Agenda item - BH2012/03446 - Court Farm House, Court Farm, Devils' Dyke Road, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of 5no two storey detached dwelling houses and a 58 bed space, part two and part three storey nursing home with associated landscaping and access works and provision of 28 new car parking spaces and 15 cycle spaces.

Recommendation – REFUSE

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of 5no two storey detached dwelling houses and a 58 bed space, part two and part three storey nursing home with associated landscaping and access works and provision of 28 new car parking spaces and 15 cycle spaces.

(1)                   It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)                   The Planning Officer, Steven Lewis, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application sought the demolition of the existing farmhouse and ancillary buildings, and the erection of a nursing home and five detached houses. The site was just under 1 hectare in size, and had formerly been used as an agricultural site; it was also highlighted there had been some unauthorised modular buildings on the site in 2012, but this activity had since ceased. The scheme proposed a 58 bedroom nursing home situated to the north of the site, and the five housing units to the south; the nursing home would achieve the  BREEAM target of Outstanding and the housing would achieve code level 5. The design of both the nursing home and the houses would include a local agricultural and rural pallet of materials with green roofs and photovoltaic panels.

(3)                   In relation to reason 1 for refusal set out in the report it was explained that the site was outside of the built up boundary, and did not meet the exception to Local Plan policy. Reason 2 discussed the potential impact of the development on the wider Toad’s Hole Valley site in light of the emerging City Plan; the status of the land had changed with the designation of the South Downs National Park and consequently the allocation of land within the emerging City Plan. The allocation in the emerging City Plan was for mixed use of the wider Toad’s Hole Valley site – which included Court Farm – with housing and a school, and the site was key for delivering housing targets in the city. These strategic allocations were fundamental to the overall delivery of the plan, and as such the allocation was contrary to policy in both the current Local Plan and the emerging City Plan. Officers considered that it was necessary to have a comprehensive approach to the whole Toad’s Hole Valley site, and the proposed scheme was under the density level that was considered necessary for the best use of the land. There was currently no identified need for a nursing home at the site, and the proposals could undermine the wider use; as well as access. It was highlighted that the Local Plan remained the adopted policy; however, weight has also been given to the emerging policy in the reasons for refusal. It was also not yet possible to determine if a nursing home on the site would prejudice the wider aims of the policy, and the application had not demonstrated it would not prejudice a major strategic site in the emerging City Plan.

(4)                   Reference was also made the items on the Late List, and it was explained that following the submission of further information reasons for refusal 3 & 5 had been deleted, and reason 4 had now been amended to read: ‘The application, in the absence of detailed measures to promote and encourage sustainable transport and provide a legal obligation for highway improvements, fails to provide for the travel demand it creates. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies TR1 and QD28 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan’. The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report with the amendments outlined above.

Public Speakers & Questions

(5)                   Mr Bareham spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent for the applicant. He stated that the application was for a mixed use development of family housing and care home accommodation; which would meet high levels of sustainability. It was considered that much of the reasons for refusal had already been addressed, and the necessary agreements could be sought through condition. It was highlighted that the Council could not currently demonstrate a five year supply of housing sites – as a recent appeal had showed only a three year supply – and in these circumstances it was felt that the reference of policy in the reasons for refusal was not justified. There was a need for nursing home accommodation within the city which was currently at 637 citywide and would rise to 827 by 2022, and there was currently no provision within the City Plan to meet this. It was noted that the Court Farm site was under different ownership to Toad’s Hole Valley, and access issues could be dealt with separately, and the sites developed independently. If granted the nursing home could be operational by 2015.

(6)                   Councillor Mac Cafferty asked questions about the low density on the site, and in response Mr Bareham explained that it was hard to apply a mathematical approach to  density on a mixed use scheme such as this.

(7)                   Councillor Gilbey asked about the proposed employment numbers of the site, and the applicant explained that a 60 bed nursing home could employ up to 60 full time equivalent posts, but this would be based on the level of care.

Questions for Officers

(8)                   Councillor Hamilton asked about what information the Inspector would use to make a decision if a decision on the application were to be appealed; in response Officers explained that the Inspector would use the agreed polices and plans at the point the decision was made by the Council...

(9)                   Councillor Hyde asked about comments in the report that the scheme did not provide employment floor space as the nursing home would provide jobs, and in response it was explained that the report acknowledged the nursing home would primarily provide housing There was currently no specific designation on the site for a nursing home, and Officers had concerns that the application had not demonstrated it would not undermine the comprehensive development of the rest of the wider site. The Local Development Team Manager, Liz Hobden, explained that the Council did have a five year supply of housing sites, and Toad’s Hole Valley was one of the main sites; a comprehensive approach would include commercial spaces and this did not necessarily exclude a residential care home forming part of a wider scheme. It was also noted that the actual designation of site allocations would be in Part 2 of the City Plan. It was also confirmed for Councillor Hyde that Court Farm adjoined Toad’s Hole Valley, but was considered part of the wider site.

