Agenda item - BH2016/05908 - Land Off Overdown Rise and Mile Oak Road, Portslade - Outline Application Some Matter Reserved

Outline application for the erection of up to 125 dwellings with associated access, landscaping and informal open space and approval of reserved matter for access only.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: North Portslade

Outline application for the erection of up to 125 dwellings with associated access, landscaping and informal open space and approval of reserved matter for access only.

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

Officer Presentation

2)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and indicative layouts. The application site related to an outline application for a maximum of 125 dwellings on an urban fringe site. It was explained that the site was divided and currently used for grazing and for informal recreation.

3)               It was noted that 40% of the properties would be affordable housing units and there would be s106 contributions to mitigate the impact of the proposals. The application proposed ecological enhancements and these would be made at the north of the site.

4)               The proposal would have 30 dwellings per hectare and this was lower than set out in the urban fringe assessment and in policy CP14; however, this lower density had been justified and considered acceptable. It was added that the issue regarding the impact on the South Downs National Park and the landscape surrounding the site with the lower density had been supported by the County Landscape Officer.

5)               The main considerations were outlined to the Committee: the principle of development; landscape impact; ecology; archaeology; transport and highway safety; affordable housing; and neighbouring amenity.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

6)               Mr Roger Harper spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a local resident. He stated that he had lived in Brighton and Hove for many years and appreciated that housing was needed in the city; however, was concerned that the services within the area could not provide for an additional 400 people. He noted that the NHS, GP services and local schools were strained and the services would not be able to support additional residents. There had been previous problems with flooding in the area and developing on the valley would add pressure to the existing drainage system and an assessment had not been completed on this. The development of the site would have a detrimental effect on the wildlife and he had concerns for the access roads and roundabouts. 

7)               Councillor Atkinson spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a ward Councillor. He thanked the local residents who had contacted him and had made residents aware of the application and explained that he had received over 400 letters in objection and 2 in support of the application. He noted that the access to the site was via narrow interconnected roads, hence there being existing traffic problems, and an additional 200 cars in the area would cause deadlock at peak times that could be dangerous. Local residents had raised concern for the risk of flooding in the area, as there had been a previous history for flooding, and Southern Water had noted that there would be an increased risk due to the development. He noted that the GP services in area would not be able to support the additional residents and that the bus services that run through Mile Oak and Portslade were often full before getting to Brighton.

8)               Mr Peter Rainier and Mr Jon Callcutt spoke in support of the application in their capacity as the agent and applicant. They stated that the application site was part of the urban fringe and had been determined suitable for the development. It was a positive scheme that would provide additional family housing for the city and included 50 affordable units and improvements to the highway, including the widening of Fox Way roundabout. There would also be s106 contributions towards education and leisure facilities. The site currently had a lack of management and the scrub was overgrown; however, the development would improve this and the chalk ground was restored to benefit the wildlife. In addition to this the applicant noted that footpaths leading to the national park would be provided to benefit the residents in the area.

9)               In response to Councillor Gilbey Mr Rainier explained that the scheme had been to a design panel, had pre-application discussions with the Planning Department and had addressed residents’ concerns at a public exhibition.

10)            Mr Rainier noted that he and the applicant had been in communication with Southern Water regarding drainage and they were content that they could meet the facilities needed. He clarified to Councillor Gilbey that there were two proposed retention ponds to collect and contain additional surface water to prevent flooding.

Questions for Officers

11)            In response to Councillor Miller the Officer explained that there were two proposed conditions regarding surface and foul water drainage in addition to informatives. It was added that there was not a condition for water supply; however, it was standard practise to not condition this.

12)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the Officer explained that the County Ecologist had not mentioned a red listed species in their report and they would have stated if listed species were on the site. It was also explained that high level assessments had been undertaken and areas that could be developed were identified. During the high level assessments completed on the site, the development would not begin before being certain that there would not a conflict between the ecology of the site and the archaeology. If deposits were found on the site then development may not be suitable and the applicant and developer were aware of this.

13)            The Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained to Councillor Mac Cafferty that a controlled parking zone would not be deemed appropriate for the development as it would not be producing an overspill of vehicles; therefore, the issue would not need to be addressed. He explained that there could be a potential for double yellow lines on the site access points and this could be discussed when the applicant submitted the scheme setting out the highway works to the Council for approval, as detailed in condition 25.

14)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was noted that there had been an assessment of the local schools and this confirmed that there was currently capacity in the schools; however, a further assessment would be completed once further information had been received regarding the number and mix of units on the site.

15)            In response to Councillor Gilbey the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that the width of Mile Oak Road was just less than 5 metres and the guidance stated that 4.1 metres was the minimum width for two cars. The access for the site was well located and had good visibility.

