m gross (3,530 sq. m net) floor space, with 325 space surface car park, together with 50 residential units on 3 storeys north of the proposed store (all affordable in 3-storey building) and 4,645 sq. m of B1 floor space on 2 levels with 80 car park spaces. BH1997/00244/OA was withdrawn and BH1997/01178/OA was refused by the council on 27/01/98 for the following reasons: • Traffic impact; • Operation of store car park;


• Would harm ‘nature conservation interests’; • Retail component ‘sufficiently at variance with current policies’; • Sufficiently at variance with current transport policies; • Adverse visual impact on nearby listed buildings; • Harmful more generally in townscape terms as it would remove the

opportunity for comprehensive redevelopment and regeneration; • Serious under-provision of housing. An appeal against this decision was dismissed on 23/09/98. The appeal decision established four criteria by which any future development should be judged: • It should support London Road and not effectively act as an out of

town facility; • Parking provision and travel modes should contribute towards a

sustainable development; • It should take account of the surrounding conservation areas, and

listed buildings; • It should provide adequate housing to meet needs. Following the appeal decision, community planning events were held in October 1999. This directly led to the establishment of a working group to produce the planning brief for the site. The Brief was approved as Supplementary Planning Guidance on 4 October 1998 as SPGBH3. BH2001/01811/OA: In August 2001 an application for a Masterplan Outline planning permission, with certain reserved matters approved was submitted for the redevelopment of the site. The mixed use scheme included; retail, hotels, office, food and drink, community facilities, housing, a training centre, public open space and associated highway works. That application was agreed for approval by Members in December 2002 and permission was issued on 9th September 2003 following the signing of a S106 Legal Agreement. BH2002/02533/FP: Erection of a combined heat and power (CHP) unit, including thermal store, chimneys, improving vehicle access, boundary fencing and associated site works. The proposed site was located on land adjoining 10 New England Road and to the rear of 53 New England Street. The purpose of the CHP plant was to assist with the energy needs of the New England Quarter. The application was refused on 11/02/04. BH2004/00138/OA: Variation of Condition 26 of BH2001/01811/OA to permit the use of Blocks L – M for mixed use residential school, college or training centre and office (Class B1(a)) uses. Agreed for approval at committee meeting of the 25 February 2004, subject to a deed of


variation of the S106 Agreement. The decision notice was issued on 26 August 2004. BH2004/01236/RM - Block L – M: Reserved matters for design, external appearance and landscaping for school and office facility including student residential and refectory pursuant to outline planning permission BH2001/01811/OA. Application agreed for approval on 30 June 2004 and decision issued on 1 July 2004. BH2005/00136/FP - Block J: Mixed-use development incorporating a public square; a 42 storey northern building comprising 146 residential units (class C3) and a hotel and ancillary facilities including restaurant, cafes, conference facilities and health and fitness centre (class D2); a 6 storey southern building comprising retail (class A1) and café (class A3) uses and 25 residential units (class C3), the enhancement of a site of nature conservation interest; provision of a station link; and associated landscaping and conservation features, servicing, access and parking. The Application was refused on 29 April 2005. An appeal has subsequently been lodged against the refusal. A Public Inquiry date has been set for 7-24 November this year. BH2005/00463/FP – Block K: Mixed use development incorporating a 5/6 storey 3 star hotel in the northern part of the site, providing 262 bedrooms and ancillary facilities (class C1) and a 4 storey office development (class B1), a public open space, a piazza and a formally landscaped garden. Application withdrawn on 24 May 2005. BH2005/05142 – Block K: Mixed use development incorporating a 5/6 storey 3 star hotel in the northern part of the site, providing 234 bedrooms and ancillary facilities (class C1) and a 4 storey office development (class B1), a public open space, a piazza and a formally landscaped garden. (Amended Scheme). Application agreed for approval in January 2006 and the section 106 signed on 3 April 2006. BH2005/06229: Construction of a 'Ranger Style' path on the embankment plus ramp to the New England Road footpath to form part of pedestrian link from Brighton Station to New England Road - awaiting determination. BH2006/00137: Construction of a pedestrian walkway and guard rails across the listed bridge to link the Brighton Station Northern Site of Nature conservation interest walkway to New England Road (via a new path to the New England Road embankment) – awaiting determination. BH2006/01761 – Blocks E - F: Mixed-use development comprising 172 residential units (Class C3), 1,206 sqm office space (Class B1) and 972 sqm community space (Class D1), accommodated within two blocks


(Block E seven to ten storeys in height and Block F six to eight storeys in height) together with private and public open spaces and additional landscaping – awaiting determination.

5 THE APPLICATION

Full planning permission is sought for development of Block G within the Brighton Station Site/New England Quarter. This application seeks a departure from provisions contained within the previously approved Masterplan application, and the changes can best be summarised in the table below: Masterplan application for Block G Block G full application No. of blocks 3 3 Residential floorspace 2,880 sq m 3,557 sq m Total no. of residential units 24 35 Mix of units 24 x 3-bed townhouses 21 x 3-bed townhouses 9 x 2-bed apartments 5 x 1-bed apartments Affordable units 30%; no figure given 37%, equating to 13 units Wheelchair accessible units 10%; no figure given 2 (however, 1 more is to be secured through condition) Employment floorspace 883 sq m B1 workspace 1,138 sq m B1 office/ workspace


Total no. of car parking spaces 22 34 On-street spaces 22 8 Off-street spaces 0 26 Disabled spaces 5 6 Total no. of cycle parking spaces Not specified 39 Maximum indicative height 50.00m AOD 51.07m AOD Each townhouse garage will possess its own internal space for a bicycle, while the remaining 2 townhouses without a garage and the apartment block will contain a cycle store close by (adjacent to a refuse store). The cycle parking area for the B1 use is laid out as providing space for 8 bicycles to park. The layout of the built form is described from south to north as follows: The B1 uses are arranged in a 6-storey building (3 storeys above ground floor, when measured adjacent to the highway, and 2 below to meet up with the level of the greenway). Then there is a separate terrace of 9 townhouses arranged over three levels, then a small gap, then a final terrace of 12 townhouses linked to a 5-storey apartment block. The top floor of each townhouse is set back from the greenway with balconies placed at each level. The two houses nearest the apartment block are slightly smaller and do not possess garages, whereas the other 19 do. A canopy shelters the front door and there is an external refuse store at the front of each building.


The design of the office and apartment blocks at both ends does not exceed 51.075m AOD, according to the submitted plans. The townhouse blocks in the middle are exactly 3 metres lower, and sit atop the existing retaining walls, except for the southern-most section of the office block. Their design is contemporary, in accordance with the remainder of the NEQ site, with oversailing flat roofs, inset fenestration and horizontals emphasised throughout. There are large sections of glazing on the eastern elevation of the townhouses, and in part on the apartment block and office block. Brise soleil is used on the southern, curving elevation of the office block. Materials are a mixture of render, timber cladding, zinc cladding and terracotta blocks. Amended plans have been received to address concerns over accessibility, design, transport and ecology. Limited re-consultation was carried out and views are awaited.

6 CONSULTATIONS

External: Neighbours: Brighton Urban Wildlife Group: Concerns over multiple planning applications on a site, which means that we cannot judge the effect of numerous proposals on the integrity of a site if each is considered in isolation over a long period of time. Main concern is to retain, enhance and better link (especially running south) the vital wildlife corridor through the site, linking up at the northern end of the disused railway line, which takes the ‘green ribbon’ on to Preston Park. Trusts the council, through its ‘masterplan’ [of the site], is aware of the need to conserve nature and ensure viability of a working wildlife corridor. Further comments awaited.

Churchwarden, St Bartholomew’s Church, Ann Street: No objection – pleased to see the parish being restored and look forward to the repopulation of the area. Amended comments awaited. Brighton & Hove Economic Partnership: Supports proposal – scheme will have no significant impact upon visual appearance of the site or diminish the sustainable design principles demanded in the Masterplan. Welcomes additional housing units, which respect original design principles stipulating only three storeys, and that they will meet Ecohomes “excellent” standard. While noting applicant’s willingness to increase affordable housing element to 37%, would wish to see proportion of affordable housing at 40% as per adopted Local Plan. Do not consider increase of 7 or 8 parking spaces (with only 4 on-street) to have any significant impact on congestion or the Council’s stated aim of encouraging modal shift. Also approve of provision of an extra


(approximately) 250 sq metres of office space which will increase total to nearly 1140 sq metres with a Planning Use Class that makes it appropriate for a residential area. CAG: No objection. DAAG: No comment received. East Sussex Fire & Rescue: No comment received. EDF Energy: Appears there are high and low voltage underground cables within the area, so developers will need to contact EDF Energy as their equipment is likely to be affected by the new development. English Heritage: Do not wish to make detailed representations. Recommend that this case should be determined in accordance with government guidance, development plan policies and with the benefit of your conservation advice locally. Overall the proposals seem to mostly accord with the supplementary planning guidance brief for this site, and we do not consider the scheme impacts significantly on St Bartholomew’s Church or the Station building itself. However, the scheme would benefit from more defined articulation of roof forms and blocks, nearer towards the station in particular. A more defined set back of the upper level accommodation so the height is less prominent would be helpful. The over sailing elements and balcony forms need to consider the relationship to the base walls, which seems a potentially rather cumbersome detail at present. The spaces between the northern end block of the proposed scheme and the listed Railway Bridge could be better handled particularly as these relate to the public realm and greenway links. These seem currently a rather cramped space. We would encourage a more defined distinct but more elegant termination of the north end of the scheme, the north elevation appears rather bland and stronger modelling would be beneficial. There is no need to consult English Heritage further on this application. English Nature: Wish to see provision for bird nesting boxes, to include designs specifically to attract swifts, house martins, starlings and house sparrows. Environment Agency: No objections in principle, provided certain conditions are imposed on any planning permission granted. Network Rail: Given that the site was former railway land there is a


legal obligation on the developer to secure the consent of Network Rail’s Outside Party Engineers to all works and this is the stage at which my colleagues would assess the structural stability issues of the embankment. I am not aware that the formal approval has been given by NR’s Engineers and you may wish to check this with the applicant. Further comments awaited. SEEDA: No comment received. SEERA: Does not wish to make representations. Southern Gas Networks: Supplied extracts from the mains records together with a comprehensive list of precautions for guidance. Notes presence of low/medium/intermediate pressure gas main in proximity to the site and advises that no mechanical excavations are to take place above or within 0.5m of the low and medium pressure system and 3m of the intermediate pressure system. Southern Water: No adverse comment to make. Sussex Police: Location is a medium risk crime area. Need for audio/visual access control to the main entrance of the apartment block; any trades button should be coded and NOT timed; apartment entrance doors should have door viewers/chains; main entrance door would benefit from hinge bolts; glazing to the main entrance door/sidelight should be laminated; need for adequate external lighting around the block. For the townhouses, front doors, kitchen and toilet windows should conform to British Standards, and door chains/viewers should be fitted. Internal: Access Consultant: The planning statement makes no reference to Policy HO13, which requires all new units should be built to Lifetime Homes standard. Specific problems are summarised as follows: • The entry level toilets in houses 1-19 should be accessible.

Drainage for a future shower should be provided. • 1500mm turning space is required between the kitchen units

(houses 1-19) • The living rooms should be on the ground floor (houses 1-19). It can

be acceptable in some circumstances to site the living room upstairs but in this instance it has also been separated from the kitchen which would make life very difficult in the case of a temporary incapacity where the purchase of a stair lift was not viable.

• There should be 300mm clear at the leading edge of all entry level doors.


• The stairs in the town houses need to be 900mm clear between handrails.

• The planning statement refers to five on street blue badge spaces but the site plan only shows four.

• The parking spaces should be capable of being widened to 3.3m. It seems impossible to widen the garages.

Apartment 23 is unsatisfactory for wheelchair users because: • a suitable 3.6m x 5.4m car parking space should be provided

adjacent to the apartment, • there is not 300mm clear space at the leading edge of the

bathroom door, • level access to the terrace should be confirmed, • space and drainage for a level entry shower should be provided in

the bathroom, and • space needs to be provided within the apartment for storage and

charging of a wheelchair or electric scooter. Apartment 24 is unsatisfactory because: • space needs to be provided for storage and charging of a

wheelchair or electric scooter • there must be 200mm clear behind the open entrance door to

allow for a post basket • space and drainage for a level entry shower should be provided in

the bathroom • level access to the terrace should be confirmed, and • there needs to be enough space to approach and use furniture.

1000mm is needed in front of wardrobes and 1350mm in front of chests of drawers. Neither bedroom seems to have enough room to accommodate this if a normal amount of furniture is installed and the necessary spaces to both sides of the double bed are maintained.

Generally: The sections appear to show level thresholds to the houses but the elevations seem to show a step. It should be confirmed that the entrances to all houses and the flats will be level or gently sloping with level thresholds. Further comments awaited. Arboriculture: No comment received. City Clean: No comment received. Conservation & Design: Notes that the application departs from the outline consent in terms of height and number of units and commercial floor space and has therefore been submitted as a full planning


application. Notes that it has been advertised as affecting: the setting of adjoining listed building(s), and the setting of adjoining conservation areas, i.e. West Hill, North Laine and Valley Gardens. Site assessment: The built remnants to the original railway works remain, including the freestanding brick piers that carried the rail works over the track below. The large wall retaining the upper plateau varies in its construction and design the length of the site. The site is in an elevated position some 7.5m above the proposed greenway and at the northern end is some 18- 20m above New England Road. Viewed from New England Road, the site is partially screened by trees on the railway earth embankments. The trees now in leaf frame the listed iron railway bridge. This is a critical viewpoint and one deserving a photomontage illustrating the proposed development in context. An equally critical view is the connection of the southern end of the site with the greenway, where currently there is an excess of chalk spoil. The impact of the development on the quality and character of the proposed greenway also needs careful consideration. The site itself appears to be covered in imported chalk/brick spoil, which has raised the ground level above the height of the retaining wall. Considerations: With regard to listed buildings, this development is some distance from both the listed railway station and listed St Bartholomews Church, with no significant visual connection. I am therefore of the opinion that this development will have no effect on the setting of either listed building, or their significance as local 'landmark' historic buildings. The development will, however, have an impact on the adjoining listed railway bridge, which is currently redundant but is, I understand, to be brought back into use as a footbridge linking the proposed greenway and northern SNCI to New England Road. I find it difficult to judge the visual relationship between the bridge and the apartment block, but in the absence of a photomontage am inclined to the view that the apartment block will appear too high and over bearing, and consequently out of place when seen on the skyline behind the Cobblers Thumb pub and beside the railway bridge. I see no townscape justification for exceeding the heights prescribed for the housing within the Masterplan. With regard the setting of adjoining conservation areas, this site is some considerable distance away, and will have little visual impact if any on them. Conformity with the Master Plan: The design concept for this development is similar to that previously approved. The master plan describes the development of block G as


being on top of the retaining wall, offering spectacular views from the proposed houses across the valley eastward. The intention at the outline stage was that the block should be set 'back slightly from the back edge of pavement allowing for small front gardens and a buffer to the street', which is to be shared with the adjoining language school (now under construction). The master plan goes on to advise that the development 'will rise sheer from the top of the retaining wall with balconies overhanging' the greenway. The plan acknowledged the need to 'strike a balance between the scale of the language school and the need not to overshadow the green corridor', and that the third storey accordingly should be set within an attic storey to reduce the apparent bulk. In this respect I think there must be some misunderstanding on the part of the architect. The proposal indicates a reduced scale to the street frontage and greater height above the green corridor. This is quite the reverse of the agreed intent. It is the west facing elevation that merits the additional height and the east elevation overlooking the greenway where the top storey should be set well back, so that the facade neither overshadows the greenway not has an overbearing effect. Adjustments to the attic storey are recommended. I do not understand the rationale of the pitched roof to the west elevation and would prefer to see a consistent harmonious roofscape throughout. Design detail: The elevation drawings submitted are very difficult to visualise, partly because of the absence of colour but also because of the graphic style chosen. The line shadowing has not helped. I am unable to fully appreciate and therefore advise on the way the various blocks will relate to the retaining wall and in the case of the B1block to the greenway and would therefore welcome the opportunity to attend another meeting with the architect, when perhaps improved presentation drawings may be available. In the absence of these I would find it difficult to make an assessment of the design quality, particularly with regard the apartment block. The height of the B1 block, whilst exceeding that previously approved, would sit well beside previously approved blocks, but again this is a prominent position and one requiring careful attention to detail. The design of the external hard and soft spaces including the land atop the retaining wall and the front areas and the relationship of these with the adjoining street and greenway are unresolved and require further attention. The sections through the development need to be at a larger scale and accompanied by photos of the relevant section of the retaining wall. A specification of repairs with illustrations are also required for the


retaining wall including proposed improvements. Further comments awaited. Ecologist: Objects – from the information available this application represents an increased threat to the nature conservation function of the adjacent SNCI. The situation is slightly unusual here in that the SNCI has been heavily disturbed as a consequence of development elsewhere in the Brighton Station site. Nevertheless the policy designation is still valid and habitat creation objectives are clearly established as part of the Outline approval. Increased recreational demand resulting from the increase in floor area over the Outline approval cannot be met by accessible open space in the vicinity of the development. No proposals appear to have been put forward for ameliorating the effects of this increase on the SNCI. Although detail is lacking, the submitted drawings appear to show encroachment of the development boundary into the SNCI and Open Space (public) at several locations. Urgent clarification is required as any such encroachment would be contrary to the Outline approval and Local Plan policy. Detail is again lacking but it appears that no attempt has been made to integrate biodiversity into the development site itself, contrary to the Outline approval and planning policy nationally, regionally and locally. Further comments awaited. Economic Development: No comment received. Environmental Health: Recommends approval subject to conditions. Properties in the near vicinity are likely to be affected by noise and air quality. Understand that those conditions relevant to Block G attached to the outline permission (BH2001/01811) will apply to this application. I am satisfied with the mitigation measures outlined in the Construction Statement (s106) and I have also examined the Planning and Sustainability Statement documents. Contaminated Land issues: I am satisfied that in 2001 when outline consent was granted, a contaminated land condition (17) was incorporated into BH2001/01811/OA. The development area is not known to contain any areas of historical pollution. Reference is made in the Sustainability Statement (ref. SA Howard April 2006, Para 2.2 Pollution) to the original EIA, which states the excavated materials will be clean chalk fill and


that no specific remediation works were considered necessary. I am also satisfied that through development control, the conditions applied to BH2001/01811/OA will be automatically carried across to any new grant of consent. I would, however, be minded to add a condition or an informative, that should any contaminants or unexpected findings be identified during the construction phase, that they be investigated and made known in writing to the local authority. Noise: Potential noise sources within the proposed development are plant/equipment from the B1 units, e.g. air handling units. There is also potential for noise complaints from the operation, including deliveries, of the B1 units. I note that conditions for hours of use have been agreed on the original outline permission. Air Quality: Having assessed the application with reference to the original master plan for the NEQ, the changes, in terms of both transport and energy related emissions, are not considered to result in a significant deterioration of local air quality. Housing Strategy: Support – note that 37% of the units (equating to 13 units) will be for affordable housing, comprising 2 x 3-bed townhouses for rent and 2 x 2-bed wheelchair apartments for rent and 3 x 1-bed apartments for shared ownership and 6 x 2-bed apartments for shared ownership. In addition, Moat Housing Group and Housing Strategy have negotiated 3 additional units at a discount of 85% of market value – these are 2 x 2-bed apartments and 1 x 1-bed apartment. Mix of affordable housing should reflect the dwelling types proposed for the development as a whole, and their design should ensure that they are not distinguishable by their tenure type. The housing should meet Housing Corporation scheme development standards, Secure By Design principles and EcoHomes ‘very good’ rating, and incorporate ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards. Planning Policy: The outline planning consent gave permission for 883 sqm of workspace and 24 residential units. The proposal intensifies this use by providing fewer houses (21) but 11 extra flatted dwellings (35 dwellings in total) and an additional 225 sq m of B1 floor space. The proposal is therefore a departure from the approved outline planning consent and falls to be considered within the policy framework as set by the adopted development plans although the Master Plan is clearly a material consideration. Employment Issues: The proposed provision of additional employment floor space is to be welcomed. For the whole of the Brighton Station site, the local plan


policies EM9 and EM1 anticipated a yield of 19,843–26,941 sq m of employment floor space comprising business and industrial units, workshops and starter units. Any increase in employment floor space that helps to deliver the Local Plan targets is therefore welcomed. Policy EM13 seeks both B1 office space and workshop space from the Brighton Station Site. Wherever possible in the interests of sustainability, flexible employment floor space should be provided to meet the widest possible range of employment needs over a long time period, e.g. to include the opportunity to provide some workshop units capable of being used for both B1 or B2 uses and space for starting up businesses. No goods vehicle parking spaces/layby or service area is shown for deliveries to the offices. This is clearly unacceptable if the workspace is to thrive and support new businesses and where adjacent, on street parking for deliveries (on a roundabout) on a key route to the station is not an option. If it is intended that the car park area will serve as a bay for deliveries then policy TR7, ‘Safe development’ would apply given the proximity to the roundabout of the access and the need for lorries to reverse into or out of the site or for the parking area to be redesigned to include turning space available at all times for delivery vehicles. The cycle parking area is undefined. For office workers cycle parking should be under cover and all cycles should be capable of being individually secured. Only visitor cycle parking should be in the open and again the Sheffield stands or their equivalent should be set out on the plans. Housing issues – compliance with the outline consent and master plan: Since the proposal represents an intensification of housing use on the site, it would be reasonable to apply the adopted affordable housing target to the new elements rather than seek to apply it retrospectively to the whole development. Therefore for the original 24 dwellings, a minimum of 30% affordable housing could be provided, while for any completely new elements, policy HO2 applies and 40% affordable units should be sought. 13 affordable units represents 37% overall and is acceptable. Policy HO3 seeks a mix of units both as regards tenure and sizes. The size mix should be equally proportionate across the tenure mix, i.e. the affordable housing should not comprise a disproportionate number of the smaller units. Useable private amenity space is required under HO5, which needs to be suitably floored to allow for useful activity – the drawings imply a metal grid, which would clearly not be appropriate.