(10)               Councillor Gilbey asked about the pedestrian access to the site, and these were highlighted by the Principal Transport Officer, Steven Shaw.

(11)               Councillor Bowden asked for further clarification on the balance of weight that had been given to the emerging City Plan. The Local Development Team Manager confirmed that the adopted plan remained the Local Plan; however, the City Plan was currently at a very late stage of adoption and would gather weight as it came closer to adoption. Officers currently considered it to be material consideration. In this case - where the site was considered crucial to the delivery of City Plan - the emerging plan had been given significant weight. The Senior Solicitor, Hilary Woodward, also added that although the approval of the City Plan could not be guaranteed it was valid to give it more weight the closer it came to adoption. It was also clarified for Councillor Bowden that the City Plan gave a minimum figure of 700 residential units for the whole Toad’s Hole Valley site.

(12)               Councillor Hyde asked how land that was not within the ownership of the Council could be allocated for housing through policy, and in response it was explained that these sites could be allocated as they were considered development ready as both land owners wished to develop them. 

(13)               Councillor Gilbey asked how the Council would consider this site in terms of the overall percentage of housing in the City Plan, and asked if these proposals would be incorporated in a comprehensive approach to the whole site. In response Officers clarified that a nursing home would not be considered commercial floor space, and a comprehensive scheme would need to be put forward before it could be considered if this scheme was appropriate as part of wider proposals. The Local Development Manager also added the comprehensive approach was crucial in terms of ensuring the appropriate density and access from the Devils Dyke roundabout.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(14)               Councillor Cobb stated that there a need for nursing home accommodation in the city, and she felt that the merits of the application warranted approval of the scheme. Also as the two sites were under different ownership it was appropriate to consider this site separately; the density was appropriate, and for these reasons she would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(15)               Councillor Hamilton stated that on balance he felt the application was premature as the wider Toad’s Hole Valley site needed to be considered; he also highlighted the exposed location and the current lack of services. Although he could see some merits to the proposals Councillor Hamilton explained he would support the Officer recommendation.

(16)               Councillor Hyde explained that she agreed with the comments made by Councillor Cobb in relation to the need for a nursing home in the city; she stated it was important for Members to consider the application they had before them, and felt that there would be greater services in the wider area when the whole site was developed and the proposed number of units in this scheme was appropriate. For these reasons Councillor Hyde stated she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(17)               Councillor Robins noted his concerns in relation to the suitability of the site for a nursing home.

(18)               Councillor Davey highlighted the contrast between the surrounding natural beauty at the site, and the close proximity of the major junction on the outskirts of the city. He stated that as the site was strategic it was important a strategic approach be taken to the development of both sites, and there was a real opportunity to bring forward a high quality site comprehensively.

(19)               Councillor Bowden stated he could not understand why a nursing home in an exposed area was being objected to when the site was considered appropriate for housing in the future; he stated he minded to vote against the Officer recommendation.

(20)               Councillor Jones highlighted the necessity to consider the whole site and he felt the application was premature. For these reasons Councillor Jones stated he would support the Officer recommendation.

(21)               The Deputy Development Control Manager, Paul Vidler, highlighted that much had been made in the discussion in relation to the weight of the emerging City Plan, but it was important to note that reason 1 for refusal was based on policy from the current adopted Local Plan.

(22)               Councillor Cobb asked about the necessity to consider each application on its merits and how this applied with this application. In response the Senior Solicitor advised it was perfectly valid to consider an application to be premature against emerging policies and plans.

(23)               Councillor Gilbey stated her concern in relation to the transport issues at the site, and stated she would be voting in support of the Officer recommendation.

(24)               A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on a vote of 8 to 3 with 1 abstention.

168.2      RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and the policies and guidance set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

      i.                   The site lies outside the present Built-up Area boundary defined by the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and the application fails to demonstrate that the development would justify a countryside location contrary to policies NC5 and NC6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

    ii.                   The application, due to its proposed uses, density, timing, access and relationship to the remainder of the Toad’s Hole Valley allocated site fails to demonstrate that it would not prejudice an emerging strategic land designation for the comprehensive delivery of housing, employment and infrastructure vital to the sustainable growth of the city. This is contrary to Policy DA7 of the emerging Brighton & Hove City Plan – Part One.

  iii.                   The application, in the absence of detailed measures to promote and encourage sustainable transport and provide a legal obligation for highway improvements, fails to provide for the travel demand it creates. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies TR1 and QD28 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.