Agenda item - BH2014/02589 - Land South of Ovingdean Road, Brighton - Outline Application some matters reserved

Outline planning application with appearance reserved for the construction of 85no one, two, three and four bedroom dwellings with associated garages, parking, estate roads, footways, pedestrian linkages, public open space and strategic landscaping. New vehicular access from Ovingdean Road and junction improvements.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Outline planning application with appearance reserved for the construction of 85no one, two, three and four bedroom dwellings with associated garages, parking, estate roads, footways, pedestrian linkages, public open space and strategic landscaping. New vehicular access from Ovingdean Road and junction improvements.

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

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans elevational and concept images showing the proposed configuration of the site, although it was noted that the elevational and concept images were indicative. Views across the site from various key locations showing its juxtaposition to the boundaries of the National Park and existing dwellings were shown. Attention was also drawn to the information contained in the Additional Representations List and to the additional representations received following publication of the report.

(3)       The application related to a parcel of land located on the southern side of Ovingdean Road, to the west of Falmer Road (B2123) and to the east of The Vale. The application site comprised approximately 3.72 hectares and historic maps showed that the site had always comprised open agricultural downland. The boundary of the site was currently defined by a wire fence and posts to the east, west and north and by a hedgerow to the south. The site comprised a large field which had been divided into smaller paddocks for the grazing of horses. Stables and associated buildings were located in the south-western corner of the site. Immediately to the north of the site there were residential properties, with other horse paddocks/grazing land beyond, known as Ovingdean Road Horse Paddocks. The residential area of Woodingdean was located further to the north-west of the site, with agricultural fields located immediately to the east of the site, on the opposite side of Falmer Road.

(4)       It was noted that the site had been identified within the Urban Fringe assessment 2014, an independent study commissioned by the Council in response to the Planning Inspector’s initial conclusions on the City Plan. This assessment provided an indication of the overall potential for housing within each of the City’s identified urban fringe sites, 66 in total, against 5 key criteria (landscape, open space, historic environment, ecology and environment) and had considered the scope for mitigation of any adverse impacts identified.

(5)       The National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF) was a material consideration in determining the application as was the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) which was an emerging development plan. The NPPF advised that weight be given to the relevant plans according to their stage of preparation and any policy conflicts identified had been set out and considered in the circulated report. Whilst it was recognised the proposed development would provide social and economic benefits including contributing towards meeting the city’s significant housing requirements, the provision of 34 affordable units and job creation, the net benefits of the proposed scheme needed however, to be weighed against the adverse impacts of the proposal .On balance it was considered that the harmful impacts of the proposal on local landscape character, visual amenity and the setting of the National Park in this sensitive location represented demonstrable and significant adverse impacts that outweigh the benefits of the proposed scheme. The proposal is considered contrary to policies NC7 and NC8 of the Local Plan and SA5 of the emerging City Plan. Additional uncertainties remain in relation to the impacts of the proposal upon ecology and biodiversity. This uncertainty also weighed as a potential adverse impact of the scheme contrary to paragraph 118 of the NPPF and policies QD17, QD18 of the Local Plan and policy CP10 of the City Plan. The significant gaps in the Environmental Statement meant that it had not been possible to complete a full assessment of the proposal or to identify whether/what mitigation proposals would be appropriate. Therefore the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(6)       Mr Wright spoke on behalf of the Deans Preservation Group and other objectors. He stated that notwithstanding that amendments had been made to originally submitted scheme they considered that the proposed development was inappropriate in its siting scale and density and would have an adverse impact on the landscaping and setting of the national park and would be prejudicial to the allocation of sites for residential development in the emerging city plan. It was also considered that there would be a detrimental impact on biodiversity, the existing nature habitats and species (red star thistle), the South Downs Way Ahead Nature Improvement Area, noise pollution, schools and road traffic pollution.

(7)       Councillor Mears spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her concerns and objections and those of her fellow ward councillor, Councillor Smith. Councillor Mears stated that in her view, the application which was for far too great a number of properties in such a sensative location would result in urban sprawl and would not respect the landscape or character of the area and would have a very detrimental effect. In her view it was unfortunate that this area of land had not been included in the National Park. If the development went ahead in this area which was not well served by public transport it would result in further pressure on local schools, doctors and dentists and would increase traffic volume on Falmer Road and the coast road.

(8)       Ms Eimear McManus addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant stated that she was a student at the University of Sussex representing a group in the city lobbying for an increase in the levels of affordable housing available in the city. There was a crying need for housing accommodation in the city and this scheme represented an opportunity for the Council to show its commitment towards providing much needed housing in the city. If this application was refused it represented a terrible indictment of them. Those who had objected to the scheme had shown a “Nimby” attitude. Many teachers, nurses and other key workers providing essential services were unable to afford to live in the city.

(9)       Ms McManus stated that she had met and spoken with Councillor Randall at a recent meeting in relation to housing issues. Councillor Randall stated that he had not discussed this application, the meeting referred to had been an open meeting attended by a number of speakers and organisations, and that he remained of a neutral mind.

              Questions for Officers

(10)     Councillor C Theobald enquired regarding the distance between the proposed development and existing houses, this was shown by reference to plans showing the site when viewed from various points. Indicative views were also shown and plans showing the proposed road layout.

(11)     Councillor Hyde asked for clarification regarding the height of the proposed dwellings. She stated that notwithstanding that they would be of two storeys that from ground to ridge height they appeared to be very tall and it was confirmed that they would be very tall two storey properties.