Play, Sports and Open space issues: HO6 – The applicants are offering an off site payment for the additional units over and above the outline consent. The policy allows for ‘off site provision where it is not practical or appropriate for all or part of the

outdoor recreations space requirements to be provided on site’. Since this is new build, it cannot be argued that it is not practical for the children’s play element to be off site – that is a design matter. Given the number of family units being proposed and the overall short fall of open space on the site, part of the increased need for the smallest children needs to be met on site, for example by designing the remaining gap site to be shared amenity space suitable for the under school age children to gather. The older children (infant and primary age) need to be provided with safe car free access via the greenway/SNCI to the play area in block K to compensate for the lack of on site play provision for them. It is acceptable for the sporting element of the proposed contribution to be used to enhance either the roof top area above the London Road car park or The Level off the site. It appears that the gap site has been decreased in size from the outline consent and it also appears that the block of flats has encroached on the amenity green space to the north of the development and these dimensions should be checked. HO13 – lifetime homes. I understand that the Access Consultant is commenting in detail on the scheme but clearly the design of many of the bathrooms is inappropriate. It is also unlikely to be acceptable for anyone with a wheelchair to automatically lose a garage space but the houses could be designed to allow for a lift to be inserted at the end of the garage space or storage space to access the main living accommodation above. Landscaping Issues: Policy QD15 requires landscaping plans detailing species and hard surface details. This requirement does not appear to have been met. Sustainability Issues: Policy SU2, Energy efficiency applies. The applicants should confirm that all the buildings will be energy efficient and meet very good or excellent BREEAM ratings – the office block may need to be individually assessed. The policy requires regard to be given to the use of natural ventilation and internal bathrooms are shown in several of the properties. In the interests of energy efficiency, these should have natural light and ventilation. SU2 also seeks measures that reduce water consumption. For example, is grey water to be collected from the roof areas for reuse? Policy SU8 – The applicants are proposing building on the edge of a steep drop and a bank and should demonstrate that the retaining


walls are adequate to protect the development. Policy SU11 applies and an assessment of the likely hazards and remediation as set out in SU11a/c is required. Policy SU13 applies and a Site Waste Management Plan is required. In particular, the applicants should be asked to confirm that they have sought to minimise waste arisings by avoiding the need for excavation (SU13a). Impact on the SNCI: Policy NC4 – Impact on an SNCI. The outline consent for block G provided for the facades of the housing to be no higher than 2 storeys with the third storey being within the roof space and half of the floor area below. The gross floor area for 24 units was to be 2,400 sq m i.e. on average, 100 sq m per unit, so as to protect the greenway and wider visual amenities of the area. The houses were to be moved back from the retaining walls on the edge of the greenway. It appears that the master plan concept has been stretched to its limit since all the housing is now to be three storeys high with the rear elevation comprising a full three storeys and cantilevered over the edge of the greenway/SNCI. The height limit was to be 50 m AOD but the planning application refers to heights of 49 – 56 m. The apartment block is 5 storeys high when viewed from the SNCI and shown in cross section to be 6 storeys on one elevation. Roger Dowty will be considering the design impact of the development but the policy issue relates to the protection of the SNCI and whether the close proximity of the buildings higher than envisaged, will have a detrimental impact on the vegetation of the SNCI by exacerbating over shadowing, including creating a rain shadow (because the prevailing rain bearing winds are from WSW). Overhanging balconies could make the rain shadowing worse and prevent the establishment of the proposed green walls. Private Sector Housing: No comments received. Further comments awaited. Public Art: A contribution of between £5,000 and £10,000 will be sought, to be used towards a feature at the entrance to the Greenway, to soften the visual impact in this section of the project. Quality of Life and Green Spaces: I understand the information is needed for just an additional 11 units. If there is no on-site provision then a contribution off-site would be expected, either to bolster the standing section 106 for £100,000 for roof terrace improvements and "youth worker" for the top of London Road car park or for provision of facilities at the Level. Sustainability Team: No comment received.


Transport Planning: The scale of this development is greater than that granted outline consent and there is no reason to think that the extra floorspace/ housing units will not generate trips. A sustainable modes contribution for the extra section is appropriate in accordance with the requirements of policy TR1 and it has been agreed that the sum should be £2000 per extra housing unit, which is routinely sought for small housing applications i.e. a total of £22,000. Changes have been made to the parking provision intended in the vicinity of this development since the granting of the outline consent so the comparison with the proposals made then is not straightforward. The proposals for general parking in this application are well below SPG4 maxima. The applicants initially sought agreement to the provision of residents parking permits for those houses without parking but these permits are not available elsewhere in the New England Quarter and it would be inconsistent and administratively burdensome to introduce them here, and the applicants have agreed in discussions with officers that permits should not be issued. Also, it seems likely that an on street car club bay would be required. It is therefore proposed that the 4 non-disabled parking spaces which will remain available if the crossovers to the town houses are provided as sought are retained are but available for car club use (if required by the car club operator) and general use, with no residents permits being issued. SPG4 requires at most 3 general and at least 9 disabled parking spaces for the B1 use. The applicants propose 5 general and initially 2 disabled spaces. The on street disabled provision would also be available to users of the B1 facility amongst others. The proposed disabled parking provision is clearly substandard but it is also the case that there is no point in insisting that parking bays are left empty if they are not wanted by disabled parkers. It has been agreed that the initial provision for the disabled will be increased to 3 spaces and an annual review of disabled parking should be required for the Council’s approval. This should report the provision and use of disabled parking for the B1 use, using surveys as required, and suggest measures to overcome any problems identified. It should be possible to require that all the spaces in the B1 car park are reserved for disabled use if this is genuinely necessary- this would be unusual but is supported by policy, the very low provision proposed by the applicants, and the good provision for access by sustainable modes for able bodied users of the development. The applicants state in their TA that it is possible for vehicles to turn in the car park but the layout does not comply with the Estates Road Manual and there should be a requirement for this to be demonstrated. SPG4 requires a loading bay but it is accepted that


most deliveries for the B1 use would be by vans rather than HGVs and a loading bay if insisted on would be empty for most of the time. The applicants have submitted an acceptable outline design for an arrangement in which loading would take place on the east side Stroudley Rd. north of the roundabout and guardrails would be provided to prevent loading in the immediate vicinity of the roundabout. This is acceptable but the submission of a detailed design for approval should be required by condition. The amount of cycle parking proposed is acceptable but further details are required of the provision in the town house garages and the B1 car park. For information, the applicants will be required by the existing outline consent to produce a Travel Plan and associated measures for the development. Traffic Regulation Orders necessitated by this development, including any revisions in Stroudley Rd. sought as a result of the annual reviews of the B1 disabled parking, should be funded by the applicants. Further comments awaited.

7 PLANNING POLICIES

Planning Policy Guidance/Statements: PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (Feb 2005) PPG3: Housing (Mar 2000) PPG4: Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms (Nov 1992) PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (Aug 2005) PPS10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (Jul 2005) PPG13: Transport (Mar 2001) PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment (Sep 1994) PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (Jul 2002) PPS22: Renewable Energy (Aug 2004) Regional Planning Guidance for the South-East (RPG9): Q1 Urban areas – prime focus for new development Q2 Quality of life in urban areas Q3 Location and design of development RE1 Regional economy RE5 Sites for commerce and industry RE7 Priority Areas for Economic Regeneration H4 Affordable housing H5 Housing on previously developed land T1 Minimising the distance people need to travel T2 Travel awareness and travel plans T3 Parking standards


T4 Walking and cycling INF4 Energy conservation and renewable energy Draft South East Plan (2nd ed, 2006): CC1 Sustainable development CC2 Climate change CC3 Resource use CC4 Sustainable construction CC5 Infrastructure and implementation CC8 Urban focus and urban renaissance CC11 Supporting an ageing population CC12 Character of the environment and quality of life RE3 Human resource development RE5 Addressing intra-regional economic disparities H1 Housing provision H3 Location of housing H4 Affordable housing H5 Housing density and design H6 Type and size of new housing T5 Mobility management T7 Parking T8 Travel plans and advice NRM1 Sustainable water resources, groundwater and river water quality management NRM4 Conservation and improvement of biodiversity NRM7 Air quality NRM8 Noise EN1 Development design for energy efficiency and renewable energy EN2 Combined heat and power W2 Sustainable design, construction and demolition M1 Sustainable construction BE1 Management for an urban renaissance TC1 Development of town centres TC3 New development and redevelopment in town centres S3 Supporting healthy communities SCT1 Core sub-regional strategy SCT2 Enabling economic regeneration SCT7 Broad amount and distribution of future housing development East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011: S1 Twenty One criteria for the 21st Century S13 Brighton & Hove S29 Implementation E1 Economy and Employment (General) E3 Land and premises (Quantity) E4 Land and premises (Quantity)


E7 Regeneration of Existing Land and Premises H1 Housing Provisions H4 Affordable Housing H6 Lifetime Housing TR1 Integrated Transport and Environmental Strategy TR3 Accessibility TR4 Walking TR5 Cycling TR9 Public Passenger Transport TR11 Public Passenger Transport TR13 Redundant or Disused Transport Routes TR16 Parking Standards for Development TR17 Commuted Payments TR18 Cycle Parking EN1 The Environment (General) EN11 Water Quality and Conservation EN12 Water Quality and Conservation EN17 Nature Conservation EN20 Nature Conservation EN21 Nature Conservation EN26 Built Environment EN27 Conservation of Energy W10 Construction Industry Waste Brighton & Hove Local Plan: TR1 Development and the demand for travel TR2 Public transport accessibility and parking TR7 Safe development TR8 Pedestrian routes TR11 Safe routes to school and school safety zones TR12 Helping of independent movement of children TR13 Pedestrian network TR14 Cycle access and parking TR15 Cycle network TR18 Parking for people with a mobility related disability TR19 Parking standards SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and materials SU3 Water resources and their quality SU4 Surface water run-off and flood risk SU5 Surface water and foul sewage disposal infrastructure SU8 Unstable land SU9 Pollution and nuisance control SU10 Noise nuisance SU11 Polluted land and buildings SU13 Minimisation and re-use of construction industry waste SU14 Waste management


SU15 Infrastructure SU16 Production of renewable energy QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements QD2 Design – key principles for neighbourhoods QD3 Design – efficient and effective use of sites QD4 Design – strategic impact QD5 Design – street frontages QD6 Public art QD7 Crime prevention through environmental design QD15 Landscape design QD16 Trees and hedgerows QD17 Protection and integration of nature conservation features QD18 Species protection QD19 Greenways QD20 Urban open space QD25 External lighting QD27 Protection of amenity QD28 Planning Obligations HO1 Housing sites and mixed use sites with an element of housing HO2 Affordable housing – ‘windfall’ sites HO3 Dwelling type and size HO4 Dwelling densities HO5 Provision of private amenity space in residential development HO6 Provision of outdoor recreation space in housing schemes HO13 Accessible housing and lifetime homes EM1 Identified employment sites (industry and business) EM2 Sites identified for high-tech and office uses EM9 Mixed uses and key mixed use sites EM13 Brighton Station – mixed uses NC4 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) and Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS) HE3 Development affecting the setting of a listed building HE6 Development within or affecting the setting of conservation areas HE8 Demolition in conservation areas HE11 Historic parks and gardens HE12 Scheduled ancient monuments and other important archaeological sites Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents: SPGBH3 Brighton Station Site Brief (Oct 1998) SPGBH4 Parking Standards (Sep 2000) SPGBH9 A Guide for Residential Developers on the Provision of Outdoor Recreation Space (draft, Jul 2002) SPGBH16 Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (Jul 2004) SPGBH21 Brighton & Hove Sustainability Checklist (May 2004)


SPD03 Construction and Demolition Waste (Jan 2006)

SPD06 Trees and Development Sites (Mar 2006)

8 CONSIDERATIONS The main planning considerations relevant to this application are: 1. The acceptability of the land uses on this site; 2. The design of the buildings; 3. The conservation of the retaining wall; 4. Housing type and size; 5. Accessibility; 6. Public realm and amenity space; 7. Public Art; 8. Ecology; 9. Sustainability; and 10. Transport provision and parking. Each issue will be considered in turn, and referenced against the adopted site brief (SPGBH3) and the approved Masterplan (outline application). Other planning matters to be discussed include: refuse and recycling storage facilities and neighbouring amenity. The Brighton Station site brief was approved by the Policy & Resources Committee on 4 October 1998, where it was adopted as supplementary planning guidance (SPGBH3) to be read in conjunction with Policy EM13 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft. As such, the SPG is a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. In accordance with the brief, the outline application submitted in 2001 incorporated a regulatory Masterplanning framework, which was intended to guide and control the consideration of the Reserved Matters. The subsequent adoption of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan in 2005 identified the entire station site as an employment site and for a mix of uses, under policies EM1, EM2, EM9 and EM13. Again, the masterplan is a material consideration in determining this application. 1. Land use Site brief The total number of residential dwellings to be provided on the site was to be within the range 270-400 units, although no upper limit was set. It was expected that developers would maximise the residential element of the site. The Station site was expected to fulfil a major role in meeting the employment needs of Brighton & Hove. The needs comprised both


local businesses wishing to start up or expand, as well as the need to attract inward investment to Brighton to secure new jobs. Proposals were expected to accommodate a significant element of smaller scale workshop type space (B1), provided that they would not compromise the quality of the environment required or adversely impact on traffic generation. It was expected that the site as a whole would provide at the very least 1,858 sq ft of small workshop space. Forecasts estimated a shortfall of office space in the city to 2011 of between 24,414 and 76,984 sq m. The requirement was almost entirely for new modern-specification space. Therefore proposals for B1 office use would be encouraged on the station site, especially on the upper tier of the site. Masterplan Envisaged a line of 24 town houses on top of the retaining wall over the old railway line along with a block of B1 workshop/office accommodation. This manifested itself in indicative gross external floorspaces, respectively, of 2,880 sq m and 883 sq m. Provision was made for the final area of each use within Blocks E-M inclusive to vary by up to 5% in either direction. The residential yield was expected to be based on 120 sq m per house. Block G application It can be seen residential and B1 uses have already been agreed in principle. The issue, therefore, is the increased quantum of uses. It is considered through the issues identified above and discussed below, that the applicant can provide for the number of units sought in this application within the established footprint for this site. While this proposal does go beyond the height restrictions agreed as part of the regulatory masterplan, it does so by only 1.07 metres. This is not considered so significant in terms of impact on the adjacent listed building or on the greenway as to warrant a refusal. The fact that the applicant can provide for adequate amenity space, open space and the travel demands that the development creates is sufficient to suggest that the capacity of the site has only now been reached. 2. Design Site brief Set out the approach expected to develop the site to the highest possible standards of design. Some key design principles were: • To create a new urban quarter with its own clear and legible

sense of identity; • To ensure permeability by creating a network of unhindered

routes that flow through the site; • To take community safety into account at the design stage, by


creating active frontages to provide natural surveillance, and provide a safe, attractive and sensitively lit night environment;

• To ensure that density makes the most efficient use of the site; • Daylighting should be considered in determining the scale and

layout of new buildings, to avoid overshadowing and loss of privacy;

• Orientation of buildings should maximise energy efficiency and avoid creating wind tunnels;

• Layout should work with the grain of the surrounding area, and the slope should be exploited to create new views into and out of the site;

• Roof-scape will be important due to views in to, out of, and within the site – all plant and machinery should be incorporated into roof voids and not be added as an afterthought;

• Details of materials will be left to individual applicants, but the highest standards would be expected. Wherever possible, locally sourced materials should be used. The use of natural materials from sustainable sources, and recycled materials, will be preferred, including re-use of any waste materials generated on site.

• Scale and location of new buildings should respect both short and long views of listed buildings; and

• Landscaping should be an integral element of the design process, and a structural landscaping plan should be submitted at the planning application stage and should aim to maximise the visual attractiveness of the site and enhance its ecological value.

Masterplan The approved Masterplan application agreed the height of these buildings not to exceed 50m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) and 2-storeys with an additional floor of accommodation being sited within the roofspace and restricted to half the floor area below. These matters were secured through the legal agreement and specifically through Condition 6 of the outline consent. Block G application Following detailed comments from the Conservation Officer, backed by English Heritage, negotiations were held with the applicant to revise the articulation of the roof form and enhance the interest of the block, particularly at the northern end of the site. It was necessary to reverse the roof heights of the townhouses such that they did not overhang or overshadow the greenway, and instead build up to the street frontage. The balconies to the rear were rather heavy and cumbersome – now they have been amended to be ‘lighter’ in form and appearance, providing articulation to this highly visible elevation from wider views, yet balanced with more simplicity than was the case as originally submitted.


The Conservation officer has concluded that there is no adverse townscale visual impact on any of the conservation areas or the Brighton Station and St Bartholomews Church listed buildings. However, judgement has been reserved against the increased height of the apartment block on the adjacent listed railway bridge, and hence further comments are awaited on the revised plans. 3. Conservation of the retaining wall Site brief Nothing cited. Masterplan It was anticipated that the housing would rise sheer from the top of the retaining wall (structure permitting) with balconies overhanging this space. The accompanying legal agreement secured the submission and agreement of ‘a construction method statement which clearly identifies the features which will be retained within the current SNCI and describes the measures which will be taken during construction to protect them’. Block G application Of major significance is the intention to build on an existing retaining wall, which was once part of the locomotive works. It now holds back the artificially created earthworks/spoil that currently form The Plateau of the Brighton Station site. The wall is in fact made up of two distinct parts, which are of different construction and finish. It has significant merit to warrant retention in purely visual terms as well as for structural reasons and for the contribution it can make to ecological benefits. As submitted, the drawings did not accurately show how building on this wall would physically be achieved, and furthermore there was no confirmation about how the wall would be stabilised (in order to support new structures on top) and repaired. It is expected that a full detailed, measured survey report from Offington Land Surveys will be available prior to determination of this application by the end of June. In the meantime, the applicant has provided a summary of outline matters that will need to be addressed prior to building works commencing. Regarding the southern (brick) section, the outline matters include: a) the wall will need to be completely repointed; b) the top of the wall will need to be cut back to a straight course line and prepared for the connection to the proposed construction above; c) the areas of brickwork requiring repair will utilise the bricks that were set aside during the enabling works contract; d) the exiting capping stones on the piers will be redressed and repaired as necessary; and e) the area of raked


brickwork will be refurbished and areas where this has been removed and replaced with concrete will be returned to a brick finish. Regarding the northern (‘as struck’ concrete) section, the outline matters include: a) the wall will be reduced in height at the northern end to accommodate the lower ground floor of the apartment block; b) the retaining wall will be faced with a new concrete structure to replicate the existing wall, to support the new construction above; c) the elevation of this section of wall will consist of large arches to replicate the existing to the southern end and smaller arches to the northern end under the apartment block, to complement those to the south; and d) the new wall will be finished as the original in struck concrete. In both cases, the applicant states that the refurbished wall will be capable of providing the necessary support to the proposed green walls and nesting boxes, as part of the wider section 106 agreement. In principle, it is accepted that part of the northernmost section of wall can be removed, in order to facilitate the building of the lower ground floor level of the apartment block, as the wall is considered to be least visually appealing here and that the new building will promote opportunities for active surveillance of the greenway, in accordance with Policy QD7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan. 4. Housing type and size Site brief Required a minimum of 30% of the total number of dwelling units as being affordable. It showed a particular need for subsidised, rented accommodation that should be reflected in any scheme. It specified a smaller element of shared ownership accommodation may also be appropriate. The brief stated that up to 50% of affordable dwellings should be 3+ bedrooms and that some higher density 3+ bedroom ‘town houses’ might be suitable. The remainder of the affordable units should comprise a mix of 1- and 2-bed flats and the proposed layout should avoid any concentration of affordable housing that would create a sense of an affordable housing ‘ghetto’. Masterplan This specified that 30% of all housing will be social housing units, to be spread throughout the development. A third of units in Blocks E-G should also be social housing, with the exact number depending on the mix.