16)            In response to Councillor Gilbey it was noted that condition 12 stated that the development should not exceed two storeys in height.

Debate and Decision Making Process

17)            Councillor Hyde noted that she had attended the site visit and the area seemed to be enjoyed by local residents and she did not want greenfield sites being developed on when there were currently brownfield sites within the city. The urban fringe assessment stated that urban fringe sites may be developed on; however, the site had not been allocated. The site was located in a quiet neighbourhood with narrow access roads and there were current problems with traffic in the area. She raised concern for the ecology and stated that no amount of mitigation would protect the wildlife, some of which were protected, that were currently diminishing in numbers. The site also supported breeding birds due to the shortage of hedgerows. The development would change the character of the area and noted that she would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

18)            Councillor C. Theobald agreed with Councillor Hyde and explained that there was a high amount of objections received. She noted concern for the loss of greenbelt, the additional pressure on the GP surgeries and schools and the increased traffic on the narrow access roads.

19)            Councillor Russell-Moyle noted that the schools in the area did have places and could cope with additional students from the development. He explained that the additional pressure on the buses could result in Brighton & Hove Buses increasing the bus service in the area. He did not have an objection to the development on the site as it was poorly managed and was not used by the local residents and if the application was granted, the s106 money would enhance the ecology. He added that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation; however, it was essential that the ecology of the site was retained through mitigation and handled carefully.

20)            Councillor Morris noted that the South Downs needed to be managed and it was important to retain scrub land for adders to survive. He added that he had concerns for the protected corn bunting; however, he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

21)            Councillor Bennett expressed concern for the traffic implications the development would have and the access to the site. She explained that there would be a high car ownership rate as the site was not located in the centre of the city and the traffic surveys were taken through the school holidays and bank holiday weekends. She added that she would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

22)            Councillor Littman explained that he did not like the idea of developing on urban fringe sites; however, there was a need for houses to be built and some of these would need to be built on urban fringe sites. The site was poorly managed Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and needed to be improved. It was a good location for affordable housing and would therefore be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

23)            Councillor Miller stated that he did not like the proposal for development on the urban fringe; however, the s106 money would positively enhance the area.  He noted that housing was needed for the city and if the application was to be refused, it would be difficult for officers to defend at appeal stage. He explained that the proposed dwellings were not densely built; however, he did not agree with building on the urban fringe and he was therefore undecided if he would support the Officer’s recommendation.

24)            Councillor Gilbey noted that she welcomed new housing to the city and 40% affordable housing was positive. She explained that she had concerns regarding the flooding as there were existing problems in the area and did not believe that the two proposed retention ponds would handle the surface water. She added that the access to the site was not adequate and would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

25)            Councillor Mac Cafferty explained that it was a greenfield site and the applicant had not explored a sustainable development. He was concerns that there could be a rare species on the site. He explained that he did not want development on any of the urban fringe; however, there was currently a housing crisis. He was therefore undecided if he would support the Officer’s recommendation.

26)            The Chair noted that she agreed with Councillor Miller and Mac Cafferty that homes were needed for the city. She explained that the proposal would be suitable for the area and the residents would not feel a loss of greenfield land as it was located closely to the South Downs National Park. She added that she would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

27)            The Chair then put the application to the vote and the Officer recommendation was not carried with 4 in support, 6 against and 1 abstention. Councillor Gilbey then proposed reasons to refuse the application and these were seconded by Councillor Hyde. A recorded vote was then taken, Councillors: Gilbey, C. Theobald, Mac Cafferty, Bennett, Hyde and Yates voted to refuse the application, Councillors: Littman, Morris, Russell-Moyle and Cattell voted to grant the application and Councillor Miller abstained.

138.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer recommendation, but resolved to refuse planning permission for the reasons subsequently agreed set out below:

1.      Vehicular movements to and from the development using the access from Mile Oak Road, by virtue of the narrowness and layout of Mile Oak Road, would result in dangers to highway safety, contrary to policy TR7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

2.      Increased traffic generation and displaced parking from the development would have an adverse impact on surrounding residential roads, contrary to policy CP9 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One and policy TR7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

3.      The proposed mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures would not satisfactorily address the harmful impacts of the development on the ecology and biodiversity of the Mile Oak Fields Site of Nature Conservation Importance, contrary to policy CP10 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One and policies NC4 and QD18 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

4.      The applicant has failed to demonstrate that appropriate mitigation measures are proposed to manage and reduce flood risk in the locality, contrary to policy CP11 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.

5.      The applicant has failed to demonstrate that appropriate sustainability measures have been incorporated into the development, contrary to policy CP8 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.