(12)     Mr Gowans, CAG sought confirmation of the location of the boundary with the adjacent National Park, whether there would be a “buffer” zone and if so where it would be located.

(13)     Councillor Hamilton sought clarification regarding the breakdown of the affordable housing. Often this was part rent/part buy and the level of income required for this was often not affordable for many on low incomes in the city. It was explained that the applicants had indicated that 55% of the total units available as part rent/part buy. It was envisaged that the remainder would be available to rent.

(14)     Councillor Davey stated that it was unfortunate that the applicant/agent had chosen not to speak as there were questions which he would like to have asked them, he had been unable to do so. Councillor Davey also asked how the age restricted element of the scheme would operate in practice, but it was explained that level of detail had not been provided with the application.

(15)     Councillor Gilbey asked whether those who were tenants within the council’s own housing stock or with other social housing and wished to downsize would be eligible to apply for any of the affordable housing on site. It was confirmed that level of detail had not been provided with the application either.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(16)     Councillor C Theobald stated that she considered that the proposed scheme would change the open landscape of the site with its horse paddocks irreparably and that because of the sloping configuration of the site would be overly dominant. It would also in her view lead to additional traffic movements, given the location of the site she did not consider that the provision of 113 cycle parking spaces was necessary. She liked the layout of the site considering that it should be located elsewhere in the city rather than on this site.

(17)     Councillor Wells stated that the additional number of vehicle movements generated by the site would place an additional strain on the existing road infrastructure. The additional water run off which could also result in a greater risk of flooding, also, there were a lot of gaps in the submitted information.

(18)     Councillor Davey stated that he was concerned by the number of gaps in the information provided considering that whilst he was sympathetic to the need for housing he was unable to support the application in its current form. Whilst he accepted that access to housing was a basic human need this could not and should not be at any cost.

(19)     Councillor Littman stated that he had listened carefully to the arguments put forward by those supporting the proposals and those against and whilst very supportive of the need for housing he considered that the omissions in the Environmental Assessment gave serious cause for concern. He was unable to support the application.

(20)     Councillor Hyde stated that it was unfortunate that this area of land had not been included in the National Park. This was due to a mistake by those drawing up the park boundaries in assuming that it formed part of the playing fields of Longhill School which was nearby. It was also regrettable in her view that the speaker in support of the scheme had indulged in a rant against local residents who would be directly effected by this scheme. Councillor Hyde was in agreement with the rationale for the officer’s recommendation that this application should be refused.

(21)     Councillor Randall asked whether it would be possible given the concerns expressed regarding the Environmental assessment for the application to be deferred. The Legal Adviser to the Committee confirmed it was for the local planning authority to consider whether it had sufficient information to make a decision on the environmental information supplied. Unless and until it was in a position to do so it could not go on to determine the planning application.

(22)     Councillor Wealls stated that whilst he was not convinced that the impact on views would be as dramatic as indicated he was concerned at the impact the potential additional traffic could have. This had not been adequately addressed in his view and for that reason the application should be refused.

(23)     Councillor Hamilton stated that he had grave concerns in relation to the council’s ability to provide the number of additional housing units needed, and how the numbers already on its waiting lists for housing could be accommodated. He considered that a more imaginative approach to use of its existing brownfield sites which were closer to the city centre and generally better served by good sustainable transport links was needed. This would be preferable to building on the urban fringe. In considering this application he was in agreement with the officer recommendation that it be refused.

(24)     Councillor Mac Cafferty, the Chair, stated he was in agreement that this application be refused. However, he was in agreement that in view of the pressures being brought to bear by central government and the need for the city to provide affordable housing, were such that it was essential that for greater use to be made of the city’s brownfield sites. Whilst each application needed to be considered on its merits, it was untenable for applications for housing on brown field sites to be refused repeatedly, especially if members also had a desire to protect the city’s urban fringe.

(25)     A vote was taken and on a vote of 11 with 1 abstention outline planning permission was refused for the reasons set out in the report.

127.1  RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and the policies and guidance in section 7 of the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission. The reasons for refusal are set out below:

1.The Local Planning Authority has not been able to assess the likely impacts of the proposed development with respect to Air Quality within the Rottingdean Air Quality Management Area, due to the omissions in the Environmental Statement. Consequently it has not been possible to identify whether and what mitigation measures may be appropriate and therefore the Local Planning Authority is unable to complete a full assessment of the proposal. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) 2011 Regulations and policy SU9 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

2.The Local Planning Authority has not been able to assess the likely impacts of the proposed development with respect to Ecology due to the omissions in the Environmental Statement. Consequently it has not been possible to identify whether and what mitigation measures may be appropriate and therefore the Local Planning Authority is unable to complete a full assessment of the proposal. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) 2011 Regulations, policies QD17 and QD18 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan, policy CP10 of the Brighton & Hove Submission City Plan Part One and SPD11 on Nature Conservation and Development.

3.By virtue of the scale of development proposed and the site coverage, it is considered that the harmful impacts of the proposal on local landscape character, visual amenity and the setting of the National Park, in this sensitive location, represents an overdevelopment of the site. The demonstrable and significant adverse impacts are considered to outweigh any benefits of the proposed scheme. As such the proposal is contrary to policy NC8 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan and policies SA4 and SA5 of the Brighton & Hove Submission City Plan Part One.