Block G application The wider mix of housing units (21 x 3-bed, 9 x 2-bed and 5 x 1-bed) was negotiated with the council’s Housing Strategy team and is welcomed in accordance with the original aspirations of the site brief, when compared to the 24 3-bed units that were proposed previously. A total of 37%, equating to 13 units, will be secured for affordable housing, comprising 2 x 3-bed townhouses for rent, 2 x 2-bed wheelchair apartments for rent and 3 x 1-bed apartments for shared ownership and 6 x 2-bed apartments for shared ownership. In addition, Moat Housing Group and Housing Strategy have negotiated 3 additional units at a discount of 85% of market value – these are 2 x 2-bed apartments and 1 x 1-bed apartment. These measures exceed the requirements sought under current local plan policy. Since the proposal represents an intensification of housing use on the site, it would be reasonable to apply the adopted affordable housing target (i.e. 40% under policy HO2) only to the new elements (i.e. 11 units) rather than seek to apply it retrospectively to the whole development. So in conjunction with retaining a minimum of 30% affordable housing for the original 24 dwellings, works out at 12 units being affordable as a minimum requirement. As 13 are provided, this is welcomed. 5. Accessibility Site brief Specified that houses and flats should be constructed to basic mobility standard consistent with the concept of ‘lifetime homes’, and at least 10% of the total number of housing units should be constructed to a wheelchair standard. Masterplan Agreed that 10% of all residential units would be designed as mobility units. Block G application No Local Plan policies specifically require good access for people with disabilities in office developments. Significant alterations were required to the internal layouts following comments made by the council’s Access Consultant, and the proposal will now meet lifetime homes standards – although this is secured through condition. Two of the residential units will be specifically suitable for people with wheelchairs, and include charging points adjacent to the living space. It was recognised that a third unit should be provided that is suitable for disabled occupiers, and a condition is attached to this effect.


6. Public realm and amenity space Site brief The brief specified that proposals should integrate the SNCI within the scheme and look to extend the theme of urban greening into other areas of the site, although avoiding the creation of isolated and vulnerable pockets of green space. Great care would be needed to ensure adequate useable amenity space and that undue pressure would not be placed on the green corridor, risking its ecological importance. The loss of the green corridor should be resisted, but where unavoidable, adequate compensatory land should be provided. Cited one of the overarching principles in PPG3 (para 53) that ‘new housing should incorporate sufficient provision for open space where such spaces are not already adequately provided for’. The brief set a guideline of 1 acre of public open space/play area per 200 dwellings. If this could not be provided on-site, it allowed for the possibility of a commuted sum, together with an agreed sum for maintenance, for the open space to be provided elsewhere. It noted that the area around the station site is ‘poorly served’ by open space, particularly space for outdoor recreation, so at least some provision for usable open space should be made within the development site. Open space should be provided and properly equipped for children’s play, and adult/youth outdoor sport as well as more informal recreation and nature conservation. Masterplan Incorporated 21,062 sq m of open space, including 4,201 sq m of public open space, 12,316 sq m of informal open space (predominantly the green corridor) and 4,545 sq m of communal open space associated with the residential blocks. It notes that the scheme ‘comfortably exceeds’ the 1 acre per 200 dwelling standard. Noted that, due to the developable area of the site being just 6.5 ha and where much of the land is sloping, the provision of 2.73 ha of open space was not compatible with other elements of the planning brief. Sought to maximise open space provision on-site as best it could (5,611 sq m children’s and informal play space compared to the National Playing Fields Association requirement of 6,702 sq m) and provided mitigation measures on top of this, such as providing £100,000 towards a play warden to supervise ‘out of hours’ use of the St Bartholomew’s School playground on the top of the London Road car park; extending the green corridor northwards to improve pedestrian links to sports and play facilities in Preston Park; and improved pedestrian links to existing facilities at The Level, via York Hill, Ann Street and Cheapside.


Block G application The Masterplan application secured overall open space provision that was in accordance with the SPG site brief, but did not require outdoor space provision on Block G. The proposed application makes some provision for outdoor space by means of two ‘gaps’ between the blocks, that are intended will provide gardens for adjoining units. Due to the problems of managing the small spaces proposed in this application, it is felt inappropriate by the applicant to provide children’s play space on this site. Instead, the applicant has agreed to fund an off-site contribution for both children’s and adult/youth facilities, which can be put towards improving such provision on the top of the London Road car park and The Level, and this has been supported by the council’s Quality of Life and Green Spaces team. Balanced against the good-sized private amenity spaces (see below), it is considered that this arrangement is acceptable. Each residential unit benefits from its own private amenity space. Following negotiations in terms of design, all the townhouses will possess useable space that is appropriate in scale to the size of the development proposed – i.e. for family usage. Those balconies for the apartments are on the whole smaller, but reflect their smaller size and so are again considered usable for their occupants. 7. Public Art: Site brief In accordance with local plan policy, the brief expected the provision of new public art in all major development schemes. Its purpose was to help create and enhance a sense of local identity and distinctiveness. It specified that, where appropriate, such schemes should involve the community, and all should involve local artists. As a guideline, 1% of construction costs was the usual contribution expected. Masterplan The New England Consortium made a commitment to the incorporation of public art within the scheme and co-ordinated by a regular steering group to curate the procurement of public art. A financial contribution of £150,000 was secured through a legal agreement for public art to be provided throughout the Brighton Station site. Block G application As Blocks have come forward that depart from the masterplan application (such as Block K), it is appropriate that further provision is made and to this effect, the sum of £5,000 has been negotiated for the Block G site. It is intended that a piece of art will be situated on the


corner of the office block, at the southernmost extremity of the Block G site, and that the developer will – as secured through this new legal agreement – sit on the Public Art Steering Group. The site of the public art on this site is shown indicatively on the plans, as it is on the site of the SNCI, which is not acceptable. 8. Ecology Site brief In addition to the open space requirement outlined above (and the key point is that the loss of the green corridor should be resisted), the brief required any planning application to include a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which would consider the impact of development on every aspect of the local environment, including protecting and enhancing biodiversity. Such an EIA should show how the wildlife habitats existing on the site would be protected both during the construction period and after. The brief also noted that enhancing wildlife habitats could provide opportunities for recreation and enhanced quality of life in the area. Masterplan Proposed mitigation measures, including: • Enhancing the SNCI through ecological management and

habitat creation, including enhancing the areas of woodland to the north of the Brighton Station site in order to meet the criteria for inclusion within the SNCI.

• The New England Consortium also gave a commitment to the long-term management of the SNCI for wildlife.

• The SNCI planting scheme was designed to promote a shade tolerant woodland floor habitat, to be best protected against potential shading of habitats by buildings adjacent to the SNCI.

• Construction Method Statement to be produced outlining measures to protect retained features, such as valuable habitats, trees, etc. during construction.

• Amending the landscape specification of the core site to increase its ecological value through connections with the green corridor via green walls, courtyards and street planting, plus bird boxes attached to buildings (and especially within green wall planting).

Block G application There have been substantial concerns raised over the potential impact of this more intensive development on the adjacent SNCI / greenway. Under no circumstances could there be any loss of this space, as open space in this area is already at a premium – reflected in the legal agreement and contrary to local policies and conditions in the outline application. The applicant has therefore been required to clarify and demonstrate that there will be no overall loss of SNCI due to this application. The applicant has shown that there will in fact be a net


gain of 91 square metres of the SNCI land. While that adjacent to the northern section of the retaining wall has been lost (due to the raking nature of the wall, the rebuilt wall will need to include supporting columns that encroach onto the SNCI), it has been noted that the (vegetated) construction buffer of 3 metres to the north of the site is no longer needed for this proposal, so can revert to SNCI land, which was promoted in the site brief. As originally submitted, the applicant provided no ecological mitigation for the Block G site itself, only for the Brighton Station site as a whole. Negotiation with the applicant has resulted in green walls being provided on three flank walls – the south elevations of townhouses 1 and 10 and the north elevation of townhouse 9. This includes provision of 2 bird boxes on each wall (so 6 in total). The exact location and type is to be secured through condition. The primary purpose of an SNCI is for quiet recreation and interpretation of wildlife. It is acknowledged that the development of Block G will result in increased pressure on this greenway, and to counter this, a contribution of £10,000 has been sought and agreed with the applicant to assist with management and maintenance costs of the SNCI. 9. Sustainability Site brief One of the main principles underlying the development of the site is that of sustainability. Nothing less than an exemplar, which sets new standards in sustainable design, would be required for this unique site. The development would be expected to be as self-contained as possible and not consume large amounts of external resources, although the brief recognised that a high density mix of uses could not be expected to be totally self-sufficient. The brief recommended that any application be accompanied by a life-cycle assessment to analyse and minimise the environmental impact The Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) should also be employed at the early stage in the design process. A full EIA to be submitted as well should also investigate the potential for recycling rainwater and wastewater on site, and facilities for residents and workers should be provided to enable recycling of domestic and commercial waste produced on site and in the adjoining area. The brief required houses and flats to demonstrate a high standard of energy efficiency, in terms of their construction and running costs. Individual residential units would be further assessed for energy efficiency in terms of their layout, siting and orientation. Provision for domestic recycling should be an integral part of the design of


individual units and the overall housing element of any proposal. Masterplan Noted that one of the principles behind the development was to deliver improved environmental sustainability. The planning submission gave a commitment to reducing carbon dioxide emissions from primary energy use by 60%, compared to a scheme built to 1995 Building Regulations. This would be achieved through such measures as: • a combined heat and power plant (to be delivered on Block H of

the site); • renewable energy (using Block G as a demonstration project for

application of photovoltaic cells), including using solar powered parking meters and hybrid solar and wind power street lighting;

• energy efficient design and specification, so as to be thermally efficient and exceed the new part L of Building Regulations. Special attention would be paid to detailing and quality control during construction to ensure that actual performance matches design performance;

• ventilation and air conditioning – residential units on the core site were designed to ensure good cross-ventilation and daylighting through narrow block depths and dual aspects. Commercial units would make use of a district cooling circuit driven by waste heat from the CHP plant.

A range of water saving and drainage systems were explored, as follows: • grey water and rainwater harvesting – rainwater would be

collected and used for irrigation and cleaning of courtyards and communal areas;

• water-saving – residential units would be specified with metering and water-saving measures designed to reduce consumption by at least 20%. They would include spray taps, low flush toilets, A-rated appliances (where provided) and low-flow showers.

To ensure high recycling rates for the core site, the following issues were considered: • logistics – the residential designs incorporated containers for

segregation and storage of recyclables in the kitchens, and bin stores serving each block sized to accommodate bulk segregated storage of materials for weekly collection. Flexibility is built in to accommodate a variety of collection systems, including door-to-door green box collection or bulk collection from bin stores;

• collection service – establishing a collection contract, possibly with Magpie Recycling;

• commercial recycling – occupiers will be required to participate in a site-wide collection system.


Green procurement was also promoted, in terms of implementation of a green procurement procedure that would minimise the key environmental impacts of the construction materials specified – addressing embodied energy and ecological impacts. Measures to support the overall aim of reducing car use are set out in part 10 below. Block G application The Masterplan set a number of objectives to secure sustainable development of the site. A sustainability statement has been submitted, which details how the development will exceed the 40% carbon dioxide emission savings, as required by the Masterplan legal agreement. In fact, the statement confirms the development will achieve a 64% reduction in carbon dioxide emission savings. The housing is predicted to meet the EcoHomes ‘Excellent’ standard and the offices are predicted to meet the BREEAM ‘Very Good’ standard. There is a need to ensure that there is a post-construction review of these scores, to make sure that they are achieved, and a condition is attached to this effect. Sustainability measures proposed, include: • Low energy lighting in all habitable rooms, except kitchens and

bathrooms • Solar heating of domestic hot water will be provided by using roof-

mounted evacuated tube panels. Time and temperature control of such heating will be provided through boiler controls.

• Apartments and townhouses 20-21 to connect to community heating scheme with central gas-fired boiler plant. Domestic hot water will be generated by hot water calorifiers, with primary heating from the community heating system and heat metering for each flat to record energy consumption per property.

• Heat metering in each flat to record energy consumption. • B1 building naturally ventilated with heat recovery and

mechanical cooling. • Greywater to be used in B1 building and to watering the

greenway from the residential units – to be delivered through the legal agreement.

The proposed specification for the energy systems in the townhouses comprises gas-fired space and domestic hot water heating using high efficiency condensing gas boilers and weather compensation on the boiler controls. Low temperature under-floor heating systems will be installed with temperature controls in each room and separate time and temperature zones for living and sleeping areas. Whole home


mechanical recovery ventilation will also be provided. The layout, siting and orientation of the block is considered appropriate in terms of meeting policy SU2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, in that it has dual aspects, so allowing through-flow of natural ventilation, and an east-west orientation to limit ‘cold’ areas and ‘hot’ areas, that are associated with north-south orientations. Contamination matters have been dealt with already at the outline stage, but the Environment Agency and the council’s Environmental Health team have requested specific conditions be applied in the event that any land contamination reveals itself on the Block G site. The applicant has been asked to submit a completed sustainability checklist to add further detail to the measures proposed, but on the whole, the scheme is considered to comply with the site brief, masterplan and current plan policies. 10. Transport provision and parking Site brief One of the main objectives was to encourage and maximise modal shift from private cars to more sustainable means of transportation. This included the need for parking provision to contribute to sustainable development. This was expressed as: “The development, taken as a whole, must make a major, unambiguous and imaginative contribution towards achieving a modal shift in favour of public transport, walking and cycling, away from the car”. Measures to achieve this modal shift included: • Giving priority to initiatives that reduced demand to travel by

private car; and • Enhancing access to the site by public transport, bike or on foot. The development would, through design and through financial contributions to off-site works or services, achieve the highest possible level of accessibility by public transport. Pedestrian and cycle routes to, from and within the site should be clearly signed. The quality of parking provision and facilities for cyclists should be to the highest standards. Servicing within the development would be efficient, discrete and environmentally friendly, with minimum conflict with pedestrian routes and minimum impact on townscape. Parking would be at the lowest level possible, consistent with efficient operation. The parking provision would be expected to be below the maximum standards set out in PPG13, given the central location and accessibility to public transport. The potential for car-pooling and car sharing should be thoroughly explored. Indeed, the brief considered that the site was well located for provision of car-free housing.


Masterplan The scheme addressed the aims of the brief in 3 ways: • Reducing the need for journeys to be undertaken by car; • Providing for journeys to be undertaken by non-car modes; and • Reducing the length of journeys that are undertaken by car. The masterplan was ‘entirely in tune’ with these aspirations, and hence allowed a significant reduction in car parking provision. Travel plans were required for each development, to promote alternative means of transport for employees. Public transport provision was made for bus stands on New England Road, 2 real-time information boards displaying bus information linked to the foodstore (Sainsbury’s) entrance and a ‘carry out’ service for customers with shopping from the foodstore to bus stops on London Road. General provision for car parking showed 22 on-street spaces for the Block G site, with 5 of these being for disabled provision (2 for the housing and 3 for the workspace). Block G application Initially there were concerns over the B1 car park being accessed immediately off the roundabout that runs up Billinton Road towards the Station, its car park and its drop-off points. However, it was considered that the traffic flows would be relatively light, as Stroudley Road will only serve Blocks G and L-M, and therefore no objection can be raised. There was concern also that no dropping off area for deliveries was proposed in this application. Further to negotiations with the applicant, revised plans have been received showing that this area can be provided on Stroudley Road (albeit only indicatively), although four sets of retaining railings are required, and these will be conditioned to be constructed in the style that is prevalent across the NEQ site as a whole. The applicant has been required to demonstrate that a car can adequately enter, turn around and leave the B1 car park in a forward gear. The applicant has demonstrated that this can be achieved. Compared to the scale of the proposal, the Masterplan generally allowed more car parking spaces adjacent to the Block G site than was permitted elsewhere on the Brighton Station site. The difference between that application and this was that the outline application permitted 22 on-street car parking spaces, 5 of which were disabled spaces, while the current full application proposes 34 spaces in total, a mixture of on- and off-street – and 6 will be for disabled users. By virtue of its location on a road that will only serve itself and the language school, Block G will benefit from a streetscape that will be relatively lightly trafficked. The applicant has shown that it is possible to


provide off-street parking for 19 of the residential units plus 7 for the B1 uses, while retaining 8 of the originally proposed 22 spaces on the street. There is still scope for 4 of the on-street spaces to be used for car clubs. Given this backdrop, that the proposed levels of car parking are fully in accordance with the maximum standards set in SPGBH4, it would not be possible to recommend refusal on the grounds that the applicant is proposing too many car parking spaces. However, it is entirely appropriate, given the site’s context of promoting sustainable modes of transport over the private car, that the applicant makes a financial contribution towards a modal shift in this locality. The sum of £22,000 has been negotiated to this end. Other planning matters: Refuse and recycling storage facilities: Each townhouse unit has such facilities provided at the front, ideally placed for convenience for occupiers and for placing out on the street for collections. A larger store is located to the northern extremity of the site, just to the west of the apartment block. The size of these facilities should enable recycling to be achieved and will be secured through condition. Neighbouring amenity: There are no residential dwellings in the immediate vicinity of Block G, such that there would be any adverse loss of amenity caused to neighbouring properties. Those that are sited nearest are industrial and commercial uses, which would not be affected in any negative way. It is considered that the residential uses will be harmonious with the office use proposed and the language school being built opposite. As far as this application is concerned, conditions are imposed limiting hours of use and hours of deliveries to the office units in Block G.

9 CONCLUSIONS

The principle of the residential and B1 uses on this site has already been established by the outline consent. The main considerations have therefore been the changing policy context and the intensification of the uses on the Block G site. This application has been assessed within the current established planning policy framework set out in the Development Plan, which includes the adopted SPG. In addition the approved Masterplan application (which has commenced on site) has been given due weight. The visual assessment demonstrates that the proposal would not have an adverse townscape impact on the nearby conservation area or the


character and appearance of the nearby listed buildings. The amended scheme has largely addressed the concerns and queries raised by the Local Planning Authority with respect to the details of the design, its impact on the SNCI and retaining wall and overall it is considered to be acceptable, provided that further information requested is considered satisfactory. The changes in the quantum of floorspace for both the residential and the office unit are considered to be acceptable within the context of the Brighton Station site, local and national plan policies. Appropriate mitigation measures can be secured to deal with the identified adverse impacts. The proposal deals satisfactorily with the distribution of open space across the site, in that there is no shortfall identified, and together with the contribution for off site recreation provision, are considered to be acceptable. Proposals put forward in this scheme for achieving a sustainable development are considered to be acceptable and meet policy requirements, including SPGBH16 and SPGBH21 (the sustainability checklist). These together with the Transport and Accessibility considerations assist in overall terms with the delivery of a sustainable development on this site. Air Quality, Noise Pollution and Public Art are all considered to have been addressed satisfactorily. This application has therefore been assessed as acceptable within the terms of Planning Policy Framework and Masterplan application.


