Agenda item - BH2017/02410 - Land Off Overdown Rise & Mile Oak Road, Portslade - Outline Application

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 the application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

 

Officer Presentation

 

2)               Sandra Rogers, Planning Manager, introduced and explained that policy SA4 had identified that 13,200 new homes needed to be delivered by 2030 and 660 per annum was the minimum housing requirement. The Urban Fringe Assessment had identified 39 possible Urban Fringe sites that could be developed, which was 7.5% of the Urban Fringe, to contribute to the city’s housing requirement. Most housing would be sought by developing brownfield sites; however, 1060 units would need to be built on the Urban Fringe. Further assessment was to take place as part of City Plan Part Two for site allocation preparation.

 

3)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings and explained that in addition to the representations on the Additional Representation List a further 11 letters of objection and one comment had been received. The additional representations did not include any new material planning considerations in addition to those set out in section 4 of the Committee report. One letter of support received from the retailer McColls in Graham Avenue had been withdrawn as the comment provided was not that of the business owner as implied in the correspondence received.

 

4)               It was noted that there was confirmation in the application that the development would be a maximum of two storeys in height with a mix of dwelling type and sizes provided. The height, scale and design of the development would be assessed at reserved matters stage. 40% of these units were to be affordable housing with the preferred tenure split as set out in the Council’s Affordable Housing Brief.

 

5)               It was explained that the application comprised of three sites identified in the Urban Fringe Assessment as having potential for housing development. The indicative layout plan showed the proposed housing would be located on the lower part of urban fringe site 5 with 4b and 5a left undeveloped. The application was a revised proposal to the previously refused application discussed at the Planning Committee on 12 April 2017. The earlier refusal did not include the principle of development of the urban fringe site.

 

6)               The Principal Planning Officer explained that the revisions to the proposal since the earlier refusal were set out in full in paragraph 2.13 of the report; however, the revisions included: five additional dwellings incorporated into site 5 and the removal of five dwellings accessed from Mile Oak Road on site 4b, this would include the removal of Mile Oak Road vehicular access; the provision of various pedestrian and cycle routes within the site which would provide convenient access to the wider area and the existing public rights of way beyond the development site, including within the adjacent South Downs National Park; additional information had been submitted as part of the application with regards to proposed measures for drainage and to mitigate flood risk; the proposal included garden soakaways, permeable paving, infiltration basins and prevention of run-off; and the drainage basins would have a 40% allowance in rainfall intensity to mitigate against climate change.

 

7)               A revised proposal retained improvements to the Fox Way and A293 junction by delivering a two arm approach for 40m within Fox Way. An addendum to the Transport Assessment provided further surveys to support those submitted as part of the 2016 application and assessment of traffic volumes from the development travelling south to Portslade and Hove, which concluded that the total increase in traffic movements on local routes to the south of the site would be negligible once traffic had dispersed across the network. The proposed level of on-site, off-street parking provision was considered acceptable by the Highway Authority.

 

8)               It was explained that although it was an outline application also seeking permission for access only, the developer had confirmed a commitment to policy CP8 and had provided a supplementary report assessing the proposal against Building for Life 12. Conditions were attached to ensure compliance with minimum energy and water standards as outlined in policy CP8, in addition to a condition requiring the submission of an energy assessment and strategy, a sustainability statement and achievement of a minimum of a Home Quality Mark One Star.

 

9)               The retained open space would be formally publicly accessible and as such was a net gain as the site was currently informal recreation space. There was a financial contribution towards open space and indoor sport secured via S106. A greater amount of SNCI was to be retained, enhanced and managed than within the refused scheme and only approximately 42% would now be lost compared to the 45% previously. There was a provisional contribution towards scrub clearance and ten years sheep grazing of Whitehawk Hill Local Nature Reserve which would allow for the translocation of reptiles from the application site. The overall proposal would result in a net gain for ecology and biodiversity when including the proposed enhancements for both the SNCI on the site and the Local Nature Reserve in Whitehawk.

 

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

 

10)            Mr Hodges spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a local resident and explained that he was speaking on behalf of the Mile Oak residents who had objected to the application. He explained that the Mile Oak residents were unhappy that the applicant had submitted a second application after the previous one had been refused at Committee. He referenced an article that had been published in The Argus and believed that the agent would not ensure the s106 contributions would be paid or the conditions agreed would be implemented. The proposal would increase the flood risk and would have a detrimental effect on the ecology and archaeology of the site. There was a concern with the comments supplied by Southern Water regarding fire safety due to the lack of water on the site in case of emergencies.

