annexe 1 – representations schedule

Annexe 1 – Representations Schedule

Brighton & Hove SubmissionCity Plan Part One

February 2015

Proposed Modifications

Contents Page Modification Number Page No Mod Number 1-9 All 10 No Comment 11-13 PM HIS 14 PM003 15 PM007 16 PM008 17 PM009 20 PM010 21-61 PM011 62-75 PM012 76-77 PM013 78 PM014 79-83 PM015 84-86 PM016 87 PM017 88-91 PM018 92-95 PM019 96-103 PM020 104-105 PM021 106-110 PM022 111 PM023 112-118 PM025 119-122 PM026 123-125 PM027 126-127 PM028 128-129 PM029 130 PM030 131-132 PM031 133 PM032 134 PM033 135 PM037 136 PM040 137-138 PM043 139 PM044 140-141 PM045 142-194 PM046 195 PM047 196-197 PM048 198 PM049 199-200 PM051 201-203 PM061 204-206 PM062 207-208 PM064 209-353 PM065 354-359

PM066 360-363 PM068 364 PM069 365-367 PM072 368-456 PM075 457-469 PM076 470-474 PM078 475 PM079 476 PM082 477-478 PM085 479-487 PM089 488-493 PM090 494 PM091 495-496 PM093 497-500 PM097 501-502 PM098 503-504 PM099 505-509 PM100 510 PM101 511-519 PM102 520-524 PM103 525 PM105 526-527 PM106 528-532 PM107 533-539 PM108 540 PM109 541

City Plan - Proposed Modifications Consultation Nov-Dec 2014

Respondent Number:

152

Individuals Name:

Mr Colin Brace

Agents Name:Lewis & Co Planning

Representation Number:

7

Modification Number: Policy/Section:

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:

Please explain your answer above:

Change(s) to make legally compliant:

Sound?: Tests of soundness:

Explain your answer:

Change(s) necessary to make sound:

Sustainability Appraisal:

Further comments to make:

Deliverability Part 1 of the City Plan includes a high number of complex land use policies which may be used as a basis to resist development when the plan reaches advanced stages of the adoption process. It is also anticipated that a host of additional policies will be introduced in Part 2 of the City Plan at a later date. This dense layering of development plan policies will form the basis for seeking planning obligations during the development control process including financial contributions towards open space and recreation facilities, highway infrastructure, education facilities, public art, and the local employment scheme. Such contributions are often excessive and result in residential developments becoming unviable and planning consents not being implemented. Whilst the viability of proposed developments is often reviewed by the District Valuer on behalf of the City Council, this is a lengthy process which often adds significant delays to the determination of planning applications. We therefore request that more flexibility is introduced to the appropriate policies in order to avoid onerous financial obligations and impeding the deliverability of new housing developments.

Written representations or hearings:

ii) or if required by the Inspector, to Participate at the Examination in Public

Why examination hearing:

Page 1 of 541


Respondent Number:

69

Individuals Name:

M J H Stimpson

Agents Name:


1

Modification Number: Policy/Section:CP16

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:








(BHCC Officers note: query whether this is a 'valid' representation because it relates to a designation detailed in the City Plan as submitted and not a proposed modification) Objections to Brighton and Hove City Plan Open Space Proposals CP16 Land at Fox Way / Foredown Hill, Portslade Please find below my objections to the proposal to allocate Land at Fox Way /Foredown Hill, Portslade as open space in the proposed amended City Plan for the following reasons. 1. The above mentioned site is subject to a Section 52 Agreement dated 17th June 1990 which requires part of the approximately half acre site to be reserved for community use�. 2. The majority of the site is allocated for commercial development. For example, a convenience store, doctors surgery, public house, or childrens nursery, etc. During the 24 years since the Section 52 Agreement was implemented, there have been virtually no developers/companies interested in developing/purchasing the site and nobody has made an offer for the site for development/purchase. 3. During that long period, a 24-hour superstore, new doctors surgery and two convenience stores have been provided elsewhere in the area, and the need for further similar premises no longer exists. 4. The Local Authority (Planning Department) has conceded that the commercial use is no longer required and will consider part of the site for housing. However, in the Draft City Plan modification document this site is identified as an open space�. 5. Since 1990 the Section 52 Agreement sets out the policy for this site and it has never been designated as an open space�. 6. It is accepted by Brighton and Hove City Council Planning Department that there is a very significant shortage of housing within the city and that it is important to make provision for housing on all suitable sites. 7. The Land at Fox Way has, since 1990, been designated as a site for development, albeit not residential. It has never been shown or designated as an open space�. 8. It is situated on high ground directly opposite fields and open spaces (including a childrens park area). The National Park is but a few hundred metres distance. 9. Properties in this area consist of family houses, all with gardens and outside space. There are virtually no properties without their own external amenity space. It is not an area where visitors to the city would come. It is a residential area for families living there. 10. The Fox Way site is open land on one side and is not fenced off. It is a site within the built up area that is ideal for residential development of the whole site to provide much needed housing. 11. If it is allowed to be designated in whole or part as open space� it will certainly not be used as such by the local residents, as there is no need for more open space in this area as compared with the greater need for homes. In summary, I object to the proposed designation of the Fox Way site in the modified City Plan as open space� and propose that the whole site be designated for housing.



Page 2 of 541


Respondent Number:

152

Individuals Name:

Mr Colin Brace



5


Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:








Policy CP20 introduces a requirement to provide a financial equivalent of 20% affordable housing for residential developments of between 5 and 9 units. It also requires 30% onsite affordable housing provision for schemes of between 10 and 14 dwellings. We have previously objected to this policy on the basis that it could result in the number of housing applications for 5-9 dwellings being submitted, thereby lowering the number of residential units being delivered. National Planning Policy Guidance now states that affordable housing contributions should not be required for developments of 10 units or less. Parts b) and c) of Policy CP20 need to be amended to reflect the new guidance set out in the NPPG.



Page 3 of 541


Respondent Number:

170

St James Street Community Action Group

Individuals Name:

Jeremy Ogden, Chair

Agents Name:


1


Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:








I apologise form the late submission of a response as one of my colleagues was meant to be doing this but unfortunately did not get around to doing so. As your requirement is for responses to be in by tonight, my comment and that of my executive team is how little - if any - reference there is too the development of the St James Street area in the City Plan. We are a growing and vibrant part of the City and yet seem to be completely ignored whilst other areas receive funding and attention. We ask that this be rectified and the St James Street area be included in the City Plan with a proposal for housing and other improvements. This involves looking at all accommodation, including guesthouses, and how they might be used.



Page 4 of 541


Respondent Number:

12

North Laine ArtsIndividuals Name:

Sarah Wright

Agents Name:


1


Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:








My concerns on recent Brighton developments have revolved around the massive increase of traffic and the way this has been dealt with. As a partially disabled pedestrian of 68 the main Brighton roads have become almost accessible. The quantity of buses are not a good idea. Clearly B&H City Council has invested heavily with the bus companies but a better plan would have been to restructure a tram and/trolley bus system as in the North East and Edinburgh. To many buses are confusing. As to housing we are constantly hearing of the increase in stock but it is not keeping up with need. The population ratio in Brighton has become heavily biased in favour of the student and youth collective who inevitably will need more accommodation. Better maintenance, in advance of deterioration, would be an asset, and more assistance for older people. Local authority priorities for maintenance and co-ordination of public buildings such as the Hippodrome are blatantly scaled back in favour of council-laid plans such as Circus Street. This does not indicate genuine community involvement. Please plan in a proper Western Road Post Office.



Page 5 of 541


Respondent Number:

180

Individuals Name:

Richard Scott

Agents Name:


5

Modification Number: Policy/Section:General

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:








4. Additional Representation. I further contend that the proposed B&H City Plan Modifications still fail to make provision for adequately dovetailing with the (current and emerging) land-use Plans of the adjoining District and County Councils. One example of this is the apparent failure to maximise the potential for residential development (to assist the housing needs of B&H) in the triangle of Lewes-Newhaven-Brighton, which is currently stymied by BHCCs failure/ refusal to incorporate policies to improve highways access to support movements of a significantly increased population in that area (and there are various other examples), and thus appropriate Policies need to be ADDED to the present Schedule of Proposed Modifications




5. Examination. In light of all that I have written today, and previously, I also ask that arrangements please be made for me to be able to promote and amplify my submissions IN PERSON to whatever Inspector is to conduct whatever form of Examination of whatever Part(s) of our proposed City Plan and/or of proposed Modifications thereto. Please note that, as previously indicated, I would like to be sent an example of whatever Reports or Decisions are published by the Planning Inspector for any aspect of B&H City Plan.

Page 6 of 541


Respondent Number:

152

Individuals Name:

Mr Colin Brace



6


Support / Object:Object

Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Paragraph 4.229 of the City Plan states that additional bed spaces in purpose built student accommodation will assist in encouraging students to choose managed accommodation over houses in multiple occupation. Whilst Policy CP21 identifies five locations suitable for purpose built student accommodation, the number of bed spaces identified for each site would not meet the identified need when combined with existing accommodation (circa 32,000). Whilst Policy CP21 allows for purpose built student accommodation on unidentified sites, the qualification criteria listed are difficult to satisfy and could stymie new student accommodation schemes being approved. The requirement to have a formal agreement with one of the city's two Universities or other existing educational establishments could unnecessarily restrict developments being approved. Firstly, the Universities require developments to comply with their own lower price structures which don't allow for higher spec accommodation (thereby limiting market choice). Secondly, the Universities are themselves developers of student accommodation and will not always support proposals on competitor sites. Policy CP21 states that purpose-built student accommodation will not be supported on sites allocated for housing, with extant planning permission for residential development or sites identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. If landowners are aware that nominating sites as part of the SHLAA process would restrict them from being considered for student accommodation, it may hinder the number of potential housing sites coming forward (thereby adding to the housing shortage rather than helping to address it). Furthermore, criteria 7 of CP21 does not allow for situations where planning permissions for housing are extant but have not been implemented for reasons such as financial viability. Where this is the case, alternative uses such as student accommodation should be considered. The removal of criteria 6 and 7 from Policy CP21 would mean that a greater number of student developments would come forward, thereby helping to meet the identified need and supporting the higher and further education growth sectors. These changes will help to improve the soundness of the City Plan on the basis that it would be more positively prepared. A lesser reliance on traditional housing stock will help to release family accommodation in the long term and potentially reduce the over-concentration of student housing and improve the social problems in wards such as Hanover, Moulsecoomb, Bevendean, St Peters and North Laine. On 5th April 2013, an Article 4 Direction relating to Houses in Multiple Occupation was introduced for five wards. This direction means that planning consent is now required to use a single dwelling house (C3) as a small house in multiple occupation (C4). Policy CP21 seeks to avoid more than 10% of dwellings within the radius of application sites being used as C4, mixed C3/C4 or other types of HMO. This policy combined with the Article 4 Direction is likely to result in a greater need for purpose built accommodation in the five wards and/or a wider spread of C4 style student accommodation in neighbouring wards (thereby increasing the social problems elsewhere).







Page 7 of 541


Respondent Number:

180

Individuals Name:

Richard Scott

Agents Name:


1

Modification Number: Policy/Section:City Plan Part 1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:





2.1 Whilst, of course, noting your emphasis that the present responses should be made to your published modifications I respectfully submit that it would appear to also be entirely legitimate to make responses concerning perceived FAILURES of BHCC to make, and to publish, modifications which Respondents perceive as still being needed. Having spoken at the EIP I thus include herewith responses of such a nature, as I consider that BHCC should have addressed issues which arose at the EIP in their present 2014 Schedule of Proposed Modifications. 2.2 It is thus that I continue to contend that the publication version of Part 1 of the proposed City Plan (as now proposed to be Modified) remains so FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED that it should NOT still continue to be laid before a Planning Inspector, for the conduct of an Examination in Public(or whatever equivalent currently applies). Instead I submit, Part 1 should be WITHDRAWN from the Inspector; to be held to one side (by BHCC) until AFTER Part 2 (Site Allocations) has been published and subjected to full public consultation, so that the quasi-definitive versions of both Part 1 and Part 2 of the proposed City Plan for Brighton & Hove can be EXAMINED TOGETHER by an Inspector in a SINGLE PROCESS. 2.3 The grounds for the proposition advanced at paragraph 2.2 above include at least the consideration that, in a supposedly-democratic and civilised society, it has to be fundamental right of those who live in a given area (and also those from adjoining areas who could potentially be affected) to be able to fully-participate in the definition of land-use policies. Naturally those owning real-estate assets, and those operating businesses, in the areas have rights too (but in principle, secondary to those of persons actually RESIDING in the area(s) concerned). 2.4 However, it appears, to your respondent, that the Council (also BHCC) has, by mechanism of its Now Part 1, then Part 2 cascaded Consultation Process largely DISENFRANCHISED such local residents. 2.5 The realities of development of a replacement for the previous Local Plan are that the process has been so lengthy that it has taken place under the aegis of 3 successive political administrations (Labour, then Conservative, and now the Green Party), and under 3 successive BHCC Chief Executives. All of those have had Wish lists as will various BHCC officers (also with many changes in function!) have also had their pet projects. Very little of this background will have been placed in the public domain in sufficient detail to be used by residents in responding to the City Plan consultations; nor, of that information which might have been publicised, does it seem that the publics attention has been explicitly drawn to relevant links with the emerging City Plan. 2.6 It is thus respectfully contended that a Neutral Observer, in considering this background to development of the City Plan, would readily recognise that there is every possibility that (parts of) policies in Part 1 of the Plan have been skilfully drafter to covertly facilitate developments which those on the inside want to see identified specifically in the Site Allocations Part 2 of the Plan. 2.7 But the average resident/respondent, when being consulted on the broad brush policies in Part 1, would generally not have known, and was not told, what specific projects some of the parts of those carefully-drafted Part 1 policies were intended to facilitate. This will only become evident when the first consultations on the draft Part 2 are announced. 2.8 But, by that time consultation on Part 2 is commenced it is likely that it will be TOO LATE for the resident/ respondent to say that he sees a policy in Part 1 as being unsound, because it permits a specific site-use under the detailed proposals in Part 2 which the resident considers to be unsuitable. 2.9 In conclusion it thus appears to me that BHSS has created a CATCH-22 situation vis-Ã -vis its own residents. BHCC (in the broadest expression of influences within that entity) knows largely what (quasi-) specific land-use developments it wants to facilitate, and thus the Policies in Part 1 have been drafted accordingly. But the concerned resident will only see the detail and effects of the Part 1 policies when Part 2 of the City Plan is published! And by the time a draft of the City Plan Part 2 is published it will be TOO LATE to make additional objections to policies in Part 1! 2.10 Whilst recognising the similarity of the above submissions to those made by me in April 2013 I respectfully submit that the passage of time has added a major dimension, which the present

Page 8 of 541


Part 1 Modifications FAIL to address. Whilst, at the close of the main consultations on Part 1, April 2013, and potentially even at the EIP in October 2013, BHCC might possibly have tried to blame the delay in producing Part 2 on various factors logic would suggest that such a position, after a period of 20 months from April 2013, is no longer credible. 2.11 Self-evidently it is BHCC, in its entirety, which possesses (or can access, e.g. via confidential Land Registry records) the most information about every square metre of land within the citys boundaries). And, whilst creating a City Plan might appear to be a Chicken or egg it would be ludicrous to attempt to create an overarching Part 1 without paying close attention to the reality of existing land-use and sites across the city, which inherently govern the practicality of being able, or not, to implement each proposed Part 1 policy. Thus a reasonable conclusion must be that BHCC has had data, which amounts to a near complete set of that needed to create at least a Consultation Draft of the City Plan Part 2 Site Allocations, for at the very least, the last 20 months, but more likely for the last three years of longer. 2.12 However still no sight has yet been seen in public of even a draft Part 2 being put to the relevant BHCC Committee to authorise commencement of a consultation process! 2.13 Could financial constraints justify this unbelievable delay of there still being no part 2 Consultation Draft? That hardly seems likely; the amount of work required to produce a Part 2 now would appear to be similar to that needed about three years ago (so possibly a bit more expensive now due to inflation, and a national upsurge in Development activity). And possible Staff shortages? Again hardly credible; it being entirely normal to hire-in supplementary staff for Task and Finish work, such as assisting with the preparation of a Local Plan, surely? 2.14 Taking the points made in the above paragraphs 2.1 to 2.13 into due consideration it appears reasonable (to your respondent) to conclude that BHCC has an ulterior motif in holding back release of part 2 Site Locations City Plan Consultation Draft. In the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary the conclusion must be that the ulterior motif� is probably an unworthy one; which must surely make all of these Part 1 proceedings susceptible to legal challenge, by way of Judicial Review. 2.15 For at least all of the above reasons your respondents thus reiterates his contention that residents MUST be consulted on both Parts 1 and 2 TOGETHER, thus PRIOR TO any Examination in Public taking place, For BHCC to seek to have City Plan Part 1 now Examined in Public (as it currently intends) is to render part 1 intrinsically UNSOUND as the public have NOT been provided with the same level of information as possessed by BHCC with which to analyse, and to respond to, the policies contained in that Part 1 of the proposed City Plan. 7. Concluding Caveat. Please note that my lack of comment (both now and previously) on other aspects of the City Plan Part 1, or in the 2014 Schedule of Proposed MOdifcations, may in no way be interpreted by BHCC as amounting to an implied Expression of Support for any of those other aspects, now a retraction or reduction of Objections/ Responses I have previously made. I thus reserve the right to raise further objections at any possible or appropriate future stage of the City Plan, or its subsidiary or associated policies.




In light of all that I have written today, and previously, I also ask that arrangements please be made for me to be able to promote and amplify my submissions IN PERSON to whatever Inspector is to conduct whatever form of Examination of whatever Part(s) of our proposed City Plan and/or of proposed Modifications thereto. Please note that, as previously indicated, I would like to be sent an example of whatever Reports or Decisions are published by the Planning Inspector for any aspect of B&H City Plan.

Page 9 of 541


Respondent Number:

20

Lewes District CouncilIndividuals Name:

Catherine Jack

Agents Name:


1

Modification Number:All

Policy/Section:

Support / Object:Support

Legally Compliant?:Yes



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:





Thank you for consulting Lewes District Council on the Schedule of Proposed Modifications to the City Plan Part 1. The District Council supports the modifications proposed and in particular welcomes the increased housing land supply within our common housing market area.


i) Written Representations


Page 10 of 541


Respondent Number:

104

Environment AgencyIndividuals Name:

Emma Winchester

Agents Name:


1

Modification Number:No Comment

Policy/Section:

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:








Thank you for consulting us on the Proposed Modifications for the City Plan Part One. We reiterate our previous comments we made on your submission plan, where we support the inclusion of various policy criterion and reference to the sensitivity of groundwater protection within the Plan Area. It is important to include these criteria, because the Urban Fringe, together with the built up area of the city overlies a principal aquifer. There are also a number of Source Protection Zones present which service public water supplies.



Page 11 of 541


Respondent Number:

111

Natural EnglandIndividuals Name:

John Lister

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:








Thank you for consulting Natural England on your proposed modifications. Generally the changes do not appear to impact significantly on the natural environment and we have no comment. Clearly the most substantial impacts may arise from the preparation of City Plan Part Two and we look forward to early engagement in the plan making process and the challenge of meeting the needs of the City whilst seeking to protect and enhance the natural environment. Due to the current pressure of consultations on land-use plans, I have not been able to spend the time I would have wished to review and comment on your modifications. If discussion would be helpful, please give me a call.



Page 12 of 541


Respondent Number:

98

Marine Management Organisation

Individuals Name:

Angela Gemmill (Relationship Manager)

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:








Thank you for inviting the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) to comment on the above consultation. I can confirm that the MMO has no comments to submit in relation to this consultation.



Page 13 of 541


Respondent Number:

117

Lightwood StrategicIndividuals Name:

n/a

Agents Name:Daniel Weaver, Pegasus Planning


4

Modification Number:PM HIS

Policy/Section:Appendix 5 of PM Schedule - Housing Implementation Strategy


Legally Compliant?:No



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:

It is not positively prepared in that it is not prepared on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.; It is not justified in that it is not the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.; It is not consistent with national policy.


Housing Implementation Strategy In order to be consistent with Policy CP1, all references to the City Plan target of 13,200 (and the associated spatial distribution of this figure) throughout the Housing Implementation Strategy must explicitly state that this is a minimum target. The Councils proposed approach to the calculation of its five housing land supply is novel and in complete conflict with national planning policy and guidance. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period). Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20%. In light of the historic shortfall of delivery to date, a 20% buffer is justified in Brighton & Hove. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that housing requirement figures in upto- date adopted Local Plans should be used as the starting point for calculating the five year supply and that Local planning authorities should aim to deal with any undersupply within the first 5 years of the plan period where possible. PPG therefore supports the Sedgefield approach to housing land supply (as opposed to the Liverpool approach). Brighton and Hove City Councils Housing Implementation Strategy rejects both the Sedgefield and Liverpool approach to calculating its housing land supply on the basis that it would require a significant increase in delivery rates compared to recent years, which the Council claim is unrealistic. What this fails to acknowledge is that delivery rates over the past few years have been restricted not only as a result of the economic recession but also the fact that the City's policy approach has prevented any large scale greenfield development. The national economy is now recovering well and many LPAs across the Country are achieving a significant boost in housing supply. Nevertheless, regardless of the state of the national economy, brownfield sites will always be more difficult to deliver and have longer lead in times than greenfield sites. As discussed already by these representations, the emerging City Plan Part 1 continues to resist large scale greenfield development, without which it has no hope of meeting OAN or addressing the historical shortfall. The council proposes that its housing land supply should be based on the level of predicted supply for the next 5 years in its housing trajectory (i.e. rather than being based on the annualised housing requirement set by the City Plan as required by the NPPF and PPG). Not only is this contrary to national guidance, it also undermines the very purpose of a five year housing land supply, which is to encourage local planning authorities to deliver enough housing to meet their requirements (be that by planning for enough development or allowing windfall development). Such an approach will also fail to address the historic shortfall of housing accrued to date. The councils proposed approach to its 5 year housing land supply is not positively prepared, is unjustified, and is inconsistent with national policy. It cannot be considered sound. The Council must accept that on the basis of its currently proposed allocations, it cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply against its City Plan Part One housing requirement (which itself falls far short of OAN). The NPPF advises that where a five year supply cannot be demonstrated, relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered to be up to date, which would include policies in the City Plan Part 1 from the day it was adopted. Applications for residential development must therefore be considered against the NPPFs presumption in favour of sustainable development so as to address the shortfall. In order to reduce the extent to which it cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and therefore reduce the period of time that applications must be considered against the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the Council must allocate more greenfield development in the City Plan. As illustrated by our representations, there is certainly

Page 14 of 541


scope to identify a greater level of delivery from urban fringe sites


In order to reduce the extent to which it cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and therefore reduce the period of time that applications must be considered against the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the Council must allocate more greenfield development in the City Plan. As illustrated by our representations, there is certainly scope to identify a greater level of delivery from urban fringe sites






To further explain and discuss the matters raised in these representations which are technical in nature and require in depth consideration and discussion.

Respondent Number:

174

Friends of the Earth Brighton & Hove

Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


1

Modification Number:PM003

Policy/Section:Introduction


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Technically, the order confirming the designation of the South Downs National Park, came into effect on 31 March 2010, not April 2010 as stated in this proposed modification.


Amend date to: 31 March 2010





Page 15 of 541


Respondent Number:

159

Standard Life Investments (SLI)

Individuals Name:

n/a

Agents Name:GL Hearn


2


Policy/Section:Introduction and Overview Paragraph 1.7, Page 6


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


SLI supports the changes to para. 1.7 to include retail� to recognise Brighton as a regionally significant retail destination.






Page 16 of 541


Respondent Number:

23

Mayfield Market Towns Ltd

Individuals Name:

n/a

Agents Name:Stephen Hinsley Senior Director Tetlow King Planning


1


Policy/Section:Duty to Co operate


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:

It is not positively prepared in that it is not prepared on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.; It is not consistent with national policy.


Duty to Co-operate We note that BHCC has produced a revised Duty to Cooperate Update Paper, October 2014, and this sets out the various meetings which have taken place with Authorities and bodies since the Examination hearings. However, we are concerned that the Paper does not provide any indication as to any positive outcomes, in particular with Horsham District Council and Mid Sussex District Council. As a result we are concerned that the City Plan makes no statement as to how it is intended that the shortfall in housing need, now identified as being within a range of 4,800 to 10,800 dwellings over the Plan period, is to be met. After the Examination the Inspector recommended that BHCC leave no stone unturned in trying to meet its objectively assessed housing need (OAHN). Part of that process was to carry out the Urban Fringe Assessment which has revealed more opportunities for housing development, leading to the increase in the proposed housing target to 13,200. But at the same time the OAHN has increased. In addition, the Inspectors letter dated 13th December 2013 under Housing and Objectively Assessed Need for Housing is clear that bearing in mind the Frameworks requirements that local authorities should assess their full housing needs, including affordable housing, my view is that the Plan should indicate the full objectively assessed need is at the higher end of range. This should also be reflected in the main modifications and the full revised housing need identified. Under these circumstances particularly identifying a higher need, part of the process of leaving no stone unturned must involve further positive discussions with neighbouring authorities as part of the Duty to Cooperate. By way of background it is noted, BHCC formally objected to the Mid Sussex District Plan and the Council appeared at the hearing session which dealt with DtC. In Horsham District Council (HDC), HDC wrote to BHCC in April 2014 with an invitation to provide information as to how HDC could assist BHCC in meeting housing needs. BHCC responded on 17th May with the comment that the City Council will inevitably be calling on adjoining Districts to help meet its housing need. Further representations were made by BHCC to the Horsham District Planning Framework in July 2014 BHCC raised a concern that there was no indication from the published documents that specific consideration has been given to any of Brighton and Hoves unmet needs. In a further submission to the HDPF at Examination stage, BHCC set out in clearer terms how the unmet needs of BHCC is part of a key cross-boundary issue within the sub-region (appendix 1). Of particular significance is the statement by BHCC that a new market town may have to be considered in the longer term. This conclusion is very similar to that found in the Coastal West Sussex Strategic Planning Board, Housing study May 2013 (para. 6.55 - Against this context it would be appropriate to consider with adjoining authorities longer-term development options, potentially working jointly with other authorities within Northern West Sussex. This might include joint work to assess strategic development options, including the potential for a new settlement, in areas to the north of the National Park.) Having reached the position where BHCC has exhausted all avenues to find land for housing within its borders and has identified a large shortfall to meet, it is not a question of options having to be considered in the longer term: there is an urgency now to plan to meet unmet needs. There is no evidence that Coastal authorities including BHCC have jointly worked with Northern West Sussex authorities to assess strategic options. In particular there is no evidence that any joint discussions have led or are leading to a position in which clear housing needs will actually be planned and delivered, as required by the NPPF (see particularly paragraphs 17,19, 21, 179, 180, 181 and 182). It is difficult to see how the Plan can be found sound in these circumstances. The duty to cooperate expressed in the NPPF is more than a duty to recognise or discuss needs, it is a duty to plan positively and collaboratively to actually meet needs. The Mayfields Market Town proposal is the only strategic

Page 17 of 541


option which can best meet the needs of BHCC and the Gatwick Diamond. BHCC clearly recognise the benefits of Mayfields and no other strategic locations have been put forward within neighbouring authorities which can meet BHCC needs. It follows that BHCC has an obligation to work directly with its neighbours to plan positively and to meet the clear housing (and employment) needs at Mayfields if it is satisfied that a new market town at Mayfields can be considered to be sustainable development within the meaning set out at paragraph 14 of the NPPF. The Inspectors interim conclusion after the Examination was: I accept that the Council has sought to engage positively with neighbouring authorities in the region. My initial conclusion is that it has met the legal requirement under S.33A of the Act. Unfortunately, the cooperation with neighbouring councils has not led to a positive outcome, in the sense that none has offered to assist Brighton and Hove by offering to meet all or part of the objectively assessed needs that cannot be met in Brighton and Hove. Despite further discussions between BHCC and HDC against the backdrop of full OAHN not being met in BHCC these discussions cannot be said to represent positive engagement and there have been no positive outcomes, mutual or otherwise. As made clear in the PPG the DtC is required to be an on-going and meaningful process and it is evident that since the Examination BHCC has not demonstrated effective joint working to meet cross boundary strategic priorities (the test in PPG ID: 9- 002-20140306). For this reason the City Plan is unsound. Mayfields How it can meet the needs of Brighton and Hove Mayfields is a proposed new town of 10,000 homes and community facilities between Sayers Common and Henfield, being promoted by Mayfield Market Towns Limited. Mayfields is approximately 12 miles (19 km) northwest of Brighton, 12.5 miles (20km) from Crawley, and 18.5 miles (29.7km) from Gatwick. Mayfields is located on the upper reaches of the River Arun in the centre of the Weald, straddling Horsham and Mid Sussex District boundaries. It is almost equidistant between the urban areas of Brighton & Hove and Crawley and serves both housing market areas. Homes and Jobs Employers in West Sussex are finding it hard to recruit and retain staff because of a lack of good quality affordable housing. Lack of homes is hampering expansion of possible employment sites and businesses agree that a new development of 10,000 homes in Horsham and Mid Sussex would help the labour market. Brighton has many small, knowledge-based industries which are lost because when they expand and become successful they are relocating to London or larger areas. Providing more homes in this area, in particular with leading schools, good community facilities and excellent travel networks, would serve to provide a high quality environment for part of the work force needed to allow Brighton and Hove to meet their economic potential, in accordance with national policy and regional economic strategy. Mayfields wants to create a New Market Town with a market at its heart in the same way others have created new towns such as Letchworth & Welwyn Garden City. A market town will enable a community to be planned from scratch, learning lessons from experience elsewhere as well as asking the existing community what they would like to see. A mix of house types to suit people at different stages of their lives and on differing budgets will be provided, including 3,000 affordable homes to be provided by Mayfields Partner Affinity Sutton. There is a huge housing need in West Sussex and Brighton as a whole. Mayfields would meet some of the overlapping need from the housing markets of the Coastal Towns and Crawley, which is important in helping the wider region. Community Infrastructure Many housing schemes promise community benefits but are only able to deliver on a small scale play parks, community halls or financial contributions to existing projects. Mayfields would see community infrastructure - schools, roads, medical facilities, shops etc. - being delivered in full, on a large scale. Mayfields will be providing completely new schools - at least one Academy, up to five primaries & nursery schools - which together will provide a full range of academic and vocational opportunities for every child to realise their full potential. Discussions with local higher education providers about how they could tie are underway. Totally new transport infrastructure would be provided rather than overloading existing roads. Data on journeys to work in this area showed that just 12% of people travel to London and 20% travel to Brighton and the coastal towns, with the rest travelling to surrounding towns. Therefore Mayfields would concentrate investment on a new era of super buses that will deliver longer distances to Brighton and Crawley by rapid coaches and connect with Horsham and Mid Sussex towns. Mayfields Market Towns is committed to creating a community that the local people and new residents can be proud of. The objectives are to provide high quality homes to suit all pockets, a substantial number of new jobs, helping local employers and attracting more, excellent education and the infrastructure to match. The evidence base that Mayfields has submitted to both Horsham and Mid Sussex demonstrates how the land at Mayfields is relatively unconstrained, with no national, regional or even local landscape or ecological designations.




We submit these representations on behalf of Mayfield Market Towns Ltd (MMT), in relation to the above consultation. MMT is promoting a New Market Town known as Mayfields' in the area between Sayers Common and Henfield; 10,000 dwellings are proposed to be split equally between Horsham District Council and Mid Sussex District Council. We have reviewed the main modifications proposed for the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One and have a number of concerns which are set out below.