The principle of the uses proposed in this application is acceptable, having already been established and approved as part of the Brighton Station Site Masterplan application. It is considered that the design is acceptable and that the proposed development would not have any adverse impact on the nearby listed buildings or conservation areas. The proposal is considered to make effect and efficient use of the land and is sustainable. Although the parking provision could be lower, it is nevertheless consistent with local plan policy and additional compensatory measures have been secured to provide for more sustainable modes of transport in accordance with local plan policy. The proposal introduces nature conservation features adjacent and within the site, enhances the existing Site of Nature Conservation


Importance (SNCI) and makes adequate provision for off-site recreation space contributions. The identified impacts and mitigation measures are considered to be appropriate and acceptable. The development generally accords with central government advice, Local Plan Policies and the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Station Site SPGBH3.


The proposal includes the provision of 2 (and a third is secured through condition) wheelchair-accessible residential units, each with an on-street parking space accessible to people with disabilities. All other units would be built to lifetime homes standard, and a condition relating to this matter is recommended. Access into and around the office/workspace building for people with disabilities would be dealt with under Part M of the Building Regulations.


No: BH2006/01039 Ward: WOODINGDEAN


Address: Elmhurst Site, Off Warren Road, Brighton

Proposal: Construction of a part two and part three storey 75 bed nursing home. Provision of 19 parking spaces.

Officer: Gemma Barnes, tel: 292265 Received Date:

27 March 2006

Con Area: Expiry Date: 02 August 2006

Agent: N/A Applicant:

Bupa Care Services, Parklands Court, 56 Park Road, Bloxwich, Walsall

1 RECOMMENDATION

That the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in this report and resolves to refuse planning permission for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development

provides for the travel demand that it creates or how the use of sustainable modes will be maximized, by a lack of the submission of a Travel Plan or contribution towards the Sustainable Transport Strategy. Furthermore the proposal does not make adequate provision for disabled parking onsite. This is contrary to policies TR1, TR2, TR4, TR18 and TR19 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

2. The private access road into the site, by virtue of its width and lack of a continuous footpath to Warren Road, would be inadequate and would result in hazard to vehicular and pedestrian safety, contrary to policies TR7 and TR8 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development makes adequate provision for amenity space, operational parking or an ambulance bay. Furthermore the premises are not fully accessible for people with disabilities. This is contrary to policy HO11 and HO13 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

4. The application does not include a sufficient design statement setting out the design principles and rationale for the building form and choice of materials. Based on the information submitted it is not considered that in design terms, the development makes an efficient use of the site, has a positive impact upon the views of the countryside to the south or provides an interesting and attractive frontage to the north. Furthermore, insufficient information has been supplied to determine landscape design. The application is therefore considered to conflict with policies QD1, QD2, QD3, QD4,


QD5 and QD15 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan. 5. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development

makes adequate provision of public art contrary to policy QD6 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

6. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would achieve a high standard of sustainability and the development is therefore contrary to policy SU2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance SPGBH21 – Sustainability Checklist.

7. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the minimization and reuse of construction industry waste has been sought in an effective manner, contrary to policies SU13 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and WLP11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Document Construction and Demolition Waste (SPD03).

Informatives: 1. This decision is based on the supporting statement, the unnumbered

site location plan and drawing nos. 030601, 030602, 030603, 030604, 030605 and 030606 submitted on 3rd May 2006.

2 THE SITE

The application relates to a vacant plot of land (following demolition of the existing nursing home) located between the Sussex Nuffield Hospital and Downs View School on the southern side of Warren Road. The application site is set down at a lower ground level than properties to the north and levels within the site vary. The site is accessed via a private road off Warren Road, which is shared with the adjacent school. The site is bounded by the 3 storey hospital to the west, 2 storey cottages (in use as health care and playgroup) to the north and 2 storey school building with caretakers cottage to the east with open fields immediately to the south.

3 RELEVANT HISTORY

96/0756/FP: Use of vacant site for temporary overspill car park for Sussex Nuffield Hospital. Withdrawn 12/05/1997.

4 THE APPLICATION

This application seeks permission for the erection of a nursing home comprising 75 bedrooms with en-suite bathroom facilities, communal lounge and dining areas and central services areas including kitchen, laundry, and administrative facilities and staff room. The building will encompass a similar footprint to the previous building (3488 square metres). It will be constructed as three stories although


due to the changes in ground level it will appear as two storeys on the northern elevation. The main entrance to the building will be on the northern elevation. It is proposed to provide 19 no. car parking spaces at the front of the building with open plan landscaping and a secure landscaped garden at the rear for residents.

5 CONSULTATIONS

External Neighbours: Occupiers of 124 Warren Road and The School House, Downs View School object to the application on the following grounds:- • The proposed road into the nursing home is not suitable to cope

with more traffic; • There are already problems with vehicles entering the Nuffield

Hospital site; • This will result in more traffic, noise and parking problems; • This building will block views of the countryside and sea; • The size and scale of the development will be out of keeping with

the area; • There will be noise and disturbance throughout construction. Councillor Dee Simson: Welcomes the development. Commission for Social Care Inspection: The applicants will need to ensure compliance with all aspects of the Care Standards Act 2000 and the Department of Health’s National Minimum Standards and Care Homes Regulations. Brighton and Hove Older People’s Council: Support the principle of the application as there is a clear need for nursing home beds in the city. Internal: Social Care and Health: No objection as the proposal represents an increase in capacity of nursing beds. Traffic Manager: Objection on the ground that the proposal does not address policies TR1, TR2, TR4, TR7, TR8, TR18 and TR19. Although the applicants have considered trip generation as part of their supporting material this is based only on unsupported statements rather than documented evidence and the applicants have not demonstrated how the demand for travel created by the proposal will be provided for or how the use of sustainable modes will be maximised, as required by policy TR1. A Travel Plan should be provided as required by policy TR4.


Parking standards require at least 5 disabled parking bays compared to the 2 proposed, so the application is contrary to policy TR18. The number of general parking spaces proposed is below the maximum allowed by standards, and therefore acceptable, but there is no consideration of the possibility of overspill parking in the surrounding area as suggested by policy TR2. The private access road to the site does not comply with the Estates Road Manual and the plans do not show a continuous footpath to Warren Rd., contrary to policies TR7 and TR8. Planning Policy: Although it is not clear from the submission when the old nursing home was demolished on this site, there in no planning objection to the principle of building a new residential care home here. However, further information should be submitted clarifying: • suitable outlooks of bedrooms that would offset the requirement to

provide amenity space to the standard required by policy; • accessibility within and outside the building; • provision of wheelchair accessible car parking and ambulance

bay; • detail of cycle storage facilities, in terms of security and protection

from the elements; • detail of refuse storage facilities regarding sorting of waste and

recycling; • how the applicant will encourage more sustainable means of

transport; • how the council’s sustainability objectives will be met; • how the building will integrate into its surroundings in design terms;

and • detail of how construction waste will be sorted, reused and

transported. Public Art: A contribution of £30,000 should be sought for the provision of public art. Urban Design: This application does not contain an adequate Design Statement. The requirement for this is described in adopted Local Plan Policy QD1, and should address policies QD2-5. The 'Supporting Statement' seeks to cover design issues, but is considered inadequate for a development of this size.

QD2 requires that the proposal addresses the key principles for neighbourhoods, which the applicant has failed to demonstrate. Evidence of the 'careful analysis' as described by the applicant is expected to include visual references demonstrating how the materials and form have been arrived at. Evidence of the previous building could be used to make a stronger case for the form of the


development.

QD3 requires that the applicant demonstrates how s/he has achieved an efficient and effective use of the site.

The view from the surrounding countryside is considered to be strategic, and the impact of the building should be evidenced by a distant view shown in context with the hospital, as required by QD4.

The proposal is expected to provide an interesting and attractive frontage to the street, as described in policy QD5. The applicant has not demonstrated how this will be achieved. The position of the car park at the front of the site is considered to detract from this. Although careful landscaping could be used to hide the parking and soften the approach to the building, positioning the car park to the eastern side of the building could improve the proposal. The fence around the development is not considered to be an attractive feature. The neighbouring hospital does not have a fence to the south which works well. This approach could work better visually.

The public realm resulting from this proposal is considered to be weak. Improvements to the public realm outside of the site are expected. The area to the north of the site would expect to benefit from this proposal. New footpaths to the development will be required to Warren Road. Further improvements are expected to the public realm and routes in the vicinity of the site.

The indicative landscaping proposals do not address sustainability issues- lawns would be high maintenance and would not be drought resistant. Shrub planting could be low diversity and may not fit in with the local habitat. A more sustainable landscaping proposal would be expected.

6 PLANNING POLICIES

Brighton & Hove Local Plan TR1 Development and the demand for travel TR2 Public transport accessibility and parking TR4 Travel Plans TR7 Safe development TR8 Pedestrian routes TR14 Cycle access and parking TR18 Parking for people with a mobility related disability TR19 Parking standards SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and materials SU10 Noise nuisance SU13 Minimisation and re-use of construction industry waste QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements QD2 Design – key principles for neighbourhoods QD3 Design – efficient and effective use of sites


QD4 Design – strategic impact QD5 Design – street frontages QD7 Crime prevention through environmental design QD15 Landscape design QD17 Protection and integration of nature conservation features. QD27 Protection of amenity HO11 Residential care and nursing homes HO13 Accessible housing and lifetime homes East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan WLP11 Reduction, Re-use and Recycling during Demolition and Design, and Construction of New Developments Supplementary Planning Guidance Documents: (SPG’s) SPGBH4: Parking Standards SPGBH 21: Brighton & Hove Sustainability Checklist East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Document Construction and Demolition Waste (SPD03).

7 CONSIDERATIONS

The considerations for this application relate to the suitability of the site to accommodate a nursing home, taking account of the needs of the residents and criteria set out in policy HO11, and the impact of the development upon the character and amenity of the area. Regard will also be had to the traffic and travel implications of the development. Provision of nursing home A nursing home previously existed on this site. The previous building was demolished prior to 1996 and the site is currently vacant. The principle of a nursing home in this location would not be harmful to the character of the area and is considered to be acceptable. Policy HO11 is supportive of new residential nursing homes, provided that four criteria are met:- Criterion a) concerns general amenity - Taking account of the fact that this site is sandwiched between an existing hospital, health care buildings, playgroup and school, it is it not considered, in principle, that a nursing home in this location will harm neighbouring properties by way of noise or disturbance. Further considering the intended use of the building, it is unlikely that any significant harm will be caused as a result of overlooking. However, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal is acceptable in terms of size, bulk or design. The design of the building will be addressed further in this report. Criterion b) requires adequate amenity space to be provided, at a


minimum depth of 10m and not less than 25 sq m per resident, but acknowledges that a lower standard may apply to nursing homes where residents are less mobile. In this case, 75 residents will result in a requirement of 1875 sq m, of which the site can only provide approx. 431 sq m where the space exceeds 10m in depth. In assessing this criterion, it is considered that outlook from bedrooms is a particularly crucial issue for less mobile residents. It is recognised that the outlook from bedrooms to the south over open land would be excellent. However, there is still a shortfall of amenity space. Any shortfall in amenity space provision should be made up elsewhere on the site if possible, particularly to the west which looks directly back to the Nuffield Hospital. This is a matter to be addressed by the applicant. Criterion c) specifies that the premises must be accessible to people with disabilities. The plans submitted with this application are rather sketchy and do not adequately demonstrate that the building is fully accessible for people with disabilities. Criterion d) states that such developments must provide for operational parking in accordance with the council’s standards, as set out in SPG4 and policies TR18 and TR19. The applicant has stated that 60 staff are due to be employed. With this in mind the provision of 10 cycle spaces is considered acceptable in accordance with the SPG and TR19. However, the applicant has not demonstrated that development fully addresses the travel demand that would be create. This will discussed further throughout this report. Design This application proposes the erection of a three storey building comprising a horizontal element with a central vertical aspect measuring 22m by 12m and larger vertical wings on the east and western ends measuring 38m by 13m. The resultant building will form an ‘H-shape’ on the plot, appearing as two storeys to the north and three storeys to the east, west and south. The building will occupy a similar footprint to the previous building with car parking, cycle parking and refuse storage to the front and private resident’s garden to the rear. The plans submitted portray the basic height, dimensions, layout and elevations of the building but are of insufficient detail to make a full assessment of the impact of the development in design terms.

The application does not contain an adequate Design Statement. The requirement for this is described in adopted Local Plan Policy QD1, and should address policies QD2-5. The 'Supporting Statement' seeks to cover design issues, but is considered inadequate for a development of this size.

Policy QD2 requires that the proposal to address key principles for neighbourhoods, which the applicant has failed to demonstrate.


Evidence of the 'careful analysis' as described by the applicant is expected to include visual references demonstrating how the materials and form have been arrived at. Evidence of the previous building could be used to make a stronger case for the form of the development.

Policy QD3 requires that the applicant to demonstrate that the proposal makes an efficient and effective use of the site. In principle the provision of a nursing home is considered to be an efficient use of the site. However, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal as submitted makes a full and efficient use of the site in design terms.

This site lies within a prominent position and will be viewed from long distances to the south. Any building on this site will be prominent in the views of the countryside and therefore views from the south need to be considered in a strategic context, and the impact of the building should be evidenced by a distant view shown in context with the hospital, as required by QD4.

The proposal is expected to provide an interesting and attractive frontage to the street, as described in policy QD5. The applicant has not demonstrated how this will be achieved. The position of the car park at the front of the site is considered to detract from this. Although careful landscaping could be used to hide the parking and soften the approach to the building, positioning the car park to the eastern side of the building may be more appropriate in design terms, this is a matter to be addresses by the applicant. The fence around the development is not considered to be an attractive feature. The neighbouring hospital does not have a fence to the South which works well. This approach could work better visually.

The public realm resulting from this proposal is considered to be weak. Improvements to the public realm outside of the site are expected. The area to the North of the site would expect to benefit from this proposal. New footpaths to the development will be required to Warren Road. Further improvements are expected to the public realm and routes in the vicinity of the site.

The indicative landscaping proposals do not address sustainability issues- lawns would be high maintenance and would not be drought resistant. Shrub planting could be low diversity and may not fit in with the local habitat. A more sustainable landscaping proposal would be expected. Based on the information submitted it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the appearance of character of the area or the strategic views of the countryside.


Sustainability A Sustainability Checklist has not been submitted and there is no indication as to how the applicant intends meeting the requirements of policy SU2. The development should all be to a very good or excellent BREEAM rating. The development also requires a Site Waste Management Plan to address the reuse of demolition materials and the minimisation of construction waste. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal could achieve a high standard of sustainability and minimisation and reuse of construction waste and is therefore contrary to policies SU2 and SU13. Public Art Provision for public art will be required as part of a legal agreement for this development, to a sum of around 1% of construction costs. Details of this are absent from the submission and the applicants have not indicated that they will make any provision for public art. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy QD6. Transport The applicants have considered trip generation as part of their supporting material, however, this is based only on unsupported statements rather than documented evidence and the applicants have not demonstrated how the demand for travel created by the proposal will be provided for or how the use of sustainable modes will be maximised, as required by policy TR1. In order to demonstrate that the development can provide for the travel demand that it will create and will maximise suitable modes of transport a Travel Plan should be provided as required by policy TR4. It may also be necessary to contribute to the Council’s Sustainable Transport Strategy. Parking standards require at least 5 disabled parking bays compared to the 2 proposed, so the application is contrary to policy TR18. The number of general parking spaces proposed is below the maximum allowed by standards, and therefore acceptable, but there is no consideration of the possibility of overspill parking in the surrounding area as suggested by policy TR2. The private access road to the site does not comply with the Estates Road Manual and the plans do not show a continuous footpath to Warren Rd., contrary to policies TR7 and TR8. Conclusion In conclusion the application fails to comply with local plan policies and therefore refusal is recommended.


The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development is fully


accessible to people with disabilities.


LIST OF MINOR APPLICATIONS

No: BH2006/00764 Ward: BRUNSWICK AND ADELAIDE

Address: 13 & 15 Brunswick Street West

Proposal: Conversion of ground floor into two flats.

Officer: Guy Everest, tel: 293334

Received Date: 07 March 2006

Con Area: Brunswick Town Expiry Date: 02 May 2006


Mr James Oliver, 13b Harrington Villas

1 RECOMMENDATION

That the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of this report and is minded to grant planning permission subject to the receipt of revised rear elevation plans and the following Conditions and Informatives: Conditions: 1. 01.01AA Full Planning. 2. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not

be initiated by the undertaking of a material operation as defined in section 56(4)(a)-(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development, until a planning obligation pursuant to s.106 of the said Act relating to the land has been made and lodged with the local planning authority and the local planning authority has notified the persons submitting the same that it is to local planning authority’s approval. The said planning obligation will provide that the sum of £6,000 will be paid to the local planning authority for a Traffic Order Payment so as to ensure that residents of the development do not become eligible for parking permits for the Controlled Parking Zone in which the land is situated, and as a contribution towards the Sustainable Transport Strategy for local improvements. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not put undue pressure on existing on-street car parking in the city and to comply with policy HO7 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

3. All new windows and doors shall be painted softwood with concealed trickle vents and shall be retained as such. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to comply with policy HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

4. Development shall not commence until full details of the proposed works including 1:20 sample front elevations and 1:1 joinery profiles


have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in strict accordance with the agreed details and maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to comply with policy HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

5. 13.02A Materials to match – Cons Area Informatives: 1) This decision is based on an amended site plan submitted on the

13th April 2006, and unnumbered amended drawings submitted on the 25th May 2006 (further drawings to be advised).

2) This decision to grant planning permission has been taken:- i. having regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton & Hove

Local Plan set out below: TR1 Development and the demand for travel TR14 Cycle access and parking TR19 Parking standards SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and materials SU10 Noise nuisance

QD13 Advertisement hoardings QD27 Protection of amenity

QD28 Planning Obligations HO5 Provision of private amenity space in residential development HO7 Car free housing

HO9 Residential conversions and the retention of smaller dwellings HO13 Accessible housing and lifetime homes HE1 Listed buildings HE3 Development affecting the setting of a listed building

HE6 Development within or affecting the setting of conservation areas; and

ii. for the following reasons:-

The property is of a sufficient size to be converted and will provide an acceptable standard of accommodation without causing harm to neighbouring residential amenity. The accompanying alterations will not harm the character or appearance of the property, surrounding conservation area, or the grade I listed building. Furthermore there will not be increased parking problems since the proposal is to be car free.

3) The applicant is advised that no. 13 Brunswick Street West is

connected with no. 57 Brunswick Square and as such forms part of


a grade I listed building. The proposed alterations will therefore require Listed Building Consent prior to the commencement of any works.

2 THE SITE

The application site relates to a property at the eastern end of Brunswick Street West which adjoins grade I listed buildings on Brunswick Square and Brunswick Terrace. The site includes no’s 13 and 15 at ground floor level with a first floor level above no. 15. The additional storeys above no. 13 are not part of the application site and form part of no. 57 Brunswick Square. The ground floors of no. 13 and 15 are currently residential accommodation ancillary to a first floor unit at no. 15, which is otherwise effectively self-contained. The site lies within a controlled parking zone and is part of the Brunswick Town Conservation Area.

3 RELEVANT HISTORY

The first floor of no. 15 was converted to living accommodation with garage and store below in 1971 (ref: M/15585/71). Permission was later granted in 1982 to convert the ground floor store into additional living accommodation for no. 15 (ref: 3/82/0065). In 1987 permission was granted to change the use of no. 13 from a vehicle repair garage to residential in connection with no. 15 (ref: 3/87/0579).

4 THE APPLICATION

The application seeks consent to convert the ground floor of the property into two self-contained flats. The first floor of the property will not be altered by the proposal. Alterations are also proposed to the front and rear elevations of both properties.

