Agenda item - BH2016/05530 - Land South Of Ovingdean Road, Brighton - Outline Application Some Matter Reserved

Outline planning application with appearance reserved for the construction of 45 no one, two, three, four and five bedroom dwellings with associated garages, parking, estate roads, footways, pedestrian linkages, public open space, strategic landscaping and part retention/reconfiguration of existing paddocks. New vehicular access from Ovingdean Road and junction improvements.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

Outline planning application with appearance reserved for the construction of 45 no one, two, three, four and five bedroom dwellings with associated garages, parking, estate roads, footways, pedestrian linkages, public open space, strategic landscaping and part retention/reconfiguration of existing paddocks. New vehicular access from Ovingdean Road and junction improvements.

 

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

 

Officer Introduction

 

2)               The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold, and the Acting Planning Manager Policy Projects and Heritage, Sandra Rogers, introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. It was explained that Members had received a copy of the Additional Representations List which included an update regarding the areas of spend for the open space and indoor sports contributions. In addition to the representations on the list a further 8 letters of objection had been received. These additional representations; however, did not include any new material planning considerations in addition to those set out in the report. It was noted that further comments from the County Landscape Architect and County Ecologist had been received in response to recently received third party objections. It was considered by the County Ecologist, Landscape Architect and Officers that the proposed ecology and planting mitigation was acceptable and such mitigation could be secured by various conditions. 

 

3)               The application sought outline permission for the construction of 45 dwellings with associated garages, parking, estate roads, footways, pedestrian linkages, public open space, strategic landscaping and part reconfiguration of existing paddocks. The application included a new vehicular access from Ovingdean Road and junction improvements with Falmer Road would be provided. It was noted that matters for assessment in the application included layout, access, landscaping and scale, whilst the appearance was reserved. Although the appearance was reserved it was stated within the application that the proposed dwellings would be two storeys in height and that the ridgelines of the proposed properties would reflect the East to West gradient of the site.

 

4)               It was explained to the Committee that 40% of the proposed units, 18 units, would be affordable housing, including one, two and three bed units with an offered tenure mix of 55% social, affordable rent, 10 units, and 45% intermediate, 8 units. 

 

5)               The Principal Planning Officer noted that the site was classed as an urban fringe site located between the defined built up area boundary of the City and the boundary of the South Downs National Park. An Urban Fringe Assessment was commissioned by the Council in 2014 in response to the City Plan Part One Examination Inspector’s instructions to plan more positively for housing. The assessment provided an indication of the overall potential for housing within each of the City’s identified urban fringe sites and 66 sites in total were identified.

 

6)               The application site and the playing fields located to the south of the application site were identified as site 42 within the Urban Fringe Assessment. The lower, north-western part of the application site was assessed in the Urban Fringe Assessment to have the potential to provide approximately 45 low density residential units. Such development was considered to offer the potential to mitigate adverse impacts on the wider landscape character and not significantly affect views from the South Downs National Park, although the site was located in a sensitive area close to boundaries of the South Downs National Park which is a landscape of national importance.

 

7)               It was stated that since submission of the application the proposal had been amended to omit the former Local Area Play and a community growing area due to officer’s concerns regarding adverse harm on the visual and landscape amenities of the site and surrounding area.

 

8)               The site was visible from the local area and in particular from Ovingdean Road and Falmer Road. The wider views from the Downs tended to be obscured by landform and the location of the site in the bottom of the valley. The most significant views from the Downs were from the bridleway on Mount Pleasant. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments submitted as part of the application had been assessed by the County Landscape Architect and it was considered that the proposed development would have at worst a moderate visual effect from the most sensitive viewpoint on Mount Pleasant, once the proposed mitigation planting had matured in 10 years.

 

9)               The Officer stated that overall given the conclusions of the appeal Inspector regarding the development of 85 dwellings and the fact that the current proposal was for 45 dwellings and retained a larger open space area to the east of the proposed dwellings, it was considered that the proposal would not have a significant harmful impact upon the visual amenities and landscape including the setting of the South Downs National Park.