Why examination hearing:Page 18 of 541


To discuss the issues raised in relation to the Duty to Cooperate and the Objectively Assessed Housing Need

Respondent Number:

152

Individuals Name:

Mr Colin Brace



9


Policy/Section:Duty to Cooperate


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


The Duty to Cooperate Compliance Statement (June 2013) concluded that agreement could not be reached with neighbouring authorities to accommodate the unmet housing need outside of the City. It is understood that this position has not been reviewed since the Inspectors comments were provided in December 2013.







Page 19 of 541


Respondent Number:

16

Individuals Name:

Steve Parry

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:P13. 1.24





Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


Is this Proposed Modification sound? Yes (other than the consequences of its implementation are not considered) Reason: N/A Concern: The proposed modification is not implemented in that the most recent Air Quality Action Area includes St James' Street (as did the previous plan) yet this area is excluded from the City Plan as a whole. Further, proposals for current & future implementation of improvements to the physical infrastructure impact upon St James' Street but this impact is ignored and not even commented upon within the City Plan







Page 20 of 541


Respondent Number:

16

Individuals Name:

Steve Parry

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:2.12 and 2.20

Support / Object:



Neutral Comment: Whilst finding it possible to increase the number of new builds from 11,300 to 13,200 during the period to 2030 BHCC officers provide no rationale as to how this increase is achieved other than changing the numbers for different sites on the basis that the Inspector stated that the numbers were not adequate. Why not increase the numbers to 21,000?


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Comment: Whilst finding it possible to increase the number of new builds from 11,300 to 13,200 during the period to 2030 BHCC officers provide no rationale as to how this increase is achieved other than changing the numbers for different sites on the basis that the Inspector stated that the numbers were not adequate. Why not increase the numbers to 21,000?







Page 21 of 541


Respondent Number:

163

South Downs National Park Authority

Individuals Name:

Anna Ludford Local Plan Lead (interim)

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:Spatial Strategy

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:








The Authority agrees that Brighton and Hove has engaged positively with the NPA in the formulation of the City Plan Part One. The two authorities have met regularly in order to guide the preparation of the plan. This cross-boundary working clearly meets the Duty to Cooperate. A Statement of Common Ground relating to proposed modifications to Policy SA5 was agreed in September 2013. The Authority notes the identification of the urban fringe as a broad source of potential for housing development, as informed by the Urban Fringe Assessment Study (June 2014) in the Proposed Modifications (PM010 and PM011).



Page 22 of 541


Respondent Number:

76

Sport EnglandIndividuals Name:

H Clarke

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:

Support / Object:



Minor amendments to be made to Policy DA7, CP16 and CP17 in order to ensure they are sufficiently flexible to take into account the findings of any forthcoming Playing Pitch Strategy undertaken by Brighton & Hove.




The Urban Fringe Assessment Study undertaken June 2014 identifies a number of opens space sites for housing development. Whilst none of these sites are classified as playing field and none currently serve a formal sporting purpose, the Council will want to consider very carefully whether any of these sites could or should be retained as open space in order to deliver any strategic needs for sport. Sport England has been in ongoing discussions with Brighton and Hove, who have provisionally committed to undertaking a detailed Playing Pitch Strategy which will identify the detailed strategic needs for pitch sports in the City. If this piece of work identifies a strategic need for new additional pitch provision, then the need to retain some of these sites for conversion to playing field use would need to be considered. The availability of these sites for housing will therefore require to be reviewed at this point.





Written representations


Page 23 of 541


Respondent Number:

146

Individuals Name:

V Del Federico

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:2.2




IT FAILS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT LOCAL RESIDENTS' NEEDS OR OBJECTIONS


THE PROPOSAL SHOULD BE RETRACTED AND ALTERNATIVE BROWN FIELD OR URBAN SITES USED

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:

It is not positively prepared in that it is not prepared on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.; It is not justified in that it is not the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.; It is not effective in that it is not deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross boundary strategic priorities.; It is not consistent with national policy.



I object strongly to any proposed development of Hollingbury Park, Hollingbury Park Nature Reserve, or the adjacent wood or downland spaces. it seems entirely contrary to the council's stated intentions to provide residents with green spaces and a gateway to the South Downs. Such a huge change of use would threaten the integrity of the environmental resource which is so important to the city's residents and its flora and fauna. The resulting traffic and pollution on the Ditchling Road would have a terrible impact on the quality of life for residents in the area and would increase levels of noise and air pollution as well as adding to an already busy entry point to the city. The suggestion of building on a resource that is used daily by local families seems contrary to the Council's objectives of creating a family friendly city which encourages healthy, active lifestyles. The notion of building on a Nature Reserve is absolutely appalling and flies in the face of Brighton's supposedly Green and progressive status. It would be an entirely retrograde step.


The documentation seems unnecessarily impenetrable and the structure is such that it is difficult for a layperson to navigate and find the relevant section s/ sub sections. Similar comments can be made of this internet form which is worded in jargon which would, I imagine, deter many potential objections.


I look forward to receiving a response to this and urge the Council to listen to its existing resents, putting their needs and wishes for their own children's well being before that of a nebulous strategic New Home goal; a figure determined by national Government with no regard for the idiosyncrasies of the city fringe, the environs and current usage.




I feel most strongly that this issue needs to be given fair and judicious hearing in an appropriate forum and would be keen to participate in any discussion relating to this decision which could have such terribly negative impact upon the lives of so many local residents and the flora and fauna which thrives in this beautiful part of the city.

Page 24 of 541


Respondent Number:

147

SOCIndividuals Name:

j shepherd

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4 urban fringe




inadequate appraisal


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


In adequate evaluation of alternatives shown. Fails to provide a reasonable solution to deficiencies it seeks to address, whist degrading the objectives of the original PM010 and PM064.







Page 25 of 541


Respondent Number:

23


Individuals Name:

n/a



4


Policy/Section:2.2


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



Para. 2.20 Whilst the final sentence states what the strategy is for meeting the housing requirement, the Plan should also state how it is intended that the strategic issue of meeting housing needs will be met in full, i.e. how the recognised shortfall of 4,800 to 10,800 homes will be dealt with. The Plan remains silent on this point, and is therefore unsound by virtue of being inconsistent with national policy and ineffective.


It is suggested that the following sentence should be added: The level of unmet housing need is between 4,800 and 10,800 dwellings. Meeting these needs is an acknowledged cross-boundary strategic matter which will require provision to be made in neighbouring authorities in Northern West Sussex. In pursuance of this, the City Council will enter into joint planning initiatives with neighbouring authorities to assess and potentially deliver a New Market Town to the north of the National Park between Henfield and Sayers Common as a strategic development to meet, in part, the housing needs of the City.







Page 26 of 541


Respondent Number:

149

Individuals Name:

Gabriele Del Federico

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:Hollingbury Park




The idea of developing a Park seems absolutely shocking and no other park has i believe been earmarked for development. This is, by the council's own recognition, as per the signage, a Local Nature Reserve. As such, I cannot understand how the Council can consider turning it into a mass housing development. My family and I regularly use this park for playing, for running, for leisure and recreation, to lose it would be to the serious detriment of our quality of life and that of many local residents. The area has significant importance in terms of promoting bio diversity and maintaining the delicate balance of the wildlife in this area. To build on this site, with the concomitant increase in pollution, congestion, traffic, noise and every other negative repercussion engendered by this and the necessary infrastructure such a plan would require, would be disastrous for this particular gateway in and out of the city. Not only this but it would set a disastrous precedent for future planning applications. I feel is is akin to the horrifically shortsighted policy of selling off school playing fields and have to ask, despairingly, what is the Council coming to when, on the basis of a Consultant's report, it will ignore previous recommendations and look to destroy a park , play space and area of great beauty.


na

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:




na


It is difficult to make sense of, just like this portal form.


I hope that the Council will listen carefully and sympathetically to this and the many other objections it will no doubt receive.




Page 27 of 541


Respondent Number:

6

Individuals Name:

Phil Belden

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:Strategy




I object to the flawed strategy, that of "sustainable growth" - this is an oxymoron. The strategy states "... the need to ... support the growth ... of sustainable communities; the need to provide land for other essential uses". Brighton & Hove is a finite size, lying between the Downs and the sea, between neighbouring settlements. It is well balanced to sustain itself (not too small, not too big). It can't keep getting bigger, otherwise the very qualities that "sustain" the city will be damaged and destroyed. It is time for the council to make a stand and not support further growth and ask of misguided, outdated and outmoded judges (such as planning inspectors and central government dogmatic, conventionally prescriptive policy makers) "how big does B&H have to become to be sustainable! The simple analogy of road-building illustrated the point - build a new road, bypass or increase the number of lanes and the traffic increases to fill it; so build another new road; and so it goes on, destroying the local area and not achieving the right results.


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:

It is not justified in that it is not the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.


The "reasonable alternative", the sensible alternative is to plan and manage for the city within its limits. One Planet Living has been adopted by this council, it needs to adhere to it and set a strategy that respects it and delivers on it.


See above.


It is difficult to take a Sustainability Appraisal seriously when the underpinning Local Plan philosophy is fundamentally flawed by its "unsustainable" strategy.


There is much detail in the Local Plan that is sound, based on good evidence and right for the city, but this is being undermined by the underpinning flawed approach of seeking to achieve the impossible - sustainable growth (or the ecological footprint that consumes more than this city and planet can sustain).




Page 28 of 541


Respondent Number:

137

Sussex Wildlife TrustIndividuals Name:

Jess Price Conservation Officer

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:The Strategy, pages 24, 28, 29


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:

It is not consistent with national policy.


The Sussex Wildlife Trust supports the statement in paragraph 2.20 that Much of the land within the city's defined urban fringe forms part of the city's green infrastructure However we are concerned about the assertion that the need to adequately address the social dimension of sustainable development means that development must occur on the urban fringe. The social dimension of sustainable development is not only about access to housing, it is equally about supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities (NPPF, para 7). A core element of this is good access to open space and the multiple benefits that exposure to the natural world can provide. Paragraph 2.11 of the Urban Fringe Assessment (UFA) states that There is not enough open space to meet the requirements of the city's existing and growing population. This is supported by paragraph 6.215 of the Sustainability Appraisal. The Trust also questions whether the city's natural capital can support the level of development in the modified paragraph 2.12 of the City Plan. We are extremely disappointed that the Planning Inspector has emphasised the provision of housing over the other mutually dependent roles of sustainable development, in particular the environmental role. The Trust feels that the City Plan was more compliant with paragraphs 73, 109, 110, 114, 117 and 152 of the NPPF before the inclusion of additional housing on the urban fringe.


That said, the Trust believe strongly in a plan led system and understand the damage that can be done when there is no adopted Local Plan to resist inappropriate development. Given the Planning Inspectors views during the Examination in Public, the Trust feels that the inclusion of a limited proportion of the urban fringe as potential housing allocation is preferable to the City Plan being refused at Examination, risking unplanned development of some of Brighton & Hove most valued open space. However this is subject to a thorough assessment of the suitability of sites, including their ecological value, being carried before allocation in Part Two of the City Plan. We also feel that the creation of a Green Infrastructure Strategy, that sits inline with the Biosphere Reserve Management Plan, is vital before the formation of Part 2 of the City Plan. This would be inline with Strategic Objective 10 and consistent with NPPF paragraphs 99, 114 and 158. The Trust would like to see a commitment to this included in Part One of the plan.





Page 29 of 541


Respondent Number:

25

South Downs SocietyIndividuals Name:

Steve Ankers Policy Officer

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Para. 2.12 We note that the Plan sets out a revised minimum housing target of 13,200 (rising from 11,300) new homes to be achieved by 2030. Our concern is that will inevitably increase pressure on green infrastructure and urban fringe sites, particularly those that are adjacent and/or form the gateway to the National Park. Paras. 2.19 & 2.20 Whilst we welcome the fact that the strategy recognises that there is an opportunity for use of brownfield sites to be maximized, we do have significant concerns that the urban fringe is now seen as a broad source of potential housing development. We note with alarm that the potential for housing within the urban fringe has increased from zero to 1060. Our position remains as per previous consultations in that development of any type within the Urban Fringe must be considered only as a last resort.


We believe the revised housing supply numbers on the scale set out within the urban fringe and adjacent to the SDNP would cause permanent and irreversible damage. We go back to the 2010 Consultation on Housing Delivery which contained a caveat that any future managed release of land within the Urban Fringe for residential development would only be considered on a contingency basis in the post 2020 plan period, should this be required to help meet local needs. Given the strategic locations adjacent to the National Park, we would say that development of any type within the Urban Fringe must be considered ONLY as a last resort.



The South Downs Society, the national park society for the South Downs, is grateful for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Modifications to the City Plan Part One. The Society has around 2,000 members. Our core business is campaigning and fundraising for the conservation and enhancement of the landscape of the South Downs National Park and its quiet enjoyment, recognising that these qualities can only be realised if the setting of the park is also respected and protected. We recognise that the City Plan is for that element of the city that lies outside the national park but it is essential that the plan affords appropriate priority to the conservation and enhancement of the park. Indeed there is a statutory duty on the City Council under Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995, in drawing up the plan, to have regard to its implications for the national park. Our comments relate to the proposed modifications where we consider them material to our core business.



Page 30 of 541


Respondent Number:

23


Individuals Name:

n/a



3


Policy/Section:para 2.12


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:




PM010 Para. 2.12 After are add, 18,000 to 24,000;







Page 31 of 541


Respondent Number:

117


n/a



5


Policy/Section:paras 2.7, 2.12, 2.19, 2.20, table 3


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:

It is not positively prepared in that it is not prepared on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.It is not justified in that it is not the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionateevidence. It is not effective in that it is not deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross boundary strategic priorities. It is not consistent with national policy


Paragraph 2.7 States that the City Plan recognises “the need to plan positively and meet the needs of a growing city”. For the reasons discussed below, and as accepted by the Council’s Housing Implementation Strategy September 2014, the City Plan Part One does not plan to meet the objectively identified housing needs of the plan area. Paragraph 2.7 is therefore factually incorrect. Paragraph 2.12 States that a minimum of 13,200 dwellings will be delivered between 2010 and 2030, reflective of the capacity and availability of sites in the City. For reasons outlined in relation to proposed modifications to Policy CP1 (see Section 4 below), 13,200 dwellings does not represent the total capacity of sites in the Plan area due to the fact that the Council has failed to undertake a robust and effective assessment of potential development sites in the SHLAA and urban fringe assessment. Paragraphs 2.19 and 2.20 States that the majority of new development will be located on brownfield land within the city’s built up area and that the approach taken by the Plan ensures that opportunities for development of brownfield sites are maximised. It is clear that in assessing/selecting development sites the City Plan has applied a ‘brownfield first’ approach, reflective of now revoked Planning Policy Statement 3. Such an approach has evidently restricted the level of development the Council is willing to support on greenfield sites across the urban fringe. As a result the approach to greenfield development across the urban fringe has not been positively prepared. The NPPF does not promote a sequential preference for the use of previously developed land over greenfield land. This was confirmed by a Secretary of State appeal decision at Worsley, Manchester (July 2012, Ref: 2157433) where the SoS states “National planning policy in the Framework encourages the use of previously developed land, but does not promote a sequential approach to land use. It stresses the importance of achieving sustainable development to meet identified needs. The NPPF requires that the right amount and type of housing be provided to meet needs, regardless of whether this is delivered on previously developed or greenfield land. Furthermore, paragraph 52 of the NPPF recognises that the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for large scale development, such as extensions to existing settlements. Local Authorities should therefore consider whether such opportunities provide the best way of achieving sustainable development. By taking a restrictive approach to greenfield development and placing significant reliance upon brownfield sites the City Plan will fail to deliver the scale and type of housing needed in the City. Brownfield sites have longer lead in times and deliver flatted style development (as opposed to family housing) due to higher abnormal costs associated with their development. As a result, the City Plan is based upon an ineffective strategy which will not meet needs (having regard to both the overall scale of need and type of need) and is therefore no positively prepared, unjustified, ineffective and inconsistent with national policy. In order to address this unsoundness the Council must be able to demonstrate that it has exhausted all greenfield opportunities for development which would help to address the significant shortfall in delivery compared to OAN. For the reasons outline by Section 4 of these representations, the Council has failed to undertake this exercise to date and this stems from an underlying reluctance to accept greenfield development. Table 3 Summary of Development Proposals Table 3 identifies how the 13,200 dwellings proposed by the City Plan Part One will be distributed across the City. The table identifies 1,060 dwellings will be delivered within the urban fringe. For the reasons set out below (see Section 4), 1,060 dwellings is considered to be an unjustified level of development in the urban fringe which is not reflective of the actual (policy neutral) capacity of urban fringe sites. Furthermore, the expression of 1,060 as a precise figure is unjustified for a broad location such as the urban fringe. Any figure for the urban fringe included in Table 3 must be expressed clearly as a minimum

Page 32 of 541


figure so as to reflect the fact that Policy CP1 proposes a minimum overall housing requirement and allow future flexibility in the further consideration and detailed assessment of urban fringe sites in the Local Plan Part Two (as committed to by Policy SA4 and paragraph 4.13 of the City Plan Part One).






Page 33 of 541


Respondent Number:

151

La Salle Investment Management

Individuals Name:

c/o agent

Agents Name:Ben Homes


1







Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



LaSalle Investment Management strongly object to the proposed modifications to the City Plan. The modifications fall some significant way short of addressing the serious shortcomings of the submitted City Plan, particularly in relation to meeting the needs (and particularly housing needs) of a growing City. The Council have recognised through the work they have undertaken to inform the proposed modifications that there is a significant shortfall in the provision of new homes compared to the objectively assessed needs. Whilst the Council have undertaken a thorough review of urban fringe locations to assess the opportunities to increase the supply of land for housing they have not undertaken a similar review of capacity within the urban areas. The Council should have undertaken a review of the specific development areas to determine whether a revised approach to the planning of these areas could result in the provision of more housing. As part of this the Council should also have critically reviewed its approach to the retention/re-provision of B Class employment space within these areas to assess the opportunities for the provision of more housing, either as part of or instead of redevelopment for employment floorspace. LaSalle Investment Management consider that further modifications to the Plan are essential to ensure that it does all that it can to help to deliver the new homes and other land use requirements the City needs. Unless further changes are made it is considered that the Plan will remain unsound because it will not have been positively prepared, it will not deliver the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives and it will not be consistent with national policy, particularly the need to boost significantly the supply of new homes. Background LaSalle Investment Management own the Sackville Road Trading Estate and adjacent former Goods Yard site. The Trading Estate site is a mix of warehouse space, retail space and trade counters, it is relatively low density, ageing and contributes little to the appearance or vitality of the area. The Goods Yard site extends to approximately 4.1 acres and is currently used as a depot for wholesale and retail of coal and related products, the storage of motor vehicles and removal services. Its uses are therefore low intensity. The two sites individually and collectively are significant in size and could make a major contribution to the regeneration of the Hove Station Area. The land is owned as a long term investment for a pension fund client and LaSalle is seeking to maximise rental income and safeguard future value for pensioners As a result of the current condition of the site, and the opportunities for redevelopment, a major mixed use scheme was developed in consultation with the City Council for the Trading Estate site. This scheme was subsequently approved by the Council under planning application ref BH2009/00761 (Sackville Place scheme). The work associated with establishing the planning permission for the site demonstrates LaSalles commitment to comprehensive redevelopment, and whilst the delivery of the approved scheme has stalled as a result of the wider economic issues, this commitment remains. LaSalle also has aspirations to redevelop the Goods Yard site, to respond to the housing and other needs of the area and to safeguard and potentially improve returns for pensioners. The attached concept Masterplan illustrates how the site could deliver over 300 new dwellings if it were developed for a residential focused mixed-use scheme.




Page 34 of 541





To help the Inspector to understand more fully the opportunities at Sackville Road and the implications of the current Policy wording for such opportunities.

Respondent Number:

97

CPRE SussexIndividuals Name:

Penny Hudd & Georgia Wrighton

Agents Name:


5


Policy/Section:The Strategy





Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


CPRE Sussex welcomes and supports the Council's recognition, in the proposed new paragraph 2.20, that much of the land within the city's defined urban fringe forms part of the city's green infrastructure either as open space or part of the city's biodiversity resource (although these are not necessarily mutually exclusive). However, this paragraph should also recognise that much of the land within the defined urban fringe is also of high landscape sensitivity. This recognised in paragraph 7.29 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, which states in part, "Countryside areas outside the AONB in Brighton & Hove are felt to be of exceptional quality. It is therefore felt that such areas should be afforded similar protection to other areas of exceptional landscape value which are included in the formally designated AONB. These areas have already enjoyed similar protection for many years by virtue of the policies in previous local plans.� In addition to its inherent sensitivity, the urban fringe forms the setting of the South Downs National Park. Although the National Planning Policy Framework does not specifically protect the setting of National Parks, it is clear that landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park could be adversely affected by inappropriate development within its setting. This was recognised in paragraph 7.41 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and in a statement by the then Planning Minister, Nick Boles, in April 2014. The then Minister referred to the Planning Practice Guidance published in March 2014, which explains the duty of local planning authorities to "have regard" to the purpose of national parks in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in national parks. The then Minister further explained that the guidance is clear that the duty is relevant in considering development proposals that are situated outside national parks, but which might have an impact on the setting of, and implementation of the statutory purposes of, these protected areas. It is therefore very important that particular care is taken over the design of any development proposed within the urban fringe, so that potential adverse impacts on the quality of the urban fringe landscape and the National Park are avoided as far as possible and mitigated as far as possible where adverse impacts are unavoidable and outweighed by any benefits of the development. The design of new development should particularly seek to avoid adverse impacts on the tranquility of the National Park through light or noise pollution. Paragraph 2.20 should highlight this importance.







CPRE indicated that they would like to submit written representations, however if the hearings are re-opened they would like to be invited to ensure the points they raise are heard.

Page 35 of 541


Respondent Number:

9

Palace Street Developments Ltd

Individuals Name:

Mr William Fellows

Agents Name:Mr Alex Bateman


2


Policy/Section:The strategy pages 24, 29, 29





Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:

It is not positively prepared in that it is not prepared on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.


The modifications to this section set out a minimum target of 13,200 new homes until 2030. However, this needs to be considered against the backdrop of the up-to-date objectively assessed housing requirements as set out in paragraph 2.20 of 18,000 - 24,000. Whichever figure is used as the target, it remains clear that there will be still a shortfall of some 5,000-11,000 homes over the next 16 years (312-687 per annum). The only justification for not meeting the need is the city's green infrastructure and biodiversity resource. The reasons given by the local authority to justify a significant reduction in housing delivery are not sufficient to warrant the City Plan being found legally sound.


The difference between housing needs within Brighton and Hove and the identified delivery is significant and is not based upon suitable or substantial grounds. The level of housing delivery should be raised to be more in line with the needs of the city by identifying more strategic sites, an acceptability of more intensification on under utilised sites and /or the release of more employment land for residential or mixed-use purposes if they are proven to be viable. An amendment to the housing delivery, following an assessment of alternative options would make the City Plan Legally Sound.



In a letter from the Planning Inspector dated 13th December 2013, the following was stated: "Objectively Assessed Need for Housing The Framework requires local authorities to assess their full housing needs, including affordable housing. The Housing Duty to Cooperate Study for the Sussex Coast Housing Market Area, May 2013, identifies that an objective assessment of housing need would fall between 16,000 20,000 dwellings for the period to 2030. The study notes that the higher end of the range takes account of the shortfall of affordable housing in the City, and includes the provision of 210 dwellings per annum to contribute to reducing the affordable housing backlog. At the hearings there was a reasonable degree of consensus that the range of 16,000 20,000(as set out in Main Modification MM26) was an accurate reflection of the full, objectively assessed need for housing, although some participants argued that the need could be higher, having regard to the significant need for affordable housing. Bearing in mind the Frameworks requirements that local authorities should assess their full housing needs (my emphasis), including affordable housing, my view is that the Plan should indicate that the full objectively assessed need is the higher end of the range, i.e. 20,000 new dwellings. Land currently in employment use. I recognise that the Plan aims to make appropriate provision for land for employment uses to support the local economy. However, doubts have been raised about the ability of some sites to support the kind of employment and/or mixed-use development envisaged in policy CP3. Bearing in mind the shortfall in land to meet new housing needs, I consider the Council should rigorously reassess whether this policy should be modified to allow for the loss of employment land to housing, where an employment or mixed-use development is not viable. The requirement of the Policy that there should be no net loss in employment floor space may inhibit redevelopment for mixed uses, particularly on sites where viability is marginal.



Page 36 of 541


Respondent Number:

6

Individuals Name:

Phil Belden

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:Spatial Distribution




I would consider that local planning to develop in and adjacent to areas that are nationally designated / protected (such as the National Park) are subsumed by national or international legislation and regulation. Therefore, the local council can't just glibly state that it will "plan positively to meet housing needs in full and; the need to adequately address the social dimension of sustainable development the potential for housing from the urban fringe has had to be reassessed ... includes the urban fringe as broad source of potential for housing development". This quote also abuses the term "sustainable development" - see previous objection to the Local Plan strategy.


Quite simply, for the council to plan and manage within its environmental, social and economic constraints, to develop sustainably, to meet the true definition of "sustainable development".

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



See above. There is a City Sustainability Partnership, an adopted One Planet Living framework, a new South Downs National Park and even newer international Biosphere designation; yet, there is an old-fashioned Local Plan that applies the same traditional planning of old - trying to unsustainably grow the city into a new era.


See above - genuine sustainable development.


It is difficult to see how this has been done in the light of the above comments.





Page 37 of 541


Respondent Number:

85

Individuals Name:

Richard Everest

Agents Name:


1






I wish to object to the modifications PM010 The Strategy, PM011 Summary of Development Proposals, PM064 SA4 Urban Fringe, page 111/113 and PM072 CP1 Housing Delivery pages 127/132 to Urban Fringe Assessment Study of June 2014 and the assessment in respect of site 50 Land west of Falmer Avenue, whereby its potential for 12 new dwellings is inconsistent, lacks positivity in its preparation and is therefore legally unsound. Land Use Consultants Ltd has not identified the site as being inaccessible to construction or other motorised traffic in the event of development. The only existing access is by a narrow, single track, bridleway, the South Downs walk, which lies within the South Downs National Park. This is a major and critical error by obvious omission and effectively renders the site presently useless for development unless accessed only by pedestrian, air or subterranean tunnel. I wish to challenge and append the statements made by Land Use Consultants in that: The site sits within land classified as urban land. This is a misconception, the land is still classified and remains identifiable as agricultural from which there has been no deviation or reclassification since incorporation within the original title of Coombe Farm. The deliberate change of appearance through cultivation or enfencement by the current landowner does not change or affect that original classification merely by whim or wish. The land was considered to be worthy of inclusion within the South Downs National Park but was excluded only as a result of a procedural irregularity under direction of the High Court Queens Bench Division. The Judgment did not deem it unworthy of inclusion due to its agricultural or green status in which it remains. There are no significant environmental issues to site 50 is incorrect. It is highlighted as being a Surface Water High Risk area on the Environment Agency flood maps, flooding which I have personally witnessed as the run-off discharged into Bishopstone Drive and which risks must be presumed current due to the effects of climate change and the indiscriminate infilling, without consent, of a protective bund by the current landowner which was excavated by DEFFRA solely to alleviate flood risk to the immediate downstream residential area.


It is my contention, and that of many others, that changes are needed to the City Plan Urban Fringe Assessment to render it sound and positively prepared. To facilitate such rendition, site 50 should therefore be legitimately deemed to have no housing potential whatsoever. Furthermore this site should not be developed merely to meet City housing targets and justify statistics. There are many vacant residential units of various types within Saltdean hence additional homes constructed compatibly with other residences in the neighbourhood would meet only 2nd home and similar interests of a migrant population influx and add to the existing shortages and evident strain of the existing local infrastructure.

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:








Page 38 of 541


Respondent Number:

119

The Brighton SocietyIndividuals Name:

Malcolm Dawes Jeremy Mustoe

Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:the strategy


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Brownfield or urban fringe? We note that the City Plan promotes the re-development of brownfield sites (PM010). Past experience shows that developers much prefer developing greenfield sites. There is nothing in the modified City Plan which gives incentives to develop brownfield sites over greenfield, or suggests any mechanism by which the numbers of new dwellings is to be monitored to ensure that greenfield sites are developed in proportion to and in parallel with development of brownfield sites.






Page 39 of 541


Respondent Number:

83

Individuals Name:

Graeme Forrest

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:the strategy


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


The Urban fringe assessment within the City Plan has looked across Brighton & Hove but only superficially. There is no detail on the different areas and impacts to Saltdean that additional development would create: each site is unique and should be assessed accordingly 1. There is no view on the cumulative traffic issues on development Saltdean only has access along A259, and through the rat run� of Steyning Road leading to Rottingdean. Additional traffic caused by developments will not dissipate easily due to the location of the town being land (i.e. the South Downs National Park) and sea locked 2. There is a lack of local demand for the sort housing that is being proposed 1st time buyers would be excluded but it would be attractive to 2nd home owners . 3. Saltdean is one of 4 separate Deans Ovingdean, Woodingdean and Rottingdean. Each area has its own distinct identity and area. Cumulative development will start to merge these areas which will mean a loss of this identity 4. The aim of any development on urban fringe is to increase accessible areas, eco-tourism and complement green fields. Building around Saltdean will be in direct contradiction to this aim particularly where the fringe shares all the unique characteristics of the directly adjoining SDNP 5. There is a lack of infrastructure to support additional population in Saltdean doctors and dentists, roads are already heavily oversubscribed. The, local school is full and existing plans to increase its capacity are already taken there is no additional space. 6. The national grid is at capacity in the area before any additional development takes place I trust these comments will be considered as part of the process.