 

3)           Councillor Atkinson spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a Local Councillor and thanked the residents of Mile Oak for all their help with producing leaflets, consulting neighbours and for submitting letters to the Planning department for the Committee to consider. He explained that he was disappointed that an environmental assessment had not been completed as part of the application. He noted that despite the Fox Way roundabout being widened there would be approximately 200 additional vehicles in the area due to the proposed scheme and would therefore not resolve the current problems in the area. He added that the assessment on the existing traffic movements on the network stated that there was one car per minute; however, this was not true. There were current problems with flooding in the area and Councillor Atkinson explained that the Old Village and Valley Road had recently been flooded badly. He explained that he was extremely concerned that the proposal would make the flooding in the area worse. He noted that Southern Water had stated in their comments submitted that there would be additional water in the sewers and drainage system which would result in additional risk in the area. It was noted that the GP surgeries in the area were already at full capacity. The buses that serviced the Mile Oak area were already under pressure and often full in the morning once they arrived at the Old Village. The access to the site from Overdown Rise was too narrow for the increase of vehicles accessing the site and this could also increase street parking in the area.

 

11)            Mr Rainier, Mr Callcutt and Mr Kitching spoke in support to the application in their capacity as the agent, applicant and consultant respectively. It was stated that there was a previously refused application and this was now going through the appeal process; however, amendments had been made to the current application due to the comments made by the Planning Committee on 12 April 2017. The five dwellings previously proposed at Mile Oak Road had been removed and there would be a footpath link from the development to the South Downs National Park. The link to the Fox Way roundabout would be improved as part of the s106 requirement and there had not been any objections received from the Highways Authority. As part of the application there would be an ecological enhancement contribution and the reptiles on site would be relocated to Whitehawk Hill Local Nature Reserve. It was ensured that provisions would be put in place to ensure there was no surface water running off the site into the local area. Mr Callcutt concluded and stated that the proposal was a sustainable development in close proximity to local schools and it would contribute to the housing crisis in the city, including 50 affordable houses.

 

12)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was noted that there were seven additional flats proposed in the scheme compared to the previously refused application; however, these were replacing the five houses removed on the Mile Oak Road access.

 

Questions for Officers

 

13)            In response to Councillor Miller the Senior Solicitor explained that the Planning Officers had decided that a Sussex Police & Crime Commission contribution was not required in relation to this scheme. The Planning Manager added that there was ongoing discussion with the Police Commissioner and a meeting was scheduled to discuss contributions further. It was explained that the methodology needed to secure contributions for Sussex Police had yet to be agreed.

 

14)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the Principal Planning Officer explained that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required for the development. It was noted that a Framework Management Plan had been submitted by the developer and a covenant would be a private matter.

 

15)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the County Ecologist clarified that it was recommended that the snakes were retained on site. It was unknown if there were hibernation sites on the site but these would be located in the scrub land which was being retained. The Sustainability Officer noted that condition 32 could be amended if the Committee agreed to require a full sustainability statement and checklist.

 

16)            In response to Councillor Morris the County Ecologist explained that there were no recorded skylarks on the site and the grassland was currently not suitable for their habitat. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed to Councillor Morris that there were conditions on the application and the informatives were further details or advisory noted for the applicant.

 

17)            In response to Councillor Yates the Flood Risk Management Officer explained that a formal maintenance plan would be submitted and the Flood Officers would ensure the system was maintained.

 

18)            In response to Councillor Littman it was explained that the vast majority of the scrub land would be retained and this was most likely to have hibernation potential. It was also explained that there were a number of conditions for surveys to be undertaken before any development took place and this could result in the locations being altered or the reduction in units. The Planning Manager added that condition 4 stated that an Ecological Mitigation Strategy was to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

19)            In response to Councillor Hyde the County Ecologist noted that adders hibernate in the scrub land and woodland and these areas were more sensitive and needed protection. The grassland on the north of the site was to be retained and there were proposed permeable boundaries to ensure badgers and hedgehogs were able to move throughout the site. It was added that there were not any badger sets on site. Measures would be put in place to ensure the animals were safe on the site during construction.

