Agenda item - BH2019/03548 - Sackville Trading Estate and Hove Goods Yard, Sackville Road, Hove BN3 7AN - Full Planning

1.    The site was the subject of a site visit prior to the committee meeting.

 

2.    Chris Swain (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 addendum included information and the heads of terms had not been agreed in full. It was noted that the main considerations in the determination of this application relate to:

·The principle of re-development of the site, and type and scale of uses proposed in this location,

·Housing: layout, mix, viability and affordable housing provision,

·Impact on the amenity of existing neighbouring occupiers,

·Standard of accommodation including provision of private and

communal amenity space,

·Design: including scale, form, density, materiality and impact on the

character and appearance of the locality, including the setting of heritage assets,

·Sustainable transport: parking, access and highway safety,

·Air Quality, Sustainability, biodiversity, ecology and flood risk,

·Accessibility,

·Infrastructure and developer contributions.

 

Speakers

 

3.    John Mitchell (Artists Corner residents’ group) spoke on the application and stated that there were concerns regarding parking and traffic control at the site. Noise and air quality were also an issue. The speaker requested the committee to abandon the 17 parking permits proposed and commented that the onsite parking proposed was too small. The speaker felt that generally this application was better than the previous one, which was refused and is now at appeal.

 

Questions for speaker

 

4.    None.

 

5.    Councillor Samer Bagaeen spoke as Ward Councillor on the application and stated that they had confidence the committee would make the right decision and noted that zero carbon homes are wanted. The Councillor stated that Hove Station Neighbourhood Forum supports the application. It was noted that there were some errors in the DVS report. The report did not recognise the current climate emergency as an integral part of the reasoning. With regard to policy, the City Plan Part Two submission states access to the site should be improved. The application submitted does not comply. The pedestrian access from Hove station needs improving. The Urban Design report states that a new green infrastructure is needed to move forwards. The Councillor felt there were enough reasons to refuse the application.

 

Questions for the Speaker

 

6.    Councillor Nick Childs was informed that valuation process was different for this proposal as the care home and build to rent elements as one application. This was how 10% affordable housing was arrived at. The DVS report of 0% of affordable housing is not acceptable.

 

7.    Councillor Bridget Fishleigh was informed that in a time of climate change the development could be better.  

 

8.    Councillors Jackie O’Quinn and John Allcock spoke on the application as adjoining Ward Councillors. Councillor O’Quinn stated that the application was near three Hove heritage sites. Small changes have been made to the development since the previous refusal. The proposed 13 large blocks of flats will have a detrimental impact on the area with wind between the buildings an issue. Councillor O’Quinn felt the proposed trees would have a difficult time growing in the development due to lack of light. It was stated that greenery is very much needed in the development. It was also noted that there was no GP on site.

 

9.    Councillor John Allcock stated that traffic was already difficult in the area and the development would aggravate this. Moving bus stops to ease congestion was not the answer. Councillor Allcock stated that sustainable housing was needed, and high rents were a barrier to the local community. Only very small changes have been made to this scheme compared to the previous application.

 

Questions for Speakers

 

10.None

 

11.Adjoining Ward Councillor Chris Henry spoke on the application and stated that they had been a resident for 20 years and considered that the application was the best that could be achieved on this site. Councillor Henry stated that there were long term rentals available and that MODA were staying on the site as managers. The site will create new jobs and benefit the community. The sustainability was considered good with a move away from cars a benefit. The 10% affordable housing was also supported.

 

Questions for Speaker

 

12.Councillor Joe Miller was informed that most residents and interested parties agreed that the brownfield site needed to be developed.

 

13.Councillor Bridget Fishleigh was informed that the speaker felt that many concerns from the previous application had been addressed in this application.

 

14.It was a point of clarification following the speakers that Nicola Hurley (Planning Manager) informed the committee that air quality and zero carbon for the application were in line with guidance. It was noted that the guidance in City Plan Part 2 was a direction of travel until it was agreed at full council.