Page 40 of 541


Respondent Number:

139

Individuals Name:

Matthew Grout

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:The spatial distribution of Development





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Overview and background The Deans villages Ovingdean, Rottingdean, Woodingdean and Saltdean are seriously lacking in infrastructure and the road system is currently operating well above what it can cope with. The area is grinding to a halt. With that in mind the modifications to Urban Fringe Assessment will facilitate large numbers of house building applications to be made in this area as a result of the government inspector of planning's comments on Brighton's emerging City Plan. Because of these comments the city is obliged to drastically increase the amount of house building. So the council has chosen to re-assess the cities outlying natural spaces. This draft urban fringe� re-assessment tentatively suggests that there are 39 sites which subject to public consultation and council debate may be considered for houses to be built on. There is much serious concern in the local community and within the council itself. The outcome of this consultation will set a powerful precedent. In its current form the re-assessment identifies a cluster of sites in the Deans villages that if built on will create very densely planned housing. It therefore lays a firm foundation for developers to make many applications to build large scale housing developments. For instance the Urban Fringe re-assessment suggests that on site 42 an allocation of up to 45 houses might be considered. A developer has applied to build 110 houses and is now in negotiation with the planning department, who I believe due to massive opposition to this scheme due to the lack of infrastructure in the area, has asked for the number to be reduced. But the developer is insisting that they are granted permission to build 85, under threat of appeal. The assessment has fallen at the first hurdle. The developer has the upper hand and is bullying the council. The developer has absolutely no regard for this community and is motivated by personal gain at any cost. This application is phase 1 of a 5 phase masterplan to build 315 houses in the close vicinity. The developers proposals for phases 2 to 5 were made public on the internet but have since been removed. However as they have not, to my knowledge, made any statement to retract these proposals they should be considered as a clear statement of intent. Hyde Homes have applied for 46 homes on site 50, (Saltdean, designated for only 12). Ovingdean sites 38a, 39, 41 and 43 are designated for 67 houses to which , no doubt, the developers will be trying to increase the numbers at every step. So we could have an immediate serious population explosion in Ovingdean and the other Deans Villages as they have similar designations including a large development near the racecourse, building on Roedean mini golf course and directly in front of and up to the boundary of the Lawn Memorial Gardens, cemetery in Woodingdean The Deans villages, Woodingdean, Ovingdean, Rottingdean, Saltdean, currently have congested roads, inadequate social and medical services and a shortage of school places. The logistics and cost of sustaining an era of considerable housing development in these areas is huge. Remember that high quality exemplary solutions like new roads, schools, surgeries, libraries, social services and leisure facilities are the very least that the population expect to be delivered in tandem with house construction, without people campaigning for them. For example the performance of schools that are supporting the community by providing children with an education that is fast approaching outstanding, (Rudyard Kipling Primary School is one of the best performing award winning schools in the country), is in danger of being reversed if admissions rise too quickly as the schools will not be able to cope unless they receive large scale, ongoing financial investment and strategic planning for extra staff, management and premises. If all this is not in place running alongside development these areas will become pockets of social and economic depression reliant on the rest of the city to support them. City Policy The effects that these developments will have on the transport system and provision of school places will be detrimental to the social and economic well being and health and safety of the local and wider community. This will contravene Brighton and Hove Policy QD27 Protection of Amenity from the B&H Local Plan. It is not being replaced therefore going forward into the City Plan QD27 Protection of amenity Planning permission for any development or change of use will not be granted where it would cause material nuisance and loss of amenity to the proposed, existing and / or adjacent users, residents, occupiers or where it is liable to be detrimental to human health. 3.118 When determining planning applications the planning authority will endeavor to protect the amenity of an area, its users, residents and occupiers, including a

Page 41 of 541


development's future users, residents and occupiers. Residents and occupiers can be seriously affected by changes in overlooking, privacy, daylight, sunlight, disturbance and outlook. Disturbance includes factors such as speed, volume and type of traffic, noise, artificial lighting, smell and other pollution, erosion and flooding. The policies in this Plan dealing with these factors will be applied rigorously where new development, including alterations and extensions, unduly affects an area and its users, occupiers and residents. The Local Neighbourhood Plan The Rottingdean Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan is also being developed in consultation with the community and City Council. It opposes the development on site 42 and generally in Rottingdean Government Policy The government are well aware that the national planning policies presumption in favour of sustainable development is a far to broad brush approach to planning, and have intimated this in the Media and correspondence with the inspectorate, warning of the dangers of the policy. Brighton is a case in point. Our coastline and the national park reduces our hinterland. We are a university town but student accommodation is not taken into account. Our brownfield sites are numerous and are supported with established infrastructure that can be developed. They should be more fully investigated. This is in line with government thinking and that of leading architectural urban planning experts such as Lord Richard Rogers Brighton should be a leader on modern city planning showing a progressive way forward that secures a quality way of life for future generations, rather than a city ruled by property developers making profit at our expense. Additionally, the legal status of site 42 Furthermore, Site 42, (Meadow Vale), should not have been taken out of the National Park. The map used was out of date and incorrectly showed the whole site as playing fields rather than predominantly wild green space. This is well known locally and there is currently a community campaign top correct this mistake before it is too late Ongoing Precedent Study The following is an extract from my objection to the proposed development of site 42. I have included it as it illustrates How a developer, armed with the Draft Urban Fringe Re-assessment, can misrepresent the true picture of how a development will affect the our City. The documents that I refer are the supporting documents of the planning application : Planning reference 2014/02589 Land South of Ovingdean Road Lightwood Developments outline application with appearance matters reserved for the construction of 100 single, two, three, four and five bed dwellings set over one and two storeys with associated garages, car parking, internal estate roads, pedestrian footways and linkages, public open spaces and landscaping. Creation of new vehicular access from Ovingdean Road, junction improvements and other associated works. Detailed comments based on the Transport Assessment - Appendix 9 and Environmental Statement 5 Socio Economics, Education My main concerns focus on the effects that the development will have on the transport system and provision of school places being detrimental to the social and economic well being and health and safety of the local and wider community. Roads generally - The transport assessment fails to show the true picture of traffic congestion in this area. The dates and times of traffic counts, (3.1, 3.6), are far too limited. The Falmer Road/A27 junction should have been assessed because the data that has been used instead is out of date and will not take the additional traffic generated by the Amex Community Stadium into account as it was not built, (1.3 and Appendix A - email from Katie Stock to Keith Jacobs). Extremely heavy Traffic congestion is well known, locally, to be a regular problem. The reasons are numerous. Apart from morning and evening peak, during school term from approximately three pm school rush hour begins. There are many all year round local leisure and tourist attractions such as the racecourse, Amex community stadium, South Downs National Park, Rottingdean and Ovingdean Heritage and history, the beaches and the Lido. This is therefore a popular area for : - local leisure seekers, all year - weekend tourists, all year - holiday season tourists - football supporters - people attending events at the Amex stadium, ( this facility is developing towards becoming A venue for major events) Additionally there are road closures in Brighton causing delays during the Brighton marathon and half marathon on two days per year. The London to Brighton cycle ride brings additional traffic as trains do not take bicycles back to London any more and the Falmer Road becomes an alternative route from the Seafront back to the A27 on one day per year. Traffic for Other London to Brighton "runs" also use this route on at least eight days a year : - mini rally - Volkswagen rally - Land Rovers - motorbikes - veteran cars - veteran trucks and lorries So adding the school traffic and the traffic generated by the attractions, all year round, ( which includes all Brighton Albion football team home matches), the reality is that there is frequently extremely bad traffic congestion. None of this is considered. The failure to count traffic queues at the various junctions, (3.10, 3.11), of more than ten vehicles is astonishing. It is very well known locally that queues of twenty, thirty, forty are extremely frequent and one hundred is not uncommon. Despite the topology it is quite easy to observe this, and even easier if two observers are used. The attached photograph was taken pointing north along the Falmer Road on the evening on September 3rd 2014. The road on the left is New Barn Road. The traffic jam starts at the Junction of Falmer Road and Marine Drive in Rottingdean, a distance of approximately 0.9 miles. This is a normal traffic jam. This failure renders the data and modeling, throughout the document, wildly inaccurate. The opening statements - 1.6, 1.7, statements - 3.13, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, Summary - 8.28, 8.30, 8.31, 8.32, Conclusions - 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8 are therefore invalid and must be disregarded. In summary, the roads are operating way above what they can cope with causing regular serious congestion. A breakdown, minor accident, leisure event, good beach weather, etc make it much worse. Any additional traffic increases these problems. Highway safety - the table, 2.21, is too restricted as it does not cover the whole of the Falmer Road it is well known locally that in the last few years there have been serious and fatal accidents on this road. Buses - The table, 2.34, confirms what is locally known. The bus service in this area is slow and extremely limited and infrequent across various destinations, particularly in the evenings and at weekends. Because of this many people revert to car journeys. Journey times, 2.36 are more like 30 to 40 minutes. The City Plan estimates that when the proposed 20 mph zones are implemented Warren road will take 31% longer to travel along Proximity to local services and amenities, 2.39, 2.42 - using local shops should be encouraged. They are very good. But there are extremely few of them and they have very limited stock,

Page 42 of 541


opening times, choice and are expensive compared to the supermarkets. Online shopping helps but the harsh economic reality is that most people drive to a supermarket at least once a week. Furthermore, in this area non car modes of travel are not a completely reliable alternative to the car. Car ownership is essential for safety due to regular occurrences of heavy snow and blizzards which suspend all bus, rail and taxi services. Every winter It is quite normal for this area to be completely cut of for days. During these times four wheel drive vehicles are the only option for essential journeys. Ownership of these vehicles is high and rising. They can be expensive to purchase run and maintain so people like to use them as much as possible. In summary the conclusions on sustainability, 2.43,2.44, 2.45, and the statements 4.5, 4.7 are therefore invalid Education - There are major inaccuracies and omissions which misrepresent the availability of primary school places. There are eight, not eighteen, primary schools within the two mile radius of the site, see 5.3.27, table 5.4, and the location of schools map, figure 5.2. Primary schools seven to fifteen must be disregarded. The surplus figures are also incorrect. The Local Education Authority Schools Admissions team have confirmed to me the following currently available spaces for two of the schools : School 5, Woodingdean Primary - two places across two year groups School 6, Bevendean Primary - four spaces Schools 1, 2 and 16 are faith schools. They are identified as such in the table but there is no reference to the reduced availability of places for some children because their admissions policies are not fully inclusive. Their criteria gives first preference to baptised children from regular church attending Catholic / Church of England Christians who live within the parish boundary. The availability of spaces for children that do not fulfill this criteria, is therefore extremely limited. City Academy Whitehawk is a two bus ride from the site. It was one of the most poorly performing schools in Brighton. In September 2011 it was graded as inadequate by, the schools inspectorate, Ofsted. It was placed in a "Special Measures" programme and received expert help and support and was required to make structural changes to the management and operation of the school. In 2012 a follow up inspection found that although some improvements had been made considerable improvement was still required. The school was closed and converted into an Academy in September 2013. I do hope that the school continues improving but as it has not been inspected since becoming an academy it is clear that with such a record and as it is very difficult to get by bus, it will certainly not be the first choice for most parents and this will be a stumbling block for the developments potential house buyers. Bevendean Primary is also a two bus journey from the site. The only schools that can be considered as realistically available to all people in this area, and the new development, are schools 4, 5 and as they are inclusive schools with some extra capacity and they can be reached without lengthy bus journeys or car journeys spent in heavy traffic. It is well known locally that the trend at School 4, Rudyard Kipling is that due to the schools continuing excellent progress, (graded good with outstanding aspects), places are being taken fast and the school is quickly approaching full capacity. There needs to be a forecast based on this to estimate how many additional places may be available by the time that the development starts generating school age children. At the moment the total amount of additional capacity is extremely small and likely to reduce. The way that the amount of school age children generated by the development is presented is misleading. The totals in table 5.11, 5.12 need to be multiplied by the amount of each housing type, in table 5.10.This makes the amount of school aged children far higher than the figures stated in 5.4.18. In summary, considering the reality of the serious lack of spaces, the additional children will have far more than negligible effect on education, stated in 5.4.22. A large scale programme of schools expansion will be required along with a major developers financial contribution, 5.4.19 Conclusion This site is key to how this city develops. Granting this application will set a precedent that could encourage large scale unsustainable therefore inappropriate development throughout the city diverting attention from the brownfield sites which as I explained earlier are far more suitable for housing development. This could create pockets of social and economic depression reliant on the rest of the city to support them. END OF EXTRACT It is clear that this Modification to the City Plan most not be approved


See my statement under the heading Government Policy in Question 4c



No




Page 43 of 541


Respondent Number:

126

Individuals Name:

Roger & Sue Harper

Agents Name:


1







Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Our views are based in particular on the impact of Benfield Valley and area identified as the Urban Fringe. This is an important area to the gateway to the South Downs National Park and I do not believe the modifications are soundly thought out. They will not satisfy the requirements of the South Downs National Park nor achieve sustainable development.


The plan should retain the original housing target at 11,300 new homes. This was always a minimum target and should reflect the wider requirement to allocate space for people living not just to accommodate housing. I object to the provision of housing within the urban fringe and in particular Benfield Valley This space should not be used for housing but to take into account outdoor sporting activities and to support open space for the adjacent housing areas. I object to the Summary of Development Proposals and in particular the target of 1060 houses within the urban fringe. For example I have seen recent outline proposals for housing development in Benfield Valley (Nov 2014) and at the time they had given no thought to the impact on Transport nor offered any significant enhancement to walking or cycling along the Valley and offered no affordable/ social housing and no thought of the wider impact on wildlife, schools, doctors, dentists and leisure facilities. The provision of this target will only open the door to such poorly ill-thought forms of development.


I remain unconvinced that additional housing can be accommodated in a sustainable way without detrimental impact on the existing path network, wildlife, drainage, air and water quality





I am concerned about outline development plans for Benfield Valley being exhibited in November 2014 ahead of the outcome of these modifications and that some slight of hand action will enable this proposal to gain some form of approval.

Page 44 of 541


Respondent Number:

140

Left Unity Brighton & Hove Branch

Individuals Name:

Dave Bangs

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:The Strategy, pages 24,28, 29 and paragraphs 2.7,2.18, 2.20 and Table 3 Summary of Development Proposals


Legally Compliant?:


See Supporting Papers and Map indicating additional areas of housing development potential. Our comments relate to two proposed modifications within the Proposed Modifications Schedule. ONE. This refers to The Spatial Distribution of Development (Your Ref PM010 / The Strategy, pages 24, 28, 29) paragraphs 2.7, 2.19, 2.20, and Table 3 Summary of Development Proposals. We reject the modifications proposed within this section. The quantum of New Homes and Employment Floorspace proposed in the cell entitled Rest of the City: a/ within the built-up area. b/ within the urban area does not accurately reflect the objective potential within these two categories. Whilst not, in these comments, seeking to challenge the mapped development areas DA1 to DA8 (which include the appalling Toads Hole Valley proposals) it must be pointed out that the quantum misses the areas with the largest development potentials. In doing so, these proposals thrust the direction of development onto the urban fringe, despite its intrinsic resources and its critical functions of buffering the National Park landscape and supporting National Park objectives. We argue that four large areas of development potential (SEE ATTACHED MAP) are missed by these modifications. These four large areas have much in common. They consist of: - Very low density housing of high monetary value, providing for economically privileged residents with levels of locational housing choice which greatly exceed those in real housing need in the City. - Both their housing density and their levels of occupation are grossly wasteful, such that if they were public housing a huge proportion of their residents would be subject to the Bedroom Tax. - These areas privatise potential shared green space, which is, as a result, greatly under-used. Area 1: Land west of the London-Brighton railway line between the Upper Drive, Old Shoreham Road, Hove Park, Three Cornered Copse, and Devils Dyke Road, with an additional area between Preston Park railway station and Withdean Woods. Area 2: Land east of the London Brighton railway line between the London Road, Carden Avenue, Braybon Avenue, Surrenden Road, Ditchling Road, and Preston Drove. Area 3: Land at Roedean, east of Black Rock - north and south of Roedean Road. Area 4: Land at Rottingdean - north of St Margarets Church, and between Dean Court Road and Bazehill Road. In addition, it must be pointed out that the levels of housing development which Government seeks to impose on the City are intrinsically unsustainable and reflect patterns of uneven (and therefore unjust and environmentally damaging) development both within the United Kingdom, at the level of the European Union, and globally. They must be challenged, not accommodated. TWO. This refers to the Urban Fringe (Your Ref PM064, Policy SA4 Urban Fringe, page 111-113). We reject the modifications proposed within this section. We seek particularly to highlight our objection to your addition (base of page 42 / top of page 43) worded Should proposals for development come forward prior to the adoption of Part 2 of the City Plan, the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment will be a material planning consideration in the determination of applications for residential development within the urban fringe�. The case for our objection is outlined in our ATTACHED document entitled A brief assessment of The 2014 Brighton and Hove Urban Fringe Assessment �


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



See attached Papers with representation: Our comments relate to two proposed modifications within the Proposed Modifications Schedule. ONE. This refers to The Spatial Distribution of Development (Your Ref PM010 / The Strategy, pages 24, 28, 29) paragraphs 2.7, 2.19, 2.20, and Table 3 Summary of Development Proposals. We reject the modifications proposed within this section. The quantum of New Homes and Employment Floorspace proposed in the cell entitled Rest of the City: a/ within the built-up area. b/ within the urban area does not accurately

Page 45 of 541


reflect the objective potential within these two categories. Whilst not, in these comments, seeking to challenge the mapped development areas DA1 to DA8 (which include the appalling Toads Hole Valley proposals) it must be pointed out that the quantum misses the areas with the largest development potentials. In doing so, these proposals thrust the direction of development onto the urban fringe, despite its intrinsic resources and its critical functions of buffering the National Park landscape and supporting National Park objectives. We argue that four large areas of development potential (SEE ATTACHED MAP) are missed by these modifications. These four large areas have much in common. They consist of: - Very low density housing of high monetary value, providing for economically privileged residents with levels of locational housing choice which greatly exceed those in real housing need in the City. - Both their housing density and their levels of occupation are grossly wasteful, such that if they were public housing a huge proportion of their residents would be subject to the Bedroom Tax. - These areas privatise potential shared green space, which is, as a result, greatly under-used. Area 1: Land west of the London-Brighton railway line between the Upper Drive, Old Shoreham Road, Hove Park, Three Cornered Copse, and Devils Dyke Road, with an additional area between Preston Park railway station and Withdean Woods. Area 2: Land east of the London Brighton railway line between the London Road, Carden Avenue, Braybon Avenue, Surrenden Road, Ditchling Road, and Preston Drove. Area 3: Land at Roedean, east of Black Rock - north and south of Roedean Road. Area 4: Land at Rottingdean - north of St Margarets Church, and between Dean Court Road and Bazehill Road. In addition, it must be pointed out that the levels of housing development which Government seeks to impose on the City are intrinsically unsustainable and reflect patterns of uneven (and therefore unjust and environmentally damaging) development both within the United Kingdom, at the level of the European Union, and globally. They must be challenged, not accommodated. TWO. This refers to the Urban Fringe (Your Ref PM064, Policy SA4 Urban Fringe, page 111-113). We reject the modifications proposed within this section. We seek particularly to highlight our objection to your addition (base of page 42 / top of page 43) worded Should proposals for development come forward prior to the adoption of Part 2 of the City Plan, the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment will be a material planning consideration in the determination of applications for residential development within the urban fringe�. The case for our objection is outlined in our ATTACHED document entitled A brief assessment of The 2014 Brighton and Hove Urban Fringe Assessment Preamble The City of Brighton is a Downland City. That is, it is largely built upon the same rolling chalk hills that are now largely within the South Downs National Park. This means that the open Downland of the National Park is hugely inter-visible with the built-upon Downland of the Brighton conurbation. The remaining area of open Downland north of the greater Brighton conurbation is so narrow that its integrity as an area of natural beauty worthy of National Park status is at severe risk. Indeed, the inescapable visual interference of the built-up area with the naturalness of the open Downland, and the noise pollution caused by the A27 and A23 corridors, already hugely reduce the integrity of the National Park landscape. In sum, the National Park landscape is at severe risk, and is already severely damaged. It cannot manage any further damage to its core qualities . 2. The Assessment Findings The Assessment fails to understand either the core qualities of the urban fringe sites it judges as having housing potential, or the wider role they play in protecting the integrity of the designated National Park landscape. It is striking that seven of the clusters this Assessment considers as having housing potential are important Gateways for accessing the National Parks open Downland: - Mile Oak Valley, Hangleton / Benfield Valleys, Old Patcham, Ladies Mile, Coldean Woods, Whitehawk Hill / Warren Road Ridge, North Saltdean. It is striking that several clusters have multiple layers of public qualities which demand respect, enhancement and remediation, not damage or obliteration. Thus: - Hangleton / Benfield Valleys, Old Patcham, and Ovingdean Farm have important historic built assemblages, and landscape features. - The Mile Oak Valley, Ladies Mile, and Whitehawk Hill have crucial wildlife and archaeological assemblages, which, in the case of Whitehawk Hill, are of national importance. - The Coldean Woods and Ovingdean Farm sites have important landscape functions within larger complexes (the Stanmer Woods constellation, and the Ovingdean Valley view she'd). - The Mile Oak Valley, Coldean Woods, Whitehawk Hill / Warren Road Ridge, Ovingdean Farm, and North Saltdean sites are hugely inter-visible with the wider National Park. The 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment is instrumental and without substance. It is absolutely imperative that this Assessment NOT become a material consideration in the determination of applications for residential development within the urban fringe. 3. Assessment sites considered as having housing potential 3.a. West The Mile Oak Valley: sites 1 to 6 The Mile Oak Valley suburb already greatly damages the National Park landscape, forming a mile long salient into open Downland of great inter-visibility with the surrounding National Park landscape. Yet its surrounding landscape is of crucial landscape, wildlife, archaeological, and recreational importance. It has a half mile boundary with Southwick Hill - the only archaic down pasture site on the 15 mile conurbation urban fringe with an intact historical continuity of management. It is a fully publicly accessible site of SSSI quality (though not designated because already protected by National Trust ownership) and a major recreational resource for people of Portslade, Southwick, and the wider conurbation. All of these sites are part of the open, corrugated geography of the Downs. All of them constitute part of an important Gateway to the wider Downs. All of them have a buffering function for the wider Downscape. Sites 5a/6 have an allotment site. 3.b. West - Hangleton Bottom and Benfield Valleys: sites 7 to 12 The old closes (small, enclosed farmstead paddocks forming sites 11 & 12) are a key part of the linked historic complex of Benfield Farmstead and Hangleton Manor. The setting of the Manor has already been badly damaged by inappropriate development of its protecting wooded grounds, and this should be avoided at all costs at its sister manorial farmstead of Benfield. Indeed, these sites were earmarked for management as a pocket park by the Director of Leisure and the Deputy Director of Planning in the old Hove Council . Benfield Farm / Hangleton Manor constitute an important and much used Gateway to the wider Downs and should be managed to enhance that function, not detract from it. Hangleton Bottom (sites 8 & 9)

Page 46 of 541


would be most usefully used as a travellers site, given its past successful usage for that purpose, and given the extreme need for such provision in the conurbation. 3.c. North Old Patcham, Ladies Mile: sites 16 & 17 Old Patcham (site 16) forms a key rus in urbe complex of medieval parish church, great barn and other historic farmstead and cottage buildings, allotment sites and recreation ground. It retains this rural quality despite the close proximity and awful noise pollution of the A27 bypass and A23 interchange. No person, given free choice, would choose a home in such an exposed and noise-polluted site. By contrast, most people can enjoy the recreational usage of this site as a Gateway to the Downs, and as a part of the historic landscape setting of this ancient Downland village. Ladies Miles open Downland (site17) is a key wildlife, archaeological, landscape, and recreational Gateway resource for the Park and the City. It has one of the two best surviving archaic plateau chalk grassland sites in the City . (Plateau chalk grassland is extremely rare on the Downs because its flatness makes it most vulnerable to ploughing and improvement, and because most plateau archaic Down pasture sites are acid and healthy in character, not calcareous). It is also the only surviving archaic Down pasture site along the three mile long Ditchling Road Ridge from Hollingbury Castle Iron Age hillfort to Ditchling Beacon Iron Age hillfort. Much of it is damaged by scrub incursion and under-management. Ladies Miles open Downland needs enhancement, not further major encroachment. 3.d. North Coldean: site 21 The Coldean Lane woods and meadows are an important part of the historic Stanmer Park constellation of designed and planted woodlands. Recent new halls of residence developed at Varley Halls have already ramped up the damage to the unity of the open upper slopes of the Coldean Valley, risking ending the visual containment of the Valley estate and breaking in to the visual integrity of the high plateau landscape. The meadows are best managed as a recreational facility with high aesthetic and wildlife value. 3.e. South - The Racecourse Landscape. Whitehawk Hill / Warren Road Ridge: sites 27 to 35 It is extraordinary that Whitehawk Hill should have been treated in such a cavalier fashion in the Assessment, for it is a sub-landscape of national importance. It is also, of course, set in a large area of working class housing, and its proximity to marginalised communities lays it open to these sort of abusive proposals. It is fish and chip Downland, not cream tea Downland, and it suffers accordingly, despite its objective resources. Site 30 (suggested for 150 homes) is also, of course, within the bounds of the 105 acre Race Ground, which was dedicated as a recreational common at the 1822 enclosure of Brighton's commons and open fields. The deed of dedication states that the inhabitants of Brighton and the public in general should have the use of it for the purposes of racing and other purposes of exercise and diversion...� The combined Whitehawk / Warren Road sites have a Local Nature Reserve, a Scheduled Ancient Monument, an adjacent area of archaeological importance, and a large, historic allotment complex. This landscape is the key to unlocking the prehistory and history of Brighton. It is the core landscape feature of Old Brighton, the best archaic chalk grassland and old scrub site on the City urban fringe, the oldest (c. 1770) formal Downland public recreational site in Brighton, and the most prominent Downland feature along the coast for many miles. It is also one of the oldest (5000 BP) sacred sites in Britain, having a continuing funerary function, which first commenced in the Neolithic, and continued into late prehistoric and maybe Saxon times before its revival 160 years ago (Woodvale). Its causewayed enclosure is one of only 10 well-preserved examples in Britain. Furthermore, its chalk grassland and scrub forms a wildlife ecosystem with a direct continuity back to the Neolithic clearances of the Downland wildwood. They are a rare example of living archaeology, with an ancient wildlife assemblage which is anthropogenic in origin, but natural in its constituent species (mollusks, spiders and other arthropods, fungi and flowering plants). A key part of this assemblage (in site 30) is the ancient Gorse thicket at the north end of Whitehawk Hills steep slope, adjacent to the North Whitehawk flats, which the Assessment falsely describes as in (...) the Whitehawk Estate�. (In fact they are in the Local Nature Reserve). It hosts Stonechat, Dartford and other Warblers, and many other scrub dependent birds and insects. A key part of the open landscape setting of the causewayed camp are the historic allotments (in site 31) targeted as of housing potential. They also host many of the rough ground species of the Local Nature Reserve, such as the nationally scarce and charismatic Great Green Bush Cricket. Sites 32 and 33 on the Race Hill / Warren Road ridge top are absurd as sites of housing potential. They remind one of the hill top beauty spot housing schemes of the inter-war years, such as for a bungalow estate at the Devils Dyke, or plot lands on Patchams Sweet Hill, or Standean....or the housing estates right on the crest of the North Downs at Box Hill and Woldingham. 3.f. East Black Rock: site 37 Extant open cliff top east of Brighton has intrinsic rarity value. This site is important for informal recreation and has potential for archaic grassland restoration. 3.g. East Ovingdean: sites 38 to 42 Sites 38 and 39 embrace the extended agribusiness farmyards, sheds and paddocks of Ovingdean Farm, which were constructed as a result of past strategic misjudgments in managing the Brighton Council farmlands estate. Since then their usage has been intensified with infill residential development. They now constitute an eyesore in this two mile long Downland dry valley, which extends to Ovingdean Gaps cliffs. Any further intensification of built development in this very exposed nodal site will further damage this extended hill-valley-farm-medieval hamlet panorama in this part of the National Park. The site needs roll-back of its excessive sprawl, and a new, high quality set of built-to-last farm buildings, not residential development. Site 41 is a ridge top Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) designated for its old Downland flora and fauna, which the Council planning function should seek to preserve and enhance and re-incorporate within the wider public landscape. Site 42 was erroneously omitted from the National Park and should be treated for what it is: - a part of the wider, open Downscape. 3.h. East North Saltdean: sites 46 to 48 Both the Looes Barn and Coombe Farm sites form important Gateways to the open Downs. Both have been damaged by neglect and inappropriate piecemeal built development. Both require remediation and roll-back of this neglect, and a proper integration of their Downland farming and Gateway functions. The north slope of Tenant Hill, overlooking Coombe Farm, is an open access archaic chalk grassland site of high value. The views from there should be enhanced, not eroded.

Page 47 of 541



See attached papers.


It is wholly instrumental and poorly informed.





The case needs to be made orally.

Page 48 of 541


Respondent Number:

35

Ovingdean Estates Limited

Individuals Name:

Teale and Brindley Families

Agents Name:Simon Bareham


2


Policy/Section:Section 2 - The Strategy


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Objection submitted on behalf of the owners of part of the Urban Fringe Site 43 (Land to rear of Longhill Road, Ovingdean). The Council is now proposing a minimum housing target of 13,200 units. Given that the Inspectors December 2013 observations were based on an Objectively Assessed Need for housing of 20,000 units (and a target of 11,300 units), and the fact that the Council is now stating that its Objectively Assessed Need should be increased to up to 24,000 units, it can be seen that the revised 13,200 target generates an even greater shortfall than before (a shortfall of 10,800 units instead of 8,700 units). A much higher target should be provided, making far better use of urban fringe sites and the potential for tall buildings, in order that the Citys needs can be satisfied. The Proposed Modifications do not go far enough to overcome the Inspector's initial findings into the City Plan (see Inspector's letter dated 13 December 2013). The Councils Urban Fringe Assessment (that informs the Councils revised housing targets) has not taken full account of potential sites, and so recommends too low a figure for urban fridge sites and their contribution to overall housing supply. The Councils Urban Fringe Assessment (that informs the Councils revised housing targets) has not taken full account of potential sites, and so recommends too low a figure for urban fridge sites and their contribution to overall housing supply. (Submission included extracts considered relevant from the Inspectors letter and the Councils Urban Fringe Analysis dated June 2014. For reference these have been abbreviated as follows: Inspectors letter (13 December 2013) paras: Bearing in mind the Frameworks requirementsthe full objectively assessed need is the higher end of the range, ie 20,000 new dwellings. The Plan proposes a target for the provision of new housing of 11,300 represent a significant shortfall and substantial weight must be given to the consequent failure to meet the social dimension of sustainable development. I recognise that there are significant constraints Howeverit is important that the Council rigorously assesses all opportunities to meet that need. Urban Fringe Sites. These sites are not subject to nationally recognised designations I have doubts as to whether some of these areas would meet the requirements of paragraph 77 of the Framework.Having now seen some of the sites possibility of allowing development on these sites, which would enable the provision of good quality public open space, as part of a package of development.In view of the significant shortfall in meeting objectively-assessed needs I consider the Council should undertake a more rigorous analysis of the urban fringe sites,for the delivery of new housing from this source.I recognise the constraints faced by the Council but if I am to find the Plan sound, notwithstanding such a significant shortfall in the provision of new housing, I would need to be satisfied that the Council had left no stone unturned in seeking to meet as much of this need as possible. Urban Fringe Assessment June 2014 Extract from Main Report page 39 showing assessment of site 43 Extract of site 43 assessment map provided Assessment Proforma for site 43 attached as an Appendix to the representations submitted. Page 39 of the Urban Fringe Assessment states that site 43 is suitable for a low density development of just 6 units. The Assessment has only considered the north east corner of the site (shaded in red hatching) as suitable for development, and has left the remainder of our clients site as undeveloped. The inspector should note that the land has never been open land or publically accessible, and so there is no reason why the Council should be attempting to restrict this land for Natural and Semi Natural Urban Green Space (brown shading) and as a Nature Improvements Area (vertical blue hatching). Given the Inspectors observations that there should be a rigorous analysis of urban fringe sites, and that the Council should leave no stone unturned in seeking to meet as much of its need as possible it is clear that the Urban Fringe Assessment is lacking in terms of advising on the potential of sites to contribute to housing need. Our clients site is roughly 4 times larger than the area considered suitable for development in the Urban Fringe Assessment (see submitted map of clients site). The site is clearly suitable for development as it a) could easily accommodate in the order of up to 25 dwellings; b) benefits from direct road access onto Longhill Close (to the south-west) and Wanderdown Close (to the north); and c) is not of high ecological value. The site is in private ownership and the Council has no power to demand that our clients facilitate nature improvements to the site (in itself, this implies that the site is not currently of high ecological value). The Urban Fringe Assessment therefore underplays the sites potential for contributing to housing need. Whilst we appreciate that the Council is intending to make specific site allocations in its forthcoming City Plan Part Two document, those allocations will be based on the proposed

Page 49 of 541


quantum of housing development set out in the City Plan Part 1. The quantum of development set out in Part 1 is based (in part) on the Urban Fringe Assessment, and so it is correct to consider the failings of the Assessment (to rigorously assess the potential of urban fringe sites to contribute to housing need) at this time. These representations demonstrate that the Council has not paid sufficient regard to the Inspectors observations from 13 December 2013, and so is not proposing a sufficiently high enough target for new housing in order meet with its Objectively Assessed Need for housing. The proposed modifications do not allow for sufficient housing development, and the supporting documentation (the Urban Fringe Assessment) does not provide a robust enough analysis of sites to ensure that the ability of the urban fringe (to help with housing supply) has been maximised. (BHCC Officer note: The objector provided detailed comments on the Urban Fringe Assessment's analysis of site number 43 suggesting more of the site could be developed and indicating it could easily accommodate in the order of up to 25 dwellings)






Respondent Number:

13

North Laine Community Association

Individuals Name:

Sandy Crowhurst

Agents Name:


1






I question the sustainability of the City Plan which is based on housing targets to the detriment of any services for local residents in North Laine particularly.


