Agenda item - Submission City Plan, Part 1

Extract from the proceedings of the Policy & Resources Committee meeting held on the 24^th January 2013 (to be circulated), together with a report of the Strategic Director; Place (copy attached).

80.1         Councillor Mac Cafferty introduced the report and stated that he was honoured to be able to open the debate on the City Plan which outlined how the council proposed to rise to the economic and social challenges over the next seventeen years.  He hoped that the City Plan would be supported and that it would carry the city forward to 2030, providing a balance between homes, jobs, open spaces and the city’s heritage.  The city had over eight million visitors annually and this needed to be enhanced by way of inward investment for the local economy.  The new homes target listed in the plan was achievable but would require forward thinking and whilst every brownfield site was identified, it was likely that some areas of Greenfield would have to be utilised, e.g. the inclusion of Toads Hole Valley.  It was a site that was privately owned and the council was seeking to proactively take account of its potential, rather than leave it open to developers under the new planning regulations.  He stated that the plan sought to protect the urban fringe and the council hoped to work with the Park Authority to preserve the city’s aquifers and to undertake a sustainability appraisal.  He noted that the consultation process had been well supported and had provided valuable feedback and he wished to thank all those that had taken part in the process, as well as those councillors involved in the cross-party working group in enabling such a comprehensive and wide-ranging plan to be brought forward.  He therefore commended the City Plan to the Council.

 

80.2         Councillor J. Kitcat formally seconded the City Plan report to the Council and stated that such a decision came to the council once in a generation.  It was a decision that would affect residents and visitors today as well as those yet to be born.  He believed that the scarcity of amendments being put forward showed that it was right for the city and stated that the majority of the amendments would be accepted.  He also wished to thank everyone involved in bringing the Plan to the meeting, it set out a bold and clear vision for the city which he hoped all would support.

 

80.3         Councillor G. Theobald stated that he wished to express his disappointment that a number of the Conservative Group’s amendments had been ruled unsound by officers and therefore prevented from being debated.   He believed that it was an important decision for the council and therefore all aspects and views should be considered.  In regard to the plan itself, he stated that the need for high quality housing was recognised, however it was irresponsible to include Toads Hove Valley before all other avenues and brownfield sites had been explored.  Toads Hove Valley was an area of outstanding natural beauty and should not be placed under threat at this point in time.  It only represented 6% of the total housing need and he suggested that as such it should be possible to find the equivalent area of land within the city’s brownfield sites.  He stated that there was also a question mark over the proposed permanent Traveller site and noted that the Park Authority was not in favour of the proposed location.  As things stood, the Conservative Group could not support the recommendations before the council.

 

80.4         Councillor Mitchell welcomed the City Plan and wished to thank the officers involved and the public for their response to the consultation process.  She stated that the city’s location gave it specific challenges which had to be faced and tackled constructively and difficult decisions taken when necessary.  She hoped that the Labour & Co-operative Group’s amendments would be accepted as they sought to achieve a balanced plan and take account of transport aspects and provision of new schools in the city.  There was some concern that the current policy of expanding existing schools would not be sufficient to meet demand.  She noted that the plan had to be sound, in order to stand up to the Planning Inspector’s requirements and any public enquiry and therefore only sound amendments could be considered and possibly adopted.

 

80.5         The Mayor noted that each Theme listed in the Plan would be moved and seconded and any amendments relating to those themes would also be moved and seconded as detailed in the addendum papers.  He therefore called on Councillor Kitcat to move the Spatial Strategy Theme.

 

80.6         Councillor J. Kitcat moved the proposals listed under the Spatial Strategy Theme and noted the comments of the other Group Leaders.  He stated that the previous Administration had applied for funding to enable a permanent traveller site to be provided and as such the current proposal was seeking to use that funding.  With regard to the Labour & Co-operative amendments, he was happy to accept amendments 1 – 4 as they clarified the wording of the policies.  He also recognised the need for new schools in the city and believed the plan offered a clear framework for the economic development of the city.  As for housing, the available brownfield sites did not provide sufficient capacity to meet the target and therefore other avenues had to be identified.