 

Questions for Officers

 

15.Councillor Yates was informed that the development was zero rated for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the DVS have been consulted. It was noted that although surrounding surgeries are at capacity the NHS Clinical Commissioning Group did not raise objections to the proposals. The 10% affordable housing was considered acceptable.

 

16.Councillor Dee Simson was informed that landscaping would be subject to agreement and that shade loving trees were needed.

 

17.Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty was informed that the existing trees were in poor condition and that the development proposed more trees to be planted than removed. It was noted that any dead trees would be replaced in the first five years. Access from Fonthill Road will need to be negotiated with Network Rail.

 

18.Councillor Tracey Hill was informed by the Transport officer that 25 visitor parking permits per unit per year would come to a total of 14,000. This is a reduced number and car club bays will be provided.

 

19.Councillor Daniel Yates was informed that the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) only goes to the edge of the site and that Parking Services class Sackville Road to be in zone R.

 

20.Councillor Joe Miller was informed that there was 90% take up of parking permits in zone R and that the affordable housing would be spread around the development and not in one area.

 

21.Councillor Dee Simson was informed that the car club would take over existing parking bays.

 

22.Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty was informed by Hilary Woodward that it was considered 3 out of the 4 reasons for refusing the previous scheme have been overcome by this scheme. It was noted that if this scheme were granted the appeal would not be withdrawn until the decision notice had been issued and the statutory challenge period had expired. Granting permission today will not stop the appeal.

 

Debate

 

23.Councillor Joe Miller supported the scheme and stated that the development was a good use of the site with good employment aspects and housing mix. The design is considered to be better than the previous application with residents’ concerns being recognised. 56 affordable units is considered very good. The development will be a positive addition to Hove and a contribution to land supply needs.

 

24.Councillor Nick Childs stated they were against the development. Not enough changes had been made from the previous scheme. There are insufficient social amenities and affordable housing. Family homes are needed in the city and the development will not be affordable for some 9,000 on the housing list. The impact on heritage nearby will be negative.

 

25.Councillor Leo Littman stated that the affordable housing was too low and there were issues with wind and design. The proposals look old fashioned and out of keeping with Hove. Councillor Littman did not support the application.

 

26.Councillor Sue Shanks stated that many need housing not just families.

 

27.Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty stated that the changes were insufficient, and the scheme was not for Hove. Councillor Mac Cafferty felt that the committee’s hands were tied.

 

28.Councillor Dee Simson expressed concerns regarding lack of affordable housing, the design being old fashioned, over development of the site and would vote against the application.

 

29.Councillor Daniel Yates felt that 10% affordable housing was enough and did not like being ‘held over a barrel’ by no affordable being built in the scheme at appeal. The design needs to more in keeping with Hove. Developing the brownfield site is supported.

 

30.Councillor Bridget Fishleigh stated they were against the scheme.

 

31.Councillor Tony Janio stated they felt the site needed to be used even though there are concerns regarding transport and sustainability. Councillor Janio supported the application.

 

32.Councillor Tracey Hill felt that concerns had been addressed and this was a better scheme than previous. Councillor Hill stated that the lack of affordable housing was not a reason for refusal. Councillor Hill supported the scheme.

 

33.Councillor Joe Miller proposed a condition to reduce parking permits per unit. The motion was seconded by Councillor Mac Cafferty.

 

34.The Transport officer noted that the present number was 25 visitor permits and would look at the final number to be agreed by condition.

 

35.Vote: The Committee voted to add a parking permit condition to reduce numbers per unit by a vote of 8 to 2.

 

36.Vote: The Committee voted to Grant Planning Permission in line with the officer’s recommendation by 6 to 4.

 

37.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, save that the specific terms for the travel plans shall be agreed by the Planning Manager in consultation with the Chair and Opposition and Group Spokespersons, and the following Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 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.</AI8>