Agenda item - Deputations from members of the public.

A list of deputations received by the due date of the 22 January 2009 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

48.1       The Mayor reported that two Deputations had been received and invited Ms Summers as the spokesperson for the first deputation to come forward and address the council.

48.2       Ms Summers thanked the Mayor and stated that:

“As you will know proposals by developers, St James’s Investments, for London Road publicised in the summer of last year include a 3-storey Tesco Superstore incorporating a hundred thousand square foot of food and non-food retail space, a car park of at least 950 spaces and other retail, commercial and residential development.  The developers’ own consultation never asked the community whether or not they would like a Tesco store or car park. 

Another London Road, a voluntary group of local residents and stakeholders, however, continually consult with the public using hand delivered leaflets, street stalls, one line feedback and comments on Facebook and to their email address and hosted a drop-in meeting in July last year, which alone attracted 150 people in just two hours.  We ask what people like and dislike about London Road and what they want and don’t want in the future.  The vision that emerges is of a vibrant, diverse shopping street with interest and character, less traffic and more pedestrianisation and greenery, a thriving open market, arts and community facilities and a secure base for creative, local businesses.  Many say that with its four existing supermarkets London Road does not need a fifth. 

Another London Road has today, as you know, submitted a petition signed by 1,067 people.  We can also report that our Facebook group has 536 members and our on-line mailing list has 270. 

Most people agree that improvements to London Road are needed and it is easy to assume that the increase in shoppers coming to the area for the new store will benefit existing shops and businesses but with this all in one model shoppers are effectively encouraged to drive to the store, do all their shopping under one roof, then drive straight home again and many local traders fear this is inevitable.

Statistically, since Tesco gets £1 in every £8 of all retail sales they are able to sell almost anything they choose.  Those traders on London Road selling groceries, bread, meat, books, newspapers, DVDs, consumer electronics, mobile phones, clothing and at least 18 other goods or services within 500 metres of the proposed new store will see direct competition from this retail giant. 

When a supermarket opens its competitors’ shops close because they cannot compete on price and there is a net job loss, as has been the case in Hove following the 2003 Tesco superstore opening.  The importance of small shops to local jobs is reinforced by the council’s very own high profile ‘buy local’ campaign which stresses how local shops and producers are a vital part of Brighton & Hove’s local economy and its unique character and diversity.

St James’s Investments’ proposals are in direct conflict with the council’s London Road Central Masterplan.  Their plans would involve demolishing New England House with no clear provision for those small businesses currently occupying it.  The new car park is clearly aimed to encourage more people to drive to the London Road and can only serve to worsen congestion and air quality and no amount of flow improvement can hide that.  Furthermore, the council’s retail study 2006 recommends that, and I quote, ‘proposed development should be of a scale appropriate to the function of the town centre’.

We have got three requests please to put to the council.

Firstly, we ask Councillors to recognise that there is considerable feeling against the current St James’s Investments’ proposal and to acknowledge the validity of and support for an improved London Road which does not include a new supermarket or car park.

Secondly, we call on the council to accept the evidence that a new supermarket in London Road is highly likely to result in a net job loss and bring about the closure of existing small shops which the council is so keen to support.  We have also asked for acknowledgement that it puts the historic open market very much at risk.

Thirdly and finally, we ask that Another London Road be recognised as a group generally representing a significant proportion of the community and therefore consulted and kept informed on any matter affecting the development of the area.”

48.3       Councillor Kemble stated that “Brighton & Hove City Council has indeed written up and has consulted widely on a Supplementary Planning Document for the London Road Central area.  This document will set out the council’s planning policy for the area but council has been made aware by St James’s Investments that they will not be submitting any proposals for the area until the Supplementary Planning Document has been published and adopted.

All proposals that come forward from whatever source for any development within the area will be assessed against the prevailing planning framework.

The draft Supplementary Planning Document is currently being finalised in response to the information received from the consultations and conducted as part of the process for preparing the document.  The draft SPD will be published for public consultation in spring 2009.  Could I ask you to ensure that your organisation takes a full and active part in the consultation when it is released.  I am sure you can appreciate that I can’t comment on any potential planning application.”