 

80.7         Councillor Mac Cafferty formally seconded the proposals under the Spatial Strategy Theme and noted that the housing shortage had been previously identified by the Planning Inspector in 2010 and the council had no choice but to address this matter.  He stated that the Plan also sought to improve access to the National Park and to provide a realistic and deliverable strategy for the city.

 

80.8         Councillor Pissaridou moved the Labour & Co-operative Group amendment under the Spatial Strategy Theme which sought to clarify the process for building and expanding schools and where possible with the consent of the school.

 

80.9         Councillor Morgan formally seconded the amendment.

 

80.10    Councillor Morgan then moved the Labour & Co-operative Group’s second amendment under the Spatial Strategy Theme, which sought to clarify the need to improve the Brighton Station Gateway area for the benefit of the local economy and visitors to the city.

 

80.11    Councillor Pissaridou formally seconded the amendment.

 

80.12    Councillor Morgan then moved the Labour & Co-operative Group’s third amendment under the Spatial Strategy Theme, which sought to require the undertaking of a feasibility study for the re-routing and reduction of through traffic in relation to the 3Ts development.

 

80.13    Councillor Pissaridou formally seconded the amendment.

 

80.14    Councillor Morgan then moved the Labour & Co-operative Group’s fourth amendment under the Spatial Strategy Theme, which sought to protect the urban fringe from development in view of recent changes to the national planning framework.

 

80.15    Councillor Pissaridou formally seconded the amendment.

 

80.16    Councillor Bowden then moved the Strong & Prosperous City Theme and stated that he wished to echo the thanks given to officers and all others involved in the development of the City Plan.  He fully supported the continued improvement in economic performance and the appropriate spread of employment sites across the city, which was an essential foundation for developing the workforce.  There was a need to address the need for housing and he noted that 94% of the proposed target could be met from brownfield sites and the inclusion of Toads Hole Valley was critical to enabling the council to fulfil the overall target.

 

80.17    Councillor Mac Cafferty formally seconded the proposals listed under the Theme and noted that during the first six months of the last year over 628 new companies had formed and these needed to be supported and further ones encouraged, in order to support the local economy and encourage growth.  There was a clear long-term strategy for Shoreham Harbour and the council was working with neighbouring authorities of Adur and West Sussex and the Port Authority to take this forward.

 

80.18    Councillor West formally moved the proposals listed under the Sustainable City Theme and stated that the next two decades would see a number of challenges for the planet and the need to work to protect the environment and become a One Planet City was ever more necessary.  There was a need to reduce carbon emissions, improve energy resources and transport systems as well as enhancing open spaces and making them more accessible.

 

80.19    Councillor Davey formally seconded the proposals under the Theme and stated that it was imperative to deliver a sustainable transport system and noted that outside of London, Brighton & Hove was the least car dependent city.  He stated that more people than ever were travelling into the city by public transport and this needed to be encouraged and improvements made to bus and rail networks.  He was happy to accept the Labour & Co-operative Group’s amendments other than in regard to park & ride, which he believed was no longer a viable option for the city.  He also confirmed that he could not accept the Conservative Group’s amendment.

 

80.20    Councillor Hyde then moved the Conservative Group amendment under the Sustainable City Theme, which sought to encourage the creation of 3 zones within the city, the central zone being considered for car free access, the middle zone having car access on the merits of any developments and the outer zone covering the suburbs and villages which required transport links into the city to discourage the use of cars.

 

80.21    Councillor Cox formally seconded the amendment and stated that there was a need for a flexible approach to parking and enabling key-workers to have parking spaces rather than preventing them from taking up the available accommodation because of the need to have a car; or simply dispersing the parking of their cars to other areas e.g. in Westbourne Ward where a car-free block of flats has led to cars being parked in surrounding roads.  There was also the need to recognise that people’s circumstances changed and by only providing flats in the city centre, it prevented families from moving out because of the high cost of housing elsewhere in the city.

 

80.22    Councillor Mitchell moved the Labour & Co-operative Group’s first amendment under the Sustainable City Theme, which sought to encourage high sustainable building design without placing too much demand on potential developers.

 

80.23    Councillor Robins formally seconded the amendment.

 

80.24    Councillor Mitchell moved the Labour & Co-operative Group’s second amendment under the Sustainable City Theme, which sought to enable the consideration of a park & ride solution for the city’s transport needs, rather than ruling it out until 2030.  She suggested that there was a need to look at enabling traffic to remain outside of the city and for people to then travel in on public transport.