5 CONSULTATIONS

External: Neighbours: 31 Brunswick Square; The Residents Management Company and ground floor flat at 56 Brunswick Square; Flat 1A, 57 Brunswick Square and Rose Dell Flat Management Ltd who own the freehold of this property (no. 57); the owner of flat 3B Brunswick Square; Ellman Henderson who act as managing agents of adjacent properties; Dudley Street West and Dudley Mews Residents Association; The Friends of Brunswick Square and Terrace on behalf of 25 Brunswick Terrace; The Friends of Brunswick Square and Terrace; Hove Civic Society; and, 17B Brunswick Street West object for the following reasons:- Design and appearance • the existing bowed ground and first floor windows are tasteful and in

character, the replacements are oversized and inappropriate; • the existing canopy feature helps tie together the previously


separate properties, and the replacement canopies appear out of character;

• the outside bicycle box is intrusive and unsightly, and a token acknowledgement that by losing the garage no storage space will remain;

• this section of street is being improved by other schemes, such as the Dudley Hotel, the proposal will adversely effect this;

• as the property was once a coach house the removal of the garage should be resisted;

• at first floor level above the proposed flat 2 within 13 Brunswick Street West and at basement level below are flats which form part of 57 Brunswick Square. Listed Building consent should therefore be sought to ensure the character of the building is not compromised;

• the windows on the Brunswick Street West elevation should be of the same design.

Impact on residential amenity • the increased window size and balcony will increase overlooking

into a private courtyard; • the balcony and development will increase noise levels; • houses have no gardens or amenity space and the proposal will

exacerbate this. Traffic issues • the proposal will result in increased traffic and parking demand; • question the need to remove the garage in an area of limited

parking: if removed should loose future rights for permits; • dispute the claim that three parking spaces can be provided within

land to the front of the property; • the use of the land for parking may effect rights of way over strips of

land in front of this section of Brunswick Street West. Other issues • note that the applicant does not own an area of land to the front or

rear of the property; • note that many properties have received no formal consultation. Internal: Traffic: the proposal fails to meet TR1 and the removal of the garage is regretted, however, no objection subject to a contribution to the Sustainable Transport Strategy of £6,000 to include for making the development ‘car free’. Conservation and Design: (comments on original scheme) The existing ground and first floor elevations of no. 15 and the ground floor of no. 13 have no mews character and the removal of the ground floor bow windows and the full length tiled canopy would be welcome.


However, the omission of the first floor windows to no. 15 would leave the scheme incomplete and would result in the property having 2 identities (or 3 if you include the upper floors at no. 13). The windows to 13a must therefore be included; vertically proportioned timber sliding sashes would be required. The creation of large openings on the ground floor would be acceptable in principle, as this is a typical mews characteristic. However, the levels of the doors and the window openings need to be evened up and require depth. The full height openings could be improved by the incorporation of sliding or folding doors to add mews character, and the smaller windows should be vertically proportioned as suggested for the upper floor. The door canopies are uncharacteristic features, and an integral solution should be possible for bike and bin stores. Comments on revised scheme: The amended plans are acceptable, the proposed windows and doors should be timber and joinery details are required.

6 PLANNING POLICIES

Brighton & Hove Local Plan: TR1 Development and the demand for travel TR14 Cycle access and parking TR19 Parking standards SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and materials SU10 Noise nuisance

QD13 Advertisement hoardings QD27 Protection of amenity

QD28 Planning Obligations HO5 Provision of private amenity space in residential development HO7 Car free housing

HO9 Residential conversions and the retention of smaller dwellings HO13 Accessible housing and lifetime homes HE1 Listed buildings HE3 Development affecting the setting of a listed building

HE6 Development within or affecting the setting of conservation areas

7 CONSIDERATIONS

The main issues of consideration are the principle of conversion of the existing dwelling, the suitability of the proposed accommodation and the impact with regards neighbouring residential amenity and traffic issues, and the impact of the external alterations on the character and appearance of the building, conservation area and listed building. Suitability of the proposed conversion and accommodation Policy HO9 states that permission for conversions will be granted when,


amongst other criteria, the floor area is greater than 115m2 or the property has more than four bedrooms. The ground floor area of the property has a floor area of approximately 125m2 and the principle of conversion is therefore considered acceptable. Of the two flats created one will be a two-bedroom unit suitable for family accommodation, with both flats having adequate room sizes throughout. Secure refuse and recycling facilities are provided in an accessible location to the front of the property. Brunswick Street West is a compact urban form in which it is extremely difficult to provide any amenity space as the majority of properties have no curtilage with outdoor space, as is the case with the application site. Furthermore in this instance alternative amenity space at roof level cannot be provided due to the internal layout of the property and roof form. Whilst the lack of amenity space is therefore regrettable, given the constraints of the site it is considered none can realistically be provided and this would not warrant refusal of the application. In accordance with policy HO13 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Lifetime Home standards have been incorporated into the proposed layout. This is demonstrated by notes accompanying the plans stating that both street entrances are illuminated; in all flats there is turning space for wheelchairs in dining, living and kitchen area; with adequate circulation space elsewhere in the flats; bathrooms allow for access and allow for the possibility of support rails being fitted; and, corridors are at least 1050mm in width. As such it is considered the proposed ground floor flats have incorporated, wherever practicable, Lifetime Home standards into their design. It should be noted the first floor layout and access is not being altered as part of the application. Effect on neighbouring amenity The principle concern with regards neighbouring amenity is overlooking and loss of privacy caused by alterations to the rear elevation, which are in close proximity to window openings on Brunswick Square. The door opening is a remnant feature of the property dating from when links with no. 56 Brunswick Square existed. The regularisation of this door through the insertion of a juliet balcony would create additional and overbearing views of neighbouring properties, particularly for the basement patio. Amended plans are therefore sought to remove this opening and prevent any further loss of privacy for occupiers of adjoining properties. The existing rear window openings have a relatively high cill level which mitigates some overlooking from the application site towards window openings of properties on Brunswick Square. The proposal seeks to enlarge these openings and it is therefore likely to result in significantly increased overlooking and loss of privacy for occupiers of adjoining properties. As such amended plans


are sought to omit the enlarged window openings from the application and retain the existing. Thus preventing any additional harm resulting from the proposal. It is considered unlikely that the proposed conversion would cause a significant increase in noise an disturbance above that previously created through occupation of the property. Effect on the street scene and conservation area The properties currently feature ground floor bay windows with a canopy above running for the full width of the property, with first floor bay windows to no. 15. This creates an integrated appearance to the property despite many of the features being out of character within this mews setting. The proposed alterations to the front elevation will remove this canopy and significantly alter the position, proportions and style of window and door openings. Following amendments the elevation incorporates mews characteristics in the form of large ground floor window openings with vertically proportioned windows at first floor level. The proposed alterations are therefore considered acceptable and will enhance the character and appearance of the Brunswick Town Conservation Area. The adjoining property to the rear, no. 57 Brunswick Square, is a grade I listed building. No. 13 Brunswick Street West has internal links with this property at first floor level as was the case at the time of listing. It is therefore considered that further listed building consent would be required prior to commencement of the development. The applicant is advised of this by way of an informative. With regards this application it is considered the proposed alterations, which do not affect any original features of the building, will not have an adverse effect on the architectural or historical character of the listed building. Traffic issues The proposed conversion will result in the loss of an integral garage which is self-contained from the remainder of the property. Whilst this is regretted, the appearance of the building would not be harmed and no traffic objections have been raised, it is therefore not considered to warrant refusal of the application. A number of concerns were raised by adjoining neighbours regarding the use of the land at the front of the property. This land is an adopted highway and therefore should not be used for parking in association with flats within the proposed conversion. This strip of land has since been omitted from the application, by way of a revised site plan, and rights of way to adjoining properties should therefore not be obstructed through the application.


The application site lies within a controlled parking zone (area M) where there is currently a waiting list for permits. Since the development does not include any parking provision it is likely to increase the demand for on-street parking, this is considered contrary to policy TR1 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan. Condition 2 of the recommendation overcomes this by requiring the development be made car free to prevent future occupiers from being eligible for parking permits, in addition to providing a contribution towards the Sustainable Transport Strategy. Given the site’s close proximity to public transport routes and central location the site is considered to be an appropriate location for car free housing in accordance with policy HO7 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan. Both properties have secure cycle storage provided at ground floor level.


The property is of a sufficient size to be converted and will provide an acceptable standard of accommodation whilst not having a detrimental impact on neighbouring residential amenity. The accompanying alterations will not harm the character or appearance of the property, surrounding conservation area, or the grade I listed building. Furthermore there will not be increased parking problems since the proposal is to be car free.


The units will have to meet Part M of the Building Regulations and incorporate Lifetime Home criteria into the design wherever practicable.


No: BH2006/01394 Ward: BRUNSWICK AND ADELAIDE


Address: Niche Restaurant, 42 Waterloo Street, Hove

Proposal: Variation of condition 5 of planning permission BH1998/00086/FP to allow change of opening hours from 10am to 2am Monday to Saturday and 10am to 12 midnight on Sunday and Public Holidays on a permanent basis.

Officer: Clare Simpson, tel: 292454

Received Date: 26 April 2006

Con Area: Brunswick Town Expiry Date: 04 July 2006

Agent: Dean Wilson Laing, 96 Church Street Applicant:

Steve Smith & Kim Morrison, 42 Waterloo Street

1 RECOMMENDATION

That the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of this report and are minded to grant planning permission subject to no objection from Sussex Police and subject to the following Conditions and Informatives: Conditions 1. The premises shall not be open or in use except between the hours

of 10.00 and 02.00 hours Monday to Saturday and 10.00 to 24.00 hours Sunday and Public Holidays only. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the nearby occupiers and to comply with policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft

Informatives: 1. The applicant is reminded that all remaining conditions attached to

planning permission BH1998/00086 remain valid and must be complied with.

2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken: i. having regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton & Hove

Local Plan set out below: QD27 Protection of amenity SU10 Noise nuisance; and

ii. for the following reasons:


The proposal would not result in the significant noise and disturbance to local residents.

2 THE SITE

The site is a three-storey property plus basement on the corner of Waterloo Street and Cross Street. The lower ground floor appears to be used for informal dancing with the ground and first floor used for dining. The Niche Restaurant has been operating from this venue for approximately 2 years. The second floor of the property is residential use. The property lies within the Brunswick Town Conservation Area and has article 4 direction. The surrounding area is predominately residential although there are commercial premises to the north and the site is located just off the commercial centre of Western Road.

3 RELEVANT HISTORY

The property was granted a change of use from retail (A1) to restaurant (A3) in 1998. Condition 5 restricted opening hours between 10.00 and 23.30 Mondays to Saturdays, and 10.00 and 23.00 on Sundays and Public Holidays. (ref: BH1998/00086/FP). An application to vary of condition 5 of Planning Permission ref: BH1998/00086/FP restricting opening hours was granted on the 6th December 2000 for a temporary period until 30th November 2001. This permission allowed extended opening hours of 10.00 until 01.00 Mondays to Saturdays and 10.00 until 00.00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays. (ref: BH2000/02548/FP). A further application then followed to vary the condition once again and allow a further extension of opening hours until 2am Monday to Saturday which was approved with the condition that the extended opening hours permitted shall be until 31st August 2004. Reason: In order that the council may monitor the effect of the extension of hours upon nearby residential occupiers in the interest of amenity and to secure compliance with policies BE1 of the Hove Borough Local Plan and SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft (BH2003/01907/FP).

4 THE APPLICATION

This application seeks planning permission to once again vary condition 5 of planning application BH1998/00086/FP to allow a change in opening hours from 10am to 2am Monday to Saturday and 10am to 12 midnight on Sundays and Public Holidays on a permanent basis as the extended opening hours granted under BH2003/01907/FP expired on 31st August 2004.

5 CONSULTATIONS

External:


Neighbours: Flat 5 22, 23, Flat 4 24, flat 3 37, 55, 47 Waterloo Street, 5 Cross Street, and 4, 5, 7 Farman Street, object to the application of the following reasons: • the proposal would result in an increase in noise and disturbance for

local residents; • this is a residential area and not suitable for late licences; • there will be an increase in disorderly behaviour and public safety

issues; • there are enough late night venues in the area; • an increase in opening hours would also result in further traffic and

parking problems. Sussex Police: Comments awaited. Internal: Traffic Manager: No objection. Environmental Health: No objection, satisfied that controls contained within the Licensing Act 2003 are sufficent to control any problems with the commercial premises concerning hours of use or any complaints received.

6 PLANNING POLICIES

Brighton & Hove Local Plan: QD27 Protection of amenity SU10 Noise nuisance

7 CONSIDERATIONS

The main issue arising from this application is the effect the proposal will have in terms of noise and disturbance on local residents and the locality in general. A number of objections have been received from local residents regarding noise and disturbance. Nevertheless most concerns appear to be general in nature relating to the cumulative impact of commercial venues in the area. Significantly most of the comments do not appear to relate specifically to this premises or the current late night opening. There is no objection from the Environmental Health Officer and therefore it is considered that the premises has been operating without significant noise and disturbance. Furthermore given that there is little evidence that the noise and disturbance in the area can be attributed to the Niche restaurant it cannot be demonstrated that the late night use of premises is detrimental to the residential amenity of neighbours. Concerns were also expressed regarding the impact on traffic. However, it is not felt that allowing the extended opening hours on a permanent basis would have any significant impact on traffic flow. The traffic manager has not raised an objection


to the application. With regard to the potential for noise and disturbance, any complaints which may arise in the future can be dealt with under the 2003 Licensing Act which now includes new measures to prevent crime and disorder, prevent public nuisance and ensure public safety. The provisions of this act include the closure of premises, the imposition of fixed penalties and a procedure for the review of licenses. The premises has been granted a late license and the granting of this application would bring the planning permission into line with this licence. There would be sufficient control of the premises if necessary. Sussex Police have been consulted on this application and their comments are awaited. However, it is noted that they did not object to the last application in principle and recommended a temporary permission only in order to monitor the impact. Providing that Sussex Police are in agreement with our Environmental Health Officers and consider that this premises appears be operating without significant problems, it is considered that the site should be able to operate these hours on a permanent basis, particularly given the new legislative controls. Conclusion: For the reasons outlined above it is not considered that a permanent extension of opening hours is not likely to cause undue noise or disturbance to local residents.


The proposal would not result in the significant noise and disturbance to local residents.


None identified.


No: BH2006/01366 Ward: GOLDSMID


Address: 41 Denmark Villas

Proposal: Access staircase/fire exit to rear kitchen french doors at first floor level.

Officer: Jonathan Puplett, tel: 292525

Received Date:

25 April 2006

Con Area: Denmark Villas Expiry Date: 30 June 2006


Marieanne Bryceland, 41 Denmark Villas, Hove

1 RECOMMENDATION

That the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of this report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the following Conditions and Informatives: Conditions: 1. 01.01AA Full planning. 2. The staircase hereby approved shall be painted black steel and

shall be retained as such. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to comply with policy HE6 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

Informatives: 1. This decision is based on drawing nos. CC/2006/03 and 04

submitted on 5 May 2006. 2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken: i. having regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton and

Hove Local Plan set out below: QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements QD14 Extensions and alterations QD27 Protection of Amenity HE6 Development within or affecting the setting of conservation areas; and

ii. for the following reasons:- The access staircase/fire escape is considered suitable in the


context of the conservation area by virtue of its design, modest size, and use of painted black metal; the addition will not harm the appearance of the building and will not detract from the character or appearance of the Denmark Villas Conservation Area. Furthermore, any overlooking caused by the use of the staircase would not cause a significant loss of privacy for neighbouring properties.

2 THE SITE

The application relates to a semi-detached house split into two flats on the west of Denmark Villas. The property is within the Denmark Villas Conservation Area. The applicant is the owner of the first floor flat, and also has ownership of the rear garden. The rear garden is currently accessed from the flat via the front door and side passageway.

3 RELEVANT HISTORY

Permission was granted for an open balcony to the first floor of the building in 1974 (Ref: M/18350/74). This balcony was subsequently enlarged and had a roof added in 2001. A retrospective application for the retention of the changes was refused in 2001 (Ref: BH2001/02610/FP) and subsequent amendments in 2002 (BH2002/00687/FP) and 2003 (BH2003/02517/FP) were also refused. In July 2004 permission was refused for the replacement of the existing balcony with a new structure (BH2004/01506/FP), and a subsequent appeal against the refusal was dismissed in May 2005. An enforcement notice was served in January 2004 (reissued in February 2004) requiring the removal of the existing unauthorised structure and the making good of the elevation. An appeal against this notice was dismissed in September 2004. The notice has since been complied with.

4 THE APPLICATION

The application seeks consent for the installation of a black painted steel staircase primarily to provide access to the rear garden, and also a means of escape in case of emergency.

5 CONSULTATIONS

Neighbours: Letters have been received from the occupiers of 39 Denmark Villas, 43 Denmark Villas, GFF 31 Goldstone Villas, 31A Goldstone Villas and 33 Goldstone Villas objecting on the following grounds: • A fire escape at the rear of the property is not necessary. • The use of the proposed staircase would cause an increase in

overlooking and a loss of privacy for neighbouring gardens and properties.


• The proposed staircase would be out of keeping in the conservation area.

The occupiers also expressed concern that the development had been described as a ‘fire escape staircase’, as the staircase would be primarily used for access to the rear garden of the property. The description of the development has been amended to clarify this issue and occupiers of adjoining properties have been re-consulted. A long letter of support has been submitted by the applicant, key points of the letter are: • The objections from neighbours supported by Councillor Giebeler

relate to the previous illegal balcony structure at 41 Denmark Villas rather than the new application for an access staircase. The application should be assessed on its merits and not be prejudiced by previous events.

• The proposal would not increase overlooking to neighbouring properties as existing rear windows have views onto these gardens, and the staircase is for access to and from the rear garden only.

• The design of the staircase is in keeping with the conservation area. • The proposal would provide an alternative means of escape in the

event of a fire. 6 PLANNING POLICIES

Brighton & Hove Local Plan: QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements QD14 Extensions and alterations QD27 Protection of Amenity HE6 Development within or affecting the setting of conservation areas

7 CONSIDERATIONS

The main issues of consideration relate to the impact of the proposed staircase on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, and on the character and appearance of the property and the wider Conservation Area. Impact on the appearance of the property and the surrounding Conservation Area Application BH2004/01506/FP for a balcony and stairs was refused on two grounds; the balcony would have created an unacceptable loss of privacy for neighbouring properties, and the structure by virtue of its size, design and appearance was considered to relate poorly to the existing building and the surrounding Conservation Area. The Inspector’s report for the appeal against this refusal states that the design of the structure “would contrast with more traditional materials such as black painted ironwork and smaller scale spiral staircases used elsewhere.” Furthermore the report states that “direct access from Flat


1 to the rear garden may be possible by means of a suitably designed staircase.” This application seeks consent for the installation of a black painted steel staircase primarily to provide access to the rear garden, and also a means of escape in case of emergency. The staircase is modest is size and with a width of 0.65 metres, narrower than a standard staircase. It is considered that the design and materials of the proposed staircase relate well to the existing building. Black painted metal fire escapes are visible on the rear elevations of two properties close to the application site on the west of Denmark Villas. The rear elevation of 41 Denmark Villas is partially visible from Goldstone Villas via a driveway adjacent to 31 Goldstone Villas. However, given that the distance between the rear elevation and the east side of Goldstone Villas is approximately 65 metres, and that the design and materials of the proposed staircase are considered suitable within the Conservation Area, the character and appearance of the surrounding area would be preserved. Impact on residential Amenity The proposed staircase by virtue of its location on the rear projection of the building would not cause any significant overshadowing or loss of light for neighbouring properties; the key issue is any loss of privacy caused by the use of the staircase. Occupiers of neighbouring properties have objected to the proposal on the grounds that users of the staircase will overlook surrounding gardens and properties. The proposed staircase is 0.65 metres wide; therefore the only use of the staircase would be to provide access to and from the rear garden. Any overlooking of surrounding properties would be limited to brief periods, and this type of overlooking already exists as the rear windows of the flat have views over the neighbouring properties. The proposal is an access staircase and does not include a balcony, therefore it is considered that any loss of privacy for neighbouring properties which may be caused is not significant enough to warrant refusal of the application. Conclusion The proposed staircase is of suitable design and materials in relation to the existing building and the wider Conservation Area, and no significant harm will be caused to the amenity of neighbouring properties; approval is therefore recommend.


The access staircase/fire escape is considered suitable in the context of the conservation area by virtue of its design, modest size, and use of painted black metal; the addition will not harm the appearance of the building and will not detract from the character or appearance of the


Denmark Villas Conservation Area. Furthermore, any overlooking caused by the use of the staircase would not cause a significant loss of privacy for neighbouring properties.


