Agenda item - BH2022/01063 - Moulsecoomb Hub North, Hodshrove Lane, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The case officer introduced the application to the committee and noted that 9 new letters of objection had been received.

2.    Councillor Bagaeen was advised that they should not participate in the discussions or decision making on this item as they had not been present for the presentation. The councillor decided to leave the meeting and not return.

Speakers

3.    Adrian Hill addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that they felt misled by the marketing as the centre of Moulsecoomb will be changed forever. The services to be lost on the site are much needed by the community. There are noise pollution and transport issues with the application. There is not much in the area which means residents will drive to goods and services. Parking and views will be lost, and no cycle lanes are proposed, this will be a car centric development. Play areas and green spaces will be lost on this brownfield site. Badgers, bats and slow worms will lose habitats. Please preserve the recreational facilities.

4.    Maria Kinsey addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that the local residents feel let down. It is felt that the original plans and the final ones are nowhere near the same, and the revised plans were never taken back to residents for discussion. The process of objecting is made to put people off. Residents live in dread of the proposals with huge imposing blocks near existing residents’ gardens, resulting in loss of privacy. Four years of construction works is making residents want to leave. Parking overspill will be an issue. Please delay so a meeting can be set up with the people most affected.

5.    Guy Davies addressed the committee as the agent for the application and stated that the council were seeking redevelopment of the site. Within the city there are 18,000 people needing homes and a hundred percent affordable housing will be available in the scheme. The proposals form part of the Lewes Road Development Area identified in City Plan Part 2, and will include a new community hub, a GP surgery, café and communal space, and skate park. The application has been through the planning pre-application process as well as nine exhibitions taking place, three leaflet drops of 4,000, and has been posted on the council website. It is considered that the increase in traffic will not have a significant impact. There will be a range of houses and units, with the designs taking account of the topography of the site.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.    Councillor Childs was informed by the agent that there was only one new shop covering some 80sqm. It was not known if the ATM would be free to use at this stage. The case officer stated that 22 trees would be lost and 157 would be planted. 300 cycle spaces were in the scheme, some outside and some inside, but no new cycle lanes. The existing boxing and children’s clubs are to remain. Swift and bee boxes are part of the overall strategy for the site secured by condition. There will be 115 new parking spaces.

7.    Councillor Moonan was informed by the Highway Agreements Officer that the speed limits on the internal estate roads are to be decided by the developer. The roads will be narrow with bends, thereby slowing vehicles naturally. The travel plan covers parking for the site which is not in a controlled parking zone. A one-way system could be introduced on Hillside Road if needed. The case officer noted that the travel plan was part of the section 106 legal agreement and the impact of the new traffic, mostly travelling north from the site would not be significant. It was noted that the new community hub will be required to be finished before the existing is demolished. The existing open space is to be replaced with a 3G football pitch. The Highway Agreements Officer stated that there is no statutory requirement to consult on the travel plan with local residents, however, any residents’ comments would be noted, and surveys would be undertaken during the travel plan process.

8.    Councillor Hills was informed that a Preliminary Ecological Assessment had been undertaken, and it was considered there was no significant loss of habitat for roosting bats. A green corridor will be created to allow bats to pass through the development. The site is not rich in diversity and the site will be cleared in line with government guidance. There will be a biodiversity net gain with boxes for birds and bats, native species planting, and a pond. It was noted that planning letters were sent to all properties affected, site notices posted and notices in the press.

9.    Councillor Shanks was informed that there was a demand in the area for a 3G pitch. The large Plane tree is to be removed to allow wheelchair access to block ‘L’. Two spaces are proposed for car club use, more can be added if required. The Highway Agreements Officer noted that there a number of spaces already on the highway and car club spaces take away available spaces from other users. Maria Kinsey stated that 4 consultation meetings had taken place, however, no one seemed to know about them. Residents don’t feel consulted. The lamppost posters and leaflets were not enough. There are lots of animals on site, foxes, bats and slow worms, plus cats and dogs. Adrian Hill considered that most people don’t know the details of the scheme, and the brochure is not clear. The councillor requested that the Plane tree be saved if possible.

10. Councillor Ebel was informed that condition 27 relates to traffic calming measures, with details to be agreed at a later date. The proposed units will be available to those on the housing list.

11. Councillor Littman was informed that by the agent that the client was happy to re-use the wood from any felled trees.

Debate

12. Councillor Shanks considered the homes were needed and supported the application. There were concerns over the consultation with residents and the councillor felt lessons could be learnt.

13. Councillor Ebel was pleased to see 100% affordable housing, parking spaces and a good design. The councillor was sorry residents were upset and considered many will benefit.

14. Councillor Childs considered trust needed to be rebuilt with the community. The proposed social housing is badly needed on this brownfield site. The biodiversity net gain is noted. The councillor supported the application.

15. Councillor Hills considered housing needed to be delivered and the cycle parking was good. The councillor was sorry residents feel unheard. As there were many benefits to the scheme the councillor supported the application.

16. Councillor Moonan considered the traffic management was a concern, the development creating ‘rat runs’, particularly at peak times. The councillor urged officers to look at the traffic plan and to consult. On balance the councillor supported the application.

17. Councillor Littman considered the traffic management plan to be important, as was the biodiversity net gain.

Vote

18. A vote was taken, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.

19. 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 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 the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 5 April 2023, the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 14 of the report.