 

10)            The site was not covered by any statutory or non-statutory designations for nature conservation interest; however, sites of nature conversation importance were located nearby. The 2014 application was refused by the Local Planning Authority on ecology grounds in that the Local Planning Authority was unable to assess the likely impacts of the proposed development for 85 dwellings due to omissions in the Environmental Statement. 

 

11)            The Officer explained that the proposed mitigation measures would include a regime for the adjacent Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) to enhance the existing populations of the species and the storage of seeds should remedial measures be required and annual monitoring. It was stated that overall, provided that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, which included detailed mitigation strategies for the Red Star Thistle and reptiles, an ecological design and ongoing management of habitats, it was considered that the proposed development could be supported from an ecological perspective. 

 

12)            The earlier scheme was also refused by the Local Planning Authority on grounds of air quality due to insufficient information and a discrepancy in traffic data inputs to the dispersion model that supported the air quality assessment. During the appeal the appellant submitted a further Air Quality Assessment report and had further discussions with the Air Quality Officer. The results of the additional report were that the refused scheme would have a negligible impact to air quality within the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The Inspector therefore concluded that the proposal for 85 dwellings would not be harmful to air quality including within the Rottingdean AQMA. 

 

13)            It was explained that within the appeal decision the Inspector considered that based on the scale of development and the conclusions of the appellant’s transport assessment, the development of 85 dwellings would not be harmful to local traffic conditions. 

 

14)            The application was subject to various conditions and S106 Head of Terms, including a package of highway works to be undertaken by the development in lieu of a sustainable transport contribution. The Highway Authority had assessed the number of trips that was forecast to be generated by the proposal and that arising from committed developments in the area that may also generate additional traffic on Falmer Road.

 

15)            It was noted that whilst appearance of the proposal was reserved it was indicated that the proposed dwellings would be two storeys in height, secured via condition 10, and that the ridgelines of the proposed properties would reflect the east to west gradient of the site.

 

16)            The proposal had been assessed in terms of impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring properties, including the loss of privacy, loss of daylight/sunlight and overshadowing. It was considered that the proposal would not have a significantly adverse impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties due to the restricted height, the proposed urban form of the layout and the distance between the proposed dwellings and existing neighbouring properties.

 

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

 

17)            Ms Thomson addressed the Committee in her capacity as an objector and explained that she represented Arbeco, which had been commissioned by the Deans Preservation Group. She explained that Meadow Vale was a diverse site with a high number of protected and rare species. In 2013 the site would have been designated as a Wildlife site due to the red star thistle; however, the site could not be accessed at the time. In comparison to Malling Down Nature Reserve, which was 22 times the size of Meadow Vale, Meadow Vale had 800 recorded species and had over 40% of the species found in Malling Down. Planning Policy stated that if biodiversity could not be protected then appropriate mitigation must be in place; however, this had not been proved by the applicant. The majority of distribution of the red star thistle would be lost to the development and 8% would be retained rather than the 32% claimed by the applicant and the 400 invertebrates species on the site would be lost. It was added that if the application was granted permission then it would set a dangerous precedent.

 

18)            In response to Councillor Hyde Ms Thompson explained that when she surveyed Meadow Vale she had noted over 140 species from walking through the site, whereas, other sites of a similar size typically had 60-80 species. She added that the site should be protected as similar greenfield sites were.

 

19)            Ms Thompson explained that horse grazing on the site had a highly beneficial impact and the seeds of the red star thistle were short lived and needed grazing. It was also noted that the grassland acted as a refuge for species in the area as the site was surrounded by playing fields and farms.

 

20)            In response to Councillor Miller Ms Thompson noted that approximately 8% of species would be retained through mitigation rather than 32%.

 

21)            In response to Councillor Gilbey it was explained that the ground was different at the top of the site as it was rockier and held chalk land species as opposed to the red star thistle located at the bottom half of the field.

 

22)            In response to the Chair Ms Thompson explained that the red star thistle would not survive without horses grazing.

