Issue - items at meetings - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

 

(a) Petitions: to receive any petitions presented by members of the public to full Council or at the meeting itself;

 

(a)          The Hippodrome

(b)          Traffic assessment Saltdean and surrounds

(c)       King Alfred Indoor Bowling

(d)       Save Preston Park Cycle Track

(e)       Protection of Land Between Longhill Close, Ovingdean and Elvin Crescent Rottingdean

(f)        Protect Longhill Close Woodland

 

(b) Written Questions: to receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on 11 June 2015;

 

(a)          Caroline Lynch – Article 4

 

(c) Deputations: to receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on 11 June 2015.

6.1       The Chair noted there were a number of public items listed on the agenda.

 

(A)         Petitions

 

(i)           The Hippodrome

 

6.2       This petition was withdrawn from the agenda.

 

(ii)          Traffic Assessment Saltdean and Surrounds

 

6.2       The Chair asked Cathy Gallagher to present her petition.

 

6.3       Ms Gallagher thanked the Chair and explained that the residents of Saltdean faced severe and growing road congestion with traffic cueing each day; it was estimated that 14,000 vehicles passed through Rottingdean High Street each day and Council Officers were currently assessing the traffic in the area. The potential for an additional 100 homes in the immediate area would make the issue worse, and the petition requested that all proposed developments over five units should be the subject of a traffic assessment. The traffic problems spilt over beyond the normal peak hours expected for congestion, and it was felt the Council were underestimating the extent of the problem. In summary the petition asked for enforcement to help relieve some of the busiest junctions.

 

6.4       In response to a query from Councillor Robins the petitioner explained that they opposed development on greenfield sites; whilst they were in favour of development on brownfield sites they felt this needed proper traffic assessments.

 

6.5       Councillor Greenbaum noted that she shared resident’s concerns in relation to air quality.

 

6.6       The Chair provided the following response to the petition:

 

“I note your concerns about the impact of traffic on Saltdean arising from new development and your concern that its effects have not been considered cumulatively. 

 

I can confirm that the city council has looked at the cumulative impact of new development proposed in the City Plan through the Strategic Transport Assessment (STA). It looks at the cumulative impact of new development on trunk roads and travel in the city and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. This Assessment was updated in June 2014 to look that the impact of the additional housing potential on urban fringe sites.  In summary, the Assessment did not identify any fundamental constraints to urban fringe development that could not be mitigated.

 

In terms of considering the local impacts of development you can be assured that the impact of individual development sites will be assessed through further work on the urban fringe sites and through Part 2 of the City Plan - the site allocation Plan. Residents will be consulted on the content of Part 2 Plan early next year and then on detailed allocations.

 

If planning applications for development on urban fringe sites are received before the adoption of City Plan Part 2 then the traffic impact of proposals will be considered through a detailed traffic impact assessment. These will be required with planning applications. Residents will be consulted on all planning applications.

 

Once again, thank you for your petition, I note your concerns and will pass your petition to the relevant Team in Planning.”

 

6.7       RESOLVED – That the Committee note the petition.

 

(iii)         King Alfred Indoor Bowling

 

6.8      The Chair noted the petition had been referred from Council on 19 March 2015.

 

6.9      Councillor Peltzer Dunn noted his sympathy with the petition and stated his view that the proposals for the new King Alfred were not realistic and would not meet the requirements of indoor bowls.

 

6.10    The Chair provided the following response to the petition:

 

“Thank you for your petition. The council does have ambitious plans for a new Kings Alfred Sport and Leisure Facility and it is very important that the current redevelopment scheme is successful, as the existing facility will only become less viable to keep open as the building further ages. 

 

To give the best possible opportunity for a new redevelopment scheme to be viable, the council has proceeded with a detailed competitive dialogue process in which bidders are encouraged to provide the best possible sports centre on the current site or elsewhere in the Hove catchment area. That process was agreed by Policy & Resources Committee in July 2013 in accordance with the recommendations of the cross party Project Board, who have  had corporate oversight on the process before and since that decision was taken.

