Agenda item - BH2016/01903 - Coombe Farm, Westfield Avenue North, Saltdean - Full Planning

Outline application for Demolition of existing farm buildings and erection of 67 family dwellings with public open space and approval of reserved matters for access and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

Outline application for demolition of existing farm buildings and erection of 67 family dwellings with public open space and approval of reserved matters for access and landscaping.

 

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

 

Officer Presentation

 

2)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings and explained the site was currently used for car repairs, caravan storage and livery stables. The site was part of the urban fringe; however, it was not a conventional green field site and was a quasi-brownfield site. Large parts of the site had existing buildings and were covered in concrete and there was also a slurry pit. The Urban Fringe Assessment had identified the four parcels which included most of the application site for 70 potential dwellings in total; however, this had been reduced to 55 units in total due to the sensitive location. The applicant had previously applied for 67 dwellings; however this had been reduced to 60 dwellings. It was agreed that eight dwellings would be removed as they would be too visible from the South Downs National Park and one new dwelling had been proposed on another area of the site. These changes had been made due to consultation between the applicant and the County Ecologist and County Landscape Architect.

 

3)               The site was set down low in the landscape within the valley and the Principal Planning Officer showed photos from the public footpaths from the South Downs National Park that showed the site would not be visible. If the site was to be developed it would be seen as an extension of the existing residential area and would have buffer landscaping around the site. It was explained that the Planning Members had raised queries regarding the land levels at the site visit and the Principal Planning Officer showed a diagram that gave an indication of the variation of height across the site and added that some levelling would be needed.

 

4)               The County Ecologist had consulted with the applicant and was now supportive of the Officer’s recommendation. It had been agreed to reduce the number of dwellings, increased buffer landscaping zones and recommended mitigation measures.

 

5)               The access to the site would be from Westfield Avenue North and this would be improved as part of the application. The site would provide sufficient parking and was supported by the Highway Authority. There was also a proposed footpath into the site. The traffic would flow onto the A259. The Air Quality Officer had provided comments which were overall supportive of the application and had made suggestions that were covered by condition.

 

6)               The Principal Planning Officer concluded and explained that the proposal was supported by the City Plan Part One and the Urban Fringe Assessment. It was a quasi-brownfield site and the landscape and ecological impact was deemed acceptable. The highway access and transport contribution was suitable and the air quality concerns had been resolved. The scheme would provide housing for the city, including 40% affordable housing, and a contribution to open space, recreational provision and indoor sports facilities of £223,185.71.

 

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

 

7)               Ms Robertson spoke in objection to the application in her capacity as a local resident. She stated that the scale and density of the development should be in keeping with the neighbouring properties. Concerns had been raised by the local residents that the development on the quasi-brownfield site would lead to development on the greenfield sites either side. It was added that the proposed buffer landscape was not enough. She explained that the roads in East Saltdean were in need of repair and the additional vehicles in the area would cause further problems for the existing residents. It was also noted that the vehicle access via Westfield Avenue North was too narrow to accommodate the construction trucks and the vehicles used by the future residents. The GP surgeries in the area and Saltdean Primary School were at full capacity and the other local schools were almost full. The development would cause noise disturbance to the residents and have an effect on the existing air pollution.

 

8)               In response to Councillor Hyde it was explained that the construction vehicles used to develop the site would have a detrimental effect on the existing problems. She noted that there was congestion in the area and the buses could not pass each other due to the narrow roads.

 

9)               Ms Gallagher spoke in objection to the application on behalf of the Saltdean Residents’ Association. She stated that Lloyd Russell-Moyle MP had recognised the existing traffic problems in the area and this would be worsened by the proposed scheme. The pollution would increase and have a detrimental effect on the air quality.

 

10)            In response to Councillor Miller it was clarified that Lloyd Russell-Moyle MP had not submitted an objection to the application.

 

11)            Councillor Mears spoke in objection to the application in her capacity as a Local Councillor. She expressed concern for the s106 contribution to primary and secondary education as Saltdean Primary school had been expanded and was at full capacity and Longhill High School was almost at full capacity. The bus service would not have access to the site and would be a long walk for the residents to the bus stop; therefore, this would encourage the use of cars. She noted that the traffic report in the agenda was out of date, there were more cars used in the area and the pollution levels in Rottingdean High Street were higher that stated. The GP surgeries in the area were full and the surrounding infrastructure was unable to cope with the additional residents. She explained that there was concern as local residents had seen badgers and bats on the site in the barns that were to be demolished. She noted that the city did need housing; however, the application should have been for full planning permission, rather than an outline application, for the Planning Committee to have a full debate.