 

23)            Ms Butler addressed the Committee in her capacity as a Rottingdean Parish Councillor and explained that she was speaking on behalf of the objectors. The proposed site was ecologically valid and was a link between Ovingdean, Rottingdean and Woodingdean. Brownfield sites should be prioritised for development over the Urban Fringe. The development would create an additional strain on the facilities in the area. She noted that 32 new homes had recently been granted permission in the area and additional dwellings would impact enormously. There were currently traffic problems in the area and the development would generate additional vehicle movements through Ovingdean, Falmer Road and Rottingdean High Street. Ms Butler requested that the Committee did not grant planning permission for the development until the ecology report and transport and highways report were reviewed.

 

24)            Councillor Mears addressed the Committee in her capacity as a Local Councillor and explained that despite some amendments to the application the footprint of the site seemed larger and there was a potential that the rest of the site could be developed at a later stage. She explained that a balance was needed for housing in the city and retaining the urban fringe. She noted that there were existing traffic problems on Falmer Road, Rottingdean High Street and the turning onto the A27 and the roads through Ovingdean were used by vehicles to avoid the congestion on the seafront. The additional vehicles in the area could be up to 90 and this would cause a problem with off-street parking and adding to the traffic congestion. She noted that as the site was close to the South Downs National Park it would be difficult for the horses using the paddocks on the site to be relocated as permission was hard to gain. She requested that the Committee did not support the Officer’s recommendation as the development would be detrimental to the villages.

 

25)            Mr Weaver and Dr Simpson addressed the Committee in their capacity as the applicant and thanked the Planning Officer’s for the advice given at the pre-application stage and ensuring that the amendments submitted were considered when making a recommendation. Mr Weaver explained that the previous application was dismissed at appeal was for 85 dwellings for reason of visual impact, whilst the issues raised regarding air quality and ecology were deemed acceptable. The current application had retained an additional two hectares of open space and had received support from various bodies, including; the Highways Authority, Landscape Architect and the South Downs National Park. The development would make a valuable contribution to the housing need in the city and it would offer affordable housing. An ecology assessment had been completed over three years and the proposed 45 dwellings would retain green open spaces for species, such as the red star thistle. The County Ecologist was satisfied with the conditions and proposed mitigation.

 

26)            In response to Mr Gowans, the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) representative, Mr Weaver explained that extensive reports had been completed by consultants and the scheme would be fully deliverable.

 

27)            In response to Councillor Moonan Dr Simpson explained the grass and red star thistle would be retained at the east and north west of the site. The relocation of the plant would include the turf containing the seeds of the red star thistle that remain in the soil for approximately two years and additional seeds could be sowed if the relocation was not successful.

 

28)            In response to Councillor Morris Dr Simpson explained that horse grazing would continue on the site and this would help the red star thistle seed to spread. It was added that other grazing animals could be used.

 

29)            In response to Councillor Miller Mr Weaver explained that the west of the site had drainage issues and mature trees; therefore, there was limited potential for developing in the area.

 

30)            In response to Councillor Hyde Dr Simpson explained that he would not dispute Ms Thompson had recorded 140 species; however, he noted that this could have included common species.

 

Questions for Officers

 

31)            In response to Councillor Moonan the County Ecologist explained that the site had not been designated as a local wildlife site as it could not be accessed.

 

32)            In response to Councillor Miller the County Ecologist explained that the red star thistle had not been mapped but had looked at the growing pattern over the past three years. It was added that they were unsure why red thistle develops in some areas rather than others; however, this could be a result of where the surface water runs.

 

33)            In response to Councillor Morris the Principal Planning Officer explained that it was an outline application and did not have the proposed layouts for the dwellings; however, occupancy could be conditioned when a full application was brought to Planning Committee.

 

34)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that there would be a loss of some of the existing paddocks; however, this was not a material planning consideration.

 

35)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was noted that green roofs and district heating would be addressed by the Applicant at the reserved matters stage. It was stated that there was a proposed community allotment on the previous application submitted; however, this was proposed in a sensitive location and alternatively the Applicant had agreed to include food growing trees in the scheme. It was also explained that the scheme would provide 40% affordable housing and the design would be agreed with the applicant to ensure one could not distinguish the affordable.

