Agenda item - BH2024/01720 - Land and Part of Foot Golf Course and Benfield Barn at Benfield Valley, Hangleton Lane, Hove - Full Planning

1.    The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.    Helen Forester addressed the committee on behalf of objecting residents and stated that they considered the development did not conform to City Plan Part 2 and profits had been considered over a good development. The impact of the substation does not seem to have been considered on the area. There is a gas mains pipeline in the area. The trees should be protected in this green corridor, which includes Tree Preservation Orders (TPO). It was noted that councillors support the campaign to object to the scheme. The speaker requested that the committee work with campaigners to make this a flagship project of environmental value. The biodiversity of the site will be affected by the development as will the aquifer. It was not considered that the scheme would solve the housing problem in the city.

3.    Ward Councillor Hewitt, accompanied by, and speaking for, Councillors Baghoth and Grimshaw, noted the administration had promised to preserve the site as open land for outdoor purposes. City Plan Part 2 notes the site is for 60 dwellings not the proposed 101. The development is not the only option for this site. The suggested pond is a smoke screen, and key views are going to be affected. It was noted that a local resident had raised the demolition of a local listed wall which alters the character of the area. The wildlife of the area will be affected by the development. The proposals are in contradiction to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of 2024. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

4.    The committee were reminded that any covenants on the land were not a material consideration for this planning application.

5.    David Godden addressed the committee as the applicant and stated they were a family run business, well known in the southeast for high quality developments. The scheme includes 40% affordable housing, parkland, ecological enhancement, and 238 new trees. New housing will always be difficult depending on local circumstances. The development is for one location only, not two as allocated. The scheme will safeguard trees and wildlife. The Design Panel supports the proposals. Martin Carpenter also addressed the committee as the planning consultant and stated that they considered the scheme to conform to policy SA7. The scheme was considered to be comprehensive and supported by planning officers.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the affordable housing would be a split tenure with 55% social/affordable rent and 45% shared ownership. It was noted that there is on balance considered no need for more bus stops. Bus numbers 47, 55, 59a, 71 71a and 98 stop to the east of the site and numbers 6, 55, 16a, 71a 98 and N1 stop to the west of the site.

7.    Councillor Theobald was informed that there would be an archaeological survey required by condition. The garden sizes are small; however, the design includes multi layered spaces for the houses, raised and on ground level. No formal playground is proposed, however, there is an informal community square and green space to the south. The applicant stated the studio workspaces were small and would have 1 to 2 employees only and the event area would be restricted to 20 attendees.

8.    Councillor Sheard was informed that the southern open space would remain in perpetuity for that use, secured via s106 agreement. It was noted that the under the NPPF the scheme was considered justified and strong planning mechanisms are in place to protect the green land and open spaces. The current review of the City Plan could consider expanding the local green space allocation to cover the southern area.

9.    Councillor Thomson was informed that there had been two years of pre-application discussions, and the site has been allocated for 11 years so a ‘no development’ option was not considered. The developer will make community improvements. The cottages are included in the 101 homes proposed. The existing formal footpaths are to be retained. There are 141 car parking spaces with 52 on the roads, the remainder off street. There is an enforcement investigation ongoing into the demolition of the listed wall which was unauthorised. It was noted by the applicant that the existing BMX track is to be retained and upgraded in the southern parkland.

10. The Heritage Officer noted the conservation area was not at risk. The scheme is considered sympathetic. The boundary wall is to be rebuilt. It was noted that a management plan will be put in place to maintain the historic buildings on the site. It was noted that there was no clear date to when the deterioration of the historic buildings started. The legal officer noted that this was not a planning consideration.

11. Councillor Loughran was informed that the heritage officer considered the scheme to be less than substantially harmful and there were employment benefits. It was noted that there was a small substation proposed within the proposed residential area, the appearance of which would be covered by condition. A flood risk assessment has been submitted and no adverse impact identified.

12. The county ecologist noted that the would be a net loss of diversity due to the density of the development, however, there would be enhancements to the area beyond the curtilage of the development, a 20% biodiversity net gain. All protected species and habitat would be looked after by condition.

13. Councillor Nann was informed that while the scheme intruded into the local green space so the ‘golden rules’ regarding green belt had to be taken into account, it was essentially a land swap with the southern area remaining undeveloped, so a flexible approach was considered justified. The s106 agreement would cover footpaths, bus stop improvements and parkland. There will be a legal agreement to allow open access to the site. It was noted that the land is currently under private ownership so in theory access could be prevented.

14. Councillor Robinson was informed that the parking will be allocated. It was noted that air source heat pumps and solar panels will be included in the scheme. It was noted by the planning policy officer that there is a need to be flexible in the percentage of affordable homes.

15. Councillor Winder was informed that the privacy screens have been included in the design to prevent overlooking in this relatively high-density scheme. It was noted that there is a community square proposed and food growing area, which was accessed via a twitten.

16. Councillor Earthey was informed that the new cottages will not be within the conservation area.

Debate

17. Councillor Theobald considered the development had some good parts, such as the barn refurbishment. City Plan Part 2 states 3 floors are acceptable; however, this scheme has 4. There could be light pollution, and the bus stops are not near enough. The pedestrian crossing is dangerous. The loss of 39 trees is not good. There may be overflow parking from the barn. The small gardens are not good. The design of the development is too dense. This is a green lung for the city. The councillor was against the application.

18. Councillor Robinson considered the 101 dwellings were much needed. The application pack was very comprehensive, and the benefits are considered to outweigh the harm. The affordable housing is good, and the heritage areas will be enhanced. The southern parkland was considered good, as was the design. The councillor supported the application.

19. Councillor Thomson considered it was not ideal to build on green spaces, however the southern parkland was good. The councillor was glad the BMX group had been consulted. The councillor supported the application.

20. Councillor Sheard considered more affordable housing would be better. The scheme will not cure the housing crisis in the city; however, it will help. Green space needs saving and housing is needed. The councillor supported the application.

21. Councillor Shanks did not consider the development would destroy the valley. The scheme is well designed, and the housing balance is good. It was considered there was a compromise between wildlife and housing need. The councillor supported the application.

22. Councillor Winder considered the scheme a compromise and the density was not good. The number of new trees was good, as was the access to nature. The councillor supported the application.

23. Councillor Loughran considered the development to be well designed and to meet policy. The access will be improved to the downlands and the southern parkland will also be improved. The affordable housing is good as is the sensitivity of scheme, which will revive the area. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

24. A vote was taken, and by 8 to 1 the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

25. RESOVLED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to MIND TO GRANT planning permission subject to the following Section 106 Obligations, Conditions and Informatives, SAVE THAT should the s106 agreement not be completed on or before 2/8/25 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 13 of the report.