 

80.25    Councillor Robins formally seconded the amendment and stated that there was a need to identify a location and provide a park & ride facility which would then encourage more visitors to the city.

 

80.26    Councillor Mitchell moved the Labour & Co-operative Group’s third amendment under the Sustainable City Theme, which sought to encourage the development of a second main rail line for Brighton, which would be viable and lead to economic benefits for the city and surrounding areas.

 

80.27    Councillor Robins formally seconded the amendment and stated that the existing rail line was running at capacity and more investment was required and a new Brighton Main Line 2 would provide additional capacity and greater links as well as benefitting the Amex stadium.

 

80.28    Councillor Deane moved the proposals listed under the Attractive City Theme and stated that there was a need to safeguard the city’s assets and to promote its heritage.  It was important that new developments could be encouraged and additional housing and employment facilities provided to enable the city to grow.  She fully supported the role of the arts and tourism in helping to promote the city and hoped that the Plan would enable the council to maintain and build on the legacy that the city had.  She also acknowledged that she was happy to accept the Conservative Group’s amendment.

 

80.29    Councillor Hawtree formally seconded the Theme and stated that it promoted new opportunities for recreation and sport as well as enhancing and protecting the city’s green spaces.  He believed that it offered an opportunity for greater investment and sustainable solutions that would be benefit everyone in the city.

 

80.30    Councillor Peltzer Dunn moved the Conservative Group’s amendment under the An Attractive City Theme, which sought to ensure that residential developments were considered on a case by case basis and enabled positive negotiation to that end.

 

80.31    Councillor Mears formally seconded the amendment and stated that it was important to be able to consider potential developments on a case by case basis, as housing density was an important element and there was a need to learn from past mistakes.

 

80.32    Councillor Wakefield moved the proposals listed under the Healthy and Balanced Communities Theme, and stated that a key aim had to be to provide stronger and safer communities within the city.  She believed that everyone had a right to education, good health care and to feel safe within their homes.  The intention was to provide more sustainable homes, more primary and secondary places, more affordable homes and to meet the needs of the travelling community.  She hoped that community engagement would be encouraged and that the gap between deprived neighbourhoods could be narrowed.

 

80.33    Councillor Powell formally seconded the Theme and stated that new affordable housing was in desperate need to meet demand and the sliding scale for new developments was a practical approach.  She noted that planning decisions could influence the health of a city and improve access, housing conditions, work and economic factors.  She also welcomed the intention to meet the accommodation needs of Travellers and to take account of the need for and impact of student housing in the city.

 

80.34    Councillor Peltzer Dunn moved the Conservative Group’s amendment under the Healthy and Balanced Communities Theme, which sought to enable further flexibility in regard to the number of affordable housing units that were provided in any development, whilst seeking to maximise the number achieved.  He suggested that affordable units would be provided through the Private Sector and in taking into account the financial viability he hoped that the amendment would be given consideration.

 

80.35    Councillor C. Theobald formally seconded the amendment and stated that there was a need to say up to 40% affordable housing for a development, so that smaller developments could progress albeit with a lower percentage of affordable housing.  She believed that without the flexibility it was likely to prevent future developments from being put forward.

 

80.36    Councillor Meadows moved the Labour & Co-operative Group’s amendment under the Healthy and Balanced Communities Theme, which sought to clarify the policy with the inclusion of a specific reference to extra care housing provision.  She believed that suitable accommodation would be required and that extra care facilities similar to those of Larchwood and Patching Lodge had to be provided.  She also referred to the Conservative Group’s amendment and stated that she could not support it.

 

80.37    Councillor Farrow formally seconded the amendment.

 

80.38    Councillor J. Kitcat confirmed that the Administration were willing to accept the Labour & Co-operative Group’s amendment but not the Conservative Group’s.

 

80.39    The Mayor noted that all the Themes and amendments under various themes had been moved and seconded and therefore opened the matter for general debate.