None identified.




Address: Hangleton Manor, Hangleton Valley Drive

Proposal: Single storey extension. external floodlighting & new gate.

Officer: Nicola Slater, tel: 292114 Received Date:

21 February 2006

Con Area: HANGLETON Expiry Date: 03 May 2006

Agent: HLF Planning, 20 West Mills, Newbury, Berkshire Applicant:

Hall & Woodhouse Ltd, The Brewery, Blandford St Mary, Dorset

1 RECOMMENDATION

That the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of this report and resolves that it is minded to grant planning permission subject to receipt of satisfactory information regarding the lighting and no objection from Street Lighting and Environmental Health and to the following Conditions and Informatives: Conditions: 1. 01.01AA Full planning. 2. All new work, repairs and works of making good shall be carried

out in materials, styles and colours to match exactly the existing in their respective part of the building, including the use of traditional lime mortar and plasterwork for making good the new opening formed through the flint wall of the boiler room to improve ventilation, and all new joinery work shall match exactly the existing joinery styles and moulding profiles. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and surrounding Conservation Area and to comply with policies HE1 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

3. No works shall take place until details of the new lamps, floodlights and light bollards, including large scale drawings and sections and information in respect of intensity and spread of illumination have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and surrounding Conservation Area and to comply with policies HE1 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

4. All new lighting shall emit white light only. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building


and surrounding Conservation Area and to comply with policies HE1 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

5. No works shall take place until details of the proposed additional screening to the rear of the new cold room extension for the refuse storage, including large scale drawings and sections have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and surrounding Conservation Area and to comply with policies HE1 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

6. The proposed bollards in the car park shall be matt black cast aluminium. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and surrounding Conservation Area and to comply with policies HE1 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

7. Notwithstanding the details of the proposed door shown on the proposed rear elevation on drawing no. 1867/07 C, no works shall take place until revised drawings showing vertical boarded doors have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and surrounding Conservation Area and to comply with policies HE1 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

8. No cables, wires, aerials, pipework (except rainwater downpipes as shown on the approved plans) meter boxes or flues shall be fixed to any elevation fronting a highway. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and surrounding Conservation Area and to comply with policies HE1 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

9. No development shall take place within the application site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In order to provide a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site and to comply with policy HE12 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

(Note - Conditions relating to the lighting will be added to the additional representations list on receipt of comments from both Street Lighting and Environmental Health). Informatives: 1. This decision is based on drawing nos. 1867/01, 1867/04, 1867/05,

1867/09 Rev B, 1867/10 Rev B submitted on 21 February 2006;


1867/02 Rev H, 1867/06 Rev A, 1867/08 Rev E, 1867/11 Rev C, 1867/12 Rev C, 1867/20 submitted on 24 April 2006; 1867/07 Rev C and the lighting information submitted on 15 May 2006.

2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken: i. having regard to policies and proposals in the Brighton & Hove

Local Plan set out below: TR1 Development and the demand for travel TR2 Public transport accessibility and parking TR7 Safe development TR14 Cycle access and parking TR19 Parking standards SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and materials SU10 Noise nuisance SU13 Minimisation and re-use of construction industry waste QD14 Extensions and alterations QD25 External lighting QD26 Floodlighting QD27 Protection of amenity SR12 Large Use Class A3 (restaurants and cafes) and Use Class A4 (pubs and bars) HE1 Listed buildings HE6 Development within or affecting the setting of conservation areas HE12 Scheduled ancient monuments and other important archaeological sites; and

ii. for the following reasons:

The proposed extension and alterations, subject to compliance with the above conditions will not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity and will preserve and enhance the character and setting of the Grade 11* Listed building and character and appearance of the Hangleton Conservation Area.

2 THE SITE

The application relates to Hangleton Manor, which is a Grade II* Listed Building located within the Hangleton Conservation Area on the east side of Hangleton Valley Drive, approximately 60 metres south of the junction with Hangleton Lane. The former Manor House dates back to the 15th Century and now comprises of a public house/restaurant and a residential dwelling.

3 RELEVANT HISTORY

Various listed building applications, extensions and adverts. More recently, listed building consent was granted for internal alterations to


the back bar in June 1999 (ref: BH1999/00717/LB) and an application seeking advertisement consent was withdrawn in April 2006 (ref: BH2006/00782).

4 THE APPLICATION

Planning permission is sought for a single storey extension, external floodlighting and a new gate. As originally submitted the proposal also included a permanent seating area with ‘Jumbrellas’ in the side garden. However, this aspect was subsequently omitted from the scheme following concerns raised by Officers regarding the potential impact on amenity. Furthermore, amendments were received for the external lighting scheme and additional screening to the rear of the new cold room extension. There is a concurrent Listed Building application (ref: BH2006/00569), also reported on the Plans List.

5 CONSULTATIONS

External: Neighbours: The scheme as originally submitted: Letters of representation have been received from the occupiers of Flat 1, 36 Brunswick Square; 36, 38 Hangleton Lane; 20, 22, 24 Hangleton Manor Close objecting to the proposal on the following grounds: • at the present time the lighting on the rear of the Manor (which

faces private properties) faces downwards, which is just about acceptable, the lighting facing towards the garden will be far more intrusive;

• the proposed lamppost seems totally unnecessary in a garden setting;

• the longer the lighting is on, the longer customers are inclined to stay and make unacceptable amounts of noise late at night;

• use of the patio area and proposed sitting area will result in increased noise and disturbance and loss of privacy;

• the alterations are not in keeping with the building; • increased parking problems and potential overflow into Hangleton

Valley Drive; • a new and large fan is indicated in the wall of what is described as

an Open Area adjacent to the Boiler Room, Disabled WC and kitchen. This is a large unit and its purpose and discharge direction are unclear. If it is venting externally from the boiler room its proximity to the kitchen may give cause for concern, unless specified with care it would also be noisy.

Two further letters of representation have been received from the occupiers of The Old Manor House, 38 Hangleton Lane following the receipt of amended/additional plans objecting to the proposal on the


following grounds: • potential light pollution from the lighting bollards in the south car

park; • questions are raised regarding ownership of the positioning of the

existing lights; • additional parking required for the customers; • the proposal encourages very late night outside drinking in a quiet

residential area. Brighton & Hove Archaeological Society: Hangleton Manor is a listed building and as such will require specialised attention prior to and during any approved development. The Brighton and Hove Archaeological Society would recommend that prior to the commencement of any works the professional services of Mr David Martin, a leading expert in medieval buildings, and Archaeology South East are requested to record all aspects of this ancient building that may be affected by the development. It is essential that a condition of planning approval include a provision for a watching brief during removal of top soil to note and record any archaeological features that may be revealed. CAG: The plans are considered to lack clarity and object to the fixing of any lamps upon the facades of the Grade 11* Medieval Listed Building. County Archaeologist: The proposed development is situated within an archaeologically sensitive area, designated because Hangleton Manor is a Grade II Listed Building, comprising of a 15th Century manor house, with 16th Century and later additions. In the light of the potential archaeological significance of this site, the area affected by the proposals should be the subject of an archaeological watching brief. This will enable any archaeological deposits and features, disturbed during the proposed works, to be adequately recorded. English Heritage: No comment. Sussex Police: No comment. Internal: Conservation & Design: Detailed comments received regarding the internal and external alterations. Concerns were raised regarding the permanent seating area and the installation of Jumbrellas and the lighting scheme. Following the submission of revised and additional plans the floodlighting scheme is considered acceptable. Environmental Health: Awaiting comments.


Street Lighting: Awaiting comments. Traffic Manager: No objection on traffic grounds.

6 PLANNING POLICIES

Brighton & Hove Local Plan: TR1 Development and the demand for travel TR2 Public transport accessibility and parking TR7 Safe development TR14 Cycle access and parking TR19 Parking standards SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and materials SU10 Noise nuisance SU13 Minimisation and re-use of construction industry waste QD14 Extensions and alterations QD25 External lighting QD26 Floodlighting QD27 Protection of amenity SR12 Large Use Class A3 (restaurants and cafes) and Use Class A4 (pubs and bars) HE1 Listed buildings HE6 Development within or affecting the setting of conservation areas HE12 Scheduled ancient monuments and other important archaeological sites

7 CONSIDERATIONS

Matters relating to ownership is not a material planning consideration. The determining issues in this application relate to firstly, whether the proposed alterations would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity; secondly, whether the proposed alterations respect the character and appearance of the Grade 11* Listed Building; and thirdly, whether the alterations preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Hangleton Conservation Area. Impact on amenity: In terms of the external alterations, it is proposed to construct a single storey extension, external floodlighting and a new gate. As originally submitted, the proposal included a permanent seating area with ‘Jumbrellas’ in the side garden. However, this aspect was subsequently omitted from the scheme following concerns raised by Officers regarding the potential impact on amenity in terms of increased noise and disturbance to surrounding neighbouring residents and the impact the seating and ‘Jumbrellas’ would have on the setting of the building.


The extension to the rear is proposed to have a depth of 2.4 metres and a width of 3.2 metres. It will not project any further south than the existing building. Given the size of the extension, together with the fact there are no windows from the neighbouring residential property overlooking the site, the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity. Concerns have been raised by neighbouring occupiers regarding the increased number of people the premises will accommodate as a restaurant. The application, however, does not increase the amount of floorspace attached to the restaurant/public house. Rather, the proposed extension would provide additional floorspace to extend the kitchen. Internally, the amount of dining area does increase with the removal of the Saloon Bar and Tudor Bar. However, reducing the proportion of floorspace attached to the bar and increasing the amount of floorspace attached to the restaurant does not require planning permission. Concerns have also been raised by neighbouring occupiers regarding the proposed lighting and the potential for light pollution to neighbouring occupiers. Additional information regarding the level of illumination from the proposed floodlights is expected at the time of writing this report with further comments to follow from the Street Lighting team and Environmental Health officers. Impact on the Listed Building & Conservation Area: Conservation Officers have commented on the application and consider the alterations acceptable subject to conditions. There is already an existing modern single storey building in the rear courtyard providing kitchen facilities and the proposed extension is therefore considered acceptable in principle, subject to conditions requiring materials to match and the replacement of the plain flush doors with vertical boarded doors. The location of the proposed extension is currently occupied by paladin refuse bins and concerns were raised regarding the relocation of the bins and ensuring the repositioning of the refuse bins does not have an impact on the setting of the Listed Building. As a result, the revised plans incorporate additional screening to the rear of the proposed cold room extension in order to mask the paladins. Concerns have been raised by CAG in respect of the fixing of lights on the building. Conservation Officers, however, consider the proposed Somerset lanterns on the side elevation and above the front entrance door acceptable subject to further details. During the course of the application, additional information was submitted in respect of the floodlighting. Conservation Officers, consider the lighting proposal to be acceptable and in principle is a welcome rationalisation and improvement on the existing floodlighting on the building and in the


shrub beds. As revised, the applicants proposed to install bollards which were a red rust colour. Both the size and colour of the bollards were not considered acceptable and the size has subsequently been reduced and the colour changed to black. Traffic Manager: Concerns have been raised by neighbouring occupiers regarding increased parking problems and the potential overflow into Hangleton Valley Drive as a result of the increased restaurant facilities. As previously stated increasing the amount of floorspace attached to the restaurant does not require planning permission. In addition, the Traffic Manager has commented on the application and does not raise an objection on traffic grounds. Conclusion: The proposed alterations are not considered to have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of loss of light and loss of privacy. Comments are expected at the time of writing this report in terms of the lighting and impact on amenity. Furthermore, Conservation Officers have commented on the application and consider that the proposed alterations, subject to compliance with the above conditions will preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Grade II* Listed Building and the surrounding Hangleton Conservation Area. For these reasons the application is recommended for approval.


The proposed extension and alterations, subject to compliance with the above conditions will not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity and will preserve and enhance the character and setting of the Grade 11* Listed Building and character and appearance of the Hangleton Conservation Area.


The building will be required to comply with the DDA.



App Type Listed Building Consent

Address: Hangleton Manor, Hangleton Valley Drive

Proposal: Single storey extension, flood lighting, new gate, illuminated post sign, internal alterations.

Officer: Nicola Slater, tel: 292114 Received Date:

21 February 2006

Con Area: HANGLETON Expiry Date: 03 May 2006

Agent: HLF Planning, 20 West Mills, Newbury, Berkshire Applicant:

Hall & Woodhouse Ltd, The Brewery, Blandford St Mary, Dorset

1 RECOMMENDATION

That the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of this report and resolves that it is minded to grant listed building consent subject to no objection to the scheme following referral to Government Office of the South East and the following Conditions and Informatives: Conditions: 1. 01.05AA Listed Building Consent. 2. All new work, repairs and works of making good shall be carried

out in materials, styles and colours to match exactly the existing in their respective part of the building, including the use of traditional lime mortar and plasterwork for making good the new opening formed through the flint wall of the boiler room to improve ventilation, and all new joinery work shall match exactly the existing joinery styles and moulding profiles. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and to comply with policy HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

3. No works shall take place until details of the new lamps, floodlights and light bollards, including large scale drawings and sections and information in respect of intensity and spread of illumination have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and to comply with policy HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

4. No works shall take place until samples of the new tiles and timber floor boarding have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in strict


accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and to comply with policy HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

5. No works shall take place until a method statement and details of the restoration and repair of the cornices and panelling by the front windows have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and to comply with policy HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

6. No works shall take place until details of the supporting works to the cold room floor and new step, including 1:5 scale sections have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and to comply with policy HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

7. No works shall take place until an internal elevation of the Saxon Bar is submitted detailing the backfitting of the replacement bar to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and to comply with policy HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

8. All new lighting shall emit white light only. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and to comply with policy HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

9. No works shall take place until details of the proposed additional screening to the rear of the new cold room extension for the refuse storage, including large scale drawings and sections have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and to comply with policy HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

10. No works shall take place until details of the replacement doors, including 1:20 sample elevations have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and to comply with policy HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

11. The proposed bollards in the car park shall be matt black cast aluminium. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and to comply with policies HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

12. Notwithstanding the details of the proposed door shown on the proposed rear elevation on drawing no. 1867/07 C, no works shall take place until revised drawings showing vertical boarded doors


have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and to comply with policy HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

13. No cables, wires, aerials, pipework (except rainwater downpipes as shown on the approved plans) meter boxes or flues shall be fixed to any elevation fronting a highway. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and to comply with policies HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Informatives: 1. This decision is based on drawing nos. 1867/01, 1867/04,

1867/05,1867/09 Rev B, 1867/10 submitted on 21 February 2006; 1867/02 Rev H, 1867/08 Rev E, 1867/11 Rev C, 1867/12 Rev 12, 1867/20 submitted on the 24 April 2006; 1867/07 Rev C and lighting details submitted on 15 May 2006.

2. This decision to grant Listed Building Consent has been taken: i. having regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton & Hove

Local Plan set out below: HE1 Listed Buildings; and

ii. for the following reasons: The proposed extension and alterations, subject to compliance with the above conditions will preserve and enhance the character and setting of the Grade 11* Listed Building.

2 THE SITE

The application relates to Hangleton Manor, which is a Grade II* Listed Building located within the Hangleton Conservation Area on the east side of Hangleton Valley Drive, approximately 60 metres south of the junction with Hangleton Lane. The former Manor House dates back to the 15th Century and now comprises of a public house/restaurant and a residential dwelling.

3 RELEVANT HISTORY

Various listed building applications, extensions and adverts. More recently, listed building consent was granted for internal alterations to the back bar in June 1999 (ref: BH1999/00717/LB) and an application seeking advertisement consent was withdrawn in April 2006 (ref: BH2006/00782).

4 THE APPLICATION

Listed building consent is sought for a single storey extension, external floodlighting, a new gate and various internal alterations, which


include • removal of bars in both the Saloon Bar and Tudor Bar; • replacement of the backfitting of the Saxon bar; • installation of new flooring; • the corridor between the boiler room and the rear washing up

area is to be blocked up to create a cupboard; • installation of new doors; • repair and maintenance of existing historic features. As originally submitted the proposal also included a permanent seating area with ‘Jumbrellas’ (large umbrellas with integral heating units) in the side garden. However, this aspect was subsequently omitted from the scheme following concerns raised by Officers regarding the potential impact on amenity. In addition, following withdrawal of the advertisement consent the adverts were deleted from the plans. Amendments were also received for the external lighting scheme and additional screening to the rear of the new cold room extension. There is a concurrent Full Planning application (ref: BH2006/00570) also reported on this Plans List.

5 CONSULTATIONS

External: Neighbours: Letters of representation have been received from 38 Hangleton Lane, The Old Manor House, Hove Civic Society, The Montpelier and Clifton Hill Association, Flat 1 36 Brunswick Square objecting to the proposal on the following grounds: • the alterations are out of keeping with the building; • the repair to the cornice in the Tudor Bar may not be sufficient for

the Grade 11* Listed Building. This room is extremely historic and the proposed repair works and materials suggested in contrary to Listed Building repair guidelines and should not be allowed. Traditional methods and materials should be used after a fuller investigation into what repairs are needed;

• repairs to be carried out to the panelling and a cornice in the Dining Area. The workmanship and materials used should complement those of the vernacular of the original building and the adjacent timbers;

• entrance door within dining area should be sympathetic to the character of the building;

• a new and large fan is indicated in the wall of what is described as an Open Area adjacent to the Boiler Room, Disabled WC and kitchen. This is a large unit and its purpose and discharge direction are unclear. If it is venting externally from the boiler room its proximity to the kitchen may give cause for concern, unless specified with care it would also be noisy;

• increased light pollution from the proposed lighting;


• questions are raised regarding ownership of the positioning of the existing lights.

Brighton & Hove Archaeological Society: Hangleton Manor is a listed building and as such will require specialised attention prior to and during any approved development. The Brighton and Hove Archaeological Society would recommend that prior to the commencement of any works the professional services of Mr David Martin, a leading expert in medieval buildings, and Archaeology South East are requested to record all aspects of this ancient building that may be affected by the development. It is essential that a condition of planning approval include a provision for a watching brief during removal of top soil to note and record any archaeological features that may be revealed. CAG: The plans are considered to lack clarity and object to the fixing of any lamps upon the facades of the Grade 2* Medieval Listed Building. County Archaeologist: The proposed development is situated within an archaeologically sensitive area, designated because Hangleton Manor is a Grade II Listed Building, comprising of a 15th Century manor house, with 16th Century and later additions. In the light of the potential archaeological significance of this site, the area affected by the proposals should be the subject of an archaeological watching brief. This will enable any archaeological deposits and features, disturbed during the proposed works, to be adequately recorded. English Heritage: No comment. Internal: Conservation & Design: Detailed comments received regarding the internal and external alterations. Concerns were raised regarding the permanent seating area and the installation of Jumbrellas and the lighting scheme. Following the submission of revised and additional plans the floodlighting scheme is considered acceptable and the internal alterations acceptable subject to compliance with conditions.

