Agenda item - BH2022/00203 - Land at King George VI Avenue (Toads Hole Valley), Hove - Outline application

1.       The case officer introduced the application to the committee with information from the Principal Planning Officer on policy.

Speakers

2.       Ward Councillor Brown addressed the committee and stated that they felt compelled to speak as the development would have a serious detrimental effect on the wider Hove area and were therefore against the application which is considered to be an over development of the site with two to three times the density compared to the surrounding area. The councillor questioned if the 40% affordable housing would be constructed as the land is to be split up and sold. The piecemeal approach could take 10 years with no overarching control on the site. It was noted that pollution will increase, and the water aquifer needs protecting from contamination. A major concern is traffic especially the impact on King George VI Avenue. The residents will need a choice of transport, however the 21A bus only runs once per hour and not in the evenings. Bus services need to be in place from the start of the development with bus/cycle gates. The proposed office space will require parking in this already crowded area. Drivers will look for other routes due to congestion and ‘rat runs’ will be created in the area. The proposed traffic lights at junction of A27 and King George VI Avenue will be very challenging. If the application is approved, it will be a loss to the city as traffic will swamp this area and rest of the city.

3.       Gareth Hall addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that the council has had four years to cover traffic issues with a predicted 80% increase. It was not considered that the developer was taking onboard residents’ comments. The proposed four way traffic signal will increase traffic on Goldstone Crescent, details of the increase are needed. The conditions could have timescales to achieve this. Residents feel the impact of the development is not understood and the committee should refuse the application.

4.       Martin Carpenter addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the development meets policy and density requirements. The 40% affordable housing standard was set by the council and the developer would not provide less. Projected traffic pollution was found to be within acceptable limits.

5.       David Bird addressed the committee as the transport consultant for the applicant and stated that the scheme had a well balanced approach to cars and transport. The proposed cycle routes will reduce road congestion as will the improvements to the A27 junction. New bus routes are proposed from the site which could include a route to Hove station and Hove Town Hall every 20 minutes. The service should be financially viable with 5-600 homes and the S106 will provide funds. A travel plan has been provided. It is not possible to enforce a no car use, however, the use of sustainable modes can be encouraged. The core traffic growth assessment covers the whole site. The average speed of traffic will be reduced at peak times by the traffic signals.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.       Councillor Yates was informed that the proposals for alternative uses of the 5 hectares of land allocated to school would come forward if the school were not constructed. This could be discussed through the City Plan Part 1 review.

7.       Councillor Theobald was informed that the school would be Secondary level. This could be changed through the City Plan Part 1 review.

8.       Councillor Childs was informed by the Applicant’s legal advisor that there was no current policy against how market houses are disposed of and they would not volunteer to exclude second home buyers.

9.       Councillor Shanks was informed by the Housing Enabling Officer that the council preferred affordable housing to be with registered providers. The case officer noted it was not within planning’s control to request stores on the site provide fresh food.

10.      Councillor Theobald was informed that this is an outline application with no site layout yet, archaeological research would be required by condition and 10% of the units will be wheelchair accessible. The Housing Enabling officer stated that 55% of affordable homes would be for rent and 45% would be affordable ownership units 25% of all affordable housing would be first homes. The case officer noted that the proposed surgery would be in phase three of the site development and built to shell and core. The properties will be no closer than 12 metres with reference to pollution.

Debate

11.      Councillor Yates considered the development was more fitting for the 20th Century than the 21st as the development had taken too long. The development feels more 1980s with lots of tarmac and housing. The councillor did not feel that could vote against and that their hands were tied. The councillor considered the development was not right for the city.

12.      Councillor Moonan considered the site needed developing and noted that the application was policy compliant with the maximum number of homes and there were lots of details to come. The councillor was concerned about the next step as the site will be broken down into three phases, with the school in the last phase. The councillor was also concerned about the 5 hectares for the school/community sport and wanted this area not to be used for housing. The councillor requested a review of City Plan part 1 and to work with local residents. The councillor considered their hands were tied as there was a need for housing and there was the chance to work on the detail.

13.      Councillor Theobald considered the sports and leisure should be protected, that 880 was an over development of the site, 700 would be more appropriate and noted that many units were flats. The councillor expressed concerns regarding the impact on the South Downs National Park, noise pollution for residents of the new development, construction traffic impact on existing neighbours and traffic congestion resulting from the development. The councillor considered the proposals to be an overdevelopment of the site.

14.      Councillor Barnett considered the development to be too much, the traffic issues to be lethal, and the flats to be boxes. The councillor did not support the application.

15.      Councillor Fishleigh noted that Ward Councillor Brown had addressed the committee, however the remaining two ward councillors had not.

16.      Councillor Shanks considered a sustainable model development should have come forward and that traffic should be on a downward trend, not up. The councillor supported the application.

17.      Councillor Childs stated they were disappointed that the applicant did not agree to voluntarily restrict second home ownership at the site and considered the council needs to look at policies regarding second homes, also the council should hold onto the affordable housing and not give over to a registered provider. The councillor considered the proposals to be an overdevelopment of the site, however, the city did not have enough homes and the council needs to build more. The councillor supported the application.

18.      Councillor Ebel considered the plan was not ideal but was policy compliant. The existing bus services were not sufficient, and the community should be supported, and there would be an improvement once the development was built. Family housing is urgently needed, and the development includes family homes. The councillor supported the application as it was policy compliant.

19.      Councillor Littman considered that local policies need to be seen in light of national policy. The development will provide 880 homes and the city is not able to supply enough homes. The councillor noted that the government carbon neutral date was 2050 and considered the city should be doing this earlier. The site has been highly scrutinised, and it is considered that sustainability is wanted in the urban fringe. The councillor considered they had no choice and supported the application.

Vote

20.      A vote was taken, and by 7 to 2 the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

21.      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 permission subject to a s106 legal agreement and conditions as set out in Appendix A (S106 Heads of Term) and B (Conditions & Informatives), SAVE THAT should the s106 agreement not be completed on or before 25 September 2022 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in Appendix E of the report.