 

80.40    Councillor Wilson welcomed the City Plan and stated that the emphasis had to be on building strong communities, encouraging economic development and enabling people to have a home.  She stated that all available space should be utilised and consideration given to the geographical layout of the city so that the impact of welfare reforms could be accounted for and economic regeneration encouraged.

 

80.41    Councillor K. Norman welcomed the inclusion of the reference to extra care housing and agreed that the city already had two excellent facilities.  He supported the commitment to improve the area and hoped that it would be taken forward.

 

80.42    Councillor Fitch referred to the inclusion of Toads Hole Valley and stated that he believed there were other sites within the city that could be utilised and therefore prevent the need for the inclusion of Toads Hove Valley for development.  He believed that the area or outstanding natural beauty should be retained and enjoyed by residents and visitors to the city and that the alternative use of other sites would enable the council to meet its housing targets.  He therefore asked the council to think again and not include Toads Hole Valley within the City Plan.

 

80.43    Councillor West stated that there was a need to look at sustainable solutions to the city’s needs and to address the issues of housing, office space and transport.  He noted that a report on parking facilities was due to be considered by the Environment & Sustainability Committee and questioned the suggestion and viability of providing a park & ride site within the city as had been promoted by the Labour & Co-operative Group.

 

80.44    Councillor Bennett referred to Toads Hole Valley and stated that she could not support its inclusion in the City Plan and suggested that it would result in developers choosing to put forward schemes in favour of available brown-field sites.  She also believed that should any development take place it would lead to further transport issues and impact directly on the local community.  She therefore wished to see its removal from the City Plan.

 

80.45    Councillor Simson stated that she supported the Conservative Group’s amendment in relation to CP9, as there was a need to recognise that future developments had to account for the use of the car.  If there was a blanket policy for car-free developments it would only exacerbate the problem of cars being parked in surrounding areas, on verges and without public network links would isolate the outlaying wards.

 

80.46    Councillor Davey stated that the provision of a park and ride scheme had not been delivered by previous administrations and the sites suggested to date had proved to be unviable.  He did not believe a viable site existed in the city and suggested that park and ride would not work for the city and therefore it should be dropped as a proposal.

 

80.47    Councillor Brown questioned the process for the consideration of amendments and the decision of officers to determine that some were unsound.  She believed that Toads Hole Valley should remain free from development and queried whether an appropriate Environmental Impact Assessment had been completed in regard to the proposed of the land.  She did not believe that sufficient consideration had been given to the need for transport links and the pollution that would result from increased car usage.

 

80.48    Councillor Shanks stated that the need for more schools in the city was recognised and welcomed the Labour & Co-operative Group amendment.  She noted that the Government’s position prevented the council from building new schools and hoped that pressure could be put on the government to enable local authorities to address this problem.  Although it was possible to expand existing schools it was not necessarily going to be sufficient to meet the demand for school places in the city.

 

80.49    Councillor Wealls noted the proposed Labour & Co-operative Group’s amendment in relation to schools and stated that the Conservative Group amendment would have gone further but had been ruled out as being unsound.  He also noted that a provision for an additional 200 homes at Brighton Marina had been made without a new school being identified, and there were over 1800 new homes listed for the New England Quarter but again no school provision.  He suggested that there was a need to look at these and other proposed levels of development and to ensure that school provision was also included.

 

80.50    Councillor Mears referred to the proposed increase in the provision of one and two-bedroom units and suggested that the level of density needed to be relooked at and reconsidered.  She also expressed concern over the need for extra care housing provision and ways to ensure that it was delivered identified and listed.

 

80.51    Councillor Hawtree stated that housing density was an important issue and one that would be taken into consideration, bearing in mind the nature of the city and the differing factors for the town centre and the outskirts of the city.

 

80.52    Councillor G. Theobald stated that he could not support the Labour & Co-operative Group’s amendments which were effectively a play on words and delivered no real change.  He questioned the need for the car-free developments and noted that the Park Authority had expressed concern over the inclusion of the permanent traveller site within the national park boundary and he also questioned the impact on the city’s aquifer.

 

80.53    Councillor Janio referred the housing target listed in the Plan and asked for a legal ruling as the he believed the original housing needs survey had indentified a higher number of housing units that were required for the city.  He noted that the Conservative Group’s amendment had been ruled out and queried whether the revised target was something that the Planning Inspector could determine.