6 PLANNING POLICIES

Brighton & Hove Local Plan: HE1 Listed Buildings

7 CONSIDERATIONS

Matters relating to ownership is not a material planning consideration and matters relating to the lighting and impact on residential amenity are discussed under the concurrent Full Planning Application


(BH2006/00570). The determining issues in this application relate to whether the proposed alterations preserve the character and appearance of the Grade 11* Listed Building. Conservation Officers have commented on the application and consider the alterations acceptable subject to conditions. There is already an existing modern single storey building in the rear courtyard providing kitchen facilities and the proposed extension is therefore considered acceptable in principle, subject to conditions requiring materials to match and the replacement of the plain flush doors with vertical boarded doors. The location of the proposed extension is currently occupied by paladin refuse bins and concerns were raised regarding the relocation of the bins and ensuring the repositioning of the refuse bins does not have an impact on the setting of the Listed Building. As a result, the revised plans incorporate additional screening to the rear of the proposed cold room extension in order to mask the paladins. Concerns have been raised by CAG in respect of the fixing of lights on the building. Conservation Officers, however, consider the proposed Somerset lanterns on the side elevation and above the front entrance door acceptable subject to further details. During the course of the application, additional information was submitted in respect of the floodlighting. Conservation Officers, consider the lighting proposal to be acceptable and in principle is a welcome rationalisation and improvement on the existing floodlighting on the building and in the shrub beds. As revised, the applicants proposed to install bollards which were a red rust colour. Both the size and colour of the bollards were not considered acceptable and the size has subsequently been reduced and the colour changed to black. The internal alterations are broadly acceptable subject to details and materials, samples of which are required by condition. The blocking up of the corridor between the boiler room and the rear washing up, and the formation of a cupboard out of the corridor is acceptable, subject to the cupboard door being of a suitable design. The removal of the bar from the Tudor Bar (to become a dining area) is considered acceptable as it is of no historic or architectural interest. The applicants have confirmed that the cornice, mouldings and panelling will be carefully removed prior to removal of the bar and put to one side for reinstatement following the bar removal. It has also been confirmed that the mirrors and panelling to the face of the back bar will be retained and the plain ply panel beneath will be removed and replaced with panelling from the front of the bar counter that has been removed. The proposal also includes, the removal of the folding traditional panelled doors from the opening between the Tudor Bar and the Saloon Bar is acceptable, as these doors are not historic to the


building. In the Saxon Bar, the backfitting of the bar is to be replaced. Whilst it is not considered to be of historic or architectural importance, an internal elevation is required to ensure that its replacement is sympathetic to the building and conditions imposed regarding the materials to be used. The removal of the bar from the rear Saloon Bar (to become the rear dining area) is welcomed. However, the proposed paviers do not relate to the existing traditional square Sussex red clay tiles that surround the bar and a condition is imposed requiring samples of flooring to be submitted. Some concerns have been raised regarding the repair work proposed to the cornicing in the Tudor Bar. Further clarification and method statement for repair is required by condition. To conclude, the proposed external and internal alterations proposed, subject to compliance with the recommended conditions set out in section 1, are considered acceptable and are not likely to detract from the character and setting of the Grade 11* Listed Building. The application is therefore recommended for approval.


The proposed extension and alterations, subject to compliance with the above conditions will preserve and enhance the character and setting of the Grade 11* Listed Building.


None identified.




Address: City Park, Orchard Road

Proposal: Erection of security control centre and amendments to road layout and buildings including formation of loading bay and storage area.

Officer: Sue Dubberley, tel: 292097 Received Date:

10 April 2006

Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 07 August 2006

Agent: David Richmond & Partners, 16 Bowling Green Lane, London Applicant:

Legal & General , Legal & General House, Tadworth, Surrey

1 RECOMMENDATION

That the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of this report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the following Conditions and Informatives: Conditions 1. 01.01AA Full planning. 2. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not

be initiated by the undertaking of a material operation as defined in section 56(4)(a)-(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development, until a Planning Obligation pursuant to s.106 of the said Act relating to the land has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority and it has notified the persons submitting the same that it is to Local Planning Authority's approval. The said Planning Obligation will provide: a) that a sum of money will be paid to the local planning authority to be used to provide for mitigating measure to be introduced in the event of problems arising in the future from employees parking in nearby streets surrounding the development and causing parking problems for residents, such as limited duration waiting on the adjacent affected streets, thereby preventing long term parking but minimising the impact on local residents.

b) Provision of a cycle route along the northern boundary of the site to connect the Droveway between the site access and the National Cycle Route through Hove Park.

Reason: In the interest of the residential amenities of the area and to comply with policy TR1 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.


3. The position of the barrier at the security control centre to be moved southwards to satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to leave sufficient room for an HGV to stop at the barrier and be clear of the normal entry lane of the access road and to comply with policy TR7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Informatives: 1. This decision is based on drawing nos. L&G.06.P.2000, 2001, 1100,

1101, 1110, 1111, 2100, 2101, 2110, 2111, 3100, 3101, 3110, 3111, 2300, 2301, 2302,, 3305, 3306, 5020 submitted on 8 May 2006.


Local Plan set out below: QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements. QD2 Design – key principles for neighbourhoods. QD3 Design – full and effective use of sites. QD27 protection of amenity. QD28 planning obligations. TR2 public transport accessibility and parking. TR14 cycle access and parking. TR19 parking standards; and

ii. for the following reasons: It is considered that the security control building is acceptable in design terms and will have no significant impact on the area. Similarly the proposed minor alteration to the approved office buildings and location of car park entrances are considered acceptable with no major impact on the overall scheme. While the reduction in car parking spaces could result in overspill parking into the streets surrounding the development a S106 obligation is recommended to secure funds for the implementation of mitigating measures if these prove necessary.

2 THE SITE

The site is the former Alliance House site, used as a headquarters building by the Alliance and Leicester until June 1995 when they initiated a phased departure from the area to the main headquarters in Leicester, until its final vacation in June 1997. The original office buildings on the site have been demolished and the site is nearing completion in line with the 2001 approved application for a mixed office and residential development.


To the north of the site is the Engineerium Conservation Area (the Engineerium is a Listed Building), to the west lies the Co-operative Supermarket and the Greyhound Stadium, both fronting Nevill Road.

3 RELEVANT HISTORY

1964: Permission granted for the erection of general executive and administrative offices of the Alliance Building Society. 1988: Permission granted for an extension to existing office building at ground, first and second floor levels forming closure to existing courtyard – not implemented. 1998: Appeal lodged due to the non-determination of an outline planning application for the demolition of the existing building and erection of 113 new dwellings, 30 combined live/work dwellings (with B1 workshops/studios) estate roads, footpaths, parking and amenity space. Planning Inquiry held in December 1998 and dismissed in February 1999 following the substitution with the revised and refused application drawings (below) on the grounds the proposal resulted in the loss of a strategic employment site. 1998: Refusal - of duplicate revised planning application for the demolition of the existing buildings and erection of 99 dwellings (including 26 affordable dwellings), 30 combined live/work dwellings (with studios/workshops) estate roads, footpaths, parking and amenity space (ref. BH1998/01599/FP). 1999: Refusal of outline planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of a mixed use development comprising 11,150sqm gross of office floorspace and 77 residential dwellings together with associated parking, access improvements and landscaping. It was refused in April 2000 on the grounds that it would lead to the partial loss of a strategic office site and would increase pressure for the outward expansion of the built up area onto greenfield land within the AONB. 2001: Demolition of existing building and erection of a mixed development comprising 22,463sqm gross office floorspace set out within 3 four storey office buildings with lower level and surface parking to provide 669 parking spaces. Erection of 3 x three storey blocks of residential accommodation to provide 64 flats (20 affordable) with 96 parking spaces, a day nursery facility, access roads and associated landscaping. (ref:BH2001/01019/FP) Approved 25/10/2002.

4 THE APPLICATION

The application is essentially an amendment to the 2001 application for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site, which comprised a mixed office and residential development. The current application proposes changes to the office development and is in three parts: i) The erection of a new security control centre and access near the


main entrances to the City Park site which is located off The Droveway. This is a relatively small oval shaped single storey building with detailing to reflect the main office development. The building would be clad with cedar boarding and have a terne-coated steel roof. A barrier controlled entry system would be operated from the centre.

ii) Amendments to the elevations of buildings numbers two and three, their car park entrances and access roads are proposed. These amendments are relatively minor changes, for instance the approved entrance to the lower car park on the eastern elevation of building three is to be relocated to the easternmost bay of the south elevation, with the original opening replaced by louvres to match the existing building. A new door and access road is proposed to the upper car park level on the south elevation of the south wing.

iii) Amendments to the on-site parking provision. The proposal is to reduce the on-site parking provision to 588 car parking spaces which represents net reduction of 77 car parking spaces. An additional 82 cycle parking spaces to be provided along with a new area for motorcycle parking.

A transport plan has also been submitted by Legal and General who are currently moving into the building in phases. The plan includes the appointment of a ‘Travel Coordinator’ who will coordinate and implement the travel plan. A staff travel data base will be maintained by the Travel Coordinator using joiner and leaver data. Real time public transport information will be available to all staff via the intranet on personal computers and displayed on plasma screens in reception areas. Car sharing will be encouraged and only those people with two or more people on their car will be allowed to use the staff car park. Other measures include interest free loans for annual bus season tickets, discounted ticket on Brighton and Hove buses, showers on all floors to encourage cycling and the possibility of a shuttle buses running along Old Shoreham Road and to and from Churchill Square.

5 CONSULTATIONS

External: Neighbours: 45 Hove Park Way, 133 Nevill Road, 19, 60 woodland Avenue, 25 Orchard Avenue, 37, 57 Goldstone Crescent, 5 Park View Road object on the following grounds: • The original scheme did not provide enough parking and find it

incredible that a reduction in parking is now proposed. • Loss of parking spaces will cause parking problems in the

surrounding area. This will be caused by; insufficient on-site parking; employees trying to avoid large queues and delays in leaving the site via The Droveway and traffic lights and those not permitted to park on the site (car park user must be car sharers).


• Out of town parking should be considered possibly on road between Pycombe and Pycombe Street where drivers can park and travel in together in fewer cars or a bus service could be provided.

• Question whether motorcycles should be encouraged. • Families and elderly people who use the park on a regular basis will

no longer be able to park nearby.

Public Meeting In addition to the above comments from residents a Public Meeting was held on the 12th June at Aldrington School. The meeting was Chaired By Cllr. Bennett and attended by Cllr. Vanessa Brown, Legal & General and the architect for the scheme as well as representatives from the Police, the Sustainable Transport and City Planning Teams. The meeting discussed Legal & Generals operational plans for the site in the context of the current planning application. Many of those in attendance expressed concern largely over the likelihood of overspill parking on nearby streets and in particular how this might restrict access to Hove Park. Much of the debate also related back to the merits of the original grant of consent for the overall redevelopment. It was quite clear that residents considered the original grant of consent flawed on the basis of insufficient off-street parking. Internal:

Traffic Manager: The very positive and comprehensive travel plan submitted with the application is supported. It would appear that the measures contained in the travel plan are intended to mitigate the effects of the reduction in car parking.

Whilst the effort to reducing car usage to/ from the site is noted it is

possible that this could cause a relocation to surrounding streets. Therefore, the Developer should fully fund measures to reduce this impact should such relocation be occur. The measures could include introducing limited duration waiting on adjacent affected streets thereby preventing long term parking, but minimizing the impact on the local residents and amenities.

The position of the barrier at the security control centre as shown on drawing L&G.06.p.2001 does not leave sufficient room for an HGV to stop at the barrier and be clear of the “normal” entry lane of the access road. A vehicle entering the site from The Droveway may be confronted with the rear of the HGV; this provides a real opportunity for an accident. The barrier should be moved further south to negate this problem.

Environmental Health: No comments to make on the application.

6 PLANNING POLICIES


Brighton & Hove Local Plan: QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements. QD2 Design – key principles for neighbourhoods. QD3 Design – full and effective use of sites. QD27 Protection of amenity. QD28 Planning obligations. TR2 Public transport accessibility and parking. TR14 Cycle access and parking. TR19 Parking standards

7 CONSIDERATIONS

The main issues are the acceptability of the proposed security control centre, the changes to the elevations and car park entrances and the impact of the reduction in on-site car parking spaces on the surrounding area.

The security control centre is considered acceptable in terms of its design and location on the site. The traffic engineer is concerned that the position of the barrier at the security control centre as shown does not leave sufficient room for an HGV to stop at the barrier and be clear of the “normal” entry lane of the access road. A vehicle entering the site from The Droveway may be confronted with the rear of the HGV; this provides a real opportunity for an accident. The barrier would need to be moved further south to negate this problem. The applicants are willing to move the barrier in line with the traffic engineer’s comments and an appropriate condition is included under the recommendations. The alteration to the elevations of two of the three approved office buildings are fairly minor and will not have a significant impact on the overall design of the original scheme and are therefore considered acceptable. Similarly the changes to the location of the underground car park entrances beneath the two buildings are considered acceptable. The main issue which has given rise to objection from local residents, both in writing and at the Public Meeting, is the reduction in car parking spaces now proposed and the possible implications for parking in the street surrounding the development. The issue of parking in the area was raised during the processing of the earlier application and was a contentious issue at the time for local residents. The main concern of objectors is that there is already inadequate parking provision on site and that any reduction is spaces should not be allowed as this would lead to further overspill parking in the surrounding area. The applicants however have submitted a comprehensive Travel Plan which they consider will mitigate any parking problems in the area off setting the reduction in on site parking provision.


Traffic and parking were also considered under the earlier scheme and as part of a Section 106 Obligation the following were secured: Off Site Highways Works (as revised) include: • New signalled junction at Nevill Road/Woodland Drive/The

Droveway which would include signalled pedestrian crossings; • Removal of stretch of bus lane on this section originally proposed; • Widening and improvements to The Droveway; • Provision of cycle route along Nevill Road and The Droveway – in the

form of a contribution; • Bus stop improvements on Nevill Road; • Provision of two pedestrian refuges on Nevill Road; • Traffic calming/management on Orchard Road – contribution

towards consultation (three options) and implementation; • Contribution towards junction improvements at King George VI

Avenue and Nevill Road. • Submission of a Green Travel Plan; • Management plan for construction traffic to and from the site. It is difficult for anyone to know with any certainty what if any parking problems may occur in the street surrounding the site until the site is actually fully occupied and the implications on traffic in the area. The applicants anticipate that building 1 will be fully occupied by the end of 2006, building 2 will begin to be occupied by mid 2006 with full occupation by the fourth quarter of 2006 and finally building 3 will begin occupation from 2007 onwards. It is considered that in addition to the items secured under the earlier S106 obligation set out above it is reasonable to secure an additional sum of money via a S106 obligation which could be used in the event of problems arising in the future, from employees parking in nearby streets surrounding the development and causing parking problems for residents. The money would be used for mitigating measure to be introduced in the area such as limited duration waiting on the adjacent affected streets, thereby preventing long term parking but minimising the impact on local residents. The applicants are willing to enter into such an agreement. The recommendation is therefore for approval for the reasons stated above.


It is considered that the security control building is acceptable in design terms and will have no significant impact on the area. Similarly the proposed minor alteration to the approved office buildings and location of car park entrances are considered acceptable with no major impact on the overall scheme. While the reduction in car


parking spaces could result in overspill parking into the streets surrounding the development a S106 obligation is recommended to secure funds for the implementation of mitigating measures if these prove necessary.


None of the proposed reduction in car parking spaces affects the disabled parking spaces shown on the earlier approved plans.


No: BH2006/00912 Ward: PRESTON PARK

Address: 9 Beaconsfield Road

Proposal: Conversion of doctor's surgery to three flats and alterations including the insertion of one front rooflight, two rear rooflights and the creation of a roof terrace.

Officer: Liz Holt, tel: 291709 Received Date:

21 March 2006

Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 16 May 2006

Agent: Patrick Stoney, 144 Edward Street, Brighton Applicant:

Shula Rich, 52 Kingsway Court, First Avenue, Hove

1 RECOMMENDATION

That the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of this report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the following Conditions and Informatives: Conditions: 1. 01.01AA Full Planning. 2. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not

be initiated by the undertaking of a material operation as defined in section 56(4) (a)-(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development, until an Obligation pursuant to s.106 of the said Act relating to the land has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority and the Local Planning Authority has notified the persons submitting the same that it is to its approval. The Obligation will provide that the sum of £6,000 will be paid to the Local Planning Authority as a contribution towards the Council’s Sustainable Transport Strategy. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not put undue pressure on existing on-street car parking in the city, to encourage travel by sustainable means and to comply with policy TR1 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

3. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until further details of sustainability measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall demonstrate how the development would be efficient in the use of energy, water and materials. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that measures to make the development sustainable and efficient in the use of energy, water and materials are included in the development, in accordance with policy SU2 of


the Brighton & Hove Local Plan. 4. 06.03A Cycle parking facilities to be implemented (BandH). 5. 02.05A Refuse and recycling storage (facilities) (BandH). 6. 06.03A Cycle parking facilities to be implemented (BandH). 7. 02.12 Soundproofing of new units.

Reason: Add “and to comply with policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

8. 04.02A Lifetime Homes. 9. The new front elevation bay windows shall be painted softwood,

double hung vertical sliding sashes with concealed trickle vents and shall be retained as such. Reason: In the interest if the character and appearance of the building and the visual amenities of the area and to comply with policies QD1 and QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

10. The glazed screen located on the shared common boundary with number 7 Beaconsfield Road shall not be glazed otherwise than with obscured glass and thereafter permanently retained as such. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining property and to comply within policies QD14 and QD27 the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

11. The use of the first floor roof terrace shall not commence until the screen, as shown on the approved drawings, has been constructed and it shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining property and to comply with policies QD1 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

12. 05.03 Waste Minimisation Statement. Informatives: 1. This decision is based on drawing nos. 0509/01 and 0509/02 and

Photo Sheet 1, 2 and 3 submitted on the 21st March 200, an e-mail received on the 2nd May 2006, a Pre-Assessment EcoHomes Rating, a Lifetime Homes Standards Checklist and supporting statements submitted on the 3rd May 2006, drawing numbers 0509/03B and 0509/04B submitted on the 22nd May 2006 and Solar-Vent/Sunpipes details submitted on the 9th June 2006.


Local Plan set out below: TR1 Development and the demand for travel TR14 Cycle access and parking TR19 Parking standards SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and materials


SU9 Pollution and nuisance control SU10 Noise nuisance SU13 Minimisation and re-use of construction industry waste QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements QD2 Design – key principles for neighbourhoods QD3 Design – efficient and effective use of sites QD14 Extensions and alterations QD27 Protection of amenity HO3 Dwelling type and size HO4 Dwelling densities HO5 Provision of private amenity space in residential development HO7 Car free housing HO20 Retention of community facilities East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 W10 Construction industry waste East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan WLP11 Construction industry waste Supplementary Planning Guidance: Roof Alterations and Extensions (SPGBH1) Parking Standards (SPGBH4) Construction & Demolition Waste (SPD03); and

ii. for the following reasons:- The loss of the D1 class use has been justified and the creation of three flats is considered acceptable. The proposal is considered not to be of detriment to the character or appearance of the host property or the wider area. In addition, subject to compliance with the attached conditions, it is deemed that the proposal will not result in significant adverse affects upon the amenities of neighbouring properties.

3. IN08. 2 THE SITE

The application relates to a three storey property located on the western side of Beaconsfield Road. The property currently a mixed D1 class use and C3 class use consent.

3 RELEVANT HISTORY

BH1991/0121/FP: Change of use from residential on first floor and second floor to extend the use of ground floor as a Class D1 general practitioners. Approved 21/05/1991. BH2005/05343/FP: Revision of ground floor doctors surgery and whole building to residential use. Withdrawn 29/11/2006.

4 THE APPLICATION


Planning permission is sought for the conversion of the doctor’s surgery to three flats and associated external alterations.

5 CONSULTATIONS

External: Neighbours: Ground Floor Flat, 7 Beaconsfield Road, (2 individual letters) and Top Flat, 7 Beaconsfield Road, (3 individual letters) object to the proposal on the grounds that the proposal does not comply with the Council’s planning policies with regards to the retention of the D1 class use, is an overdevelopment of the site as other buildings in the street are single residencies or converted into a maximum of two flats, impact upon amenity with regards to increase in noise from the residential use, loss of privacy due to the first floor terrace area, loss of light, overshadowing caused by the proposed roof terraces and due to the positioning of the proposed refuse storage the residential use will create pollution problems which will have an impact on amenities. Internal: Traffic Manager: While the site is beyond the CPZ, on-street parking in the area is heavily regulated by double yellow lines and the development does not provide for its likely travel demands and therefore fails TR1. However, if minded to approve the development, then, subject to the provision of secure cycle storage for each unit and a S106 contribution towards the Sustainable Transport Strategy in the sum of £6,000 we would not raise a traffic objection. Planning Policy: Original comments (19/04/2006): The applicant has not demonstrated that the loss of a community facility in this location can be justified in terms of local plan policy HO20. The proposed new residential; development has the disbenefit of internal bathrooms and shared living/kitchen areas. This poses problems in terms of maximising natural ventilation and daylight. It is not clear that BREEAM or lifetime homes standards have been achieved. All flats have bin storage space provided. Additional comments: following amendments and further information (24/05/06) – In relation to policy HO20, the applicants have now provided information which indicates that an exception to policy under clause d can be made. The Primary Care Trust has indicated that use as a GP Surgery is no longer required and that patients have been taken on by other nearby surgeries. Given the layout of the premises and its location fronting a very busy road, view is that it is not ideal for other types of community use so that this coupled with the view of the Primary Care Trust justifies the loss of the premises under


HO20. In terms of other policy concerns regarding lifetime home standards and sustainability criteria (HO13 and SU2) the applicants have amended their submission and significant improvements have now been made. A wheelchair accessible unit is proposed at ground floor level flat and this is welcomed. Therefore no policy objection.