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The proposals for housing include any local service provided such as garages, shops, trade warehousing which implies that any local resident will have to use out of town suppliers, therefore increasing car and traffic use. Not so good if one does not have a car.







Page 50 of 541


Respondent Number:

75

Individuals Name:

Mr D Hunter

Agents Name:Luke Carter


2




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


In the light of the objections to the Urban Fringe Assessment, the following objections are lodged in respect of the Proposed Modifications PM010. The Council is now proposing a minimum housing target of 13,200 units. Given that the Inspectors December 2013 observations were based on an Objectively Assessed Need for housing of 20,000 units (and a target of 11,300 units), and the fact that the Council is now stating that its Objectively Assessed Need should be increased to up to 24,000 units, it can be seen that the revised 13,200 target generates an even greater shortfall than before (a shortfall of 10,800 units instead of 8,700 units). A much higher target should be provided, making far better use of urban fringe sites and the potential for tall buildings, in order that the City's needs can be satisfied.






Page 51 of 541


Respondent Number:

103

X-Leisure Ltd and Land Securities

Individuals Name:

Polly Troughton and Mark Lomax

Agents Name:Pauline Roberts


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The NPPF (para. 14) advises that Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change�. Some leeway is afforded when the impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits� and as explained in the NPPG (para. 45, 6 October 2014). It is accepted that Brighton and Hove is constrained with the sea to the south and South Downs National Park to the north, but our client is concerned that the Council is not taking the opportunity within the City Plan to optimise the density of allocated sites to help meet housing need. The proposed minimum housing target to be achieved by 2030 is 13,200, up from the earlier figure of 11,300. This increase is supported but it still falls woefully short of the Councils own objective assessment of housing need which ranges between 18,000 - 24,000 new homes. It is important that to help achieve this target most efficient use is made of strategic sites (Sites DA1 - 8) and brownfield land for housing delivery and recognises the potential for housing in the urban fringe. Accordingly, the capacity of the Inner Harbour site in Policy DA2 should, in line with previously submitted representations, be increased to reflect a minimum of 1,300 dwellings� considered necessary to ensure a viable development.


The capacity of the Inner Harbour site in Policy DA2 should, in line with previously submitted representations, be increased to reflect a minimum of 1,300 dwellingsconsidered necessary to ensure a viable development. This would result in an associated increase to the overall minimum housing target set out in The Strategy to 13,500.





Page 52 of 541


Respondent Number:

142

Saltdean Countryside Alliance

Individuals Name:

J Frowde

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The above modification relates to the reassessment of the potential for housing, of the city's urban fringes by way of the Urban Fringe Assessment Study of June 2014. It is the belief of the Saltdean Countryside Alliance that, in respect of Urban Fringe site 50 Land west of Falmer Avenue, the plan is not sound and not positively prepared and we therefore object to the modification. Land Use Consultants Ltd (LUC) in their detailed site plans & pro forma, appendix 4 for site 50 state that; 1) The site sits within land classified as urban land. It is our belief that this is incorrect and the land retains its agricultural classification. 2) There are no significant environmental issues The site is featured on the Environment Agency flood maps as being a Surface Water High Risk area and this is borne out by the personal knowledge of local residents. Additionally and vitally, 3) There is no mention that the site has no vehicular access of any form. We would assert that (as for site 15) this renders the site as being unsuitable for housing development. Overall it is our contention that these errors and omissions from the site assessment, conducted by LUC, clearly demonstrate that the assessment in respect of site 50 Land west of Falmer Avenue, which gives rise to potential for 12 new dwellings is flawed. It cannot be relied upon, which results in the City Plan Modifications being unsound and not positively prepared.


To allow the City Plan to be considered sound and positively prepared in respect of the urban fringe assessment, the following changes must be made; 1) Site 50 must be amended to indicate: Housing Potential - No Potentially Developable Area of site - 0 (0%) Density - N/A Indicative Number of Dwellings 0 2) The recorded number of new homes contained throughout the city plan must be amended as below; Within the urban fringe from 1060 to 1048 Total housing delivery from 13210 to 13198





Page 53 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


2




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Support the emphasis on brownfield development (paragraph 2.19) as this offers most sustainable approach, providing homes close to jobs and services. On housing we would also like to see more development around the important sustainable transport hubs of Brighton Station and Hove Station, without losing employment space, rather than developing the urban fringe.


The proposed new text in paragraph 2.20 is incorrect to say that there are many Nature Improvement Areas as there is only one in Sussex. It would be more accurate to say that much of the area, including the urban green network, forms part of the South Downs Way Ahead Nature Improvement Area.





Page 54 of 541


Respondent Number:

119



Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


In principle the Brighton Society supports the policies setting out the modified housing target of 13,200 new homes to be achieved by 2030, and the proposals to increase the housing target by 1,900, including the designation of the majority of the potential housing sites on the urban fringe identified in Appendix 3, in order to increase the housing target to that figure. We agree with the Council that the City's potential for expansion is severely constrained by its situation between the sea to the south and the South Downs National Park to the north. We consider that the assessed target figure to provide between 18,000 24,000 new dwellings is unrealistic without seriously compromising the essential character of the City, its historic buildings and environment, its existing amenities and attraction as a place to live and work, and as a centre for tourism - an attraction resulting largely from the city's twin restraints its seaside location and proximity to the South Downs National Park. The Draft City Plan (2012) includes important objectives with regard to the Downland setting of the City. Section 2.4 (An Attractive City) states that the council wants to ensure that the city remains a rewarding, safe and healthier place for residents, businesses and visitors alike with a higher quality built environment and a protected and enhanced natural environment. There are a number of Strategic Objectives including, Objective SO14 "Conserve and enhance the South Downs National Park, including the promotion of an enhanced downland landscape". One of the major achievements of the local planners in the post war years was to concentrate housing in the downland valleys and thus to preserve the landscape of the downland surrounding Brighton and Hove. It is evident that The Draft Plan has the aim of continuing this policy of "conserving and enhancing" the downland landscape. It is vital therefore to ensure that any new proposals for housing in the Urban Fringe Assessment complies with this policy.






Page 55 of 541


Respondent Number:

31

Kingsway and West Hove Residents' Associations

Individuals Name:

Susan Moffatt, Committee Member

Agents Name:


1







Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


The Plan process to date has demonstrated the significant constraints on the capacity of the city to accommodate within the urban area housing growth that is significantly above 11,300. The plan and its associated background documents demonstrate that such an increase could not be accommodated within the urban area without significant loss of land needed for economic and social uses; public open spaces etc; or significant damage to the many areas of historic and architectural importance, or to areas of good quality townscape. The plan and the current modifications also demonstrate that there are important constraints on the amount of housing that can be delivered on brownfield sites, including the Development Areas. Therefore although the development of undeveloped land on the urban fringe is regrettable, an increase in the housing target would make this an inevitable necessity.







Page 56 of 541


Respondent Number:

167

University of BrightonIndividuals Name:

Mike Clark

Agents Name:GVA


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:Yes

Tests of soundness:


The UoB supports the findings of the City Councils study into Housing and Development Need (April 2014) which identifies an objectively assessed housing need within the City of between 18,000-24,000 new homes to be delivered in the period to 2030. The sustainable growth of Brighton & Hove is essential to the success of its higher education institutions as the two are intrinsically linked. By ensuring the needs of the city are met, the City Council will create a more attractive environment (socially, economically and environmentally) for prospective students, who in turn contribute towards social, economic and cultural life within the city. The UoB supports the vision of the City Council to plan positively whilst recognising the unique constraints affecting Brighton & Hove in terms of land availability and the sensitive natural and historic environment. The UoB recognises its role as a key partner in the delivery of the City Councils strategic objectives and is committed to working with Brighton & Hove to fulfil the emerging strategic vision for the city. In order for this to be achieved most effectively, we provide below a number of comments which seek to fine tune the emerging policies so that they align with the Universitys future growth and reorganisation plans.






Page 57 of 541


Respondent Number:

133

Rottingdean Parish Council - Chairman

Individuals Name:

Bob Webzell

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:




When seeking land for further housing development to meet the City Plan target, priority should be given to brownfield sites when ever possible. And if this policy is adopted Parish Councils and those drafting Neighbourhood Plans should also be able to prioritise the use of their brownfield sites for housing growth ahead of greenfield, in meeting local housing requirements and targets


Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:








Page 58 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:

n/a



1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


SLI supports the proposed modifications in respect of the strategy for delivering development and specifically para. 2.19 which recognises that new housing, employment and retail development will be located in brownfield sites within the city, and specifically to the development areas (DA1-8).






Page 59 of 541


Respondent Number:

144

Crest Strategic LtdIndividuals Name:

Jonathon Calcutt

Agents Name:Mr Peter Rainier Director of Planning DMH Stallard LLP


2


Policy/Section:Section 2.10




The Proposed Modifications are considered to be legally compliant for the following reasons: They have been subject to a 6 week consultation period in line with the Council's Statement of Community Involvement and subsequently have complied with the Local Planning Authorities regulations. They have been subject to an updated (addendum) Sustainability Appraisal for the City Plan as a whole.


Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


It is considered that this modification is necessary to make the City Plan effective and therefore sound. The Local Planning Authority's strategy for housing delivery set out by the City Plan is not sufficient to meet the objectively assessed needs identified by the Coastal West Sussex Housing Study Update (which since the hearings took place has been updated from 16,000 - 20,000 to 18,000-24,00). Therefore, in order that the City Plan is compliant with national planning policy, it should be demonstrated by the LPA that they have done all that they can to meet these needs. Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires local planning authorities to meet objectively assessed needs, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole and Paragraph 47 indicates that LPA's must. Use 'their evidence base to ensure their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework In our view, and whilst acknowledging the physical constraints of the City, this proposed modification and inclusion of urban fringe sites as a source for housing indicates that the Council have addressed this requirement and provided a plan that can be considered sound. However, given the constraints on the capacity of the City in other areas and subsequent failure of the LPA to provide enough land for housing to meet their assessed needs, it is considered essential that some urban fringe sites are brought forward. Land which has been identified as having potential for development, particularly sites to the north of the city inside the boundary of the A27, such as that at Mile Oak Road, are considered suitable and deliverable during the early part of the plan period.







Our comments are made on behalf of a prospective developer of one of the urban fringe sites, we would be happy to attend any additional hearing sessions to help the Inspector consider issues concerning these sites such as deliverability.

Page 60 of 541


Respondent Number:

7

Hove Civic SocietyIndividuals Name:

Helmut Lusser, Chairman

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


We support the revised housing supply figures but would like to emphasize that much effort will need to be devoted at part II stage and beyond to enable more development to take place within the city; The Society has previously commented on the Housing Target (initially supporting the middle of three targets), dwelling sizes and the need for district heating for the city. A number of our concerns have been recognised and built into the proposed plan via modifications. We have now considered the proposed modifications to the plan. Our comments are set out in tabular form. PM010 - Increase in housing provision to 13,200 We support this proposed increase although we do not believe that the plan as constructed makes full use of the land available in the city for new housing. We believe serious work will need to be undertaken in the near future, at part II stage and beyond that fully explores the potential of good quality development within the built up areas of the city. We believe that policies such as the high building policy, change of use of policies from commercial to housing etc need to be seriously challenged if the growth of the city into the urban fringe is to be controlled. We do not wish to comment in detail on the various sites identified for development in the urban fringe but consider these to be minor infringements in view of the very substantial housing needs of the city.






Page 61 of 541


Respondent Number:

163


Individuals Name:


Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:Table3 Summary of Development Proposals

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:








The Authority agrees that Brighton and Hove has engaged positively with the NPA in the formulation of the City Plan Part One. The two authorities have met regularly in order to guide the preparation of the plan. This cross-boundary working clearly meets the Duty to Cooperate. A Statement of Common Ground relating to proposed modifications to Policy SA5 was agreed in September 2013. The Authority notes the identification of the urban fringe as a broad source of potential for housing development, as informed by the Urban Fringe Assessment Study (June 2014) in the Proposed Modifications (PM010 and PM011).



Page 62 of 541


Respondent Number:

83

Individuals Name:

Graeme Forrest

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:Summary of Development Proposals


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:








Page 63 of 541


Respondent Number:

151


Individuals Name:

c/o agent



2


Policy/Section:Development Area totals





Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



LaSalle Investment Management strongly object to the proposed modifications to the City Plan. The modifications fall some significant way short of addressing the serious shortcomings of the submitted City Plan, particularly in relation to meeting the needs (and particularly housing needs) of a growing City. The Council have recognised through the work they have undertaken to inform the proposed modifications that there is a significant shortfall in the provision of new homes compared to the objectively assessed needs. Whilst the Council have undertaken a thorough review of urban fringe locations to assess the opportunities to increase the supply of land for housing they have not undertaken a similar review of capacity within the urban areas. The Council should have undertaken a review of the specific development areas to determine whether a revised approach to the planning of these areas could result in the provision of more housing. As part of this the Council should also have critically reviewed its approach to the retention/re-provision of B Class employment space within these areas to assess the opportunities for the provision of more housing, either as part of or instead of redevelopment for employment floorspace. LaSalle Investment Management consider that further modifications to the Plan are essential to ensure that it does all that it can to help to deliver the new homes and other land use requirements the City needs. Unless further changes are made it is considered that the Plan will remain unsound because it will not have been positively prepared, it will not deliver the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives and it will not be consistent with national policy, particularly the need to boost significantly the supply of new homes. Background LaSalle Investment Management own the Sackville Road Trading Estate and adjacent former Goods Yard site. The Trading Estate site is a mix of warehouse space, retail space and trade counters, it is relatively low density, ageing and contributes little to the appearance or vitality of the area. The Goods Yard site extends to approximately 4.1 acres and is currently used as a depot for wholesale and retail of coal and related products, the storage of motor vehicles and removal services. Its uses are therefore low intensity. The two sites individually and collectively are significant in size and could make a major contribution to the regeneration of the Hove Station Area. The land is owned as a long term investment for a pension fund client and LaSalle is seeking to maximise rental income and safeguard future value for pensioners As a result of the current condition of the site, and the opportunities for redevelopment, a major mixed use scheme was developed in consultation with the City Council for the Trading Estate site. This scheme was subsequently approved by the Council under planning application ref BH2009/00761 (Sackville Place scheme). The work associated with establishing the planning permission for the site demonstrates LaSalles commitment to comprehensive redevelopment, and whilst the delivery of the approved scheme has stalled as a result of the wider economic issues, this commitment remains. LaSalle also has aspirations to redevelop the Goods Yard site, to respond to the housing and other needs of the area and to safeguard and potentially improve returns for pensioners. The attached concept Masterplan illustrates how the site could deliver over 300 new dwellings if it were developed for a residential focused mixed-use scheme.




Page 64 of 541






Page 65 of 541


Respondent Number:

35


Individuals Name:




3


Policy/Section:Table 3 on page 31


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Objection submitted on behalf of the owners of part of the Urban Fringe Site 43 (Land to rear of Longhill Road, Ovingdean). The table needs to be amended to provide for a far higher target for new homes. At the very minimum, the target for within the urban fringe sites should be increased from 1060 to 1080 dwellings (to accommodate the additional number of dwellings that can be provided on our clients site), though we are sure other land owners will be also submitting representations that mean that the Council and Inspector can consider a cumulatively even higher figure. The Proposed Modifications do not go far enough to overcome the Inspector's initial findings into the City Plan (see Inspector's letter dated 13 December 2013). The Councils Urban Fringe Assessment (that informs the Councils revised housing targets) has not taken full account of potential sites, and so recommends too low a figure for urban fridge sites and their contribution to overall housing supply. The Councils Urban Fringe Assessment (that informs the Councils revised housing targets) has not taken full account of potential sites, and so recommends too low a figure for urban fridge sites and their contribution to overall housing supply. (Submission included extracts considered relevant from the Inspectors letter and the Councils Urban Fringe Analysis dated June 2014. For reference these have been abbreviated as follows: Inspectors letter (13 December 2013) paras: Bearing in mind the Frameworks requirementsthe full objectively assessed need is the higher end of the range, ie 20,000 new dwellings The Plan proposes a target for the provision of new housing of 11,300represent a significant shortfall and substantial weight must be given to the consequent failure to meet the social dimension of sustainable development. I recognise that there are significant constraintsHoweverit is important that the Council rigorously assesses all opportunities to meet that need. Urban Fringe Sites. These sites are not subject to nationally recognised designations I have doubts as to whether some of these areas would meet the requirements of paragraph 77 of the Framework. Having now seen some of the sites possibility of allowing development on these sites, which would enable the provision of good quality public open space, as part of a package of development. In view of the significant shortfall in meeting objectively-assessed needs I consider the Council should undertake a more rigorous analysis of the urban fringe sites,for the delivery of new housing from this source. I recognise the constraints faced by the Council but if I am to find the Plan sound, notwithstanding such a significant shortfall in the provision of new housing, I would need to be satisfied that the Council had left no stone unturned in seeking to meet as much of this need as possible. Urban Fringe Assessment June 2014 Extract from Main Report page 39 showing assessment of site 43 Extract of site 43 assessment map provided Assessment Proforma for site 43 attached as an Appendix to the representations submitted. Page 39 of the Urban Fringe Assessment states that site 43 is suitable for a low density development of just 6 units. The Assessment has only considered the north east corner of the site (shaded in red hatching) as suitable for development, and has left the remainder of our clients site as undeveloped. The inspector should note that the land has never been open land or publically accessible, and so there is no reason why the Council should be attempting to restrict this land for Natural and Semi Natural Urban Green Space (brown shading) and as a Nature Improvements Area (vertical blue hatching). Given the Inspectors observations that there should be a rigorous analysis of urban fringe sites, and that the Council should leave no stone unturned in seeking to meet as much of its need as possible it is clear that the Urban Fringe Assessment is lacking in terms of advising on the potential of sites to contribute to housing need. Our clients site is roughly 4 times larger than the area considered suitable for development in the Urban Fringe Assessment (see submitted map of clients site). The site is clearly suitable for development as it a) could easily accommodate in the order of up to 25 dwellings; b) benefits from direct road access onto Longhill Close (to the south-west) and Wanderdown Close (to the north); and c) is not of high ecological value. The site is in private ownership and the Council has no power to demand that our clients facilitate nature improvements to the site (in itself, this implies that the site is not currently of high ecological value). The Urban Fringe Assessment therefore underplays the sites potential for contributing to housing need. Whilst we appreciate that the Council is intending to make specific site allocations in its forthcoming City Plan Part Two document, those allocations will be based on the proposed quantum of housing development set out in the City Plan Part 1. The quantum of development set out in Part 1 is based (in part) on the Urban Fringe Assessment, and so it is correct to consider the failings of the Assessment (to

Page 66 of 541


rigorously assess the potential of urban fringe sites to contribute to housing need) at this time. These representations demonstrate that the Council has not paid sufficient regard to the Inspectors observations from 13 December 2013, and so is not proposing a sufficiently high enough target for new housing in order meet with its Objectively Assessed Need for housing. The proposed modifications do not allow for sufficient housing development, and the supporting documentation (the Urban Fringe Assessment) does not provide a robust enough analysis of sites to ensure that the ability of the urban fringe (to help with housing supply) has been maximised. (BHCC Officer note: The objector provided detailed comments on the Urban Fringe Assessment's analysis of site number 43 in order to show more of the site could be developed eg in the order of 25 dwellings rather than 6 as indicated in the Urban Fringe Assessment)






Respondent Number:

6

Individuals Name:

Phil Belden

Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:Housing numbers




It may be legal, but it's unsound - you can't keep adding growth to a finite size; more and more housing makes the situation unstable and unsustainable.


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



See above.


See above and answers to PO10 objections.





Page 67 of 541


Respondent Number:

142


Individuals Name:

J Frowde

Agents Name:


2




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:










Page 68 of 541


Respondent Number:

85

Individuals Name:

Richard Everest

Agents Name:


2







Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:










Page 69 of 541


Respondent Number:

75

Individuals Name:

Mr D Hunter



3


Policy/Section:Table 3


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


In the light of the objections to the Urban Fringe Assessment, the following objections are lodged in respect of the Proposed Modifications PM011: The table needs to be amended to provide for a far higher target for new homes. At the very minimum, the target for within the urban fringe� sites should be increased from 1060 to 1070 dwellings (to accommodate the additional number of dwellings that can be provided on our clients site), though we are sure other land owners will be also submitting representations that mean that the Council and Inspector can consider a cumulatively even higher figure.






Page 70 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


3




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Question whether the figure for 1,060 units for the urban fringe is justified and sound given the fact that some sites proposed as suitable for development appear to have been put forward using inaccurate and incorrect information within the Urban Fringe Assessment. For example, the allocation of Hollingbury Park for housing is made predominantly on the assertion that there is a surplus of green space in Hollingdean and Stanmer ward. However, this fails to consider the elongated shape of the ward and that it contains citywide parks in the form of Wild Park and Stanmer Park in the centre and north of the ward respectively. However, for the residents of Hollingdean, neither of these parks is particularly local or accessible, given the steep gradients needed to access Wild Park, once you have negotiated the threat of flying golf balls on the golf course. That leaves only Hollingbury Park as an accessible green space for many residents in Hollingdean. Also this area serves residents in neighbouring wards of Preston Park, Withdean and Patcham where there is a shortage of green space. Therefore to assess this site in that context is plainly wrong. There are other issues with the assessment of this site too. Another area where mistakes have been made is on the Craven Vale allotments where the mitigation for building houses on the allotments is to create new allotments nearby, but the land proposed for this is Open Access land. A fact not recognised in the report.






Page 71 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:

n/a



3


Policy/Section:Table 3 Summary of Development Proposals, page 31


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


SLI supports the reference to minimum retail floorspace for comparison goods.






Page 72 of 541


Respondent Number:

31


Individuals Name:


Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:Table 3 Summary of Developmetn Proposals





Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


Please see explanation relating to PM010







Page 73 of 541


Respondent Number:

116

University of SussexIndividuals Name:

John L Duffy Charles Dudley

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:Table 3 Summary of Development


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


The University does not object to the proposed increase in housing provision identified for the DA3 Development Area (refs : PM011, PM026 and PM072) or the amendments to the Part A section of the DA3 policy (ref : PM025).






Page 74 of 541


Respondent Number:

144


Jonathon Calcutt



1


Policy/Section:table 3




The Proposed Modifications are considered to be legally compliant for the following reasons: They have been subject to a 6 week consultation period in line with the Council's Statement of Community Involvement and subsequently have complied with the Local Planning Authorities regulations. They have been subject to an addendum Sustainability Appraisal for the City Plan as a whole.


Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


It is considered that this modification is necessary to make the City Plan effective and therefore sound. The Local Planning Authority's strategy for housing delivery set out by the City Plan is not sufficient to meet the objectively assessed needs identified by the Coastal West Sussex Housing Study Update (which since the hearings took place has been updated from 16,000 - 20,000 to 18,000-24,00). Therefore, in order that the City Plan is compliant with national planning policy, it should be demonstrated by the LPA that they have done all that they can to meet these needs. Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires local planning authorities to meet objectively assessed needs, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole and Paragraph 47 indicates that LPA's must. Use 'their evidence base to ensure their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework In our view, and whilst acknowledging the physical constraints of the City, this proposed modification and inclusion of urban fringe sites as a source for housing indicates that the Council have addressed this requirement and provided a plan that can be considered sound. However, given the constraints on the capacity of the City in other areas and subsequent failure of the LPA to provide enough land for housing to meet their assessed needs, it is considered essential that some urban fringe sites are brought forward. Land which has been identified as having potential for development, particularly sites to the north of the city inside the boundary of the A27, such as that at Mile Oak Road, are considered suitable and deliverable during the early part of the plan period.








Page 75 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:

n/a



4


Policy/Section:DA1 Brighton Centre & Churchill Square Area, page 34


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:

It is not effective in that it is not deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross boundary strategic priorities.


SLI supports the removal of development area� from Policy DA1 which provides further options for the provision of replacement conference facilities. However, on the basis that the City Council is now actively exploring options for an off-site replacement conference venue, SLI maintains its previous position that Policy DA1 should be amended to include reference to the provision of a conference centre either on or off site. The introductory paragraph to the policy should thus be further amended to state: a landmark new building, either on or off site, to benefit the city� This proposed further modification would make the Plan sound by making it effective.






Page 76 of 541


Respondent Number:

13


Individuals Name:

Sandy Crowhurst

Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:DA1




We object to any terminology which includes the word landmark.


Remove the word landmark.

Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



Indicates a building that would impinge on the seafront views from the front and rear. Although this area is earmarked for tall buildings we would not wish to see a 'landmark' building such as a previously proposed 'twisted Edwardian ladies' 20 storeys high at King Alfred (Gehry).







Page 77 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:

n/a



5




Legally Compliant?:


SLI supports the inclusion of net� which provides clarification in the policy regarding new retail comparison floorspace.


Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:







Page 78 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:

n/a



6


Policy/Section:DA1 Brighton Centre and Churchill Square Area, page 34


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:

It is not positively prepared in that it is not prepared on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.; It is not justified in that it is not the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.; It is not effective in that it is not deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross boundary strategic priorities.


SLI objects to the explicit requirement in Policy DA1 A.5 and A.6, as proposed to be modified, to improve the bus interchange facilities at Churchill Square as well as improve pedestrian and cycle access through and around the area, extending along Queens Road to the Brighton Station. The need to enhance public transport provision and access as well as pedestrian access and public realm in the vicinity of the DA1 development area is acknowledged to be an important part of any development of the site. However, the specific requirement, as set out in the modified policy, to deliver such extensive and wide ranging infrastructure provisions is excessive, and is likely render any development of DA1 unviable and/or undeliverable. It also goes beyond the reasonable requirements of a development of the DA1 area. The proposed modification is unsound as it is not positively prepared, justified or effective. To make the Plan sound, the proposed wording of DA1 at A.5 and A.6 should be retained as submitted as these provisions provide sufficient flexibility to consider the justified extent of public transport provision, pedestrian access and public realm improvements as part of any planning application.






Page 79 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:

n/a



7


Policy/Section:DA1 Brighton Centre and Churchill Square Area, page 34


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



SLI objects to the proposed references in A.7 to the need to ensure improvements to local air quality in the Western Road, Churchill Square and North Street transport corridor and along Queens Road and West Street. This is a large area, outside the control of any developer of the DA1 development area and it is not practical for any development of the DA1 development area to ensure improvements to local air quality� over the whole of this area. It is acknowledged that development of the DA1 development area will be required to take account of its impact on local air quality and thus the second part of the proposed modification is supported. The proposed modification is unsound as it is not positively prepared, justified or effective. To make the Plan sound the first part of the proposed modification should be removed.


The policy wording would thus be consistent with para. 3.7 as proposed to be modified by PM017, and Policy SA2, as proposed to be modified by PM061, and supported by SLI.





Page 80 of 541


Respondent Number:

16

Individuals Name:

Steve Parry

Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:DA1. A7




The proposed modification states; Ensure new development proposals take into account impact on local air quality and that improvements and/ or mitigation are sought wherever possible and there is implementation of the council's Air Quality Action Plan. The Air Quality Action Plan includes St James' Street yet no consideration is given to this area.


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


The proposed modification states; Ensure new development proposals take into account impact on local air quality and that improvements and/ or mitigation are sought wherever possible and there is implementation of the council's Air Quality Action Plan. The Air Quality Action Plan includes St James' Street yet no consideration is given to this area.


The Air Quality Action Plan includes St James' Streeti yet no consideration is given to this area.






Page 81 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:DA2 Section A5


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


Support A5. The bus network serving the city centre is of economic importance.






Page 82 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


5


Policy/Section:DA1 Section A7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


There is a question about whether the wording on air quality needs to be tightened in light of the recent Court of Justice of the European Union ruling that there is an obligation to address legal limits as soon as possible (Article from Air Quality News, 19.11.14). The proposed new wording requiring new development proposals take into account impact on local air quality and that improvements and/or mitigation are sought wherever possible� is no longer strong enough, given the urgent need to address this serious issue. Therefore, this proposed modification may no longer be sound. It is worth stressing that Public Health England has estimated that premature deaths in Brighton & Hove due to particulate pollution is around 115 deaths per annum (pg 15 Estimating Local Mortality Burdens associated with Particulate Air Pollution, Public Health England 2014). New research coming out next year, which includes the effect of nitrous oxides, could see the number of premature deaths attributable to air pollution double (Article from Air Quality News, 5,12,14)






Page 83 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:

n/a



9



Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:





PM015 - SLI supports the proposed clarification of net� floorspace and the proposed deletion of footnote 38. SLI also considers that the 5th bullet point of para.3.2 should also be deleted or qualified on the basis that the Brighton Centre SPD01 is now outdated and not relevant






Page 84 of 541


Respondent Number:

21

Brighton & Hove Hoteliers Association

Individuals Name:

J Ogden

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


New hotel and leisure facilities….. will be permitted. How many more additional hotel rooms can Brighton and Hove take ?!






Page 85 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:

n/a



8




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



SLI supports the removal of Area� from B.1 which provides further options for the provision of replacement conference facilities. However on the basis that the City Council is now actively exploring options for an off-site replacement conference venue, SLI maintains its previous position that Policy DA1 should be amended to include reference to the provision of a conference centre either on or off site. B.1 should thus be further amended to state: conference centre, either on or off site, and the expansion of �. This proposed further modification would make the Plan sound by making it effective.






Page 86 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:

n/a



10




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:Yes

Tests of soundness:


SLI supports the removal of para. 3.4 which provides further options for the provision of replacement conference facilities.






Page 87 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:

n/a



12


Policy/Section:DA1 Brighton Centre and Churchill Square Area, paragraph 3.5, page 36-37


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


Unlike PM014, PM017 does not include a specific requirement for development of the DA1 development area to ensure improvements to local air quality in the Western Road, Churchill Square and North Street transport corridor and along Queens Road and West Street. Instead paragraph 3.7 sets out the requirements to consider impact on local air quality as part of any development proposal.


The proposed modified wording to para. 3.7 is thus supported and Policy DA1 should be amended to be consistent with para. 3.7, and Policy SA2, as proposed to be modified.





Page 88 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:

n/a



11


Policy/Section:Object


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



As set out in relation to PM014 SLI is concerned about the requirement in paragraph 3.6, as proposed to be modified, in terms of the improvement to the bus interchange at Churchill Square and the need to improve the junctions including at the Clock Tower (Western Road, North Street and Queens Road). Whilst the need to enhance public transport provision and access as well as improve junctions in the vicinity of the DA1 development area is acknowledged to be an important part of any development of the site, the specific references in the policy to such extensive and wide ranging infrastructure provisions is excessive and goes beyond the reasonable requirements of a development of the DA1 area. The proposed modification is unsound as it is not positively prepared, justified or effective. To make the Plan sound the submitted wording of para. 3.6 should be retained as this provides sufficient flexibility to consider the justified extent of public transport provision, junction improvements, pedestrian access and public realm improvements as part of any planning application.






Page 89 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


6


Policy/Section:DA1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Support much of this proposed modification for the reasons given in PM014, but again question whether the last two sentences are strong enough given the recent Court of Justice of the European Union ruling that there is an obligation to address legal limits as soon as possible (Article from Air Quality News, 19.11.14). While the Council has declared a Low Emission Zone along the North Street / Western Road corridor, this is not going to have a big impact without changes to the Clock Tower junctions to improve the flow of buses and taxis through the area.