 

80.54    The Monitoring Officer stated that it was important to note that officers had not made a decision to prevent amendments from being submitted, but had expressed a view on the soundness of the amendments.  The Leaders Group had agreed the use of the proposed protocol that was then put before the Council for determination.  The protocol was based on previous versions used for both the City Plan and the Budget setting process.  It was custom and practice for councillors to take into account the opinions of officers and the protocol only came into effect with the consent of the Council.  In regard to the submission of the amendments, the question of ‘soundness’ was one for officers to express their professional opinion and this was based on planning considerations, evidence received, the Inspector’s comments and the use of the compulsory purchase Act.  He also noted that the National Planning Policy Framework required the submission of the City Plan to be on a sound basis.  The planning officers had taken into account the report of the Inspector in 2012 and advised that the Conservative Group’s proposed amendment was unsound and he had found no basis on which to defer from that judgement.  The use of the protocol was custom and practice for the authority and having been approved by the council was appropriate as a basis for enabling the consideration of the City Plan.

 

80.55    Councillor J. Kitcat questioned whether Councillor Theobald supported the use of ‘Fracking’ and pointed out that the council was unable to build new schools as had been previously suggested as being an option available to it.  He welcomed the Labour & Co-operative’s amendment for the inclusion of a second main line for Brighton, BML2.  He stated that congestion was an issue that the city had to tackle, and whilst park and ride may have helped in the past, it was not something that was likely to happen and therefore should be discounted.

 

80.56    Councillor Peltzer Dunn referred to the issue of Toads Hole Valley and noted that it was a green-filed site and therefore queried on what basis the land for housing provision had been identified and where it had been identified prior to Toads Hole Valley being included as a potential site for development.

 

80.57    The Mayor noted that the debate had come to an end and invited Councillor Mac Cafferty to respond.

 

80.58    Councillor Mac Cafferty thanked the Mayor and stated that he wished to thank all the Members for the debate on the issue.  He stated that in regard to fulfilling the housing target, the City Plan had identified 94% of the required units being on brown-field sites and the potential development on Toads Hole Valley was equivalent to the required 6% that remained.  He noted that the National Planning Policy Framework required local authorities to consider both brown-field and green-field sites.  He believed that the affordable housing policy maximised the provision for affordable housing and recognised the economic climate that potential developers were working in.

 

80.59    The Mayor stated that he would put each of the amendments to the vote before putting the final recommendations as amended, if amended to the vote.

 

The Spatial Strategy

80.60    The Mayor then put the Labour & Co-operative Amendment No.1 to the vote which was carried:

 

SO21              Replace ‘…future increases in population through expansion of successful schools and by providing new schools’ with ‘…future increases in population by working with partners, including not for profit organisations, to build new schools and by expanding successful schools (where possible, with the consent of the school’).

 

SA6 Sustainable Neighbourhoods

                                    Amend sentence being ‘Where there is an identified shortfall of places…’ to: ‘Where there is an identified shortfall of school places the city council will work with partners, including not for profit organisations, to identify sites and build new schools and expand successful schools (where possible, with the consent of the school’).

 

80.61    The Mayor then put the Labour & Co-operative Amendment No.2 to the vote which was carried.

 

            DA4 New England Quarter/London Road

                                    Replace part 5 of the policy to: ‘Working with Southern Rail, Network Rail and partners to enhance the environment and maximise use of space around Brighton Rail Station (Brighton Station Gateway) recognising its important role as a gateway to the city, a public space, a major transport interchange and the need to improve links to and from the station.’

 

80.62    The Mayor then put the Labour & Co-operative Amendment No.3 to the vote which was carried.

 

            DA5 Eastern Road and Edward Street

                                    Add the following (underlined)  to first sentence of paragraph: ‘A feasibility study will be carried out to consider the re-routing and reduction of through traffic (with the exception of residents’ vehicles, public transport including taxis, ambulances other hospital transport and vehicles directly accessing the hospital) and if approved implemented prior to completion of the 3Ts development at the Royal Sussex County Hospital …’

 

80.63    The Mayor then put the Labour & Co-operative Amendment No.4 to the vote which was carried.

 