6 PLANNING POLICIES

Brighton & Hove Local Plan: TR1 Development and the demand for travel TR14 Cycle access and parking TR19 Parking standards SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and materials SU9 Pollution and nuisance control SU10 Noise nuisance SU13 Minimisation and re-use of construction industry waste QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements QD2 Design – key principles for neighbourhoods QD3 Design – efficient and effective use of sites QD14 Extensions and alterations QD27 Protection of amenity HO3 Dwelling type and size HO4 Dwelling densities HO5 Provision of private amenity space in residential development HO7 Car free housing HO20 Retention of community facilities East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 W10 Construction industry waste East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan WLP11 Construction industry waste Supplementary Planning Guidance: Roof Alterations and Extensions (SPGBH1) Parking Standards (SPGBH4) Construction & Demolition Waste (SPD03)

7 CONSIDERATIONS

Loss of the D1Class Use Since submission of the application the applicant has submitted evidence to justify the loss of the doctor’s surgery (D1 class use). The evidence consists of an e-mail from the Brighton and Hove Primary Care Trust stating that the premises is no longer required as a GP


surgery as the former doctor has retired and the patients have been transferred to other surgeries and therefore no objection to the change of use is raised. In addition, under application BH2005/05343/FP a consultation letter was received from the Primary Care Trust stating that the Trust had no objection to the change of use as the surgeries patients had been transferred to other practices within the area and there was no intention to replace the building. In view of its layout and location fronting the busy A23, it is not considered the property would be readily suitable for other community uses. It is considered that the applicant has satisfied clause d of policy HO20 in which it must be demonstrated that the community facility is no longer required for the existing use and for other types of community uses. Creation of Three Flats The applicant intends to convert the property into three flats. As a result of the conversion the property will comprise a mix of 2 one bedroom flats and a two bedroom flat. Within Beaconsfield Road limited free on-street parking is provided, for which demand appears to be high and in areas, exceeds supply. However, the area is not a controlled parking zone and is close to public transport, namely bus routes and London Road railway station. Given that three new residential units would be created and that there is no Controlled Parking Zone covering the area (and therefore, a condition to make the development “car-free” cannot be applied), a contribution towards the Council’s Sustainable Transport Strategy is appropriate to encourage travel by sustainable means and to help reduce car usage. Under policy HO5 the provision of private useable amenity space is required appropriate to the scale and character of the development. The ground floor flat will have private use of the existing rear amenity area of the property. At first floor level private amenity space will be provided by the creation of a roof terrace on the southern side of the property. A 1.7m (approximately) screen (total height including parapet wall is 2.1m approximately) will be provided on the southern section of the terrace on the shared boundary with number 7 Beaconsfield Villas and a 2m (approximately) screen will be provided on the rear section of the proposed terrace. Originally the applicant intended to include a roof terrace cut into the


roofslope of the property for use by the second floor flat. This feature has since been omitted from the proposal as it was considered to be of detriment to the character and appearance of the host property and the wider area. The amendment has resulted in not private amenity space being provided for the second floor flat. Despite this shortfall, satisfactory and useable amenity space is at a premium within this area. In order to comply with policy SU2 the proposal has been amended to include the use sun pipes and solar powered extract fans to provide light and ventilation to the internal bathrooms. The applicant has submitted a Sustainability Checklist as part of the application, (although it does not appear to relate directly to the development site), in addition to an EcoHomes Pre Assessment which rates the proposal as “very good”. However, it is considered that further details of the sustainable measures should be requested via condition. A Lifetime Homes Standard Checklist has also been submitted by the applicant. From the checklist it appears that the proposal, with regards to the ground floor flat, meets a majority of the standards required. It is considered however that a condition should be attached to the approval requiring the whole building to be of a Lifetime Home standard. Secure cycle storage is provided by way of 2 cycle stands within the small yard area located at the front of the property. In addition, further bicycle stores are also provided within the rear yard area at ground floor level, within the roof terrace area at first floor level and at the top of the stairs at second floor level. The applicant has stated that the first and second floor level bicycle stores will be for use of folding bicycles. The proposed plans and supporting statements submitted as part of the application identify internal and external facilities for the storage of refuse and recycling for each of the three flats. Impact Upon Character and Appearance of Host Property and Wider Area In association with the proposed change of use of the property the applicant proposes to make external alterations to the property. With regards to the front elevation it is intended to replace the windows within the ground floor bay with timber sliding sash windows to match those on the floors above. It is considered that the replacement of the windows will enhance the character and appearance of the host property as a uniform appearance will result with regards to the


style of the windows. It is intended to replace the existing concrete roof tiles with artificial slates as part of the proposal and inset a soil and vent pipe to the front roof slope of the property. A rooflight is proposed within the front roofslope of the property in order to provide natural light to the kitchen area of the second floor flat. The rooflight is in alignment with the entrance door and the ‘blocked window features’ on the elevation below in accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance on Roof Alterations and Extensions (SPGBH1). Due to the height of the property the proposed roof alterations will not be readily visible in the street scene. Two rooflights are proposed within the rear roof slope of the property in order to provide natural light to the staircase and bathroom area of the second floor flat. The rooflights are in alignment with the windows below, in accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance on Roof Alterations and Extensions (SPGBH1). It is acknowledged that the rooflights are not at equal heights, this is due to the associated room layout of the second floor flat, however, it is considered that the proposed rooflights will not be of detriment to the character or appearance of the host property or the wider area. At present a rear extension is located at first floor level, which is supported by brick pillars, and an associated staircase to the rear yard area is located on the northern side of the property, on the shared common boundary with number 11 Beaconsfield Road. Under the proposal the staircase will be removed and the associated door and window bricked up. At ground floor level double glazed metal framed sliding doors will be inserted into the rear elevation of the property to provide access from the ground floor flat to the rear amenity space area. At first floor level, in order to provide access to the related roof terrace of the flat the existing window located in the rear elevation on the southern side of the property will be replaced with a pair of slim-line timber painted French doors. The applicant has submitted detail to demonstrate that the level of projection from the roof slope of the property of the sunpipes and solar panels for the fans is minimal and therefore is considered not be of detriment to the character or appearance of the property.


Impact Upon Neighbouring Properties Amenities A screen located on the boundary is proposed to mitigate the impact of the first floor terrace on the amenities of the neighbouring property number 7 Beaconsfield Road. As already stated the screen will measure 1.7m (approximately) (total height including parapet wall is 2.1m (approximately), on the shared boundary with number 7 Beaconsfield Villas, and 2m (approximately) on the rear section of the proposed terrace. It is considered that a condition requiring the screens should be imposed requiring these to be obscured glazed and retained in order to protect the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. In addition it is considered that, given the location of the neighbouring property to the south, and the orientation of the sun, the proposed screen will not have an adverse impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties with regards to loss of light.


The loss of the D1 class use has been justified and the creation of three flats is considered acceptable. The proposal is considered not to be of detriment to the character or appearance of the host property or the wider area. In addition, subject to compliance with the attached conditions, it is deemed that the proposal will not result in significant adverse affects upon the amenities of neighbouring properties.


The development is required to meet Part M of the Building Regulations and would be built to a lifetime home standard.


No: BH2006/00296 Ward: ST. PETER'S & NORTH LAINE


Address: 16 Upper Lewes Road

Proposal: Change of use and conversion of ground floor shop (A1) and first floor flat with rear ground, first and second floor extension and additional second floor of accommodation to form a nine bedroom student residence. Re-submission of withdrawn application BH2005/06334.

Officer: Steve Lewis, tel: 292138 Received Date: 31 January 2006

Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 28 March 2006

Agent: Turner Associates , 19A Wilbury Avenue, Hove Applicant:

D Mukher Jee, Bellevue Lodge, Wellgreen Lane, Kingston

1 RECOMMENDATION

That the Sub-Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of this report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the following Condition and Informatives: Conditions: 1. 01.01AA Full planning. 2. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not

be initiated by the undertaking of a material operation as defined in section 56(4) (a)-(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to the development, until an Obligation pursuant to s.106 of the said Act relating to the land has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority and the Local Planning Authority has notified the persons submitting the same that it is to its approval. The Obligation will provide that the sum of £6,000 will be paid to the Local Planning Authority as a contribution towards the council’s Sustainable Transport Strategy. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not put undue pressure upon existing on-street car parking in the city and to comply with policies TR1 and QD28 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

3. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of sustainability measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall demonstrate how the development would be efficient in the use of energy, water and materials. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that measures to make the development


sustainable and efficient in the use of energy, water and materials are included in the development, in accordance with policy SU2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

4. 02.06A Refuse and recycling storage (facilities). 5. 03.02A Materials to match. 6. 05.03 Waste minimisation statement. 7. 06.01A Retention of parking area. 8. 06.02A Cycle parking details to be submitted. 9. No development may commence until full details of the footway

crossovers have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The footway crossovers shall be constructed in strict accordance with the approved details prior to the commencement of development and shall thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a safe and proper access to the site and to accord with policies TR1 and TR7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

10. Details of a survey and investigation of the soil conditions of the site, sufficient to identify the nature and extent of any soil contamination, together with a schedule of the method by which it is proposed to neutralise, seal or remove the contaminating substances, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and shall be carried out before any works in connection with this permission are begun. Reason: Previous historical activities associated with this site may have potentially caused, or have the potential to cause, contamination of the site and to ensure that the proposed site investigations and remediation will not cause continued pollution of the site and in accordance with policies SU9 and SU11 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Informatives: 1. This decision is based on Turner Associates drawing nos. TA064/01,

02A, 03, 04, 05A, 06A, 07A, 08, 09 submitted on 31/01/2006 and 13/04/2006.

2. IN08. 3. The applicant is advised that any footway crossover must be

constructed under licence from the Local Highway Authority. Details submitted in compliance with condition 8 above must be satisfactory to the Local Highway Authority.

4. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken: i. having regard to the policies and proposals in the East Sussex and

Brighton & Hove Structure Plan, East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan and Brighton & Hove Local Plan set out below,


and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: Brighton & Hove Local Plan: TR1 Development and the demand for travel TR7 Safe Access TR14 Cycle parking TR19 Parking Standards SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and materials SU9 Pollution and nuisance control SU10 Noise nuisance SU11 Polluted land and buildings SU13 Minimisation and re-use of construction industry waste QD1 Design – Quality of development QD2 Design Key principles for neighbourhoods QD14 Extensions and alterations QD27 Protection of amenity QD28 Planning obligations HO5 Provision of private amenity space in residential development HO13 Accessible housing and lifetime homes SR8 Individual shops Supplementary planning guidance and documents (SPD & SPG’s) SPGBH1 Roof Alterations and Extensions SPGBH4 Parking Standards SPGBH16 Energy efficiency and renewable energy SPD03 Construction and demolition waste East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 W10 Construction industry waste East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan WLP11 Construction industry waste; and

ii. for the following reasons: The retail premises have been assessed as genuinely redundant and the creation of an HMO is considered to help meet a housing need within Brighton and Hove. The standards of living accommodation are acceptable, whilst a contribution to sustainable transport strategy is considered to help meet for the travel demands that the development creates. Furthermore the proposed extensions are not considered to harm the visual amenity of the area or significantly harm the residential amenity of adjacent occupiers.

2 THE SITE

The application relates to a mid terrace two storey property on the north side of Upper Lewes Road. The premises were last used as a retail unit with residential accommodation in the above floor and still have a


shop display window and garage within the front elevation. Located within the rear curtilage of the property is a small workshop which is ancillary to the main retail unit. This terrace is a mixture of two and three storey dwellings with the step up to three storeys occurring at the adjacent property (18 Upper Lewes Road).

3 RELEVANT HISTORY

BH2005/06334: Change of use of existing shop (A1) and living accommodation to house in multiple occupation. Comprising 11 bedrooms, including ground, first and second storey extensions and additional floor of accommodation. Withdrawn – 17/01/2006

4 THE APPLICATION

The application seeks a change of use of the premises from retail shop (A1) and first floor flat, to a nine-bedroom student residence. The application also seeks extensions including raising the ridge height to form an additional floor of living accommodation, with rear first and second floor extensions. The rear outbuildings would be retained as a store/workshop.

5 CONSULTATIONS

External: Neighbours: 14, 20, Flat 3 15, 18-19 Upper Lewes Road and 63 Park Crescent Road object on the grounds: • The development by reason of its multiple occupancy use will

increase noise and disturbance in the area; • The proposal will increase demand for parking in the area; • The development cannot be made car free; • The development will increase the density of the population in the

area; • Noise and disturbance caused by the construction of further

extensions; • The increase in household waste and by reason of its multiple

occupancy use will not have proper refuse collection. Internal: Traffic Manager: The site is not within a controlled parking zone but there is a great pressure for on street parking. Since the proposal is for a HMO it does meet the SPG4 parking requirements. Details of the proposed cycle storage should be submitted for approval prior to the development being commenced. A double crossover, to serve the two forecourt parking spaces should be constructed under licence from the Highway Manager prior to the commencement of the development.


As the proposal will rely heavily upon public transport a section 106 contribution towards the Sustainable Transport Strategy for the sum of £6000 towards the provision of an accessible bus stop in the area (Ditchling Road or Lewes Road). Planning Policy: The applicant should demonstrate that the shop is genuinely redundant and provide details of marketing in accordance with policy SR8 of the adopted local plan. Additionally it should be demonstrated that the development will not be detrimental to the amenities of adjacent occupiers. For the purposes of student accommodation the facilities are considered acceptable. As the proposal does not demonstrate that a direct relationship between student related bodies (such as trusts of the university) the case officer would have to be satisfied that the development will be solely used by students. It is requested that the applicant completes a sustainability checklist (SPGBH21) explaining how the development addresses sustainability issues. The applicant is requested to submit a waste minimisation management plan. Cycle access and parking must be addressed in accordance with the Traffic Manager’s comments. Environmental Health: No objection subjects to a contaminated land survey and the requirement of any subsequent measures to decontaminate the site being carried out. Private Sector Housing: No objection.

6 PLANNING POLICIES

Brighton & Hove Local Plan: TR1 Development and the demand for travel TR7 Safe Access TR14 Cycle parking TR19 Parking Standards SU2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and materials SU9 Pollution and nuisance control SU10 Noise nuisance SU11 Polluted land and buildings SU13 Minimisation and re-use of construction industry waste QD1 Design – Quality of development


QD2 Design Key principles for neighbourhoods QD14 Extensions and alterations QD27 Protection of amenity QD28 Planning obligations HO5 Provision of private amenity space in residential development HO13 Accessible housing and lifetime homes SR8 Individual shops Supplementary planning guidance and documents (SPD & SPG’s) SPGBH1 Roof Alterations and Extensions SPGBH4 Parking Standards SPGBH16 Energy efficiency and renewable energy SPD03 Construction and demolition waste East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 W10 Construction industry waste East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan WLP11 Construction industry waste

7 CONSIDERATIONS

The main considerations in this case are the loss of a retail unit, the impact of the extensions upon visual amenity and character of the area and the impact on the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers. Other issues include traffic implications, sustainability, construction waste minimisation and environmental health concerns. The proposal seeks the change of use of a current shop/residential unit to a nine bedroom HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) with extensions including raising of the ridge height to form an additional story of accommodation and rear extensions. Visual amenity It is not considered that the raising of the ridge height would harm the visual amenity of the area in this case. The proposal seeks an overall ridge height increase of 1.5 metres, and will result in a continued rational stepping of the ridgeline. The rear extensions will not be visible from public highways and is hidden from view at the rear by the dwellings in Wakefield Road. The changes to the front elevation including loss of shop front are considered acceptable; the loss of the garage door is welcomed. The width of the property does vary from that of the other properties in the terrace and the non uniform fenestration to the front elevation is considered acceptable in this case as it will continue to reflect the current appearance of the building within the terrace.


Change of use The building is an isolated shop and its change of use should be considered against policy SR8 of the adopted Local Plan. The premises are within easy walking distance of nearby alternative retail premises located on the corner of Upper Lewes Road and Edinburgh Road and the Lewes Road district shopping centre. The applicant has provided marketing details for the premises and a covering letter from a local estate agent who confirms the market rent and level of interest and that the property has been advertised for a period of over 18 months. It is therefore considered that the premises are genuinely redundant given this evidence. It is not considered that the change of use of the premises to an HMO would be significantly detrimental to the amenities of the adjacent occupiers. Furthermore there are no policies within the Local Plan which would not support the principle of a creation of an HMO, which is considered a type of housing in demand within Brighton and Hove. Residential amenity It is not considered that the change of use or the extensions would create significant harmful impact upon adjacent residential occupiers. The Environmental Health team have no objection on noise or disturbance grounds, and if the building is correctly soundproofed then no there is not assumed to be a harmful impact upon neighbours from the intensified use of the site. The proposed extensions will have minimal impact upon neighbouring properties. The raising of the ridgeline to a midway height between either neighbour is not considered to cause loss of amenity from overshadowing, loss of light, privacy and outlook. The extensions to the rear should be considered as two separate additions. The first is an additional two-storey extension at first and second floor level. This extension projects rearwards by four metres to a similar level of an extension on number 14 Upper Lewes Road and at a similar height. Further to that there is an existing high blank boundary wall which is formed from the neighbour extension. The rear two-storey extension seeks only rear facing windows and is not considered to lead to a loss of privacy or light or cause overlooking. The other rear extension is a side projecting section off the main rear addition at first floor level, which leaves a small courtyard style area to the rear of the premises. This addition does not have any side facing windows and is considered sufficiently spaced from the boundary with number 18 to not cause a serious negative impact from loss of light or


privacy and overlooking. Traffic Issues The development does provide two on-site car-parking spaces, which is considered to meet current parking standards under the adopted supplementary planning guidance (SPGBH4). As the development will rely heavily upon public transport the Traffic Manager does request that a s106 agreement be drawn up to compensate, and to help the development meet the traffic demands that it will create. Subject to the provision of suitable secure covered cycle parking appropriate to the development, vehicle crossovers constructed under licence from the Highway Manager, retention of the parking spaces and a £6000 contribution towards the Sustainable Transport Strategy there is no objection on highway grounds. The £6000 should be used for an accessible bus stop within the area and the Traffic Manager suggests the contribution be used in Ditchling Road or Lewes Road. Other issues The development is considered to provide an acceptable standard of living accommodation for its occupiers. The room sizes all meet minimum HMO standards and the application has been amended from the previously withdrawn scheme to reduce the numbers of bedrooms and to the increase communal areas. The property will be served by two kitchens, two lounge areas, a bathroom and toilet on each floor whilst four of the nine bedrooms have en-suite facilities. The property provides sufficient amenity space including the rear garden and a balcony area, which is accessed from the first floor lounge area. Corridor widths and room size and layouts meet accessibility standards but does not meet lifetime homes standards. It is accepted that in some cases such as this that lifetime home standards may be difficult to achieve and it considered in this case the benefit of creating a 9 bedroom HMO outweighs the need to provide a lifetime home compliant premises. It is considered that the applicant should provide details of sustainability measures to demonstrate how the development will be efficient in the use of energy, water and materials. These details will be secured by a planning condition and would be required to be implemented to ensure as higher standard of sustainability as possible.


The development should demonstrate that it seeks to minimise construction and demolition waste in accordance with relevant policies and supplementary planning document on construction and demolition waste minimisation. A planning condition can secure a waste minimisation statement to ensure that construction waste can be reused on and off site and the production of landfill is minimised.


The retail premises have been assessed as genuinely redundant and the creation of an HMO is considered to help meet a housing need within Brighton and Hove. The standards of living accommodation are acceptable, whilst a contribution to sustainable transport strategy is considered to help meet for the travel demands that the development creates. Furthermore the proposed extensions are not considered to harm the visual amenity of the area or significantly harm the residential amenity of adjacent occupiers.


The development will not meet lifetime homes standard, but the difficult constraints of the property and the benefit of creating a nine bedroom HMO are considered to outweigh the requirement in this case. The development is required to meet the Building Regulations.