 

36)            The Principal Planning Officer clarified to Councillor Mac Cafferty that a site waste management plan was covered in condition 18 and an audit was required for the produced waste. It was also explained that Brighton & Hove did not have any formally designates green belt or strategic gaps.

 

37)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was noted that an Applicant could submit an outline application with matters reserved and it was not in the Officer’s remit to request a full application. The Officer noted that conditions had been set for the Applicant to meet the minimum sustainability standards and evidence must be submitted.

 

38)            In response to Councillor Brown the Flood Risk Management Officer explained that she had assessed the application and the records of reported floods; however the majority of the flooding issues were at the north of the site and had not received a flooding report on the exact site. It was added that the applicant had submitted a flood map that showed potential flood routes through the site. There were proposed soakaways; however, more information on these would be provided when reserved matters had been submitted.

 

39)            In response to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner it was explained that the inspector considered the impact on traffic and transport on the previous application for 85 dwellings and concluded that the impact would not be severe.

 

40)            In response to Councillor Miller the Senior Solicitor explained that there was not a legal duty for the Members to agree with the Planning Inspectors decision; however, an inspector’s decision was a material consideration should a similar scheme be submitted and should the inspector’s reasons for refusal appear to have been overcome the LPA needed to be mindful of the potential for a costs award.

 

41)            In response to Councillor Miller the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that the pedestrian safety in the area was assessed and it was concluded that the development would not cause a significant impact and the application could only be recommended for refusal if the impact was severe.

 

42)            In response to Councillor Littman it was explained that the conclusion from the assessments completed indicated that Site 42 had the potential to be developed with appropriate mitigation.

 

43)            In response to Councillor Hyde the Principal Planning Officer noted that there would be a contribution towards education in the area, for both primary and secondary, to ensure the demand from the development was met. The Education Officer had previously noted that there was a limited choice of schools in the area and the sought money would likely be spent on improving the local schools.

 

44)            The County Ecologist clarified to Councillor Hyde that there was a badger set to the north-west area of the site in the woods and this was protected. She also noted that there were not any ground nesting birds on site; however, it was likely to have birds nesting in the scrub and trees across the site and these were protected when breeding.

 

45)            The Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained to Councillor Hyde that using the traffic data from 2014 was deemed acceptable as the survey had been taken within three years. 

 

46)            In response to the CAG representative the Principal Planning Officer noted that nine dwellings had been moved from the south of the site to ensure red thistle retention.

 

47)            In response to Councillor C Theobald it was noted that there were various conditions in place to resolve the concerns raised by Southern Water regarding sewage and flooding in the area.

 

48)            In response to Councillor Gilbey the County Ecologist explained that the previous decision made by the Planning Inspector was that robust mitigation would be needed for the hornet robberfly and red-star thistle.

 

49)            In response to the Chair the County Ecologist explained that she was satisfied with the mitigation measures that were proposed by the developer and that grazing was vital for the survival of the red-star thistle.

 

Debate and Decision Making Programme

 

50)            Councillor C. Theobald noted that the area was rural and in close proximity to the South Downs National Park and despite the development being reduced it was still an over development for the area. There were current problems in Rottingdean with traffic, pollution and the public transport service to the area was poor. She noted that the objector had raised that the village feel would be lost and she agreed. She expressed concerns for the species that could be lost and it would set a precedent. She added that she would be voting against the Officer’s recommendation.

 

51)            Councillor Miller explained that the Planning Inspector had noted concern for the harmful impact on the visual appearance of the area and this had not been resolved by the applicant. He explained that the red-star thistle was a rare species and expressed concern that the growth had not been mapped; therefore, he was not satisfied that the concerns with mitigation had been resolved. He noted that the CAG Representative had stated that the site was a strategic gap between Rottingdean, Woodingdean and Ovingdean and this would be lost by the development. He added that he would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

52)            Councillor Morris highlighted that the Inspector had commented that the development would not be aesthetically pleasing due to the location of the site. He noted that the rural grassland was rich in diversity and it was identified as part of the Vale area and the ecological features within the site were a valuable factor. He explained that there was a housing crisis in the city and there were 39 sites that had been identified for having the potential to be developed. He noted that the proposed scheme was not contrary to policy and would therefore be supporting the Officer’s recommendation. 