            SA4 Urban Fringe

                                    Amend introductory sentence  from ‘Development within the urban fringe will only be permitted where’ to state: ‘Development within the urban fringe will not be permitted except where:’

 

A Sustainable City

80.64    The Mayor then put the Conservative Amendment to the vote which was lost.

 

80.65    The Mayor then put the Labour & Co-operative Amendment No.1 to the vote which was carried.

 

            CP8 Sustainable Buildings

                                    Replace the existing text with the underlined text below to paragraph 4.77 of the supporting text of the policy: ‘… Within this context, the need to secure improvement in the environmental performance of the existing stock and more resource efficient and carbon neutral development whilst delivering homes and jobs through development is  challenging. The combination of standards with provisions for viability assessments will help to address this challenge.  These will provide the flexibility needed to ensure the right balance between the economic, environmental and social objectives of the City Plan.Energy, water …’

 

80.66    The Mayor then put the Labour & Co-operative Amendment No.2 to the vote which was lost.

 

80.67    The Mayor then put the Labour & Co-operative Amendment No.3 to the vote which was carried.

 

            CP9                Amend text to last sentence of para 4.98 to: ‘The need for rail service capacity and line improvements between the Sussex coast and London, including the reinstatement of the rail line between Lewes and Uckfield, are supported.’

 

An Attractive City

80.68    The Mayor then put the Conservative Amendment to the vote which was carried.

 

            CP14 Housing Density

                                    Just alter first sentence of policy to read: Residential development should be of a density that is appropriate to the identified positive character of the neighbourhood and be determined on a case by case basis.

 

Healthy and Balanced Communities

80.69    The Mayor then put the Conservative Amendment to the vote which was lost.

 

80.70    The Mayor then put the Labour & Co-operative Amendment to the vote which was carried.

 

            CP19 Housing Mix

                                    Add ‘extra care housing;’ after ;….older and disabled people;’

 

80.71    The Mayor noted that a number of amendments had been carried and therefore moved that the recommendations relating to the City Plan report as amended be approved and put this to the vote which was carried.

 

80.72    RESOLVED:

 

(1)         That the summary of the responses to the consultation on the draft City Plan Part 1 (as amended), (summarised in Appendix 1 to the report with a full schedule attached to the Statement of Consultation on city council’s website, placed in the Members’ Rooms and in Customer Service Centres) be noted;

 

(2)         That the Proposed Submission City Plan Part 1 (as amended), be agreed andpublished for statutory public consultation for a six week period commencing in February 2013, (Along with appendices and supporting documents);

 

(3)         That the document should be subsequently submitted to the Secretary of State subject to nomaterial changes, other than alterations for the purposes of clarification,improved accuracy of meaning or typographical corrections, being necessary;

 

(4)          That the Head of Planning and Public Protection be authorised to agree any draft “main modifications” to the City Plan Part 1 necessary to make it sound and to authorise the publication of such draft modifications for public consultation save that should any draft modification involve a major shift in the policy approach of the City Plan Part 1 the draft modification shall be referred by the Head of Planning and Public Protection to the Policy & Resources Committee for approval;

 

(5)         That it be noted that all modifications to the Plan will be presented to the Policy & Resources Committee and Full Council in due course as part of the adoption of the City Plan Part 1; and

 

(6)         That the following studies as supporting evidence for the City Plan and further Local Development Documents be approved:

 

1.      The Employment Land Study Review 2012

2.      Draft Transport Assessment 2012

3.      The Brighton and Hove Energy Study 2012

4.      Local Housing Requirements update 2012

5.      Strategic Housing land Availability assessment (SHLAA) Update 2012

6.      Housing Needs Assessment 2012

7.      Site capacity assessments 2012.

 

Note:   The Conservative Group abstained from voting on the above item.

 

 

Motion to terminate the meeting:

 

80.73    In accordance with Procedural Rule 17, the Mayor noted that the meeting had been in session for over four hours and he was therefore required to move a closure motion to effectively terminate the meeting.

 

80.1         The Mayor moved the closure motion and put the matter to the vote which was carried and therefore the Mayor noted each of the remaining items would need to be taken and voted on or withdrawn by the mover before the meeting was concluded. He noted that the remaining item was No. 86(b).