 

12)            Mr Burgess and Mr Fender spoke in support to the application in their capacity as the agent and architect. It was stated that the City Plan Part One had identified potential sites for housing and to meet the demand 1060 dwellings would need to be developed on Urban Fringe sites. Mr Burgess explained that the application had been subject to a pre-application presentation and the applicant and agents had consulted with Planning Officers and residents. There had been no objections received from the South Downs National Park Authority, Highways Authority, County Ecologist, County Landscape Architect, Environment Agency, Education Authority or Planning Policy Team. The majority of the site was currently covered in concrete, had derelict farm buildings that were being used for storage and a slurry pit. It was no longer needed for farming use but could be used for housing. The proposed density for the site was 16 dwellings per hectare and this was lower than the surrounding developed areas. The scheme would provide family homes, which would be two storeys high, and 40% of the dwellings would be affordable housing. The application included a contribution to local education, transport, open space and indoor sporting facilities and existing footpaths would be improved. 

 

13)            In response to Councillor Miller Mr Burgess clarified that a contribution of £223,185.71 for open space and recreation would be made and there was open space included in the proposed development.

 

14)            Mr Fender noted to Councillor Miller that the majority of the proposed dwellings would be lower level houses with tiered gardens.

 

15)            In response to Councillor Morris Mr Burgess explained that if there were bats in the existing farm buildings then the applicant would prepare for them to be relocated somewhere else before demolishing or developing.

 

16)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was noted that the access road would be widened and a controlled crossing with footpaths would be provided within the site.

 

17)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that the applicant had suggested an area of land on the site to be made available for the paddocks if there was a desire for them to stay on site.

 

Questions for Officers

 

18)            In response to Councillor Yates the Principal Planning Officer stated that there had been a pre-application presentation for the proposed scheme.

 

19)            In response to Councillor Morris the County Ecologist explained that the buildings on the site had been assessed and there was not the potential to house bats. There were trees on site with the potential but these were not being removed.

 

20)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the Development and Transport Assessment Manager noted that the S106 contribution would go towards public footway improvements, bus stop improvements including a shelter to be installed and minor footpath improvements in the immediate area. It was also explained that the queries raised by the objectors regarding the buses would not be a planning matter for the application but would be for Brighton & Hove Buses to investigate and resolve.

 

21)            In response to Councillor Littman the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that it was likely the future residents would have cars; however, they needed to ensure there were good connections in the area and there were shops and bus stops accessible from the site. It was noted that the use of public transport or cycling needed to be promoted.

 

22)            In response to Councillor Miller it was clarified that condition 19 ensured a provision for electric vehicle charging points within the proposed car park. It was also noted that there may not be a demand for a car club due to the size of the proposal and the amount of parking spaces available on site; however, this would be a decision of the car clubs as they were private companies.

 

23)            The Principal Planning Officer stated to Councillor Miller that the s106 contribution towards education would be spent in the identified schools within the catchment area. The open space within the site would be open to the public and not private. The Officer’s agreed to feedback to Members the identified locations for the open space and indoor sport contribution.

 

24)            In response to Councillor Hill the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that if the applicant did not wish for the Highways Authority to adopt the access road then the applicant would need to maintain the road. Brighton & Hove City Council would not be involved in the maintenance of private roads and the applicant would need to develop a maintenance plan. It was also noted that the parking standards were set to a maximum and there was not a minimum standard. This ensured control over car parking spaces to ensure there was not a significant overspill into the surrounding areas.

 

25)            In response to Councillor Morris it was noted that if the access road and proposed roads within the site were private then the applicant would be solely responsible for street parking. 

 

26)            In response to Councillor Hyde the Principal Planning Officer explained that if the application was agreed then the applicant would have to comply with the buffer landscaping when the reserved matters application was submitted. It was added that the Committee could agree to offer an informative regarding the buffer landscape.