 

53)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner noted that there was a conflict between the need for housing and the environment and explained that Brighton & Hove had a limited area to expand and develop. He explained that he could not refuse an application that would provide additional housing, including 40% affordable housing; however, he was aware that over 500 objections had been received. He confirmed that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation because there was a need for housing in the city.

 

54)            Councillor Hyde explained that she would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation and noted that approximately 600 representations had been received by local residents. It was important to preserve the strategic gap between Rottingdean, Woodingdean and Ovingdean to ensure the village feel was kept. Councillor Hyde noted the objections that had been received and highlighted objections from Councillor Mears, Simon Kirby MP, Brighton & Hove Wildlife Forum, Buglife, Rottingdean Preservation Society and Deans Preservation Society. She explained that the red star thistle was a critical rare species and the proposed site had one of the highest growth rates in Sussex. Councillor Hyde expressed concerns for the ecological aspects and noted that there were too many proposed dwellings for the site. Councillor Hyde noted that the Arbeco biodiversity report, which had been presented in response to the application, had not been available when the previous application had been determined.

 

55)            Councillor Allen noted that it was a difficult application to consider as there was a housing need for the city that the development could provide and that not all developments could be done on brownfield sites. He explained that once a species rich grassland had been developed it could not be recreated and he was unsure if the correct level of mitigation was proposed; therefore, he was undecided whether he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

56)            Councillor Moonan stated that there was a primary need for housing and the majority of the designated sites for housing were brownfield; however, some urban fringe sites would have to be developed to reach the housing target. She noted that the Planning Officer and developer had worked together to ensure mitigation was in place to maintain the ecological value of the site. The transport and air quality issues raised had been resolved by the Planning Inspector; therefore, she would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

57)            Councillor Littman noted that the City Plan had been agreed by Members and this included developing on urban fringe sites; however, due to the location of the site and the increased pressures it would have on the schools and traffic he believed that Members had made a mistake allocating the site for potential development. He did not believe that the agreed mitigation was adequate without being detrimental to the environment and ecology. He added that he would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

58)            The CAG Representative explained that CAG advised Members to refuse the application as the strategic gap between two historical villages should be kept. Both villages had conservation area status and the village character would be lost if the development was agreed.

 

59)            Councillor Gilbey noted that housing was needed in the city and an appeal for the development would be likely lost if the application was refused; therefore, she would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

60)            Councillor Mac Cafferty thanked the Officer’s for their work and explained that the Member’s needed to bear in mind the policies when making a decision to not support the Officer’s recommendation. He explained that the mitigation had been evidenced by the County Ecologist and Principal Planning Officer. He added that he was undecided if he would support the Officer’s recommendation and he fully understood the reasons raised by the objectors.

 

61)            The Chair agreed with Councillor Mac Cafferty and Moonan regarding the housing crisis and explained that the Members had all agreed the City Plan and that they should follow it. She thanked the Officer’s and colleagues from East Sussex County Council and noted that she was satisfied with the mitigation that was supported by the County Ecologist.

 

62)            A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant planning permission was refused with 5 votes for and 7 votes against.

 

63)            Councillor Miller proposed an alternative to the Officer recommendation to refuse the application on the following grounds:

 

1)    Ecological impact; harm to ecology and biodiversity not sufficiently mitigated;

2)    Harm caused to setting of Ovingdean and Rottingdean Conservation areas and loss of gap between villages;

3)    Increase in traffic would have a harmful impact on the AQMA;

4)    Overdevelopment.

 

64)            Councillor Miller’s alternative recommendation was seconded by Councillor Hyde.

 

65)            A recorded vote was taken on the proposed alternative recommendation by the 12 Members present. This was carried with Councillors C. Theobald, Mac Cafferty, Brown, Hyde, Littman and Miller in support, Councillors Gilbey, Inkpin-Leissner, Moonan, Morris and Cattell against and Councillor Allen abstained.

 

150.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee had taken into consideration the recommendation set out in section 1 of the report but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons outlined by Councillor Miller set out in paragraph 63 above.