Page 90 of 541


Respondent Number:

16

Individuals Name:

Steve Parry

Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:DA1 3.7




As with PM014 there is no consideration given to St James' Street in relation to measures [that] will be developed that encourage sustainable lower emission urban freight distribution Whilst agreeing with the proposal that the potential to reduce, retime, reroute and/or revise the mode of transport will be assessed in order to look at measures to reduce the number of freight trips into the city centre AQMA and that new development proposals should take account of their impact on local air quality, be consistent with the council's Air Quality Action Plan and minimize increased exposure to existing poor air quality within the AQMA, plus improvements and/ or mitigation will be sought wherever possible this is impossible without consideration of St James' Street.


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


As with PM014 there is no consideration given to St James' Street in relation to measures [that] will be developed that encourage sustainable lower emission urban freight distribution. Whilst agreeing with the proposal that the potential to reduce, retime, reroute and/or revise the mode of transport will be assessed in order to look at measures to reduce the number of freight trips into the city centre AQMA and that new development proposals should take account of their impact on local air quality, be consistent with the council's Air Quality Action Plan and minimize increased exposure to existing poor air quality within the AQMA, plus improvements and/ or mitigation will be sought wherever possible this is impossible without consideration of St James' Street.







Page 91 of 541


Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:DA2 Brighton Marina


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Whilst we welcome recognition that the Plan will support proposals which take into account the cliff height issues in and around the Marina, we are concerned that the wording Do not breach the cliff height within the Marina has been removed. One of the cliff height issues is indeed the height above the cliff level and therefore we consider that this wording should be reinstated.


We consider that this wording should be reinstated.





Page 92 of 541


Respondent Number:

6

Individuals Name:

Phil Belden

Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:Black Rock




The Black Rock area has been absorbed into the grander marina development plans, which has effectively hidden or disguised this area from public scrutiny and involvement.


Delete the Black Rock area and start again, with specific BR proposals and genuine consultation on this area.

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The above is not really a satisfactory answer, but nearest to fit.


See above.






Page 93 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:

n/a



13


Policy/Section:DA2 Brighton Marina, Gas Works and Black Rock Area page 38, 39


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:Yes

Tests of soundness:


SLI supports the proposed removal of the District Centre status from the Marina on the basis that a key area of disagreement as set out in the Statement of Common Ground related to the proposed retail allocation at the Marina. SLI considered the 5,000 sq. m should be a maximum. On the basis the Marina will no longer have District Centre status the amount and type of retail proposed will be controlled by the proposed allocation, rather than by virtue of its District Centre status. This is supported by SLI as it will now be necessary for retail development proposals in excess of this allocation to meet the tests of the NPPF in terms of impact and sequential assessment. This will enable consideration to be given to the impact of any such proposal on the existing city centre retail offer and on further investment in city centre shopping provision.






Page 94 of 541


Respondent Number:

166

National Grid Holdings (NGP) and Scotia Gas Networks (SGN)

Individuals Name:

n/a

Agents Name:Alister Henderson (Partner) Carter Jonas


1


Policy/Section:DA2 Brighton Marina, Gas Works and Black Rock Area


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


The removal of Marina as a District Centre is supported. We had previously made representations to earlier versions of the City Plan explaining that the Council's evidence base does not support the Marina's previous allocation within the retail hierarchy and we wholly support this change to the City Plan.






Page 95 of 541


Respondent Number:

119



Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:DA2 Brighton Marina, Gas Works and Black Rock Area page 39, page 44


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


We would like to see the clause relating to buildings not breaching the cliff height within the Marina reinstated. We appreciate it is too late to affect the planning application already approved for the 40-storey building which does breach the cliff height, but consider that any future buildings in the Marina and Black Rock areas should be limited in height so as not to substantially affect views of the cliffs from the sea and views from the National Park looking south. One tall statement� building well off-shore need not be a precedent to scrap the whole height policy for the Marina area.


The policy could and should be that there should be no more breaches of the cliff height. The Black Rock and gas works sites are also at risk of high buildings and the modified City Plan should acknowledge that. The present clause is a feeble reference taking into consideration the adjoining Grade 1 estate and CAs, and should be much stronger. A presumption of refusal for further tall buildings could be restricted to the Marina area. In the Marina area - which is particularly subject to strong winds - groups of tall buildings are likely to create unpredictable wind effects, and unpleasant and potentially dangerous situations for pedestrians at ground level.





Page 96 of 541


Respondent Number:

13


Individuals Name:

Sandy Crowhurst

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:DA2




Retain 'Do not breach the cliff height within the Marina' as we feel that this would deter any development which would visually impair the view from the Kingscliffe Conservation Area.


Retain bullet point.

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:









Page 97 of 541


Respondent Number:

58

Roedean Residents Association

Individuals Name:

Rosemary Shepherd

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:DA 2




The statement " that takes account of the cliff height " is much weaker that the original " do not breach the cliff height ".


To reinstate DO NOT BREACH THE CLIFF HEIGHT

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



To breach an Act of Parliament cannot be consistent with national policy.


Quite simply retain the " Do not breach the cliff height " which has been observed for many ears and shouod be respected as the law of the land.


The current numbers of housing planned are quite unsustainable with the question of infrastructure barely addressed. What has been mentioned is vague and easily ignored by developers.


In 2006 BHCC gave permission to breach the cliff height for the outer harbour development promising that it was a one off and would not create a precedent. However for the inner harbour development containing many tall buildings there was a recommendation to grant permission thereby reneging on their word.




Page 98 of 541


Respondent Number:

5

Individuals Name:

Dr G R Parish

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA2





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



DA2 and para 3:13 both state (correctly in my view) that the strategy for development of the area is based on the 'generation of a... high quality marina environment' which is of course paramount for this unique location. Therefore, the proposed new para 3:15 should also reference this strategy as being first and foremost for the area.


A proposed new wording for the second sentence of 3:15 is "However, proposed developments should ensure the generation of a high quality marina environment, the preservation and/or........"






Page 99 of 541


Respondent Number:

103


Individuals Name:




3


Policy/Section:DA2


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



t will be important for any major proposals at the Marina to have regard to the cliffs as they forms part of the Marinas unique physical context. However, we do not support the insertion that proposals should secure a high quality of building design that takes account of the cliff height issues in and around the Marina,�. In our view, this is merely re-introducing the cliff height restriction within Policy DA2 in a different form. The Inspector clearly recommended that this aspect of the policy should be removed, stating that In all the circumstances I consider that the Policy should be modified to remove the cliff height restriction to enable a viable scheme to come forward, which can make a significant contribution to meeting housing needs� (Initial Conclusions, 13 December 2013. P.5). The amendment is more flexible than do not breach cliff height within the Marina�, however, it is not positively prepared because it is contrary to the Inspectors initial conclusion. In any event, Draft Policies CP8 (Sustainable Buildings), CP12 (Urban Design) and CP14 (Housing Density) already set strict design criteria for tall buildings and high density development. Taking account of the acute housing shortage that Brighton and Hove City Council is facing, Policy DA2 should seek to maximise development density on its strategic sites subject to the development being acceptable in terms of design, amenity and transport considerations for example. Furthermore, the explanation of cliff height issues� is not sufficiently clear and is not therefore effective as required by para. 182 of the NPPF. Furthermore, we do not object to the insertion of the following additional text, albeit much of this repeats the requirements of existing legislation and policies elsewhere in the plan and is not necessary in our view: Fundamental to the strategy for the development area is the provision of mixed use development at a density that helps achieve a vibrant and sustainable place. However, proposed development should ensure the preservation and/or enhancement of the setting of all listed buildings and conservation areas nearby, as well as the wider historic landscape and city skyline including views to and from the South Downs National Park. Applications for higher density development will be assessed in terms of their ability to meet the design and density considerations set out in CP12 and CP14. It is essential that any new development provides an attractive pedestrian environment, active retail and leisure frontages as well as easy access to the harbour, broadwalk, shoreline and other recreational areas within the Marina.�


Accordingly, we suggest that the policy is further amended as follows: Delete: Secure a high quality building design that takes account of the cliff height issues in and around the Marina, townscape, public realm while recognising the potential for higher density mixed development in accordance with the aims of the Spatial Strategy to optimise development on brownfield sites; Replace with: Secure a high quality building design that takes account of its physical environment, townscape, public realm while recognising the potential for higher density mixed development in accordance with the aims of the Spatial Strategy to optimise development on brownfield sites;





Page 100 of 541


Respondent Number:

7



Agents Name:


2




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


We do not believe that there should be any reference to potential cliff height restrictions for the Marina development area. PM019 - Marina and cliff height restriction We are convinced by the inspector's argument that the original policy in the city plan would substantially have reduced development potential in the Marina and do not believe that the City can afford such a constraint. We feel that the proposed wording goes somewhere towards the inspector's intention but think it still retains an unnecessary constraint.


We believe the omission of a reference to the cliff height altogether would make for a clearer statement. We believe that substantially better design solutions could be achieved without such an artificial constraint.





Page 101 of 541


Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


3




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


Whilst we welcome recognition that the Plan will support proposals which take into account the cliff height issues in and around the Marina, we are concerned that the wording Do not breach the cliff height within the Marina has been removed. One of the cliff height issues is indeed the height above the cliff level and therefore we consider that this wording should be reinstated. Notwithstanding this we welcome the new paragraph in the supporting text after 3.15 and in particular that proposed developments should preserve and enhance views to and from the National Park.






Page 102 of 541


Respondent Number:

103


Individuals Name:




2


Policy/Section:DA2


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


We support the removal of the criteria do not breach cliff height within the Marina� proposed amendment to emerging Policy.






Page 103 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


7


Policy/Section:DA2


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



This proposed amendment seems a rather watering down of policy and given the citys failure to meet its carbon reduction targets (ref City Performance Plan Update, Promoting Resource Efficiency and Enhancing the Environment). We would object to this change as it is unjustified and unsound.






Page 104 of 541


Respondent Number:

103


Individuals Name:




4


Policy/Section:DA2


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


We support the proposed amendment set out in PM020 that development at the Marina should Encourage opportunities for the sustainable production of heat and power for the district� rather than Contribute towards the production of or provide�






Page 105 of 541


Respondent Number:

5

Individuals Name:

Dr G R Parish

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:DA2





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The Marina is a unique environment which needs developing as 'a high quality marina environment' as clearly stated in DA2, and which 'balances uses with an emphasis on boating...' as stated in A.6, and which needs to take account of the surroundings of which some are visually sensitive as stated in new para 3:15. However, C.1 states that 'Provision is made for... a minimum of 1000 additional residential units....'. Until detailed development schemes are brought forward and tested against their ability to generate a high quality marina environment and the requirements of A.6 and 3:15, the 1000 additional units is an aspiration. A good quality development of, say, 950 units which meets the other design needs should not fail because it does not achieve the 1000 additional, and vice versa.


It is proposed that C.1 first sentence reads ' Provision is made for a mixed use development comprising approximately 1000 residential units......'






Page 106 of 541


Respondent Number:

161

Brunswick Development Group Plc

Individuals Name:

n/a

Agents Name:Julian Shirley / Holly Farrow DP9 Ltd


2


Policy/Section:DA2


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


We support the deletion of the shopping area designation as shown on map DA2 (pg 38). However the Marina inner Harbour area should be extended to include all of the Brighton Marina Site. The entire site should be included within the designated area to take account of the consented (and implemented) development.






Page 107 of 541


Respondent Number:

166


Individuals Name:

n/a



2




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


The removal of Marina as a District Centre is supported. We had previously made representations to earlier versions of the City Plan explaining that the council's evidence base does not support the Marina;s previous allocation within the retail hierarchy and we wholly support this change to the plan.






Page 108 of 541


Respondent Number:

103


Individuals Name:




5


Policy/Section:DA2


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


We are also supportive of PM021 which seeks to secure a more balanced mix of retail, including support for independent retailers, and non retail uses such as leisure, tourism, and commercial uses

support the deletion of the following text at the end of the above paragraph: "and non retail uses, which accords with its District Centre status;"Our client is disappointed that the Inspector recommended the removal of Brighton Marinas District Centre status but understands the reasons for this. Indeed, the removal of its District Centre status only serves to reinforce the failing nature of the Marina as a commercial district and the urgent need for investment and regeneration. Reflecting the removal of the District Centre status from the Marina, we also support the proposed amendments to para. A.6 (and the enhancement of the retail offer through encouraging the provision of mixed retail activity and services�) and at para. 3.17 of the explanatory text.






Page 109 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:

n/a



14




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:Yes

Tests of soundness:


SLI supports the modifications proposed which clarify the tests to be applied to new retail and retail related development in the DA2 development area






Page 110 of 541


Respondent Number:

103


Individuals Name:




6


Policy/Section:DA2


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


We support opportunities to maximise the use of large-scale zero and low-carbon energy technologies, subject to delivery and viability considerations�. Brownfield sites often face high up-front costs to resolve ownership issues, clear sites and where necessary treat contamination, hence we welcome PM022, which maintains a commitment to low/zero carbon technologies whilst taking account of viability and deliverability considerations.






Page 111 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:



15


Policy/Section:DA2 Brighton Marina, Gas Works and Black Rock Area, page 41, 42, 43


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


SLI suggested in previous representations that the allocation for the retail floorspace at the Marina should be 5,000 sq. m (gross) max. SLI does not therefore support modification PM023 which states that 5,000 sq. m is a net figure. SLI is concerned about the potential for major retail development to occur at the Marina which would compete with the city centre retail offer.


Given the Marina no longer benefits from District Centre status, SLI considers that the 5,000 sq. m allocation included in B. should be expressed in gross terms and should be a maximum figure.





Page 112 of 541


Respondent Number:

103


Individuals Name:




7


Policy/Section:DA2 Part B


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


We welcome clarification that the Inner Harbour is allocated for 1,000 residential units and that 85 units are proposed for the Gas Works Site. However, to ensure consistency with section C.1 of this policy and with the allocation as set out within Policy CP1 (Housing Delivery), this part of the policy should be amended to show that housing numbers will be a "minimum".


Proposed change to Part B:"a minimum of 1,940 residential units (including the 853 residential units already granted planning permission for the outer harbour, a minimum of 1,000 residential units allocated for the inner harbour and 85 residential units allocated for the Gas Works site).�





Page 113 of 541


Respondent Number:

103


Individuals Name:




8


Policy/Section:DA2


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Our client maintains that a minimum of 1,300 dwellings can be delivered on the Inner Harbour site whilst also bringing forward the allocated retail, leisure and employment space. Indeed this quantum of development may be necessary to secure a viable development. On this basis and in accordance with our suggested amendment in relation to Section C.1 of Policy DA2 (below) we request that the Council amend the number of residential units to be delivered within the Inner Harbour as set out within Policy C1 from 1,000 to 1,300 residential dwellings. A higher housing allocation at the Inner Harbour site would help the Council to come closer to its objective assessment of housing need and reduce reliance on windfall sites. We note that windfall sites are now expected to contribute double the housing numbers from the previous iteration (PM072). Whilst in 2010/11 and 2011/12, the overall net completion rate on small windfall sites (below six units) has been higher than through large sites (six units or over), this was in contrast to the preceding years. In 2012/13, the ratio between developments on large and small sites was comparable to most previous year, with about two thirds of completed units coming from large sites. The figures from 2012/13 are in fact very similar to 2009/10. This would be the expected trend and therefore relying on doubling the windfall allowance moving forward seems somewhat unrealistic with the delivery of larger sites improving back to levels preceding the 2008 financial crisis. Furthermore, Brighton and Hove would be less vulnerable to large housing applications on unallocated greenfield sites which may arise given the inability to meet its objectively assessed need. We urge BHCC to plan positively for this housing need and increase opportunities to deliver higher density development on brownfield sites, such as Brighton Marina. The Inner Harbour site at the marina offers an excellent alternative to extensive, low density development in edge of city or rural locations. PM072 states that The strategy for accommodating growth in the city continues to maximise development opportunities from brownfield sites within the built up area but it also acknowledges that some housing development will come forward from some of the city's urban fringe sites�. Allocating a greater quantum of development at the Inner Harbour site would maximise the development opportunity of this relatively central brownfield site, helping BHCC to satisfy their objective of delivering the majority of development on brownfield land. In relation to Section C1 we note that the leisure and recreation element should also read "net additional".


C1 Change 1,000 residential units to 1,300 residential units; add the word "net" to the sentence " net additional l leisure and recreation use... Proposed paragraph: Provision is made for a mixed use development comprising a minimum of 1,300 additional residential units (excluding the outer harbour scheme), 5,000 sq.m of net additional retail development (A1 - A5), 3,500 sq.m of net additional leisure and recreation use, community facilities (including health facility and community centre).�





Page 114 of 541


Respondent Number:

166


Individuals Name:

n/a



3




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Under paragraph B it is noted that the text refers ti 85 residential units at the Gas Works site. Recent market testing has shown that this level of development is way below what can be achieved at the Gas Works Site. Whilst it is recognised that the City Plan refers to a minimum of 85 residential units on the Gas Works Site, we object to this reference because it is clear that it is possible to provide substantially more than 85 residential units on this landholding. Therefore, we would contend that the Plan is not sound because it is not positively prepared and not consistent with national policy. On the basis that the Council is struggling to meet its housing targets it would seem that there is an opportunity ti significantly increase the suggested number of residential properties on this site, It is not consistent with national policy because at present the smaller number of proposed swellings does not make the best and most efficient use of a rare brownfield resource in the Brighton & Hove area. Whilst this number of units is listed as a minimum there is significant scope to increase the number of potential residential unit so this site.




As with our previous representations it would be helpful if you could keep me informed if there is likely to be further examination sessions in relation to the City Plan. In the meantime I trust you will find the attached letter to be in order, However if you should have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.



Page 115 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:



16




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:Yes

Tests of soundness:


SLI is supporting the Council in exploring options for the Black Rock site, for a major venue/conference centre. SLI thus has a further interest in the policies for the DA2 development area. In this regard, SLI supports the proposed removal of community� from A.3, recognising the role the Black Rock site can play in providing new leisure development which has a city and sub-regional role. SLI suggests that C.3 be further amended to remove the reference to 7,000 sq. m to assist in the delivery of a new state of the art venue/conference centre on the Black Rock site. SLI supports the modification to C.3 which states that any ancillary retail and cafÃ© uses would be in addition to the leisure allocation. SLI supports the need for the new facility to complement Brighton Marina.






Page 116 of 541


Respondent Number:

103


Individuals Name:




9


Policy/Section:DA2


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


Section C1: We also welcome and support the insertion of 5,000 sq.m net� of retail (A1 - A5) floorspace". Section C3: In relation to Black Rock, our client appreciates recognition within the wording of Policy DA2 section C.3 that any leisure and recreation development at Black Rock must complement Brighton Marina� and not undermine its viability.






Page 117 of 541


Respondent Number:

161


Individuals Name:

n/a



3


Policy/Section:DA2


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


We support the strategic allocation for 5,000 sqm net A1-A5 floorspace within the Brighton Marina Inner Harbour Area under policy DA2. However we would suggest that this is not a cap and proposals for any additional space should be judged against other relevant wider policies.




Brunswick Developments are generally supportive of the positive approach taken by the Proposed Modifications to the City Plan in seeking to maximise the growth potential of Brighton & Hove.



Page 118 of 541


Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:DA3 Lewes Road


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Comments relate to PM025, 026,027,028,029,030, 031, 032 We are disappointed that our comments made during the consultation on the City Plan Part1 have not been taken into account, as follows: While the development area boundary clearly includes the Amex stadium, there is almost no reference to the stadium in the text. The Secretary of States decision to allow the building of the stadium despite its impact on the national park was based on the promise of community and regeneration benefits. These have subsequently been watered down through successive applications to amend the terms of the original permission but we would urge the City Council to consider, through the plan, how such benefits might still be realised. We would also urge that any further development based on the stadium should have full regard to its location adjacent to the national park, and that appropriate wording be incorporated into the plan. We still believe that specific reference should be made to the stadium over and above a general statement ensuring that there will be no adverse affects on the setting of the National Park. We have for example written previously to the City Council concerning the excessive use of external lighting at the stadium in view of its impact on the national park and avoidable energy use: this will be increasingly unsustainable as the national park authority pursues its bid for Dark Sky Reserve status, which is supported by this Society.






Page 119 of 541


Respondent Number:

116



Agents Name:


5


Policy/Section:(Part A) DA3 Lewes Road area pg 48, 49, 52, 53


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:








Page 120 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


8


Policy/Section:DA3


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Support this modification. However, there is a question about whether the wording on air quality needs to be tightened in light of the recent Court of Justice of the European Union ruling that there is an obligation to address legal limits as soon as possible. The proposed new wording requiring new development proposals take into account impact on local air quality and that improvements and/or mitigation are sought wherever possible� is no longer strong enough, given the urgent need to address this serious issue. Therefore, this proposed modification may no longer be sound. It is worth stressing that Public Health England has estimated that premature deaths in Brighton & Hove due to particulate pollution is around 115 deaths per annum.. New research coming out next year, which includes the effect of nitrous oxides, could see the number of prematuredeaths attributable to air pollution double.






Page 121 of 541


Respondent Number:

16

Individuals Name:

Steve Parry

Agents Name:


5


Policy/Section:DA3 A.7




In order to ensure new development proposals take into account impact on local air quality and that improvements and/ or mitigation are sought wherever possible consideration must be given to St James' Street


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


In order to ensure new development proposals take into account impact on local air quality and that improvements and/ or mitigation are sought wherever possible consideration must be given to St James' Street







Page 122 of 541


Respondent Number:

116



Agents Name:


7


Policy/Section:DA3


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Nevertheless, the University maintains its position, as set out in the representations responding to the Proposed Submission document that Part B of the policy underestimates the overall scale of growth identified elsewhere within Policy DA3 as well as other policies in the Plan (for example Policy CP21). We therefore continue to seek confirmation within Part B of the Policy that the figures for additional academic floorspace and student accommodation be identified as minimum figures as set out in its earlier representations.






Page 123 of 541


Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


12


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:








Page 124 of 541


Respondent Number:

116



Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:DA3 Lewes Road Area pgs 49, 50


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:








Page 125 of 541


Respondent Number:

167


Mike Clark

Agents Name:GVA


2


Policy/Section:DA3

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:





SEE RESPONSE FOR FULL COMMENT. we question whether the requirement for no net loss of car parking� at this site, as stated within the accompanying Planning Brief (September 2011) remains a relevant and appropriate requirement. The UoB wishes to express its continued support for the provision of a new business school and considers that Moulsecoomb is the best place to provide this facility due to the linked opportunities with the Universitys existing Schools located at the campus and potential future opportunities to forge close links with the adjacent Preston Barracks, particularly with regards to the high-tech employment opportunities being promoted at this site. it is felt that the potential exists to amend this policy in order to better reflect the opportunities presented at Moulsecoom/ Preston Barracks. The UoB therefore wishes to encourage the City Council to increase allocations for more academic and other use development at the Moulsecoomb campus. the emerging policy allocation only supports the provision of 750 student beds, significantly less than the identified immediate need of 1,300 in this location. In the context of the identified need for significantly more bed spaces, the UoB is keen to work with the City Council to support significantly more student accommodation at the Moulsecoomb campus. With regards to student accommodation and the potential shortfall in bed spaces, it is considered that Falmer also offers an opportunity to contribute towards this much needed accommodation. This will not only help the University to meet its overall accommodation targets, but will also help generate the critical mass required at Falmer to revitalise the campus and support the envisaged new facilities and amenities. In conjunction with its strategic objectives at its Moulsecoomb Campus as set out above, the UoB proposes the following amended text [in brackets] to emerging Policy DA3 (Lewes Road): DA3 Lewes Road The strategy for the development area is to further develop and enhance the role of Lewes Road as the Citys academic corridor by supporting proposals which: ! Improve further and higher education provision in the Lewes Road area, [with particular focus towards established locations at Moulsecoomb and Falmer where the opportunity for sustainable expansion exists] B. Provision will be made for the following amounts of additional development to be provided by 2030. Provision will be made through strategic site allocations (below) and through allocations made in the City Plan Part 2 for Student Accommodation [(up to 1,300 bed spaces) at Moulsecoomb and explore additional opportunities for new student accommodation at Falmer campus] 1. Preston Barracks and Brighton University (Mithras House and Watts/Cockcroft Site The city council will work with the University of Brighton and other partners to provide [up to 1,300] rooms of student accommodation...�






Page 126 of 541


Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


13


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:








Page 127 of 541


Respondent Number:

137



Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:DA3 Lewes Road Area Page 50


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Similarly the Trust objects to the removal of the aim to achieve an outstanding BREEAM rating as part of this development. This weakens the policy and is contrary to BHCCs long term aims and the NPPF.






Page 128 of 541


Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


14


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:








Page 129 of 541


Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


15


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:








Page 130 of 541


Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


16


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:








Page 131 of 541


Respondent Number:

116



Agents Name:


6


Policy/Section:DA3 Lewes Road Area, page 51


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


In the case of Part C 3. of Policy DA3 Falmer Released Land, Former Falmer High School, the University has entered into negotiations with the developer to secure purpose-built accommodation for its students as part of the development of this Strategic Allocation. We therefore support the continued reference to the provision of purpose built student accommodation as a suitable use within this part of the Policy. We do not object to the specific Proposed Modifications to this part of the policy (Council ref : PM030).






Page 132 of 541


Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


17


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:








Page 133 of 541


Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


18


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:








Page 134 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


9


Policy/Section:DA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:








Page 135 of 541


Respondent Number:

167


Mike Clark

Agents Name:GVA


3


Policy/Section:DA5

Support / Object:






SEE RESPONSE FOR FULL COMMENTS. The UoB is therefore looking to explore opportunities with the City Council to capitalise on the popularity of the City Campus and enhance the educational offer available at this highly sustainable location. In this context, emerging policy DA5 currently supports the provision of an additional 3,800sqm of University education floorspace within the Circus Street allocation. As such, it is considered that an opportunity exists to amend emerging policy to better reflect the aspirations of UoB to deliver new academic facilities at the City Campus to enhance its offer and improve the student experience, in particular for the creative sectors. It is considered that the enhancement of creative academic facilities links well with the City Councils vision for the adjacent Brighton cultural quarter centred towards the City Centre and Brighton Pavilion. UoB encourages the City Council to recognise the benefits associated with the intensification of higher education provision at the Grand Parade Building (City Campus) and set out clear policy support for the provision of additional academic floorspace at this location (in addition to that allocated at the adjacent Circus Street development) in order that UoB might deliver its strategic objectives, the benefits of which are interlinked with the economic and social success of the Brighton & Hove as a whole. UoB propose the following amended wording [in brackets] to emerging Policy DA5: DA5 Eastern Road and Edward Street The strategy for the development area is to secure significant improvements to the public realm and townscape making the area more attractive, accessible and safer for residents, employees and visitors, [to explore linked opportunities for enhanced higher education provision in this sustainable location] and to deliver the amounts of development 1. Making more efficient use of under-used sites [including opportunities presented at the University of Brightons City Campus], that will be identified through the strategic allocations below and Part 2 of the City Plan B. The minimum amounts of development to be secured by 2030 through strategic allocations (below) and through allocations in the City Plan Part 2 are 3,800sqm University education floorspace [(Circus Street Allocation) and explore opportunities for additional academic floorspace at the University of Brightons City Campus]�






Page 136 of 541


Respondent Number:

16

Individuals Name:

Steve Parry

Agents Name:


6


Policy/Section:DA5

Support / Object:



The minimum amount of retail and service space proposed does not appear to have been assessed in light of the Brighton and Hove Retail Study Update published by CBRE for BHCC in September 2011. Bearing in mind that St James' Street is one of only 4 District Centres identified in the report (one of which was recommended to lose this designation) the absence of any consideration of this area ignores key recommendations of the CBRE report and Government policy. In particular reference is made to the following sections of the CBRE report: 1.55ii; 1.62iii; 1.86iv; 4.24v PM078 also states Brighton & Hove's hierarchy of shopping centres will be maintained and enhanced by encouraging a range of facilities and uses, consistent with the scale and function of the centre, to meet people's day-to-day needs.


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:









Page 137 of 541


Respondent Number:

119



Agents Name:


5


Policy/Section:DA5 Eastern Road and Edward Street Area, page 66


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


We believe it makes far more sense to retain Amex House rather than to demolish it. The building is one of the best modern buildings in Brighton, and creates a home for much needed employment in the city. Demolishing a perfectly good building makes a nonsense of the city's claim to be the first One Planet City.






Page 138 of 541


Respondent Number:

151


Individuals Name:

c/o agent



3


Policy/Section:DA6 Hove Station Area





Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



The Opportunity Policy DA6 The approval of the Sackville Place scheme has established some key principles in relation to the redevelopment of the site and these should be reflected in the supporting text to Policy DA6. Whilst LaSalle support the identification of the Hove Station Area and the overarching aims of regeneration and renewal, they strongly object to the inflexibility of the proposed policy and the lack of any regard to the planning permission for Sackville Place, and the principles it establishes. The Policy should be reworded so that it actively supports and facilitates the redevelopment of both the Trading Estate site and the Goods Yard. The Policy should also seek the provision of a significantly greater number of new homes in the Hove Station Area than the 525 units currently proposed in the modified policy. The combined land at Sackville Road presents an opportunity to redevelop an extensive area of brownfield land in a manner which could bring about benefits in terms of regeneration and contribute towards meeting the land use needs of the City. The sites provide an opportunity to deliver new retail floorspace, in accordance with the extant consent for Sackville Place, and a large number of new homes. This opportunity should be recognised in the City Plan, both by Policy DA6 and the overall housing policies of the Plan. The submitted Plan, paragraph 3.79, assumes that the Goods Yard site (referred to as the Coal Yard site) will be safeguarded for future waste management needs. LaSalle have objected to the emerging Waste and Minerals Sites Plan. However, in any event, the emerging Waste Plan does not propose to safeguard the Goods Yard site for waste management needs. Instead the Goods Yard site is identified, along with other sites, as a potentially suitable location for waste management uses. Such an approach would not safeguard the site from redevelopment for other uses. In this context paragraph 3.79 should be deleted and the City Plan should recognise the redevelopment potential of the Goods Yard site.


Policy DA6 should be further modified so that it is focused on regeneration for the provision of new homes and the provision of non B-Class employment-generating uses as well as B Class employment uses. This wider emphasis should be reflected throughout the Policy.







Page 139 of 541


Respondent Number:

151


Individuals Name:

c/o agent



4


Policy/Section:DA6 Hove Station Area





Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



The Opportunity Policy DA6 The approval of the Sackville Place scheme has established some key principles in relation to the redevelopment of the site and these should be reflected in the supporting text to Policy DA6. Whilst LaSalle support the identification of the Hove Station Area and the overarching aims of regeneration and renewal, they strongly object to the inflexibility of the proposed policy and the lack of any regard to the planning permission for Sackville Place, and the principles it establishes. The Policy should be reworded so that it actively supports and facilitates the redevelopment of both the Trading Estate site and the Goods Yard. The Policy should also seek the provision of a significantly greater number of new homes in the Hove Station Area than the 525 units currently proposed in the modified policy. The combined land at Sackville Road presents an opportunity to redevelop an extensive area of brownfield land in a manner which could bring about benefits in terms of regeneration and contribute towards meeting the land use needs of the City. The sites provide an opportunity to deliver new retail floorspace, in accordance with the extant consent for Sackville Place, and a large number of new homes. This opportunity should be recognised in the City Plan, both by Policy DA6 and the overall housing policies of the Plan. The submitted Plan, paragraph 3.79, assumes that the Goods Yard site (referred to as the Coal Yard site) will be safeguarded for future waste management needs. LaSalle have objected to the emerging Waste and Minerals Sites Plan. However, in any event, the emerging Waste Plan does not propose to safeguard the Goods Yard site for waste management needs. Instead the Goods Yard site is identified, along with other sites, as a potentially suitable location for waste management uses. Such an approach would not safeguard the site from redevelopment for other uses. In this context paragraph 3.79 should be deleted and the City Plan should recognise the redevelopment potential of the Goods Yard site.