 

20)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that an assessment had been undertaken where local sensor data predicted the car parking demand. It was noted that the development had sufficient space to accommodate the estimated parking and the availability of on street parking would increase due to the proposed roads on site.

 

21)            In response to Councillor Hamilton the County Ecologist explained that there were a number of criteria when the SNCI was designated and this included public access.

 

22)            In response to Councillor Morris the Principal Planning Officer noted that the East Sussex Fire & Rescue Service was contacted; however, no response was received. Southern Water had not submitted an objection; however, there were additional informatives and conditions proposed to protect the underground water supply resources.

 

Debate and Decision Making Process

 

23)            Councillor Miller stated that he had previously abstained on the application due to the issues regarding transport and ecology. He noted that these had been resolved and was pleased that the reptiles would be relocated to the Whitehawk Hill Local Nature Reserve and that the s106 contribution would be used to preserve the area. He explained that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

24)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner explained that it was a difficult decision as there were existing problems with traffic, the local GP surgery was full and the schools were at full capacity. The Principal Planning Officer noted that the Education Officer had confirmed that there were places at both the primary and secondary school in the area.

 

25)            Councillor Morris noted that he supported the previously refused application and would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation for the current application. He stated that the transport aspects and previously raised ecology concerns had been improved. He noted that the scheme would contribute to affordable housing to the city.

 

26)            Councillor Littman noted that the Planning Committee was right to refuse the previous application and the majority of the issues raised at Committee had been addressed. He explained that he did not like developing on the Urban Fringe; however, the site had been identified to have potential for housing and housing was needed for the city. He added that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

27)            Councillor C. Theobald noted that the development was too dense and there should be a higher percentage of family houses rather than flats. She noted concern for the access road and the narrow roads in the area and concerns for the flood risks.

 

28)            Councillor Bennett stated that the ecology concerns had been addressed and she welcomed the public access routes to the green spaces and the new trees. She added that she agreed with Councillor C. Theobald and the application should have included more family houses.

 

29)            Councillor Hamilton explained that in the past 60 years the electoral roll had gone from 300 residents to 3000. He noted that although Southern Water hadn’t formally objected, they had raised issues in their comments regarding flood risk, water drainage and risk of pollution to the water. The improvements to Fox Way roundabout would make minimal difference to the flow of traffic as there were currently two lanes approaching the roundabout from the west. He added that he would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager clarified that currently the west approach to the Fox Way roundabout was a single lane informally used by two rows of traffic. The improvements would widen the lane to accommodate a left and right turn lane, consequently increasing the capacity and reducing the queues.

 

30)            Councillor Yates noted that the proposal would gain public access to the site and would provide 125 new homes for the city. He noted concern for the flooding issues raised; however, explained he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

31)            Councillor Hill noted that she was minded to support the Officer’s recommendation as the site had been designated in the City Plan Part One to have potential for development as it would contribute to the housing crisis. It was positive that some of the land would be retained and the public access would be improved. There was a good bus service in the area and if there was a higher demand due to the development then the bus company would accommodate for this. The current application had resolved the queries raised at the previous Planning Committee.

 

32)            Councillor Hyde noted that Urban Fringe sites should not be developed and brownfield sites needed to be focussed on. She explained that moderate changes had been made from the previously refused application; however, the removal of the five dwellings at Mile Oak Road had not made a difference as the density had increased on the lower part of the site. She added that she would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

33)            Councillor Mac Cafferty noted that there was a housing crisis and there were thousands on the housing list. The scheme had been much improved since the previously refused application and the applicant had addressed the concerns raised by the Committee. He noted that Councillors did not want to develop on urban fringe sites; however, it was needed to contribute to the housing need in the city. He would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

34)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be minded to grant was carried by 8 votes in support, 3 refusal and 1 abstention.

 

44.1       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report, and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 Agreement, conditions and informatives  as set in the report with the amendments to condition 32 below:

 

No development above ground floor slab level of any part of the development hereby permitted shall take place until a Sustainability Statement and an online Sustainability Checklist robustly demonstrating how the scheme addresses Brighton & Hove City Plan Policy CP8 has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained as such.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy and to comply with policy CP8 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.

 

·         S106 – Contribution towards Local Employment Scheme - £50,100

·         Condition 4 deleted as covered by altered wording of condition 29,

·         Conditions 7, 18, 25, 26, 29 & 30, wording altered; and

·         Reference to condition 16 added to informative 4.