 

27)            In response to Councillor Hyde the Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained that the Committee could agree to extend the bus season ticket offered to residents as part of the Residential Travel Plan and residents could choose between this or the £200 voucher towards the purchase of a bike. It was also noted that the Committee could agree to add an informative to ensure construction vehicles were routed along Coombe Vale and Westfield Avenue.

 

28)            The Development and Transport Assessment Manager clarified to Councillor Yates that the construction traffic using both routes would not reduce the number of vehicles accessing the site but would lessen the impact. It was also noted that it would not be appropriate to suspend a bus stop as the bus route could still operate.

 

29)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that the access road was to be improved and widened to 5.5 metres and this would be adequate for emergency services vehicles and construction vehicles. There would be a pedestrian footpath to the side of the access road which would incorporate a crossing where pedestrians would need to cross the road.

 

30)            In response to Councillor Bennett it was clarified that Condition 20 ensured appropriate street lighting was installed and this would be assessed.

 

31)            In response to the Chair the Principal Planning Officer confirmed the site was adjacent to the South Downs National Park and this would not be developed as part of the application.

 

Debate and Decision Making Process

 

32)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that the site was not a greenfield site and was already concreted. He noted that the traffic and transport issues within the area should be improved after the comments made from the objectors; however, he welcomed the Residential Travel Pack and would agree to condition the season bus ticket to be extended to one year. He explained that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation as the site would provide housing for the city.

 

33)            Councillor Morris noted that it was classed as an urban fringe site; however, it was a quasi-brownfield site. He explained that he was happy for the gardens to be backing each other as it would encourage neighbourliness. He would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

34)            Councillor Miller noted concern for the greenfield sites surrounding the development and how these could be effected and the site had been identified for a potential of 55 dwellings and the proposed scheme was for 60. He explained that if the Committee agreed to an informative on splitting the construction traffic between Coombe Vale and Westfield Avenue then this would be an improvement. He welcomed assurance from the Officer’s that the s106 contribution towards education and open space would be used within the local vicinity. He stated that the application would be positive if there were a few minor changes and would; therefore, not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

35)            Councillor Littman noted that the location of the site was acceptable for housing and it was a quasi-brownfield site. He explained that there were current problems in the area with traffic; however, he thought the Officers had worked hard to resolve these issues and an extension of the bus season ticket to one year would be positive. There was a need for housing in the city and he noted; therefore, he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

36)            Councillor Hyde explained that if the Committee granted the application then it needed to be ensured that the s106 contributions were invested in the local area. She noted concern for the additional cars in the area and using the A259 which would increase the pollution. She also stated that the GP surgeries and local schools were a concern as the local primary school was at full capacity.

 

37)            Councillor Yates noted that there were concerns for the vehicle movement in the surrounding areas and the road conditions; however, if the proposed conditions were enforceable then he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

 

38)            Councillor C. Theobald explained that there could be concern if the proposed roads within the site were not adopted by the Highways Authority and the access road needed improvements. She also added concern for the local schools, GP surgeries and the currently infrastructure.

 

39)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be minded to granted was carried by 9 votes in support, 2 refusal and 1 abstention.

 

44.2       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 permissionsubject to a s106 Agreement,  conditions and informatives as set out in the report and the amended s106 Head of Terms and additional informatives set out below:

 

i)          Amendment of the S106 Heads of Terms from the sixth bullet point to read:

·      A Residential Travel Plan, to include a Residential Travel Pack, to be provided for all first occupiers of the development, to include:

-    Provision of 2, twelve month bus season tickets to each first residential property or

-    Free voucher towards the purchase of a bike – voucher £200 1 per household and

-    Public Transport Information and

-    Local walking & cycling maps.

 

·      The provision and management of the children’s equipped play area (a LEAP), picnic areas, informal open space and landscaping.

·      Financial contribution of £223,185.71 towards open space and recreation.

·      Artistic Component element of £45,000.

 

Additional Informatives:

 

18)       The applicant is advised that the details submitted for reserved matters approval should include appropriate distances between the approved dwellings and existing adjoining dwellings to safeguard the amenities of residents with regard to privacy and overlooking.

 

19)       The applicant is advised that the details of construction traffic routes submitted to discharge Condition 8 should include the routing of vehicles along Coombe Vale and Westfield Avenue.