Agenda item

To consider planning application 22/0178 for the erection of part a 4, 5 and 6 storey building comprising 49 self-contained permanent apartments with associated cycle/waste storage, and provision of 49 car parking spaces with access from New South Promenade following demolition of existing buildings (Outline application for access, appearance, layout and scale).

The Committee considered application number 22/0178 for the Erection of part a 4, 5 and 6 storey building comprising 49 self-contained permanent apartments with associated cycle/waste storage, and provision of 49 car parking spaces with access from New South Promenade following demolition of existing buildings (Outline application for access, appearance, layout and scale). Ms S Parker, Head of Development Management, advised the Committee that this application was linked to the previous item on the agenda, application number 22/0168 and delivered a joint presentation outlined both applications.

Ms Parker outlined both applications and advised that these were outline applications for two part 4, 5 and 6 storey buildings on the Promenade following demolition of existing holiday accommodation on the site. Both sites were located within the Pleasure Beach Promenade frontage and referred to Policy CS23, in respect of the loss of sites used as holiday accommodation and the need for developments to meet high design standards and deliver clear regeneration benefits. The proposal was outlined as being 40 apartments on the south site, 49 on the north site with all 89 offering permanent residential accommodation. Ms Parker advised that given the Boulevard Hotel and the recently extended Hampton by Hilton development, the expectation for a wider mix of permanent residential and holiday usage would be satisfied on balance. Neither of the sites had been allocated for housing and the Council continued to have a comfortable housing supply of approximately 14 years.

Ms Parker advised that the apartments proposed on both sites met national space standards and that most would have outdoor amenity space provided by terraces and balconies, with an outlook over the Promenade. Since the first submission of the applications the height of the apartments had been reduced to minimise impacts of neighbours and visual impacts. It was proposed that each block would be 18 metres tall which was taller than the Hampton by Hilton development, but no taller than the Coastal Point Development and the scale was considered to be acceptable. In respect of the main elevations, these would be light brick and white stone with full height windows and decorating curtain walling and panelling which would be arranged in ordered bays.

Access to the South Site would be via Harrowside West with ground floor parking and the North Site would be accessed via the Promenade Crescent with accommodation on the ground floor and parking to the rear. Each apartment would have at least one parking space and the local Highway Authority considered this provision to be acceptable. A loading bay would be provided for each block for servicing and waste collection, with other off-site highway works securable by condition.

In respect of amenity, Ms Parker advised that separation distances involved would prevent undue impact. No heritage impacts had been identified for the North Site, however the South Site was within the setting of the locally-listed Solaris building, but Planning Officers considered that the scheme would improve the setting rather than harm its significance. The sites were situated within flood zones two and three, and both blocks would be constructed in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment and no unacceptable flood risk or drainage issues had been identified.

The Committee was advised that both applications had been supported by a Habitats Regulation Assessment and that Natural England had not objected to either application, subject to the appropriate mitigation measures being implemented and on the understanding that the Habitats Regulation Assessment was adopted. In relation to biodiversity net gain, Ms Parker noted that provision of 10% provision was not a statutory requirement for either site as the applications pre-dated the legislation.

Ms Parker advised the Committee that neither site contributed the full level of required planning obligations in respect of green infrastructure, health contributions or affordable housing due to viability issues and it was the view of the Planning Officer that the wider benefit from development was sufficient to outweigh any shortfall in planning obligations.

The Committee was asked to adopt the Habitats Regulation Assessment and to support the scheme subject to entry into Section 106 agreements and the conditions listed in the Committee report. In addition, the Update Note requested that the Head of Development Management be authorised to make changes to the wording of the conditions as may be appropriate as long as the changes would not materially affect what the condition was trying to achieve or the permission overall.

Ms D Love, Agent for the applicant, spoke in favour of both this application and in favour of application number 22/0168 and advised the Committee that the development was of a high-quality and would complement the Hampton by Hilton and Coastal Point developments. The design and layouts were supported by Planning Officers, however the viability had been the cause of negotiations and delays. Ms Love advised the Committee that the provision of affordable housing would not be viable for the development but that sums of £196,000 and £136,000 had been identified as a contribution for provision at other sites. The Committee was advised that the applicants were hotel owners and local people and it was their intention to sell the site in order for a developer to fully realise both applications and to further elevate the area.

The Committee discussed the application in conjunction with application number 22/0168 and in response to questions, Ms Parker advised that it would not be feasible to provide the limited amount of affordable housing that could be funded on site as it would not be attractive to a registered provider and that contributions would be secured for off-site provision and advised that Policy CS14 allowed for contributions to be directed off-site to support regeneration objectives.

The Committee expressed its disappointment that no affordable housing would be provided within either of the application sites, however it noted the high-quality nature of the development.

Resolved:

1.      To adopt the Habitats Regulations Assessment.

2.      To resolve to support the application and delegate approval to the Head of Development Management subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement and the conditions listed within the Committee report.

3.      To authorise the Head of Development Management to make changes to the wording of the conditions as may be appropriate as long as the changes would not materially affect what the condition is trying to achieve or the permission overall.