Policy DA6 should be further modified so that it is focused on regeneration for the provision of new homes and the provision of non B-Class employment-generating uses as well as B Class employment uses. This wider emphasis should be reflected throughout the Policy.







Page 140 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


10


Policy/Section:DA6


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:








Page 141 of 541


Respondent Number:

40

Individuals Name:

David Jewell

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing to object to the proposed modification PM045 to the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part 1 in terms of the planning consent to be given to the proposed development of the Toad Hole Valley estate. As part of the process of preparing the city plan, the council is currently consulting on proposed modifications to the published policies. Proposed modification PM045 would amend the policy DA7, which defines the type of development the council proposes for Toads Hole Valley. I believe that PM045 will introduce amendments that are not in the public interest and will undermine policy DA7. For example, it: -Removes the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability - Reserves a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030 - Undermines the commitment to a mixed-use development - Reduces the commitment to provide a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents


The proposed amendments should be designed to turn the development into something that the City can be really proud of rather than make the development less costly for the landowner.





Page 142 of 541


Respondent Number:

76


H Clarke

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:

Support / Object:







The suggested changes to Policy DA7, CP16 and CP17 will ensure the proposed modifications are sound. If the suggested changes are not made, Sport England would need to reconsider if it felt these policies were sound.

Policy DA7 Toad’s Hole Valley allocation requires the provision for informal sports facilities and a multi-use community building. Sport England has been in ongoing discussions with Brighton & Hove, who have provisionally committed to undertaking a detailed Playing Pitch Strategy which will identify the detailed strategic needs for pitch sports in the City. Sport England would request that Policy DA7 be worded flexibly to allow the findings of this strategy to feed into the policy.







Page 143 of 541


Respondent Number:

99

Individuals Name:

R. Hatley

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7 Toads Hole Valley


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I strongly object to the above proposed modification PM045 as it would introduce amendments that are clearly not in the best interests of the public and local community, thereby making policy DA7 less sound. The proposed amendments would plainly only serve the interests of the landowner and not the surrounding community. It clearly undermines the commitment to a mixed use development and by not building the school would place huge burdens on the current school infrastructure. Not moving the road is staggering in its stupidity, the road itself is already dangerous at its junction with Goldstone Crescent and needs work now, never mind after the development. The building of a new access road is essential for the safety and well being of all local residents and through road users. A development of this size needs to have the required infrastructure to benefit residents. You cannot impose a development of this size and scope on the local area and just trust to luck that it will be able to cope. It will not. The fact that it will cost money to provide the correct facilities is sheer tough luck. If it is to be as originally proposed, an exemplar of sustainability, then it will have to be paid for. There is no point cutting corners, however attractive it is to the developer to just dump 700 homes into the valley as cheaply and profitably as possible and walk off. There will be only one chance at the development of this area and it needs to be done right the first time. Submitted for your consideration






Page 144 of 541


Respondent Number:

137



Agents Name:


5


Policy/Section:DA7 Toad's Hole Valley pg 79-86


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:

It is not justified in that it is not the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.; It is not consistent with national policy.


The Sussex Wildlife Trust objects to the modification of policy DA7.A.8 which changes the priority from the reduction of surface water run-off and flood risk to a priority for no increase in surface water run-off and flood risk. We also object to the addition of subject to viability and deliverability in paragraph 3.84. We feel that these changes weaken the policy and are contrary to BHCCs Strategic Objective to Contribute to a reduction in the ecological footprint of Brighton & Hove and champion the efficient use of natural resources and environmental sustainability and NPPF paragraph 99.






Page 145 of 541


Respondent Number:

110

Individuals Name:

Ivor O'Mahony

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I have been following the proposal to develop Toads Hole Valley with considerable interest for some time. I am aware that Policy DA7 is now subject to some modification proposals which are contained in PM045. I support the submissions being made by The Campaign to Save Toads Hole Valley to the effect that PM045 would introduce amendments to DA7 that are not in the public interest because they would make the policy less sound. The proposed modification PM045 would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for the Valley, making many important features subject to viability and /or deliverability. There are many other people who have made detailed submissions to you as to their reasoning for stating this and, therefore, I will not go into detail but merely emphasise my support by sending you this email.






Page 146 of 541


Respondent Number:

59

Individuals Name:

Nigel Swift

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


The proposed modification PM045 would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. For example: Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability. Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. Undermining the commitment to a mixed-use development Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents.


Any amendments ought to enhance how the development would serve the local community; regrettably, PM045 would only benefit the landowner.





Page 147 of 541


Respondent Number:

97



Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:DA7





Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


CPRE Sussex believes that the proposed development of Toads Hole Valley, as promoted by Policy DA7, will only be acceptable if it the resulting development would create an exemplary suburb that would: complement the unique landscape of the site and its surroundings safeguard strategic views of the South Downs and the sea. create a well-balanced mixed-use sustainable garden suburb following TCPA Garden City Principles conserve and enhance the biodiversity of the valley bring benefits for the neighbouring communities in Goldstone Valley, Hangleton and Nevill mitigate the impact of traffic and traffic noise on the neighbouring areas ensure the costs of maintaining the public areas of the valley and serving it with public transport are met by the development Accordingly, CPRE Sussex objects to the the Proposed Modifications to Policy DA7, which we consider would weaken the Policy's requirements e.g. the proposal to replace "Ensure that" and "is of an" in clause 2 with the weaker "will aim to be an"; the addition of "seeks to" in clause 3; and the replacement of "To secure" with "provide the opportunity to benefit" in clause 4. We consider that these Proposed Modifications would weaken the Policy's ability to deliver the exemplary suburb that this extremely sensitive site demands.








Page 148 of 541


Respondent Number:

105

Individuals Name:

Dawn Robson

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


The proposed modification PM045 would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. For example: Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability. Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. Undermining the commitment to a mixed-use development Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents






Page 149 of 541


Respondent Number:

56

Individuals Name:

Geraldine O'Brien

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


Lies between two very busy roads and would have very big noise pollution and traffic congestion problems. Also a high air pollution level. Imagine the cost of law suits if any housing was built there, from people with asthma and other breathing complaints caused by this. It's the sort of situation that isn't looked at and when brought up the public are told there is no risk because no-one was bothered. These developments never benefit the community, they only line various peoples pockets and any protests have no chance because of this very reason. Money talks. Just for once listen to the people and take them seriously.






Page 150 of 541


Respondent Number:

61

Individuals Name:

John Dann

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I am adding my name to the objection as summarised below: The Campaign is submitting a strong objection to PM045 because it would introduce amendments that are not in the public interest, thereby making policy DA7 less sound. In summary, the proposed modification PM045 would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. For example: Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability. Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. Undermining the commitment to a mixed-use development Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents







Page 151 of 541


Respondent Number:

62

Individuals Name:

Diana Praud

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I strongly object to PM045






Page 152 of 541


Respondent Number:

63

Individuals Name:

David Gerrard

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing to object to the modification to the plans to re-develop Toads Hole (PM045). Amongst other things we were told that the re-development would be an exemplar of sustainability this now appears to be just an aim. The links to the National Park appear to have gone as well. Whilst the funicular was never seriously believed, a footpath is now looking very unlikely with the developer only being asked to make a contribution. Likewise the proposed new school is now only to be reserved as a site with no commitment to build it this is at a time when all areas of the UK are desperately short of school buildings. Community facilities and shops to take the strain off existing facilities now shows as to be developed at an appropriate time. When on earth will that be? I have also heard that the new road around the outskirts of the development may not now go ahead, placing an additional burden on King George VI Avenue. It is outrageous that a proposal, that was probably only agreed because of some of the above, has now been watered down to this level. These modifications must be rejected if the council is to retain any credibility.






Page 153 of 541


Respondent Number:

64

Individuals Name:

Clive Gale-Smith

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


These modifications dilute the reasonable plan in the cause of infrastructure, sustainability, usage and undermining the logical mixed use concept.






Page 154 of 541


Respondent Number:

132

Individuals Name:

Mr and Mrs Kinsey

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


We are somewhat surprised and would like to object to the modification for PM045 for the following reasons: Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability. Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. Undermining the commitment to a mixed-use development Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents Therefore we would formally request that the council takes our objection into consideration.






Page 155 of 541


Respondent Number:

71

Individuals Name:

Karin Dahmen

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I object strongly to amendment P045, which, once again, does not serve your community constituents--only the landowner Cook and, perhaps, some of yourselves. This is already a development which is not in the interest of the residents of Hove and Brighton, or of the environment, and this Council seems to have forgotten whom it is supposed to be serving. Is is weakness or vested self-interest?






Page 156 of 541


Respondent Number:

72

Campaign to Save Toads Hole Valley

Individuals Name:

Hazel McKay

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7 Toads Hole Valley - pages 79/86


Legally Compliant?:


The campaign has not addressed this question


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:

It is not positively prepared in that it is not prepared on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.; It is not justified in that it is not the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.


CONTEXT These representations are made without prejudice to the Campaigns earlier representations, opposing any development of Toads Hole Valley. This is a precious site that should only be released in exceptional circumstances. Given the city councils determination to develop this large tract of Downland between the city and national park, the Campaign believes it is essential for the resulting development to create an exemplary suburb that would: complement the unique landscape of the site and its surroundings safeguard strategic views of the South Downs and the sea. create a well-balanced mixed-use sustainable garden suburb following TCPA Garden City Principles (see http://www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/garden-cities.html) conserve and enhance the biodiversity of the valley bring benefits for the neighbouring communities in Goldstone Valley, Hangleton and Nevill mitigate the impact of traffic and traffic noise on the neighbouring areas ensure the costs of maintaining the public areas of the valley and serving it with public transport are met by the development OBJECTION The Campaign objects strongly to the proposed modification PM045 as it would introduce amendments that are not in the public interest, thereby making policy DA7 less sound. PM045 would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. For example: Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability. Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. Undermining the commitment to a mixed-use development Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents Any amendments ought to enhance how the development would serve the local community, whereas the proposed amendments would only benefit the landowner. The Campaigns objection is detailed in the appended schedule. SCHEDULE Detailed objections to Proposed Modification PM045: Paras A2 , C1(e), 3.84, 3.86 Exemplary standards of environmental, social and economic sustainability The public was told the new development would be an exemplar of sustainability, including a plug on the BBCs The Sunday Politics. It would be disingenuous to reduce that absolute commitment to a mere aim. Paras A3 and C1(h) - Links to the National Park for local residents and tourists The public were told the development would enhance those links; it is not in the public interest for that absolute commitment to be reduced to a vague intention to seek enhancement of those links, particularly as a route across the site has already been identified. Whilst policy DA7 would require construction of the proposed footpath/cycleway from King George VI Avenue to the existing footpath over the A27, the modification would only require the developer to make a contribution towards its costs. Paras A4, C1(m), 3.98. 3.99 - Benefits to residents in terms of mixed use, community facilities, road safety, job opportunities, green infrastructure, public open space and natural green space Policy DA7 promises residents that these benefits would be part of the development, whereas the modification would only require the development to create the opportunity for such benefits. Given the proposed benefits are the very minima that should be integral to the development of such a sensitive site, there can be no justification for reducing the level of obligation within the policy. Para A8 - Surface water run-off and flood risk Policy DA7 commits to reducing the current levels of surface water run-off andflood risk, whereas the proposed amendment would only require there to be no worsening of the current situation. A requirement to prevent any surface water run-off and flood risk from development of the valley has to be the most basic benefit that existing residents should expect to deliver. Paras B bullet 2, C1, 3.90, 3.93 Construction and phasing of 25,000sqm of B1 Whereas Policy DA7 requires construction of 25,000sqm of B1 floorspace, the proposed modification only specifies reservation of a 3.5/4.5ha site. Also where policy DA7 requires the employment floorspace to be constructed alongside the residential phases, the modification would only require one

Page 157 of 541


phase of employment floorspace to be completed before all the housing is completed. Whilst these may appear to be minor changes, they would significantly reduce the prospects of a mixed-use development being delivered within the valley. Paras B bullet 3, C1(g), 3.91, 3.100 New Secondary School Whereas Policy DA7 commits to the construction of a new secondary school by 2030, the proposed amendment only requires a site to be reserved. Provision of a secondary school was promoted as a reason why the public should support development of the valley, because no other site for such a school can be identified within the city. This commitment is, therefore, of paramount importance to the city and should not be diluted. Para B bullets 5 and 6, 3.93, 3.100 Community Facilities and shops etc Policy DA7 requires shops, cafÃ©s and community facilities to be provided alongside the residential phases to avoid placing an unacceptable burden on existing facilities, whereas the proposed modification would only require the new facilities to be provided at the appropriate time, whatever that means! These changes would undermine the prospects of delivering a well-balanced mixed-use development on the site. The proposed amendment fails to address the inadequacy of the GP medical facilities north of the east-west line of the Coastway West railway. The proposed amendment makes no provision for the increased demand for primary school places that 700+ new dwellings would generate. Paras B bullet 9, C1(f), 3.87 - Energy Infrastructure District energy infrastructure for cooling, heating and power was to have been a feature of the high standards of sustainability that would characterise development of the valley. Again the public was misled by raising unrealistic expectations that are now to be abandoned.


We have argued in our earlier representations that policy DA7 is itself not sound. The proposed modification PM045 would make an unsatisfactory policy even less sound; it would not be in the public interest, and the Campaign considers it should be rejected. If policy DA7 is to be modified, the modifications should make the policy more likely to deliver sustainable development, as required by the NPPF. The proposed modification PM045 should, therefore, be amended as follows NEW SECONDARY SCHOOL - para B bullet 3, paras C1(g), 3.91, and 3.100 The city council has identified a requirement for an additional secondary school and that Toads Hole Valley is the only suitable site. The need for the secondary school is urgent, so it should be constructed as soon as possible. PM045 should be amended to require the secondary school to be constructed in the first phase of the development and completed by 2024 at the very latest. PRIMARY SCHOOL The 700+ dwellings permitted by Policy DA7 would also generate a requirement for primary school places, but there is no primary school within walking distance of Toads Hole Valley. PM045 should be amended to require identification of a site for a primary school, with construction during the first phase of the development and completion by 2024 at the very latest. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SHOPS etc - para B bullets 5 and 6, paras 3.93, and 3.100 Evidence shows that the supply of GP medical facilities is inadequate in the area between the east-west line of the Coastway West railway and the A27. There is a substantial and urgent need for such additional GP services, which could be remedied by the development of Toads Hole Valley. PM045 should be amended to require the identification of a site for a multi-practice GP surgery, with construction undertaken during the first phase of the development and completion by 2024 at the very latest. PM045 should reinstate the requirement for shops, cafess and community facilities to be provided alongside the residential phases, so that the new development is from the outset both mixed-use and sustainable. SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT paras C1 (j) and (k) The development will not be sustainable, if it is not well served by public transport. Given the location of Toads Hole Valley, it is most unlikely that an adequate public transport service would be provided without public subsidy. To avoid those costs being a burden on the rest of the city, whilst the site is being developed, any public transport subsidy should be funded by the development. PM045 should be amended to require the developer to meet the costs of any public transport subsidies during the entire construction period. CONSTRUCTION AND PHASING of 25,000sqm of B1 - para B bullet 2, paras C1, 3.90, and 3.93 The new development would not be mixed-use or sustainable, if most of the dwellings were completed before any employment opportunities were created; the employment floorspace must be provided alongside the dwellings. PM045 should be amended to require construction of 25,000sqm of B1 floorspace, alongside the residential phases. LINKS TO THE NATONAL PARK for local residents and tourists - paras A3 and C1(h) The development creates the opportunity to improve access to the national park by constructing a new footpath/cycleway linking the junction of Goldstone Crescent and King George VI Avenue with the public path over the A27, thereby bringing a modest improvement in accessibility to the South Downs. Construction of this footpath/cycleway should be an integral part of the development and fully funded by it, as there is no other source of funding for the path. PM045 should be amended to specify that construction of this footpath/cycleway would be an integral part of the development and would be constructed at the developers expense. SURFACE WATER RUN-OFF AND FLOOD RISK - para A8 It is fundamental that neighbouring communities are not adversely affected by any surface water run-off or flood risk from Toads Hole Valley. PM045 should be amended so that policy DA7 commits to preventing any surface water run-off or flood risk arising from Toads Hole Valley. EXEMPLARY STANDARDS OF SUSTAINABILITY- environmental, social and economic - paras A2, C1(e), 3.84, and 3.86 Toads Hole Valley is a precious site, which should only be released for development of the highest standard. Therefore, policy DA7 should be unequivocal in its determination to deliver a mixed-use sustainable development of the highest standard. A design code would assist achievement of this objective PM045 should be amended to retain an unequivocal commitment to delivering a sustainable development of exemplary quality PM045 should be amended to require a DESIGN CODE for Toads Hole Valley. The code would emphasise the quality of townscape and landscaping required for the new development to be compatible with its surroundings

Page 158 of 541




CONSULTATION DEFICIT The Campaign believes policy DA7 contains too much detail for a Part 1 policy, which according to the councils Local Development Scheme is supposed to identify the broad locations, scale and type of development and supporting infrastructure that is required. (Furthermore, this specification accords with para 155 of the NPPF.) The current and earlier consultations on Part 1 have quite rightly been designed to address those strategic principles and have not created a suitable vehicle for discussing the many detailed facets of how the Toads Hole Valley should be developed. Our research shows that, as a consequence, it has not been possible for the local community to engage, as it should, in formulating the details of the policy that will steer development of the valley and constrain any future planning brief for the site.




We wish to underscore that it is essential for policy DA7 to require a sustainable development of the highest quality at Toads Hole Valley, in order to serve the public interest and justify releasing the site for development. We are deeply concerned that the proposed modification PM045 is being treated as a minor modification when it would strike at the heart of policy DA7, undermining its ability to deliver a high quality sustainable mixed-use development. This proposed amendment PM045 reinforces concerns, we have already expressed, that the high quality sustainable development promised to the public, will not be delivered.

Page 159 of 541


Respondent Number:

73

Individuals Name:

Brian Thomson

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I am registering my strongest objection to the proposed modification to the policy DA7 set out in PM045 as follows: 1. The reduction in the quality of housing by virtue of the fact that the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability has been removed. 2. No requirement to build a secondary school by 2030; this will only put undue pressure on existing facilities which cannot be good for students and the economy of the local area. 3. The inclusion of flats into the mix of housing will undoubtably cause additional traffic congestion over and above that previously envisaged, not to mention the potential for social unrest in what will become overcrowded, confined development. 4. The lack of supporting infrastructure, most notably the total abandonment to re-route King George VI Avenue (A2038) as originally proposed is totally impracticable; the road as it is now cannot possibly cope with the additional traffic that this development will no doubt generate and nor can the surrounding roads. The gridlock that will ensue, without some major changes, will cause untold misery for the local residents and businesses. If a development of this magnitude goes ahead without providing suitable supporting infrastructure then the planning process is very badly flawed and must be overhauled as a matter of urgency. At present the seemingly lack of inclusion of public transport also gives cause for concern as for many a bus is their only means of getting around and needs to be fully addressed before any planning application is approved. I would ask Brighton and Hove City Council and the Planning Department to examine their conscience and decide is this a really good idea without including plans for the implementation of all the necessary infrastructure.






Page 160 of 541


Respondent Number:

128

Individuals Name:

Mrs M.Corrado and Mr R.Gokkaya

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7, Toads' Hole Valley




Of the 700 houses proposed, more than 50% will have three or more bedrooms - suggesting a population increase of about 2000, a car increase of possibly 1,000 and a school demand for 1,000 places. We understand that there are no funds for the proposed secondary school and that a primary school is not in the plan. The limited public transport provision proposed seems unlikely to become a reality and there is no provision for a multi-doctor GP practice. There is also a lack of shopping facilities in the locality to cater for the huge increase in residential units. Already overcrowded schools will be faced with huge pressures. The roads will be under greater strain. Access from the Toads' Hole Valley development will probably have to be onto the already busy King George V1 Avenue. Providing public transport to the area poses huge problems, we understand. The views onto and from the Downs (which we can see clearly and extensively from our home) will be eliminated by the buildings. Wildlife, that is so prolific in the valley after many years of open land, will be severely disrupted. We understand that in time, the proposed secondary school - for which there are currently no funds - could be released for additional housing.


No building on the South Downs/adjacent area!

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


See above.




Under pressure from central Government to build new homes, Brighton & Hove City Council has chosen Toads' Hole Valley for development. An ill-thought through proposal which is neither green nor sustainable - and once views of the South Downs have been lost, they will be lost forever!




Page 161 of 541


Respondent Number:

74

Individuals Name:

Lucia Brida

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


My objections are as follows: It would introduce amendments that are not in the public interest, thereby making policy DA7 less sound The proposed modification PM045 would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. For example: Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability. Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. Undermining the commitment to a mixed-use development Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents


Any amendments ought to enhance how the development would serve the local community; regrettably, PM045 would only benefit the landowner





Page 162 of 541


Respondent Number:

78

Individuals Name:

David and Julie Wagg

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA& Toads Hole Valley


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


We are writing to object to the proposed modification PM045 because it would introduce amendments that are not in the public interest, thereby making policy DA7 less sound. More specifically, the proposed modification would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability.


Any amendments ought to enhance how the development would serve the local community.





Page 163 of 541


Respondent Number:

122

The National TrustIndividuals Name:

Mrs Anna Budge

Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:DA7





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The National Trust is grateful for the opportunity to comment on the proposed modifications to the emerging City Plan. The National Trust owns and manages a significant amount of land around Brighton and Hove within the South Downs National Park including Devils Dyke and Newtimber Hill, Fulking Escarpment and Edburton Hill, Southwick Hill, Ditchling Beacon and Black Cap. In addition to the land the Trust owns and manages Saddlescombe Farm to the north of the City which provides a unique insight into a historic farmstead within the South Downs and provides a learning space and education facility right on the South Downs Way. The National Trust has not previously commented on the City Plan as it has progressed but considers that the proposed modifications to the plan do have the potential to impact on the Trusts land and property which sits in close proximity to the City. The National Trust recognises that Policy DA7 aims to create a sustainable urban extension at the Toads Hole Valley area of the City however it is concerned that not enough emphasis has been put on the mitigation that will have to put in place to ensure that the sensitive environment within which the site sits, particularly to the north, is protected and enhanced. The proposal will result in a significant increase in the population in this part of the City with limited access to green space within the City itself, but very easy access into the National Park via the exiting PROWs. The Trust is concerned that there is no concept plan to identify where existing links are to the National Park and which are to be improved. This is considered to be contrary to para 114 of the NPPF as the policy does not plan positively for biodiversity improvements or green infrastructure. The National Trust would also like to seek assurance from the City Council that as a major landowner, in the part of the National Park in close proximity to the site, that it would be involved in the preparation of guidance to provide a future planning brief to ensure that the impact of the development on the National Park is fully considered and appropriately mitigated. The National Trust owns, alongside Brighton and Hove City Council, what is likely to be one of the major areas of land within the National Park which is likely to be used by future residents of the site i.e.: Devils Dyke. The Trust considers that other adjoining landowners which are likely to be affected by the proposal, but which also offer the opportunity to provide natural greenspace should be identified within the policy to ensure that the National Park is not adversely affected by the proposals and that appropriate mitigation is incorporated from the outset. The Trust is concerned about the removal of the opportunity for the creation of new links to the Park from the City as these may be required to ensure that appropriate mitigation can be achieved and should not be ruled out at this early stage. With this lack of consideration of the potential need for new links to be provided, without any detailed plan being included within the City Plan, the Trust would question whether this complies with section 4 of the NPPF regarding sustainable transport provision.


Criteria h) Development will make contributions towards improved or new pedestrian and cycle links to the South Downs National Park Para 3.97 Improved walking and cycling links to the South Downs National Park will be expected to be provided as part of the redevelopment scheme. This may involve improving existing links or providing new links to the Park.






Page 164 of 541


Respondent Number:

88

Individuals Name:

Neil Evans

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing to you to formally object to the proposed modification (PM045) for the reasons explained below. I understand that the proposed modification PM045 would amend the policy DA7, which defines the type of development the council proposes for Toads Hole Valley. I personally believe that it is essential for the resulting development to create an exemplary area that would: create a well-balanced mixed-use sustainable garden suburb following TCPA Garden City Principles safeguard strategic views of the South Downs and the sea. conserve and enhance the biodiversity of the valley bring benefits for the neighbouring communities in Goldstone Valley, Hangleton and Nevill mitigate the impact of traffic and traffic noise on the neighbouring areas ensure the costs of maintaining the public areas of the valley and serving it with public transport are met by the development In summary, I believe that the proposed modification PM045 would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. For example: Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability. Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. Undermining the commitment to a mixed-use development Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents





Lastly, Id like to state that I endorse the objection to PM045 submitted by the Campaign to Save Toads Hole Valley and to say that I have read it and wholeheartedly support it!



Page 165 of 541


Respondent Number:

1

Individuals Name:

Dr Michael Ray

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I support fully the detailed objection and representations made by the Save Toad's Hole Valley Campaign






Page 166 of 541


Respondent Number:

176

Individuals Name:

Mrs Maureen Holt, BA (LS)

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:Toads Hole Valley


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


I wish to make representations regarding PMO45 (DA7 Toads Hole Valley) and PMO64 (SA4 Urban Fringe). These two (see below) are in my opinion closely linked in that many residents of the City consider Brighton and Hove to be already full to capacity as any expansion of the built-up area is constrained by the South Downs National Park and the sea. Further major development will put even greater pressure on the currently under-pressure hospitals; doctors; dentists; and schools let alone roads and utility services. It is also of major concern that more and more student accommodation is being provided which puts even greater pressure on the Citys infrastructure and yet makes no contribution to housing numbers. PM045 Toads Hole Valley - Firstly I wish to support The Campaign to save Toads Hole Valley which is submitting a strong objection to PM045 because it would introduce amendments that are not in the public interest, thereby making policy DA7 less sound. Any amendments ought to enhance how the development would serve the local community; regrettably, PM045 would only benefit the landowner. These representations are made without prejudice to earlier representations, which oppose any development of Toads Hole Valley. This precious site should only be released in very exceptional circumstances. But given the city councils determination to develop this large tract of Downland between the city and national park, I believe it is essential for the resulting development to create an exemplary garden suburb that would: complement the unique landscape of this site and its surroundings safeguard strategic views of both the South Downs and the sea. create a well-balanced mixed-use sustainable garden suburb following TCPA Garden City Principles conserve and enhance the biodiversity of the valley with particular reference to not shading or causing damage to the LWS bring benefits for the neighbouring communities in Goldstone Valley, Hangleton and Nevill mitigate the impact of traffic and traffic noise on neighbouring areas ensure the costs of maintaining the public areas of the valley and serving it with public transport are met by the development I support the Campaign wishing to advocate a design code for Toads Hole Valley. This code would emphasise the quality of townscape and landscaping required for any new development to be compatible with its surroundings. PM045 would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. Policy DA7 contains too much detail for a Part 1policy, which according to the councils Local Development Scheme is supposed to identify the broad locations, scale and type of development and supporting infrastructure required. The current and earlier consultations on Part 1 have quite rightly been designed to address those strategic principles and have not created a suitable vehicle for discussing the many detailed facets of how the Toads Hole Valley should be developed. As a consequence, it has not been possible for the local community to engage, as it should, in formulating the details of the policy that will steer its development and constrain the planning brief for the site. SCHEDULE Detailed objections to Proposed Modification PM045: Paras A2 , C1(e), 3.84, 3.86 Exemplary standards of environmental, social and economic sustainability -The public was told the new development would be an exemplar of sustainability, including a plug on the BBCs The Sunday Politics. It would be disingenuous to reduce that absolute commitment to a mere aim! Paras A3 and C1(h) - Links to the National Park for local residents and tourists The public were told the development would enhance those links; it is not in the public interest for that absolute commitment to be reduced to a vague intention to seek enhancement of those links, particularly as a route across the site has already been identified. Whilst policy DA7 would require construction of the proposed footpath/cycleway from King George VI Avenue to the existing footpath over the A27, the modification would only require the developer to make a contribution towards its costs. Paras A4, C1(m), 3.98. 3.99 - Benefits to residents in terms of mixed use, community facilities, road safety, job opportunities,green infrastructure, public open space and natural green space -Policy DA7 promises residents that these benefits would be part of the development, whereas the modification would only require the development to create the opportunity for such benefits. Given the proposed benefits are the very minima that should be integral to the development of such a sensitive site; there can be no justification for reducing the level of obligation within the policy. Para A8 - Surface water run-off and flood risk -Policy DA7 commits to reducing the current levels of surface water run-off and flood risk, whereas the proposed amendment would only require there to be no worsening of the current situation. A requirement to prevent any surface water run-off and flood risk from development of the valley has to be the most

Page 167 of 541


basic benefit that existing residents should expect to deliver. Paras B bullet 2, C1, 3.90, 3.93 Construction and phasing of 25,000sq.m of B1 Whilst these changes may appear to be minor, they would significantly reduce the prospects of a mixed-use development being delivered within the valley. Paras B bullet 3, C1(g), 3.91, 3.100 New Secondary School Whereas Policy DA7 commits to the construction of a new secondary school by 2030, the proposed amendment only requires a site to be reserved. Provision of a secondary school was promoted as a reason why the public should support development of the valley, because no other site for such a school can be identified within the city. This commitment is, therefore, of paramount importance to the city and should not be diluted. Para B bullets 5 and 6, 3.93, 3.100 Community Facilities and shops etc. Policy DA7 requires shops, cafÃ©s and community facilities to be provided alongside the residential phases to avoid placing an unacceptable burden on existing facilities, whereas the proposed modification would only require the new facilities to be provided at the appropriate time, whatever that means! These changes would undermine the prospects of delivering a well-balanced mixed-use development on the site. The proposed amendment fails to address the inadequacy of the GP medical facilities north of the east-west line of the Coastway West railway. The proposed amendment makes no provision for the increased demand for primary school places that 700+ new dwellings would generate. Paras B bullet 9, C1(f), 3.87 - Energy Infrastructure District energy infrastructure for cooling, heating and power was to have been a feature of the high standards of sustainability that would characterise development of the valley. Again the public was misled by raising unrealistic expectations that are now to be abandoned. In summary, the proposed modification PM045 would water down the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. For example: Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability. Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. Undermining the commitment to a mixed-use development Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure to benefit/future residents whereas the proposed amendments would only benefit the landowner. The urban fringe which includes Toads Hole Valley is very important in terms of biodiversity. It is understood that detailed Environmental Impact Assessments will be provided for every site involving the potential for destruction of wildlife. These should include Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)






Page 168 of 541


Respondent Number:

168

Trustees of Toads Hole Valley and Pecla Investments

Individuals Name:

N/A

Agents Name:Martin Carpenter Director Enplan UK Ltd


3


Policy/Section:DA7




We have no comments to make on the Legal Compliance of the Submission Plan.


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:

It is not effective in that it is not deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross boundary strategic priorities.; It is not consistent with national policy.