 

The bidders must meet a minimum specification for a sports centre, but are encouraged to provide a range of enhancements in line with the maximum specification as approved by the Policy & Resources Committee. In relation to indoor bowls, the minimum specification requires a 3 rink bowls hall, while the enhanced specification requires a 6 rink bowls hall, with a full range of associated club facilities (including bar, lounge, catering provision for 64 people, committee room and changing rooms).  While a 3 rink bowls hall may not be considered ideal, it would certainly retain the ability for the public to play indoor bowls in a council, rather than private, facility in the city. Moreover the other 8 clubs that use the existing facility and play on 3 rinks would be able to continue unaffected.

 

In an ideal world, a bidder would provide a sports centre with all the enhanced requirements specified for swimming, sports hall, health & fitness and other areas, as well as indoor bowls, to achieve the best possible sports centre from the redevelopment. However we need to manage our expectations and be realistic. As with the request for a 50m pool, it will depend on whether a bidder is able to include such an enhancement, given design constraints and the need for an enabling development (of predominantly new housing on the site) to help fund the new centre. Indeed it was for this very reason that officers, the Project Board and Policy & Resources Committee carefully considered the parameters of the minimum specification.

 

While it is acknowledged that indoor bowls is a positive activity for those taking part, it does need to be recognised that (i) a 6 rink facility is a large area due to the wide open span of space needed, (ii) the usage is relatively low when compared with other provision e.g. swimming, and (iii) it is predominately used for only 6 months of a year.

 

A balance will be required by bidders when considering the potential uses to achieve a viable scheme. Realistically it is unlikely that all the enhancements can be provided, but this will be determined by the competitive dialogue process, the results of which will return to Committee. In any event it is not possible this late in the process to halt or change the process of procurement for a new sports centre of which the bowls element is a part.”

 

6.11    Councillor Nemeth stated that expertise in relation to the sport was with the local club, and he asked how many meetings had been held with the local club; Officers agreed to send a response to this query following the meeting.

 

6.12    RESOLVED – That the Committee note the petition.

 

(iv)        Save Preston Park Cycle Track

 

6.13    The Chair noted the petition had been referred from Council on 19 March 2015.

 

6.14    Councillor C. Theobald stated that she had been to see the track herself; observed it in use and she hoped there would be funding available to keep it operational.

 

6.15    The Chair provided the following response to the petition and highlighted that a report would be brought to the next meeting of the Committee:

 

            “Thank you for your petition. I know the Preston Park cycle track is a popular facility and it is great to see the growing interest in the sport.

 

Changes in Health and Safety guidance mean that the track no longer meets competition standards and British Cycling (the sport’s governing body) have advised that it can no longer be used for racing.  The main issue is that the type and positioning of fencing around the track does not meet the required standards. 

 

The track is still considered to be safe to use for coaching and training with mitigation measures in place, and continues to be used regularly both by clubs and individuals.  The track itself is still considered to be in a reasonable condition but the stand will be demolished because it was no longer structurally sound. 

 

The area in which the cycle track is located is a shared space.  The track itself is laid around the cricket pitch used by St Peters Cricket Club which is also a very popular facility.  The club are in advanced discussions with the council to take on the lease for the site and have carried out their own fund raising to help pay for improvements.

 

Officers are working with British Cycling to explore the issues and possible options. 

 

The cost implications of carrying out the required improvements are expected to be significant.  Initial estimates indicate that replacing the fencing with that of the required standard would cost in the order of £300,000.  Refurbishment of the facility including relaying of the track itself is estimated to cost £880,000. 

 

The council doesn’t have any capital resource allocated specifically for this work and on-going maintenance costs of any future investment also need to be factored in.

 

A number of funding opportunities are being explored by officers including s106 funding and funds ring-fenced to Preston Park from the parking scheme. 

 

However these funds are not specifically allocated to the cycle track.  The parking surplus is ring-fenced to improvements to the whole park.  It has funded the recent refurbishment of the toilets by the Rotunda café, there is an agreement to fund improvements to the Chalet Toilets next year and a longer term management plan is being produced to inform expenditure priorities and maximise match funding opportunities. 

 

A report will come to the next meeting of this committee detailing options for the cycle track.  It will include a breakdown of the capital and revenue cost implications for each and outline potential funding sources.  The report will also include the local context in terms of other park users and implications associated with any significant investment in the cycling facility.”

