Agenda item - BH2018/03633 - Land at King George VI Avenue (Toads Hole Valley), Hove - Outline Application

1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee with information from the case officer and Head of Transport Policy & Strategy.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

2.       Councillor Childs was informed that the selling of units as second homes was not a planning matter and there was no requirement for the developer to not sell units as second homes.

3.       Councillor Shanks was informed by the Head of Transport Policy & Strategy that a number of scenarios had been assessed in the traffic modelling which covered the whole development.

4.       Councillor Yates was informed by the Planning Manager that second home ownership was not covered by City Plan and under use class second homes count as a dwelling. The case officer informed the councillor that under policy three bed plus homes were family units.

5.       Councillor Fishleigh was informed by the case officer that if a change of use were proposed it would be outside scope of this application. If a second home policy were to be introduced, it would be a consideration on a reserved matters application, but greater weight would be given to the existing permission. This item A was to consider the highway and transport impact only. It was noted that the local bus services have been reviewed and the most optimised services will be sought.

6.       Councillor Ebel was informed by the Head of Transport Policy & Strategy that bus services are to be reviewed to enhance the existing service and the frequency will be the best optimised with 10/20 minute gaps. The bus service will be commercial and will not be subsidised. It was noted that there was no time limit on the when the budget would be spent on the bus services. The Council Lawyer noted that receipt of the Bus Contribution would be phased. The case officer informed the councillor that the first phase of the development was located near existing bus services and the phasing had been considered carefully as it needs to be feasible.

7.       Councillor Moonan was informed by the Head of Transport Policy & Strategy that the four entrances onto the development were taken into consideration. The case officer informed the councillor that the school would remain in the development even though pupil numbers were dropping. This will be reviewed in 2023/24 and if no school is provided the sports facilities will still form part of the development with 3G football pitch and games area. It was noted that only the land for the school was sought under policy. Substantial public engagement has taken place and demand has been identified for the city in general as there are a lack of football pitches. The Planning Manager noted that under City Plan future consultations will take place and the results form part of the emerging City Plan review. It was noted that the reserved matters applications are likely to come to committee. The scheme of delegation sets out when an application goes to committee. The Chair noted the details did not necessarily need to come to committee however, it was most likely.

8.       Councillor Barnett was informed by the case officer that as this was an outline application there no details of how many flats, houses and affordable homes would be built. The Housing Enabling Officer informed the councillor that they would be looking at the mix of housing.

9.       Councillor Theobald was informed by the Head of Transport Policy & Strategy that discussions have been held with the bus companies on how to serve the site, and the access points onto the site have been assessed and no problems found. The case officer noted that there were no objections in principle regarding the South Downs National Park to the roundabout changes proposed. It was noted that the majority of trees were on Highways England land, were mostly Ash and were not on the development site.

10.      Councillor Yates was informed by the case officer that cycleways and footways to the school would be through the Site of Nature Conservation Interest, with low level lighting and that the site will attract a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

11.      Councillor Shanks was informed by the case officer that the sports facilities were included in the strategy and that the parking would be dealt with under reserved matters and any overspill issues would be dealt with at that time.

12.      Councillor Childs was informed that connections to centres of activity and public transport interchanges was a key consideration for potential routes.

13.      Councillor Littman was informed by the Head of Transport Policy & Strategy that the discussions took into account national standards regarding an 8% increase in traffic in the area and the council will be looking at the core test.

Debate

14.      Councillor Shanks considered the application had taken too long to come forward and the council were now trying to reduce traffic and car usage. The councillor considered a parking permit scheme would be appropriate for the site with electric points for cars and bikes on site as well. The councillor considered the committee needed to agree the development.

15.      Councillor Yates stated they were not at the original meeting; however, they noted the significant supporting evidence from the officers and supported the application.

16.      Councillor Theobald considered that 880 homes was a lot, starting and stopping of cars on the road next to the development would increase pollution, and traffic will increase at the already busy roundabouts with a knock-on effect on the surrounding roads, the development would have a negative impact on the nearby National Park, the roundabout would become more dangerous for pedestrians and there would be general traffic chaos. The councillor did not support the application.

17.      Councillor Littman considered the committee were not in a position to take issue with experts on a technical level. The development was not perfect and could be more ambitious. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

18.      A vote was taken, and by 7 to 2 the committee agreed the recommendation.

19.      RESOLVED: That the two reasons for refusal (relating to insufficient information concerning transport and air quality impacts) as set out in the Planning Committee resolution of 21/3/22 be withdrawn and that the council no longer defends the appeal on the basis of these reasons at the forthcoming public inquiry, for reasons outlined in the report.