(BHCC Officer Note: the respondent states "Please see letter dated 16 December 2014" the following is a precise of the letter:) It is noted that Proposed Modification PM045 provides a number of updates to Policy DA7. These are in line with our Statement of Common Ground. However, we object to the references within this to Policy CP8 whilst it remains unsound as set out in this letter. We have consistently opposed the inclusion of the Code for Sustainable Homes within Policy CP8. Our response to the Submission City Plan in April 2013 stated that we had undertaken an initial viability of the Toads Hole Valley (THV) scheme outlined in the masterplan and this illustrated our concern with the City Plan expecting the residential element to achieve Code Levels 5 and 6. This would have an impact on the deliverability and viability of the development when all aspects of the mix of development are taken into account including 40% affordable housing, land for a secondary school and 25,000 sqm of commercial floorspace. Our Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) with the City Council and submitted to the Inspector in October 2013 as part of the Examination also outlined the same concerns (eg agreement re DA7 is without prejudice to either partys representations to and submissions to be made at the Examination of the soundness of policy CP8 and Viability/Deliverability (Matter 7)�). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 sets out the role of plan making in delivering sustainable development. Paragraph 173 detailed (eg attention to viability and costs. Plans should be deliverable). The NPPF gives clear advice on ensuring that Local Plans remain flexible and deliverable. The level of requirements and obligations set out in a policy should not be to such an extent that viability is threatened. We turn to this issue in more detail in the section below on the soundness of Policy CP8. MODIFICATIONS TO POLICY CP8 Within the Main Modifications October 2014, Policy CP8 has been amended to state that all development will be required to achieve the minimum standard as set out in the revised table or equivalent standards from a quality assured scheme. The revised CP8 policy states for new build residential (non major/major/greenfield), the Code for Sustainable Homes should be: 2013-2016 : Level 4 Post 2016 : Level 5 Post 2019 : Level 5 Paragraph 4.83 has also been amended and a new sentence added : Any changes to nationally described standards and or revised Buildings Regulations will be addressed through Part 2 of the City Plan or a review of this Policy.� It is noted that the previous reference in paragraph 4.87 relating to higher standards for new greenfield development has now been deleted within the Modifications. THE INSPECTORS COMMENTS ON POLICY CP8 We have taken into account the Inspectors comments relating to Policy CP8 within her various letters to the Council. The issue of Policy CP8 and the impact on viability was raised in the Inspectors letter dated 13th December 2013. (Respondent included letter as Appendix A)) The letter makes the following reference in relation to ensuring that the plan facilitates development throughout the economic cycle, as required by the NPPF (paragraph 174). In particular, you may wish to consider whether the requirements of Policy CP8 can be justified in this context, particularly bearing in mind forthcoming changes to the Building Regulations. Furthermore, the characteristics of the housing stock in Brighton are not dissimilar to those in many established urban areas and I am not convinced that this justifies a local requirement, which is more onerous than the national standards provided by the Building Regulations.� In this letter, the Inspector is inviting the Council to re-consider the implications of CP8 on the viability of development across the Plan area. The Councils response on 31 January 2014 confirmed that it would consider the Inspectors comments. Following receipt of a copy of the Councils Proposed Modifications, the Inspector wrote again to the Council on 27 June 2014 (nb respondent attached letter as Appendix C) stating the following under the sub heading Viability: I note that you have proposed modifications

Page 169 of 541


to Policy CP8. However, there is no evidence as to whether the modifications proposed will mean that the plan facilitates development throughout the economic cycle. It would be useful to have an update of the Combined Viability Study to demonstrate whether or not this is the case. I must also draw your attention to the findings of the Inspector examining the soundness of the Bath and North East Somerset in relation to the inclusion of requirements relating to the Code for Sustainable Homes. His report is available on that Councils website and paragraphs 259 265 are particularly relevant.� (BHCC Officer Note: respondent attached extract from the Bath an NE Somerset Inspectors letter as Appendix B eg Inspector sought removal of references to the CSH due to Governments clear intention to address future energy efficiency standards in Building Regulations.) It is clear from the Inspectors letters that she is concerned that Policy CP8 is not justified nor is it in compliance with the NPPF. GOVERNMENT CHANGES TO HOUSING STANDARDS The Inspector for the City Plan has made reference to changes being made by the Government to Buildings Regulations and housing standards. She has already flagged up that the Council should not apply the Code for Sustainable Homes but must refer to Building Regulations as the mechanism for securing sustainable development. The Council makes no reference to the Governments Housing Standards Review (HSR) but depends on the results of the Combined Policy Viability Study updated September 2014. We have significant concerns with the updated Viability Study. Turner Morum LLP, Chartered Surveyors and advisers to our client have reviewed the Study. (BHCC Officer Note: respondent attached this review as Appendix D - In summary Turner Morum LLP indicated They understand THV is typology 18 in submarket area 4. They find strange BNP do not indicate THV will be challenged in viability terms because like areas 5, 6 and 7, which have been noted will be challenging, THV similarly lies away from the central areas and premium waterfront area. They note BNP indicate City Plan policies will not comply with NPPF re Area 5,6 and 7 unless flexibility applied until market picks up. However Inspector made clear at EIP policies need to be deliverable/viable throughout entirety of plan period. BNP para 6.15 notes CSH level 5 challenging though will change with new technology and methods. BNP paras 6.16, 6.18 and 7.6 referenced eg indicate schemes with significant commercial and office space will have significant impact on viability in all but highest value areas; Typology 18 has most significant amount of commercial dev and viability identified as being challenging especially when non-Grade A office space outside prime office area and re THV as a Greenfield which carries additional infrastructure costs to open up the site. Typology 18, Area 4 continues to be non-viable in all scenarios even at CSH level 3. Turner Morum conclude BNP updated report fails to add much it confirms THV cannot deliver affordable housing at policy level plus a higher than current standards of building regulations. Irrespective of policies being applied flexibly, future increases in value and future reductions in sustainability unit costs; it is unlikely the BNP updated study will give the Inspector confidence a higher than current building regulation standards of construction can or should be demanded). The majority of proposals from the HSR are to become part of building regulations during the remaining period of this parliament. An HSR technical consultation was issued on 12 September 2014. It is our understanding that responses to this consultation will be considered and will form a statement of policy which the Government intends to issue in early 2015, subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Acts. The statement will be made at the same time as the publication of the associated building regulation approved documents and nationally described space standard. These will come into force six months later in Autumn 2015. Our concern therefore is that the Council is refusing to ensure the City Plan remains relevant, effective and consistent and, therefore, sound beyond Autumn 2015. WHY POLICY CP8 IS NOT SOUND (BHCC Officer Note: respondent detailed the tests of soundness provided in the NPPF, paragraph 182) In addition to ˜positively prepared and ˜justified, to be sound, a local plan should be: ¢ Effective the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and ¢ Consistent with national policy the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework. Due to the provisions within Policy CP8, the Plan is not effective or consistent with national policy for the following reasons: Policy CP8 is not Effective Based essentially on our viability work and the comments raised by the Inspector, we consider Policy CP8 is not effective. It is not considered to be deliverable over the Plan period and it should no longer make any reference to the Code. With reference to Toads Hole Valley, it is likely development will start on site post 2016. According the Policy CP8, this will mean that the site will need to be built to Code 5 standards. We have already shown that this will render the development unviable. The Councils requirement to meet Code 5 conflicts with the clear intention of the Government regarding housing standards in relation to energy and together with the Inspector, we see no justification for including a high Code rating. To be effective, Policy CP8 should not have any regulatory or national planning barriers to its delivery. We consider elements of the Policy are not consistent with the NPPF and we outline these below. Policy CP8 is not Consistent with National Policy The City Plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the NPPF. We consider that Policy CP8 contains elements that are not consistent with national policy. We also consider that where this has happened, there is no sound rationale for departing from national policy. Our main concern is with the reference made within the Proposed Modifications (PM085) to the amended table. This states that post 2016, new build residential development should achieve Code for Sustainable Homes level 5. We consider this is inconsistent with the advice in the NPPF on setting local requirements for a buildings sustainability (paragraph 95 refers). In order to comply with the NPPF paragraph 95, the provision of paragraphs 173 and 174 of the NPPF need to be taken into account. Careful attention to viability and costs in plan making are required and Policy CP8 is not consistent with this advice.



Page 170 of 541






Delivering Toads Hole Valley is essential in order to allow new housing to come forward in the city. It is important that we have the opportunity to discuss the implications of the City Plan with the Inspector. Toads Hole Valley is a significant mixed use development site and matters of deliverability will need to be explained to the Inspector. (BHCC Officer Note: Respondent also indicated they would like to submit written representations as well as participate at the EIP, if required by the Inspector.)

Respondent Number:

186

Individuals Name:

Mrs Dickins

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:





I object to the proposed modification PM045



Page 171 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


11


Policy/Section:DA7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



We would prefer a higher minimum housing provision to make this policy sound. A higher level is justified in the context of the severe shortfall in housing provision and the fact that this is the only significant opportunity to be able to create a sustainable city suburb. It is essential that the housing is of a density that will mean that it is viable to run commercial high frequency bus services to and from the area. Object to the upper cap on housing density which should be removed or increased to allow a variety of densities to be developed to take advantage of the local topography and site layout. This upper limit is not justified and therefore makes the plan unsound. The upper limit should be determined by practical and amenity concerns, including the impact on the South Downs National Park, rather than some arbitrary figure. Paragraph 3.90 the wording about informal weekend park & ride is unjustified and unsound as it is unlikely to operate successfully and could lead to a waste of space. It would be far better to make best use of scarce land by integrating the car parking needs of the new housing with the car parking needs of the employment space as the two would be largely complimentary and operated together would allow for less space to be set aside overall for car parking, freeing up more room for other uses and / or a higher quality environment. Under phasing of development, there is a failure to mention the need to have bus services in place on day one of the completion of the first phase of the development. This is to ensure that behaviourally, people are aware of sustainable transport options and dont automatically resort to car use for every journey. The omission of this makes this unsound and will undermine the Plans ability to deliver on its sustainable transport objectives, given the size of the site.






Page 172 of 541


Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


5




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Should development on this site proceed, then given the proximity to the National Park, we would urge that any visual impact be minimised. The design, height and density of development on this site will be crucial if it is to avoid damaging the views in and out of the National Park. It is unclear at this time how achievable this will be.


In A (local priorities) we consider that the revised wording waters down commitments and therefore should remain as originally drafted. A general watering down from provision to aim and a move away from minimum in terms of the amount of open space, also gives us some concern. In new para. 3.97 the wording providing new links to the park should be reinstated.





Page 173 of 541


Respondent Number:

36

Individuals Name:

David Ballard

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


As a local resident, I am submitting a strong objection to PM045 because it would introduce amendments that are not in the public interest, thereby making policy DA7 less sound. In summary, the proposed modification PM045 would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. For example: -Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability. -Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. -Undermining the commitment to a mixed�use development -Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents







Page 174 of 541


Respondent Number:

38

Individuals Name:

Avis Carter

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I object to PM045 because it introduces amendments that are not in the public interest, thereby making policy DA7 less sound. The amendments I object to include: - Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability - Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030 - Undermining the commitment to a mixed-use development - Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents Any amendments ought to enhance how the development would serve the local community. It appears that PM045 would only benefit the landowner. I expect better from our Green council...






Page 175 of 541


Respondent Number:

42

Individuals Name:

Gilly Wise

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I would like you to note my objection as per schedule attached and on the basis that any proposals by the council lead by the Green Party should be scrutinised extremely diligently as during their term of office they have constantly disregarded any public concerns or wishes in order to instigate their ideals whether or not they would be of benefit to the wider community. This issue needs to be debated and discussed by the people who care about Brighton & Hove and therefore a public debate is called for and any proposals of PM045 should be delayed until this time. PLEASE DO NOT LET THIS COUNCIL RUIN THIS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PART OF BRIGHTON Representations by the Campaign to Save Toads Hole Valley (REP-29) Context These representations are made without prejudice to the Campaigns earlier representations, opposing any development of Toads Hole Valley. This is a precious site that should only be released in exceptional circumstances. Given the city councils determination to develop this large tract of Downland between the city and national park, the Campaign believes it is essential for the resulting development to create an exemplary suburb that would: complement the unique landscape of the site and its surroundings safeguard strategic views of the South Downs and the sea. create a well-balanced mixed-use sustainable garden suburb following TCPA Garden City Principles conserve and enhance the biodiversity of the valley bring benefits for the neighbouring communities in Goldstone Valley, Hangleton and Nevill mitigate the impact of traffic and traffic noise on the neighbouring areas ensure the costs of maintaining the public areas of the valley and serving it with public transport are met by the development The Campaign also wishes to advocate a design code for Toads Hole Valley. The code would emphasise the quality of townscape and landscaping required for the new development to be compatible with its surroundings. The Campaign objects strongly to the proposed modification PM045 as it would introduce amendments that are not in the public interest, thereby making policy DA7 less sound. PM045 would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. For example: Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability. Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. Undermining the commitment to a mixed-use development Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents Any amendments ought to enhance how the development would serve the local community, whereas the proposed amendments would only benefit the landowner. The Campaigns objection is detailed in the appended schedule. Consultation deficit The Campaign believes policy DA7 contains too much detail for a Part 1 policy, which according to the councils Local Development Scheme is supposed to identify the broad locations, scale and type of development and supporting infrastructure that is required. The current and earlier consultations on Part 1 have quite rightly been designed to address those strategic principles and have not created a suitable vehicle for discussing the many detailed facets of how the Toads Hole Valley should be developed. As a consequence, it has not been possible for the local community to engage, as it should, in formulating the details of the policy that will steer its development and constrain the planning brief for the site. SCHEDULE Detailed objections to Proposed Modification PM045: Paras A2 , C1(e), 3.84, 3.86 Exemplary standards of environmental, social and economic sustainability The public was told the new development would be an exemplar of sustainability, including a plug on the BBCs The Sunday Politics. It would be disingenuous to reduce that absolute commitment to a mere aim. Paras A3 and C1(h) - Links to the National Park for local residents and tourists The public were told the development would enhance those links; it is not in the public interest for that absolute commitment to be reduced to a vague intention to seek enhancement of those links, particularly as a route across the site has already been identified. Whilst policy DA7 would require construction of the proposed footpath/cycleway from King George VI Avenue to the existing footpath over the A27, the modification would only require the developer to make a contribution towards its costs. Paras A4, C1(m), 3.98. 3.99 - Benefits to residents in terms of mixed use, community facilities, road safety, job opportunities, green infrastructure, public open space and natural green space Policy DA7 promises residents that these benefits would be part of the development, whereas the modification would only require the development to create the opportunity for such benefits. Given the proposed benefits are the very minima that should be integral to the development of such a sensitive site, there can be no justification for reducing the level of obligation within the policy. Para A8 - Surface water run-off and flood risk Policy DA7 commits to reducing the current levels of surface

Page 176 of 541


water run-off andflood risk, whereas the proposed amendment would only require there to be no worsening of the current situation. A requirement to prevent any surface water run-off and flood risk from development of the valley has to be the most basic benefit that existing residents should expect to deliver. Paras B bullet 2, C1, 3.90, 3.93 Construction and phasing of 25,000sqm of B1 Whereas Policy DA7 requires construction of 25,000sqm of B1 floorspace, the proposed modification only specifies reservation of a 3.5/4.5ha site. Also where policy DA7 requires the employment floorspace to be constructed alongside the residential phases, the modification would only require one phase of employment floorspace to be completed before all the housing is completed. Whilst these may appear to be minor changes, they would significantly reduce the prospects of a mixed-use development being delivered within the valley. Paras B bullet 3, C1(g), 3.91, 3.100 New Secondary School Whereas Policy DA7 commits to the construction of a new secondary school by 2030, the proposed amendment only requires a site to be reserved. Provision of a secondary school was promoted as a reason why the public should support development of the valley, because no other site for such a school can be identified within the city. This commitment is, therefore, of paramount importance to the city and should not be diluted. Para B bullets 5 and 6, 3.93, 3.100 Community Facilities and shops etc Policy DA7 requires shops, cafÃ©s and community facilities to be provided alongside the residential phases to avoid placing an unacceptable burden on existing facilities, whereas the proposed modification would only require the new facilities to be provided at the appropriate time, whatever that means! These changes would undermine the prospects of delivering a well-balanced mixed-use development on the site. The proposed amendment fails to address the inadequacy of the GP medical facilities north of the east-west line of the Coastway West railway. The proposed amendment makes no provision for the increased demand for primary school places that 700+ new dwellings would generate. Paras B bullet 9, C1(f), 3.87 - Energy Infrastructure District energy infrastructure for cooling, heating and power was to have been a feature of the high standards of sustainability that would characterise development of the valley. Again the public was misled by raising unrealistic expectations that are now to be abandoned.






Page 177 of 541


Respondent Number:

13


Individuals Name:

Sandy Crowhurst

Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:DA7




We note removal of energy infrastructure such as cooling, heating and power networks and also the downgrading c1e from the development being zero carbon. 3.86: Retention of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6 BREAM Outstanding and be zero carbon or carbon neutral.


Retention of these policies.

Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



We question the removal of these policies which makes the development unsustainable in terms of carbon usage and is against national environmental policies and local policies.







Page 178 of 541


Respondent Number:

41

Individuals Name:

Edwin Sears

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I wish to object to PM045. I agree with the views expressed by the Campaign Against the Development of Toads Hole Valley that the amendments proposed are not in the public interest and making policy less sound. Just one example of this is removing the requirement to build the secondary school by 2030 and only requiring them to reserve a site. This shows that the amendments are reducing the requirement of the developer to complete a development that is fully integrated into the local community. In this way the developer will enjoy the benefits of the development with the local community picking up costs of providing such facilities at a local date.






Page 179 of 541


Respondent Number:

39

Individuals Name:

Jane Pidgeon

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I object to the proposed development of Toads Hole Valley but if this has to go ahead I even more strongly object to this amendment PM045 being implemented.






Page 180 of 541


Respondent Number:

43

Individuals Name:

Keith & Georgette Bassant

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


My wife Georgette and I wish to protest strongly about the proposed changes to the original development plan for Toads Hole Valley. The original plan, DA7, seemed to us to provide the correct mix for the site in terms of the type and quality of the development, the provision of space for a school and for commercial areas, the road layout and the overall aims for sustainability. We liked the provision of green spaces and mixed housing and thought the scheme was imaginative. We are upset to see the aim of a quality development of this important site so diminished by the proposals in PM045 which devalue the site and seem to be made to allow quick, cheap and easy conditions for the developer. We urge those responsible to continue to press for a quality development as detailed in DA7. In short we strongly support the points made by Save Toads Hole Valley group, in pressing for a sustainable, quality, mixed use build with proper safe links to the existing roads and space for recreation, education and appropriate commercial space.






Page 181 of 541


Respondent Number:

11

Individuals Name:

Elisabeth & Peter Scarff

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I wish to register our protest against the re-routing of King George VI Avenue. This is a very busy access road with vehicles leaving the by-pass at speed. If this road is put through the proposed new crowded residential development (with possibly a school) it has a great risk of accidents. Vehicles already pass through Goldstone Valley & the Dyke rd area in excess of the recommended speed. The development of this area is ill conceived as it acts as a water catchment & drainage area, which in view of the climate change in process is needed to prevent flooding of the Goldstone valley. Is not part of Toad's Hole valley a SSI? Thank for your attention.






Page 182 of 541


Respondent Number:

44

Individuals Name:

Stephen Wells

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


In summary, the proposed modification PM045 would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. For example: Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability. Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. Undermining the commitment to a mixed-use development Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents Any amendments ought to enhance how the development would serve the local community; regrettably, PM045 would only benefit the landowner.






Page 183 of 541


Respondent Number:

49

Individuals Name:

Mervyn Eason

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I understand the Council is considering modifications to city plan DA7 for the development at Toads Hole Valley under the umbrella of PM045. In my opinion these modifications would effectively dilute the quality of the development in the following ways. 1. It removes the requirement for an exemplar development. 2. It reduces the proposal for building a secondary school to merely reserving a site. 3. It undermines the commitment for a mixed-use development. 4. It reduces the commitment to provide a range of infrastructure benefitting current and future residents. In summation I believe the amendments serve purely to benefit or appease the landowner with nil or scant regard for the local community






Page 184 of 541


Respondent Number:

45

Individuals Name:

Mark Stephens

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing to you to object to the proposed modification PM045 on the Toads Hole Valley development. My strong objection to PM045 is because it would introduce amendments that are not in the public interest, thereby making policy DA7 less sound. My reasons are explained below. The proposed modification PM045 would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. For example: Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability. Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. Undermining the commitment to a mixed�use development Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents







Page 185 of 541


Respondent Number:

7



Agents Name:


3




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


We object to the removal of the policy reference to energy infrastructure for the Toads Hole Valley Area. PM045 - Toads Hole Valley, key elements to be provided - energy infrastructure We do not believe that the line starting with energy infrastructure'; should be deleted this should remain an essential part of the development bearing in mind the need to optimise energy generation and use within the development areas;






Page 186 of 541


Respondent Number:

51

Individuals Name:

Geoffrey Russell

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I object strongly to the proposed modification PM045 to the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part 1. and support the Campaign to save Toads Hole Valley in their objections.






Page 187 of 541


Respondent Number:

50

Individuals Name:

Kim Sinclair

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I object to proposed modification PM045 on the grounds that it includes amendments that are not in the public interest, therefore making policy DA7 less sound. In particular, it would dilute the quality of the proposed development for Toads Hole Valley.






Page 188 of 541


Respondent Number:

48

Individuals Name:

Carl Hodler

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


Whilst I appreciate that Toads Hole Valley development needs to take place, I'm very disappointed in the recent modifications to the plan. I object to the proposed modification PM045 as it would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. For example: Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability. Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. Undermining the commitment to a mixed-use development Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents







Page 189 of 541


Respondent Number:

53

Individuals Name:

Marina Patrignani

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing with regards to the proposed modification of PM045 2 with regards to the development of TOADs HOLE VALLEY in Hove. I am objecting to the proposed modifications because they would introduce amendments that are not in the public interest, thereby making policy DA7 less sound. Here is enclosed a summary of the reasons why I object to the proposed modifications Representations by the Campaign to Save Toads Hole Valley (REP-29) Context These representations are made without prejudice to the Campaigns earlier representations, opposing any development of Toads Hole Valley. This is a precious site that should only be released in exceptional circumstances. Given the city councils determination to develop this large tract of Downland between the city and national park, the Campaign believes it is essential for the resulting development to create an exemplary suburb that would: complement the unique landscape of the site and its surroundings safeguard strategic views of the South Downs and the sea. create a well-balanced mixed-use sustainable garden suburb following TCPA Garden City Principles conserve and enhance the biodiversity of the valley bring benefits for the neighbouring communities in Goldstone Valley, Hangleton and Nevill mitigate the impact of traffic and traffic noise on the neighbouring areas ensure the costs of maintaining the public areas of the valley and serving it with public transport are met by the development The Campaign also wishes to advocate a design code for Toads Hole Valley. The code would emphasise the quality of townscape and landscaping required for the new development to be compatible with its surroundings. The Campaign objects strongly to the proposed modification PM045 as it would introduce amendments that are not in the public interest, thereby making policy DA7 less sound. PM045 would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. For example: Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability. Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. Undermining the commitment to a mixed-use development Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents Any amendments ought to enhance how the development would serve the local community, whereas the proposed amendments would only benefit the landowner. The Campaigns objection is detailed in the appended schedule. Consultation deficit The Campaign believes policy DA7 contains too much detail for a Part 1 policy, which according to the councils Local Development Scheme is supposed to identify the broad locations, scale and type of development and supporting infrastructure that is required. The current and earlier consultations on Part 1 have quite rightly been designed to address those strategic principles and have not created a suitable vehicle for discussing the many detailed facets of how the Toads Hole Valley should be developed. As a consequence, it has not been possible for the local community to engage, as it should, in formulating the details of the policy that will steer its development and constrain the planning brief for the site. SCHEDULE Detailed objections to Proposed Modification PM045: Paras A2 , C1(e), 3.84, 3.86 Exemplary standards of environmental, social and economic sustainability The public was told the new development would be an exemplar of sustainability, including a plug on the BBCs The Sunday Politics. It would be disingenuous to reduce that absolute commitment to a mere aim. Paras A3 and C1(h) - Links to the National Park for local residents and tourists The public were told the development would enhance those links; it is not in the public interest for that absolute commitment to be reduced to a vague intention to seek enhancement of those links, particularly as a route across the site has already been identified. Whilst policy DA7 would require construction of the proposed footpath/cycleway from King George VI Avenue to the existing footpath over the A27, the modification would only require the developer to make a contribution towards its costs. Paras A4, C1(m), 3.98. 3.99 - Benefits to residents in terms of mixed use, community facilities, road safety, job opportunities, green infrastructure, public open space and natural green space Policy DA7 promises residents that these benefits would be part of the development, whereas the modification would only require the development to create the opportunity for such benefits. Given the proposed benefits are the very minima that should be integral to the development of such a sensitive site, there can be no justification for reducing the level of obligation within the policy. Para A8 - Surface water run-off and flood risk Policy DA7 commits to reducing the current levels of surface water run-off and flood risk, whereas the proposed amendment would only require there to be no worsening of the current situation. A requirement to prevent any surface water run-off and flood risk from development of the valley

Page 190 of 541


has to be the most basic benefit that existing residents should expect to deliver. Paras B bullet 2, C1, 3.90, 3.93 Construction and phasing of 25,000sqm of B1 Whereas Policy DA7 requires construction of 25,000sqm of B1 floorspace, the proposed modification only specifies reservation of a 3.5/4.5ha site. Also where policy DA7 requires the employment floorspace to be constructed alongside the residential phases, the modification would only require one phase of employment floorspace to be completed before all the housing is completed. Whilst these may appear to be minor changes, they would significantly reduce the prospects of a mixed-use development being delivered within the valley. Paras B bullet 3, C1(g), 3.91, 3.100 New Secondary School Whereas Policy DA7 commits to the construction of a new secondary school by 2030, the proposed amendment only requires a site to be reserved. Provision of a secondary school was promoted as a reason why the public should support development of the valley, because no other site for such a school can be identified within the city. This commitment is, therefore, of paramount importance to the city and should not be diluted. Para B bullets 5 and 6, 3.93, 3.100 Community Facilities and shops etc Policy DA7 requires shops, cafÃ©s and community facilities to be provided alongside the residential phases to avoid placing an unacceptable burden on existing facilities, whereas the proposed modification would only require the new facilities to be provided at the appropriate time, whatever that means! These changes would undermine the prospects of delivering a well-balanced mixed-use development on the site. The proposed amendment fails to address the inadequacy of the GP medical facilities north of the east-west line of the Coastway West railway. The proposed amendment makes no provision for the increased demand for primary school places that 700+ new dwellings would generate. Paras B bullet 9, C1(f), 3.87 - Energy Infrastructure District energy infrastructure for cooling, heating and power was to have been a feature of the high standards of sustainability that would characterise development of the valley. Again the public was misled by raising unrealistic expectations that are now to be abandoned.






Page 191 of 541


Respondent Number:

47

Individuals Name:

Karen E Tiltman

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing to submit an objection the Toads Hole Valley Proposal PM045. The Campaign is submitting a strong objection to PM045 because it would introduce amendments that are not in the public interest, thereby making policy DA7 less sound. In summary, the proposed modification PM045 would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. For example: -Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability. -Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. -Undermining the commitment to a mixed-use development -Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents







Page 192 of 541


Respondent Number:

46

Individuals Name:

Simon Rickman

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:DA7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing with extremely strong objection to the plans to develop Toads Hole Valley. I live in 8 Charles Close, Hove, BN3 6WP, which backs on to King George VI Drive. I've lived there with my family for 17 years, with uninterrupted views of the Downs. Your plans will destroy that view for us, and hundreds of other people who specifically like living in the area for its beauty. Thank you for destroying that for us! I understand that, despite protests, objections, and common sense, you are going ahead with the development anyway. And now I understand that you are trying to dumb down what was agreed by proposing to modify PM045. This would dilute the quality of the development being promoted making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. For example: - Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability - Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. - Undermining the commitment to a mixed-use development - Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents Please be aware that any amendments ought to enhance how the development would serve the local community; regrettably, PM045 would only benefit the landowner. Please fix this for your residents!






Page 193 of 541


Respondent Number:

54

Individuals Name:

Peter Ames

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


As part of the process of preparing the city plan, the council is currently consulting on proposed modifications to the published policies. Proposed modification PM045 would amend the policy DA7, which defines the type of development the council proposes for Toads Hole Valley. I object to PM045 because it would introduce amendments that are not in the public interest, thereby making policy DA7 less sound. In summary, the proposed modification PM045 would dilute the quality of the development being promoted for Toads Hole Valley, making many important features subject to viability and/or deliverability. For example: Removing the requirement for the development to be an exemplar of sustainability. Reserving a site for secondary school, instead of requiring its construction by 2030. Undermining the commitment to a mixed-use development Reducing the commitment to the provision of a range of infrastructure that would benefit existing and future residents







Page 194 of 541


Respondent Number:

143

Adur and Worthing Councils

Individuals Name:

Catherine Hutchins

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:Policies Map, Key Diagram, and Key Illustration associated with Policy DA8




Adur Council is working closely with Brighton and Hove City Council on the emerging planning policy framework for the Harbour. We support the proposed modifications (PM046) to the Development Area boundary on the Policies Map, Key Diagram, and Key Illustration associated with Policy DA8 which will ensure consistency with the emerging Joint Area Action Plan.









Page 195 of 541


Respondent Number:

137



Agents Name:


6


Policy/Section:DA8 Shoreham Harbour para 3.103 pg 88


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


The Sussex Wildlife Trust supports the additional bullet point in policy DA8 and feels that the modified policy better reflects the aims of chapter 10 of the NPPF.




We believe that by making the changes suggested above, the City Plan will be more consistent with national policy, in particular sufficiently performing its environmental role of: contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy NPPF, para 7. Please do contact me if you would like to discuss any of the above points.



Page 196 of 541


Respondent Number:

7



Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:DA8 Shoreham Harbour


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


We reiterate our support for the modifications that have arisen as a result of changes agreed between the City Council and Hove Civic Society and would wish those to remain. PM047 - Energy and Waste Heat, Shoreham Harbour This is one of the modifications we negotiated with the city council and which we would like to see retained






Page 197 of 541


Respondent Number:

55

West Sussex County Council

Individuals Name:

Caroline West

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


This note sets out officer level comments upon the City Plan Part One - Proposed Modifications, highlighting a key issue and suggesting additional wording to address this issue. West Sussex County Council values the strong partnership working between the three local authorities in respect of the Shoreham Harbour project and continues to support policy DA8, which sets out a useful framework for delivery and regeneration of this strategic site. The policy is consistent with West Sussex County Councils commitment to the regeneration of Shoreham Harbour if it delivers the right level of infrastructure to support economic growth and housing. The County Council has worked collaboratively to inform the Local Plans and Shoreham Harbour Transport Study and on the basis of a technical assessment f the work carried out, supports its conclusions. There is reasonable confidence hat the package of local transport infrastructure improvements and smarter choices measures (or a similar package of measures) is likely to provide sufficient mitigation so that any residual cumulative impacts would not be severe. This is the key test imposed by the NPPF.


We request that Policy DA8 makes reference also to the preparation of the Shoreham Harbour Transport Strategy. It is requested that the wording A Transport Strategy for Shoreham Harbour is being produced to support the Shoreham Harbour Joint Area Action Plan to mitigate impacts on the highway network and to promote sustainable travel behaviours. Development in this location must be in accordance with this Transport Strategy. be added. We suggest this may best fit at the end of PM048. With regard to Air Quality we note that there is no specific reference to the Sussex Mitigation Guidance 2013, which you may wish to add.





Page 198 of 541


Respondent Number:

119



Agents Name:


6


Policy/Section:DA8 Shoreham Harbour, page 88


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


PM049 - Shoreham Harbour We appreciate that work is ongoing in developing the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP), and that policies included in the modified City Plan are subject to further development of the JAAP. However we have concerns with the following: Residential Capacity We would question why the development capacity of the Harbour has been reduced from 400 to 300 new residential units. The Harbour area is a potentially very attractive housing location, is currently a scruffy environment in need of comprehensive redevelopment and could make a significant contribution to the City's housing targets.