 

6.13    RESOLVED – That the Committee note the petition.

 

(v/vi)   Protect Longhill Close Woodland

 

6.14    The Chair noted the petition had been referred from Council on 19 March 2015; there was also a Member Letter from Councillor Mears listed at agenda Item 7 (c) on the same topic and proposed that both items be taken together. The Chair invited Councillor Mears to speak to her letter.

 

6.15    Councillor Mears stated that residents had spoken on this matter at Council, and there were a number of sites within her Ward, Rottingdean Coastal, that could be affected by development on the urban fringe. Residents were concerned that the assessment would pave the way for development on sites. In relation to Brownfield sites Councillor Mears felt that the authority could do more to take advantage of funds available from Central Government given the housing constraints in the city. There were ongoing concerns that the price of properties in the city would not help to alleviate the housing need in the city. Councillor Mears stated that the issue needed to be discussed; residents were concerned about the impact on the woodland and wildlife in the area affected.

 

6.16    The Chair provided the following response to the petition and Member letter:

 

            “I would first like to assure you that the City Plan Part One does not allocate any urban fringe sites for development. Instead it broadly identifies the urban fringe as having potential for 1000 dwellings based on the findings of the Urban Fringe Assessment. This work was required by the Planning Inspector for the City Plan who, at the Examination Hearing, did not consider the city council had been positive enough about housing development in the urban fringe.

 

The proposed changes to policies in the City Plan commit us to carrying out a more detailed assessment of urban fringe sites including site 43 – this will look more carefully at ecology, landscape impact and archaeology.

 

This further work will inform which sites will go forward into housing allocations in Part 2 of the City Plan. I can also assure you that local residents will be given the opportunity to comment on all site allocations proposed in the Plan.

 

We are expecting some planning applications to come in for urban fringe sites before the Part 2 of the Plan is adopted. Where this happens residents will be consulted and details of proposals will be considered through the planning application process

 

Once again, thank you for your petition, your detailed concerns are noted and the petition will be passed to the relevant Team in Planning.”  

 

6.17    Councillor Peltzer Dunn stated that the submission from the residents and the Councillor Mears illustrated the problem with the overall approach the strategic planning in the city. It was also clear that some sites were more emotive for residents; he welcomed the response from the Chair and the assurance provided.

 

(B)         Written Questions

 

(i)           Caroline Lynch – Regulation 7 Direction, Article 4

 

6.18    The Chair noted there was one question from Caroline Lynch, and invited Ms Lynch to come forward and put her question to the Committee. Ms Lynch thanked the Chair, and asked:

 

“In 2010 BHCC applied for a Regulation 7 Direction for the conservation areas of town to prevent the blight of estate agents boards, this was passed. In 2009 the Student Housing Strategy recommended similar action be investigated for the Article 4 wards for the well documented and well known significant blight of these boards cause in our area. Nothing has been done to progress this. I would like to ask today that the current Regulation 7 Direction be extended to cover all Article 4 wards and I have been directed by the Planning Committee to you to initiate this action.”

 

6.19    In response to Chair stated:

 

“There were very considerable difficulties experienced in bringing into effect the Regulation 7 Direction in the central conservation areas. The Secretary of State did not confirm the original order and directed that the area be significantly reduced to the streets most impacted by subdivision of properties and of greatest uniformity of townscape.

 

In the light of that experience the officer assessment was that the prospect of a favourable outcome of a regulation 7 Direction being approved over an extensive area of five wards was extremely remote.

 

A  Regulation 7 direction would involve a very considerable amount of officer time commitment in developing the case and could not be committed without reasonable prospect of a positive outcome.

 

Since the time of the original student housing strategy there have been Regulation 7 directions accepted in similar circumstances elsewhere in the country.  These precedents could be revisited as part of the review of the student housing strategy.”

 

6.20    By way of a supplementary question Ms Lynch asked if the review was already underway; the Chair deferred to Officers and it was explained review had not yet, but there were over 100 different recommendations. In relation to conservation areas there was a specific requirement for the local authority to create management plans, and this would be considered as part of the review. The Chair agreed that the Strategic Housing Partnership could contact Ms Lynch when they start the review so she would be able to feed into this.

 

6.21    There were no further items of public involvement.