Agenda item - BH2019/02948 - Sussex County Cricket Ground, Eaton Road, Hove BN3 3AN - Full Planning

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

2.      Matthew Colley-Banks (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site location plans, elevational drawings and photographs. It was noted that the main considerations in the determination of this application relate to the impact of the proposed development on the visual amenities of the site and surrounding area, in particular, heritage assets. Further considerations include the access arrangements, sustainable transport impacts and air quality. The impact upon amenity of neighbouring and future occupiers, the standard of accommodation, housing mix, the level of affordable housing and density, ecology, arboriculture and sustainability impacts must also be assessed.

Questions for Officers

3.    Councillor Daniel Yates was informed that the development included 35 underground parking spaces for residents and 13 external spaces which replace the current informal parking on the existing hard standing. It was noted that the total number of spaces across the site will be 60. The Councillor was informed that phase one of the scheme will allow the following phases to be constructed. The project is a 50/50 joint venture with Brighton and Hove Cricket Club and a housebuilder developer with phase one enhancing housing and cricket club. The viable affordable housing level would be split to enable the facilitating works of Phases 2, 3 and 4 and providing an affordable housing contribution. It was noted that development had been considered against policy to provide sport across the city and the scheme was considered to enhance facilities.

4.    Councillor Joe Miler was informed that the on-site traffic rarely reached peak capacity and passing and blocking of cars was not a major issue. It was not considered that there would be access issues and the cricket parking would be resolved by the cricket club. The architect, Stuart Eitock, stated that this would be restricted on match days. Councillor Miller was informed that the s106 agreement would cover the affordable housing promise of ‘best endeavours’ by the developer. It was noted that following the request to do so, materials would be reviewed by Members attending Chair’s Briefing.

5.    Councillor Leo Littman was informed that the neighbouring property was 8 storeys high. The applicants Planning Consultant, Chris Barker, commented it was felt that the sporting and leisure enhancements were very much needed by the city wide community. The proposals would allow the cricket club to stay at this location. Phases 2, 3 and 4 will be funded by phase one. The cricket board will be approached for the remaining funding of £4m. Councillor Littman was informed that the viability of the development was made possible by the density and height of the proposals. It was noted that loss of light to neighbouring properties and sufficient light to the proposed dwellings was considered acceptable. 

6.    Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty was informed by the Conservation Officer that harm has been created by the existing flats nearby and on balance the proposals would have minimal harm on the area. Councillor Mac Cafferty was informed that this was a unique development with regard to affordable housing. It was noted that a new pub forms part of the development.

7.    Councillor Nick Childs was informed the proposed pub would be A3/4 use only and no on site affordable housing was included in the development.

8.    Councillor Yates expressed concerns that the authority would be underwriting the scheme.

9.    Councillor Tony Janio expressed concerns regarding the viability of the development and was informed that the profits will go to the cricket club. It was noted that 40% affordable housing would be usual. Phase one of the development did not support affordable housing. Councillor Janio was informed that the officer’s recommendation to grant permission was a balanced view given the enhanced sports facilities gained from the proposed development.

Debate

10.Councillor Joe Miller commented that the s106 agreement needs to be tied down and light loss was a concern for neighbours. Councillor Miller supported the application as a huge benefit to the community.

11.Councillor Leo Littman supported the benefits of the application that enhanced the community sports facilities.

12.Councillor Tony Janio supported the application and hoped the viability of the development would be good.

13.Councillor Nick Childs expressed concerns regarding the lack of affordable housing and the apparent underwriting of the development by the local authority. Councillor Childs expressed they were in two minds about the application.

14.Councillor Daniel Yates expressed concerns regarding the potential loss of affordable housing if it were not forthcoming in the next phases of the development and noted that other applications had not been given this chance. Councillor Yates stated they were against the proposal.

15.Councillor Sue Shanks expressed concerns regarding the lack of affordable housing.

16.Councillor Tracey Hill noted that there would be no affordable housing provision on site in phase one of the development and this phase would allow the following phases to be built. Councillor Hill expressed some concerns regarding day/sunlight to neighbours and the proposed development residents. On balance they supported the development.

17.Vote: The Committee agreed to grant permission by a vote of 7 to 3.

18.Resolved: The Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with thereasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement on the Heads of Terms set out in the report and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report SAVE THAT should thes106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 20 May 2020 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 10.1 of the report.