48.4       The Mayor thanked Ms Summers for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation.  He explained that the points had been noted and deputation would now be referred to the Enterprise, Employment & Major Projects Cabinet Member Meeting for consideration.  The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.

48.5       The Mayor then invited Dr Barker as the spokesperson for the second deputation to come forward and address the council.

48.6       Dr Barker thanked the Mayor and stated:

“From HydeMartlet’s Statement of Community Engagement you may think local residents are largely in favour of this scheme.  The fact that more than fifty firm and considered objections, many more signatures, have been received by the council shows just how far local feeling has been misrepresented in this matter.  Local people have the strongest objections to these plans and will not acquiesce in them as they stand.

72 units are far too many – socially and environmentally – for both current and for prospective residents.  We have all seen the plans, we all know the area.  This is an unprecedented density of occupation and an unprecedentedly large building.  All our objections spring from this point.

I refer Councillors to written objections on the inability of the local infrastructure to support so large a scheme.  Shops are not easily accessible – especially with pushchairs, let alone by disabled people; public transport is not readily amenable; surgeries are full.  This is a suburban area, not a city centre.  To provide only 24 parking-spaces is either naïve or cynical.  There will inevitably be greatly increased pressure on local parking both north and south of the A270, especially given the displacement of an extra 16 spaces on Hove Park Gardens.  The traffic?lights at the crossroads – backed up to Hove Park Villas in the rush hour – will be even more hard-pressed to cope with an increase in service vehicles, inevitable delivery lorries and taxis, without any extra car-traffic, let alone the dream of 100 bicycles.  How many more accidents must there be?

72 units on this site mean a building which is too large as seen from the outside and too small as lived in on the inside.  The plan is for poky units with poky outdoor spaces – balconies and terraces which open straight onto the main road.  Read HydeMartlet’s own noise survey if you think these could be usable.  Residents do not sit out in front gardens opposite.

72 units entail a vast visual impact on the area.   At five storeys the building would overlook and dominate all the neighbouring properties – even flats.  It would be as high as most established nearby trees – those, at least, that HydeMartlet doesn’t propose felling – and a storey and a half higher than tall private houses.  It would reach unacceptably close to the pavement.  At present the established tree-line makes a continuous sweep from Hove Park to the Recreation Ground.  HydeMartlet proposes replacing what is essentially a continuation of the suburban parkscape with a lowering and unrelieved urban façade hardly screened by the miniature elms it proposes to squeeze uneasily between the building and the pavement.

72 units, finally, means that the Edwardian Park House itself must be destroyed and we wonder why.  Many similar period properties have been refurbished in the area.  This one, surrounded by established palms, is not only attractive but architecturally in keeping with the area.  It would convert readily into desirable flats.

But this bloated scheme – pushed aggressively in the face of local opinion – has regard to nothing except the number of units that it can pack onto the Park House site.  The concerns of residents, neighbours, visitors and passers through have been treated as afterthoughts.  Concessions have been both laughable and cynical.  This is not an appropriate use of this attractive and important site.  On behalf of more than 50 local households, I urge Councillors to reject this application.”

48.7       Councillor Theobald stated that “I do have to say to you, as I expect you already know, the application has been submitted and is being assessed by officers and the decision on this application will be made by Members of the Planning Committee.  The comments that you have made and indeed there have been two petitions I think, if not three, presented to the Mayor this afternoon and all these will be taken into consideration and assessed before any decision is made.  As I expect you know one resident is able to come along and talk for, I think it is three minutes, to the Planning Committee to express your views. 

You may rest assured that your comments will be taken into account by officers when they come to a decision as to what to recommend the Planning Committee to do and then it is a matter for the individual Members of the Planning Committee to vote.”

48.8       The Mayor thanked Dr Barker for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation.  He explained that the points had been noted and deputation would now be referred to the Planning Committee for consideration.  The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.