Page 199 of 541


Respondent Number:

31


Individuals Name:


Agents Name:


3







Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


We support the reduction in the number of new residential units in DA8 A from 400 to 300. This confirms the view that we put forward at the Hearing that the capacity of this brownfield Area is constrained by environmental factors relating to the Area itself and to its surroundings.







Page 200 of 541


Respondent Number:

119



Agents Name:


7


Policy/Section:DA8 Shoreham Harbour. page 89/90


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


We commented on the draft JAAP in April this year, and proposed that the JAAP should specifically include a proposal to strengthen the potential link between Hove Lagoon and Aldrington Basin visually and physically to create a new public square overlooking the harbour, and lined with some housing and offices at the upper level and small retail and restaurant/cafes© uses at ground floor level. It would be useful if the modified City Plan created a bit more vision for re-development of this area.






Page 201 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


12


Policy/Section:DA8


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:








Page 202 of 541


Respondent Number:

31


Individuals Name:


Agents Name:


4







Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


This modification reflects the area priorities which need to be taken into consideration in development at Aldrington Basin that were debated by KAWHRA and the council at the Hearing, and subsequently agreed.







Page 203 of 541


Respondent Number:

16

Individuals Name:

Steve Parry

Agents Name:


9


Policy/Section:SA2






Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


In order to ensure new development proposals take into account impact on local air quality and that improvements and/ or mitigation are sought wherever possible consideration must be given to St James' Street.






Page 204 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


13


Policy/Section:SA2


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:








Page 205 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:



17


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:





SLI supports the modifications to Policy SA2 and consideSLI supports the modifications to Policy SA2 and considers that Policy DA1 and para 3.6 to DA1 should be worded to reflect the modified Policy SA2 which requires development proposals to take account of impact on local air quality and that improvements and/or mitigation are sought wherever possible. This wording is reflected in paragraph 3.141 which is also supported by SLI.






Page 206 of 541


Respondent Number:

16

Individuals Name:

Steve Parry

Agents Name:


7


Policy/Section:SA2




It is impossible to refer to improvements in an Air Quality Management Area and ignore one part of that area St James' Streetvi


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


It is impossible to refer to improvements in an Air Quality Management Area and ignore one part of that area St James' Streetvi







Page 207 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


14


Policy/Section:SA2


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:








Page 208 of 541


Respondent Number:

83

Individuals Name:

Graeme Forrest

Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:SA4

Support / Object:



Carly - untick legal compliance box


Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:








Page 209 of 541


Respondent Number:

87

Individuals Name:

Miss Jane Frowde

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4 Urban Fringe / City Plan Part 1 - Key Diagram

Support / Object:



There appears to be a mapping error in relation to Urban Fringe Site 50 - Land west of Falmer Avenue. On the Key Diagram map, page 82 of Proposed Modifications, the site now seems to be outside the City Plan Boundary, whereas previously in documents (City Plan part one Feb 2013 - Schedule of Changes to the Policies Map page 9 and page 24 map #14) the site is shown within the City Plan boundary. As the site is included in the Urban Fringe Assessment Study for the City Plan, I believe it should be included within the boundary of the City Plan.


Correct all maps as detailed above








Page 210 of 541


Respondent Number:

182

Individuals Name:

J Raphael

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:








Please see comments made for PM072 - Urban Fringe Numerical Allowance.



Page 211 of 541


Respondent Number:

163


Individuals Name:


Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:SA4 Urban Fringe

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:








The Authority notes the identification of the urban fringe as a broad source of potential for housing development, as informed by the Urban Fringe Assessment Study (June 2014) in the Proposed Modifications (PM010 and PM011). With reference to the Proposed Modification to the supporting text of Policy SA4 (PM064), the National Park Authority requests that officers from the two authorities work closely, under the Duty to Cooperate, in the more detailed assessment of potential housing sites given some of the sites proximity to the designated landscape. This should inform the allocations in Part 2 of the City Plan, to ensure that due regard is given to the impact of development on the purposes and setting of the South Downs National Park. In particular, ensuring that careful consideration is given to views into and out of the National Park and opportunities for improved access for all, including pedestrians, cyclists and horseriders, into the National Park are identified.



Page 212 of 541


Respondent Number:

167


Mike Clark

Agents Name:GVA


4


Policy/Section:SA4

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:





The UoB supports the Councils objectives with regards to the careful use and management of land within the Urban Fringe and in particular the inclusion of the new wording where appropriate within emerging policy. UoB considers that this subtle difference in policy wording provides the right balance between ensuring the preservation of land within the urban fringe and enabling appropriate and sustainable opportunities for sympathetic new development that meets the needs of the University. As set out above with reference to emerging Policy DA3 (Lewes Road), the UoB considers that appropriate opportunities exist, at the Falmer Campus in particular, to promote new academic and sporting facilities that are sympathetic to the sensitive landscape context of the area and is therefore supportive of the emerging policy which seeks to protect and enhance the wider landscape, whilst recognising, in conjunction with other policies contained within the City Plan, the general presumption in favour of the sustainable expansion and enhancement of higher education provision in Brighton. As such, the UoB does not wish to propose any amendments to emerging Policy SA4 (Urban Fringe) but would direct the City Council towards linked comments made in respect to emerging Policy DA3 (Lewes Road).






Page 213 of 541


Respondent Number:

7



Agents Name:


5



Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:








Last paras; we believe that the Urban Fringe study can only be an interim assessment of development of the city and that a wider assessment will be needed in due course to steer the development of the city in a planned fashion and avoid adhoc incursions over time into the urban fringe.



Page 214 of 541


Respondent Number:

96

Deans Preservation Group

Individuals Name:

James Wright

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4 "Urban Fringe", Page 111-113




Our responses to question Q3b are the same as in our Representation 1, i.e.: We are of the view that Proposed Modification PM064 has not been properly appraised for the reasons set out under Question 5 Sustainability Appraisal�. To adopt the plan without addressing those concerns would therefore breach Regulation 8(1) Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004.


Our responses to question Q3c are the same as in our Representation 1, i.e.: Delete reference in policy SA4 (PM064) to the Urban Fringe Assessment (UFA) as operating as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications for residential development in the urban fringe. i.e. delete the 5th paragraph from the end of PM064 which currently reads "Should proposals for development come forward prior to the adoption of Part 2 of the City Plan, the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment will be a material planning consideration in the determination of applications for residential development within the urban fringe."

Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



The determination in the Urban Fringe Assessment that residential development might be appropriate on Site 42, Land adjacent to Ovingdean Road and Falmer Road, Ovingdean, for 45 dwellings is unsound because it is not consistent with national policy: 1. For Site 42 the City Plan 1 is contrary to paragraph 158 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), because it fails to use an appropriate evidence base. This is because the proposed City Plan 1 will be based on the Urban Fringe Assessment (UFA) which is itself not based on "up-to-date and relevant evidence about economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area". Specifically: a) Contrary to NPPF paragraph 158 the UFA does not include up-to-date relevant information about environmental characteristics available from the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre, because the most up-to-date information was discovered and recorded after the production of the Urban Fringe Assessment. For example information not available to the UFA includes recognition that Site 42 contains: - Rare habitat Lowland Calcareous Grassland� - Rare species of plants (Cut-leaved Self-heal, Hybrid Self-heal, Corky-fruited Water-dropwort and Corn Parsley), - An extensive colony of rare Red Star-thistle grows on exactly the part of the field proposed for 45 dwellings - Rare species of animals (slow worms and common lizards), - At risk species of birds (RSPB Red List: Herring Gull; RSPB Amber List: Swift, House Martin, Green Woodpecker and other birds at risk� are feeding in Site 42) - Rare species of invertebrate (Hornet Robber Fly, Cinnabar Moth, Capsid Bug) b) The UFA for Site 42 was carried out without a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. In the case of Site 42 this is significant because the full importance of the landscape implications of development of 45 dwellings on the site are not revealed by the desktop and site visit carried out in the UFA. This constitutes failure to use an appropriate evidence base and is contrary to NPPF paragraph 158. For example factors not recognised in the UFA include that the site occupies a unique niche in the landscape linking two areas of the South Downs National Park (SDNP) and forming an integral part of important views both into and out of the National Park. It contributes to a locally important segregation between villages creating a gap between built-up areas. For other factors see 3 below. c) The lack of an appropriately detailed assessment of landscape character and landscape sensitivity for Site 42 is contrary to paragraph 170 of the NPPF which states that "Where appropriate, landscape character assessments should also be prepared, integrated with assessment of historic landscape character, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity. "d) The UFA does not even have the address of Site 42 correct - it is in Rottingdean, not Ovingdean. Although of minor importance in itself, this point clearly demonstrates the superficial and inaccurate nature of the UFA in relation to Site 42 and how it fails to use an appropriate evidence base contrary to NPPF paragraph 158. e) The UFA is based on a flood study that makes an inadequate assessment of the environmental characteristics of the area. The main mechanism for flooding on Site 42 is rising groundwater (because the site is in a "dry" chalk valley). The Environment Agency Flood Zone maps do not include rising groundwater flooding, so the flood study used as the basis for the UFA is based on an inadequate

Page 215 of 541


information. This is contrary to paragraph 158 of the NPPF which requires that "the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence...about environmental characteristics and prospects of the area. "f) The UFA for Site 42 did not include an archaeological survey - adjacent areas show many archaeological remains, but limited access has meant that no specific archaeological study has been carried out on Site 42 itself. This shows that the UFA does not take into account the environmental characteristics of Site 42 contrary to paragraph 158 of the NPPF. In addition the lack of an archaeological survey for Site 42 is contrary to paragraph 169 of the NPPF which states that "Local planning authorities should have up-to-date evidence about the historic environment in their area..". 2. For Site 42 the Proposed Modifications to City Plan 1 are contrary to the NPPF because they are based on the UFA which fails to meet the requirements of paragraph 157. Paragraph 157 states: "Crucially, Local Plans should:... - contain a clear strategy for enhancing the natural, built and historic environment, and supporting Nature Improvement Areas where they have been identified. "No such strategy for Site 42 has been included in the UFA. Site 42 is a Nature Improvement Area (NIA), but although this was acknowledged in the UFA there was no assessment of how the proposal for 45 dwellings on Site 42 would support the NIA. It is far from clear how 45 dwellings could possibly be compatible with supporting the Nature Improvement Area, since NIAs are set up to "protect and restore chalk grassland" as part of the South Downs Way Ahead project. 3. In terms of landscape the Proposed Modifications to City Plan 1 for Site 42 are contrary to the NPPF because: a) Paragraph 109 of the NPPF requires that the planning system should "contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interest and soils." There is no contribution of this nature made within the UFA for Site 42, contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF. The landscape is valued for its open views to and from the South Downs National Park that would be significantly adversely affected by the proposed 45 dwellings and cannot be mitigated with tree planting, which would itself change the open character of the landscape. Specific views of note are: - from the public footpath from Ovingdean to Woodingdean along Mount Pleasant from within the National Park across Site 42 to further areas of the National Park. - from The Vale and Ovingdean Road looking east where Site 42 forms the foreground to views into the National Park formed by a sweep of original hillside rising to Balsdean Hill within the National Park. - from Falmer Road looking north-west over Site 42 into the Mount Pleasant area of the National Park and looking south with views over Site 42 to the sea. - from the Ovingdean Road hill Site 42 forms part of the rural aspect of the area with a view of old farm buildings beside open land in the surrounding setting of the National Park. In addition the soil of Site 42 is an inherent part of its classification as "Lowland Calcareous Grassland", which is not recognised in the UFA, and certainly not protected and enhanced contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF. b) Paragraph 115 requires that "Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks...which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. However, this has not been achieved since the following relevant facts are omitted from the UFA: - Site 42 is within the South Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment (SDILCA) which identifies the site as being within the Adur to Ouse Open downland character Area A2. - Site 42 is part of the narrow land bridge between two parts of National Park to the south/west and to the north/east. This land bridge is essential to maintain biodiversity connectivity between the two areas of the National Park. The land bridge is the only link between the Beacon Hill and Mount Pleasant South Downs National Park Nature Reserves to the west and the wider SDNP to the east. Again this demonstrates that the UFA for Site 42 fails to use an appropriate evidence base contrary to NPPF paragraph 158. 4. The UFA for Site 42, and therefore the City Plan, is contrary to Core Planning Principles set out in the NPPF paragraph 17: a) "...planning should...take account of the different roles and character of different areas...recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of of the countryside...". As demonstrated in sections 1, 2 and 3 above, neither the the role and character of Site 42 nor its intrinsic character and beauty has been taken into account in the UFA. b) "...planning should...contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. "There are known health issues with nitrogen dioxide pollution levels in Rottingdean High Street, designated as an Air Quality Management Area, which is 25% above the maximum permitted level of 40 micrograms per cubic metre and rising. Development of up to 45 dwellings on Site 42 would increase such pollution in Rottingdean High Street contrary to the NPPF paragraph 17 requirement to reduce it. 5. The City Plan and UFA does not evaluate whether Site 42 is "...land of the right type...available in the right place...to support growth and innovation" which roles the planning system needs to perform to contribute to supporting sustainable development, according to Paragraph 6 of the NPPF. It is by no means a given that development of Site 42 would deliver a positive economic effect. There are extreme problems of traffic congestion in the area leading to regular peak time queues of over 2 miles backing up onto the A27 Brighton by-pass. The coastal communities of Saltdean, Peacehaven, Newhaven and Seaford all depend on a single road connection with Brighton along the coast. Extreme peak time congestion limits the ability of these communities to carry out their economic and social activity, and any housing built on Site 42 would only increase delays by contributing to the congestion at the main coast road bottleneck - Rottingdean traffic lights. A large part of the local economy derives from the tourist trade. Loss of rural views associated with the National Park and increased traffic congestion are both factors that reduce the attractiveness of the area to tourists. Neither of these significant economic and social effects are addressed in the UFA. These points demonstrate that the UFA for Site 42 is contrary to the NPPF in many respects, and development of Site 42 should not be permitted to take place based upon the UFA findings. A more in-depth study of the suitability of Site 42 for development is necessary, and this can take place under the work planned by Brighton & Hove City Council for the development of City Plan 2.


The modification to City Plan 1 as written allows for the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment to be used as a material Page 216 of 541


planning consideration even where it is not based on up-to-date and relevant evidence about the environmental characteristics of the area. To correct this we propose that the following additional paragraph should be included at the bottom of the PM064 section, just after the last paragraph in the section ending ...at the planning application stage.�: Where additional information on an Urban Fringe site has been discovered since the publication of the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment, and where that information could potentially have altered the findings of the Urban Fringe Assessment if it had been available before publication, then the Urban Fringe Assessment 2014 will not be a material consideration for the site in question, which will be reassessed under the further consideration and more detailed assessment of potential housing sites undertaken to inform allocations made in Part 2 of the City Plan. In this case sites coming forward for development ahead of the preparation of Part 2 of the City Plan will not be considered until after its adoption.�


Our responses to question Q5 are the same as in our Representation 1, i.e.: By Regulation 12(2) Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 the environmental report shall include (i) the likely significant effects of implementing the plan or programme, and (ii) the reasonable alternatives. The assessment shall set-out the information directed in Schedule 2. The supplementary SEA only deals with the amendments to SA4 in broad terms, simply whether there should be development in the urban fringe or not (see p.19 and p.202) What it fails to do is assess whether the proposed locations and quantum of development at each of the proposed urban fringe sites as set out in the UFA. The SEA/SA of the proposed City Plan 1 is therefore defective because it is contrary to Regulation 12(1) of the 2004 Regulations: (i) It fails to assess alternative urban fringe sites or other indeed any combinations of development other than that identified in the UFA; (ii) It fails to describe the likely significant effects of developing each site in the manner identified in the UFA; (iii) It fails to provide reasons for explaining why those sites were identified and why that level of housing was considered for allocation beyond merely pointing-out they were identified within the UFA. As such, we are firmly of the view that to adopt the City Plan 1 in the form it now takes would be in breach of Regulation 8(1) of the 2004 Regulations, as a key plank of the housing strategy (development of the urban fringe) has not been properly assessed.


Deans Preservation Group have additional written submissions available for the Government inspector should these be required. They underpin our assertion that the Urban Fringe Assessment is superficial and inadequate in assessing the impact of developing 45 dwellings on Site 42, and is not fit for the purpose of allocating housing unless supplemented with additional studies as part of City Plan 2: - Biodiversity Study and Report - Landscape Study and Report




The Deans Preservation Group is of the view that a further hearing session is necessary, following publication of a revised SEA/SA to examine the appropriateness of the preferred allocations of housing in the urban fringe against the identified alternatives. The Deans Preservation Group may like to participate in that further session if it is convened, and may be represented by counsel, a planning consultant, a landscape consultant and an ecologist to assist it in putting its case. (Written reps also)

Page 217 of 541


Respondent Number:

94

Individuals Name:

Mr John Austin Locke

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4




Some of the above questions are difficult to answer. I have no legal knowledge of the legal side of these potential proposals and do not know which section to which they refer. I have some general comments on the proposals contained in the City Plan and some specific comments, at this early stage, around those proposed for Westfield Avenue and Coombe Farm. I am a resident of Coombe Vale and Coombe Farm immediately backs onto my property. Looking at the plan in its entirety and in general terms I find many of the proposed development sites in the plan imaginative. Clearly the City remains a popular place to live and any one of us could claim that saturation point has been reached in our area and there is "no more room". I would like to think that I am not one of those and do not subscribe to the lifeboat approach of ".there is plenty of room in the lifeboat, I'm in the lifeboat. There is no more room in the lifeboat". The "Lifeboat" in this case being housing across the City and the need to provide more of it in a sustainable way.


The number of houses proposed for the Westfield Avenue, Dog Kennel and Coombe Farm site, 71 homes in total, is too many for the area and while some development on the site would simply continue the current process, of infilling, taking place, a reduced number of new properties would be more appropriate. I would suggest that the development at Westfield Avenue, Land North of Westfield Avenue and land at the kennels provide a sustainable increase in housing in the area, and use what is nearer to "Brown Field Sites" while the use of virgin farm land does not. While the farm land is not in the National Park designation it is so close to it as to make no difference. So a partial development on this site fits better with the overall aims of the plan and demonstrates serious intent with impacting on the environment. Above all, however, I would wish to preserve the woodland on the site, (behind Coombe Vale and to the left of Westfield Avenue North at the entrance to the farm) part of which I own as a managed part of my garden. This woodland is made up almost entirely of undiseased Elm Trees and therefore represents a significant natural resource of value both in terms of its Green contribution to the area and as a wildlife preserve. The woodland is home to badger, fox, squirrels, green woodpeckers, jays, visiting peregrine falcons. I have added to these hardwood trees and have planted approximately ten thousand snowdrop, English bluebell and other bulbs on the site. I believe, from the plan that this is not currently threatened. However the substantial development of houses would undoubtedly have an impact on the wildlife habitat and activities of the wildlife and this needs to be recognised.

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



As I have suggested at 3C the plans, currently, are exaggerated and need to be reduced in volume. Further consideration also needs to be given to the wildlife habitat in the woodland at the back of Coombe Vale and to the side of Westfield Avenue and the impact any substantial development in the vicinity of the woodland. As owner of part of that woodland I undertake to co-operate with any investigation.


I would suggest wording along the lines of "Consideration will be given to the impact any development will have on the natural environment in the case of 48 a-c. In particular the plan will seek to preserve the woodland on the site and the preservation of the mature elm trees sited there. Consideration will also be given to preserving the natural environment within the woodland and the wildlife that lives there".


The current plan does not sufficiently recognise the diversity in fauna and flora in the area around the Coombe Vale/Coombe Farm/Westfield Avenue site. This needs to be acknowledged and the preservation of the woodland

Page 218 of 541


on the site guaranteed.


Clearly there is a need for further housing in the area and I do not subscribe to the NIMBY approach that precludes any further building. However all developments have to be sustainable, as we know, and the current proposals in the Westfield Avenue, Coombe Farm and Kennels area to be excessive both in terms of volume and position. The numbers proposed need to be reduced and guarantees given for the natural environment, in particular to the woodland at the entrance to Coombe Farm. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am willing to participate in any further investigation work.




I have worked in preserving the natural environment in a very practical way. I own part of the woodland bordering the proposed site and have sought to work within the urban fringe to provide a sustainable environment in the woodland I own and maintain a healthy environment for the badger, fox, squirrels, and bird life that live in the woodland. I have also planted thousands of bulbs that add to the variety of the woodland. I would be willing to participate to ensure that, however the proposals end up, this natural resource is preserved. (or written reps)

Page 219 of 541


Respondent Number:

95

Ovingdean Residents & Preservation Society

Individuals Name:

Russell Smith

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4




We are of the view that Proposed Modification PM064 has not been properly appraised for the reasons set out under Question 5 Sustainability Appraisal�. To adopt the plan without addressing those concerns would therefore breach Regulation 8(1) Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004.


Delete reference in policy SA4 (PM064) to the Urban Fringe Assessment (UFA) as operating as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications for residential development in the urban fringe. i.e. delete the 5th paragraph from the end of PM064 which currently reads "Should proposals for development come forward prior to the adoption of Part 2 of the City Plan, the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment will be a material planning consideration in the determination of applications for residential development within the urban fringe."

Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



The determination in the Urban Fringe Assessment that residential development might be appropriate on Sites 38, 38a and 39 Land at Ovingdean Hall Farm for 50 dwellings and Site 42, Land south of Ovingdean Road, Rottingdean for 45 dwellings is unsound because it is not consistent with national policy, in that: (i) Contrary to paragraph 115 NPPF a development of dwellings in these areas would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the adjacent South Downs National Park. As such it would conflict with draft policy SA5 (and its strongly worded supporting text) which seeks to protect both the National Park and its "setting". (ii) Contrary to paragraph 117 NPPF the development of these dwellings would have a detrimental impact on a range of rare and endangered species including on Site 42 Red Star-thistle and a rare habitat (lowland calcareous grassland). Indeed, the Urban Fringe Assessment itself recognises "ecology" as a constraint on development at Site. 42 The Environmental Impact Assessment accompanying the current planning application for development of 85 residential units onsite 42 (BH2014/02589) has accepted these as constraints, as did the screening opinion adopted by the Council. The allocation would therefore conflict with policies SA5, CP10 and CP16 which seek to conserve and enhance downland habitats and recognise the role of the downland in the City's Green Network. The Supplementary Strategic Environmental Assessment/Sustainability Assessment (SEA/SA) concludes allocation in the urban fringe could have an adverse impact on biodiversity (SEA/SA p.19). (No thorough ecological studies have yet been carried out on Sites 38-41 but it is the intention to do so). (iii) Contrary to paragraph 17 NPPF the development of these dwellings would fail to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and would have an adverse impact on the landscape which is presently protected in the current development plan (policy NC6 Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005). Allocation would therefore not be consistent with the adopted development plan contrary to Regulation 8(1) Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. (iv) Contrary to paragraph 17 NPPF the development of these dwellings would fail to take account of the different roles and character of different areas, in particular on Site 42 it would lead to a coalescence between Rottingdean, Ovingdean and Woodingdean via the loss (or significant weakening) of its current green wedge or "gap" function. It was for this reason one imagines the Urban Fringe Assessment also identifies "open space "as a constraint on development of this site. The Supplementary SEA/SA concludes that proposed modifications to the urban fringe housing allocation could have an adverse impact on local distinctiveness (SEA/SA p.19). (v) For the foregoing reasons the policy is also inconsistent with SA5 in that it will undermine the promotion of tourism via an improved tourist experience to the South Downs. (vi) The failure to conduct an adequate sustainability appraisal has rendered the assessment as to whether the policy is "justified" impossible.


Delete reference to the Urban Fringe Assessment (UFA) within the policy box of SA4.


Page 220 of 541


By Regulation 12(2) Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 the environmental report shall include (i) the likely significant effects of implementing the plan or programme, and (ii) the reasonable alternatives. The assessment shall set-out the information directed in Schedule 2. The supplementary SEA only deals with the amendments to SA4 in broad terms, simply whether there should be development in the urban fringe or not (see p.19 and p.202) What it fails to do is assess whether the proposed locations and quantum of development at each of the proposed urban fringe sites as set out in the UFA is justified. The SEA/SA of the proposed City Plan 1 is therefore defective because it is contrary to Regulation 12(1) of the 2004 Regulations: (i) It fails to assess alternative urban fringe sites or other indeed any combinations of development other than that identified in the UFA; (ii) It fails to describe the likely significant effects of developing each site in the manner identified in the UFA; (iii) It fails to provide reasons for explaining why those sites were identified and why that level of housing was considered for allocation beyond merely pointing-out they were identified within the UFA. As such, we are firmly of the view that to adopt the City Plan 1 in the form it now takes would be in breach of Regulation 8(1) of the 2004 Regulations, as a key plank of the housing strategy (development of the urban fringe) has not been properly assessed.


In respect of Site 42 the Deans Preservation Group have additional written submissions available for the Government Inspector should these be required. They underpin our assertion that the Urban Fringe Assessments are superficial and inadequate in assessing the impact of developing 45 dwellings on Site 42, and are not fit for the purpose of allocating housing unless supplemented with additional studies as part of City Plan 2: - Biodiversity Study and Report - Landscape Study and Report Furthermore we understand Sites 39, 39a and 40 sit within the Ovingdean Conservation area.

We represent people within Ovingdean opposed to development of Urban Fringe Sites 39 to 43 . This includes both the 1600 people who have already signed a petition against the building on Site 42 and which has been submitted to Brighton & Hove City Council AND a further 100 plus households who have been canvassed w/c 8 December 2014 within Ovingdean and who are against the further development of Ovingdean as identified for plans in sites 39 to 43. (emails can be provided to substantiate this number) Our comments are also supported by the following organisations: - Deans Preservation Society - The Vale Residents' Association


ii) or if required by the Inspector, to Participate at the Examination in Publicwritten reps


Ovingdean Residents & Preservation Society (ORPS) is of the view that a further hearing session is necessary, following publication of a revised SEA/SA to examine the appropriateness of the preferred allocations of housing in the urban fringe against the identified alternatives. ORPS and The Deans Preservation Group may like to participate in that further session if it is convened, and may be represented by counsel, a planning consultant, a landscape consultant and an ecologist to assist it in putting its case.

Page 221 of 541


Respondent Number:

93

Individuals Name:

Jenny Embleton

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing in response to the proposal in LUC's Brighton & Hove Urban Fringe Assessment (BHUFA) to build houses on some of the plots on the Craven Vale site and also on the Mile Oak site. Whilst I understand that you are under pressure from the government to identify suitable land for building, and that there is a need for more housing in the city, I am somewhat concerned about the errors and misunderstandings in some of the information in the BHUFA and also extremely worried that allotment sites are under attack! I don't believe that this is a viable option. I have a plot on Craven Vale and I am against the loss of any of the plots on Craven Vale, or indeed any other site in the city. I believe we should be identifying more allotment sites across the city, not losing them! I have had the plot for almost 5 years now and it has been, and continues to be, a large part of my and my family's life. A recent survey identified the health benefits, both mental and physical, of having an allotment and I can concur that this is true in my case too. My daughter has also recently been allotted a plot on Craven Vale, she has often come up to help me on my plot and she has enjoyed it so much that she now has her own plot. My particular area of concern in the BHUFA report, Appendix 4, Site: 31 is that the report suggests the ward of East Brighton 'Currently has an over provision of allotments...' The fact that this area of Brighton has more open space, including allotments, should not be taken into account because it serves the rest of Brighton too. I live in the centre of Brighton and, as you are aware, there are no allotment sites in the centre. I, and many of my neighbours, have to travel out to an allotment site on the outskirts of the city. These sites are a valuable resource for the whole city and should not be seen as an amenity solely for the local ward in which they happen to be. As you know, the site is also in the Whitehawk Hill Local Nature Reserve and the site is close to the Whitehawk Scheduled Ancient Monument, which is the largest of about 30 Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures found in Britain. I have found many interesting things on my plot, mostly glass jars and bottles from the mid-20th Century but also what I thought was a flint arrowhead. However, I have been informed by two flint experts, Matt Pope (UCL) and John Funnell (B&H Archaeology Society) that it "is a very interesting piece of flint, it has all the hall marks of a human struck flint, but it doesn't look prehistoric". The B&HA Society has sent me a fact sheet to help in identifying worked flints and I shall be on the look out for more interesting pieces! There are also many wild native plants, insects and other creatures on the site and some of these are rare species. I have found slow worms in my compost bin and several crickets and grasshoppers as well as lizards, evidence of badgers eating my sweetcorn! Craven Vale is a statutory site and the plots identified in the proposal have been used as allotments for many years; it would be a travesty for the plot holders to see all their hard work lost. Also, the suggestion of providing an alternative site is not practical as I understand the site identified is not suitable. Also, the space needed by builders during construction would encroach on a much larger area of the site, not just the highlighted section of site 31 in the report which identifies plots to the right of the rough haulage way which continues on from Beresford Road. I understand that the council have identified brownfield sites to be used for housing and this is excellent news. However, I am not sure if all the sites in the city have been included as I found it hard to find in the reports. There are far too many brownfield sites in the city, many of them have been left empty for years whilst the owners do nothing. For example, the site on the corner of Church Street and Portland Street and the large site opposite Preston Park near the southern end of the park to name but two. In conclusion, I am completely against the use of allotment sites in the city for building (in particular Craven Vale) and I hope and trust that other options will be taken and that, ideally, the council is able to allocate more sites for allotments and other food growing spaces, certainly not to lose sites are currently in use. I hope you will consider my points.





Page 222 of 541



Page 223 of 541


Respondent Number:

96


Individuals Name:

James Wright

Agents Name:


1








Delete reference in policy SA4 (PM064) to the Urban Fringe Assessment (UFA) as operating as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications for residential development in the urban fringe. i.e. delete the 5th paragraph from the end of PM064 which currently reads "Should proposals for development come forward prior to the adoption of Part 2 of the City Plan, the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment will be a material planning consideration in the determination of applications for residential development within the urban fringe."

Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



The determination in the Urban Fringe Assessment that residential development might be appropriate on Site 42, Land adjacent to Ovingdean and Falmer Road, Ovingdean for 45 dwellings is unsound because it is not consistent with national policy, in that: (i) Contrary to paragraph 115 NPPF a development of 45 dwellings would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the adjacent South Downs National Park. As such it would conflict with draft policy SA5 (and its strongly worded supporting text) which seeks to protect both the National Park and its "setting". (ii) Contrary to paragraph 117 NPPF the development of these dwellings would have a detrimental impact on a range of rare and endangered species including Red Star-thistle and a rare habitat (lowland calcareous grassland). Indeed, the Urban Fringe Assessment itself recognises "ecology" as a constraint on development at the site. The Environmental Impact Assessment accompanying the current planning application for development of 85 residential units on the site (BH2014/02589) has accepted these as constraints, as did the screening opinion adopted by the Council. The allocation would therefore conflict with policies SA5, CP10 and CP16 which seek to conserve and enhance downland habitats and recognise the role of the downland in the City's Green Network. The Supplementary Strategic Environmental Assessment/Sustainability Assessment (SEA/SA) concludes allocation in the urban fringe could have an adverse impact on biodiversity (SEA/SA p.19). (iii) Contrary to paragraph 17 NPPF the development of these dwellings would fail to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and would have an adverse impact on the landscape which is presently protected in the current development plan (policy NC6 Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005). Allocation would therefore not be consistent with the adopted development plan contrary to Regulation 8(1) Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. (iv) Contrary to paragraph 17 NPPF the development of these dwellings would fail to take account of the different roles and character of different areas, in particular it would lead to a coalescence between Rottingdean, Ovingdean and Woodingdean via the loss (or significant weakening) of its current green wedge or "gap" function. It was for this reason one imagines the Urban Fringe Assessment also identifies "open space" as a constraint on development of this site. The Supplementary SEA/SA concludes that proposed modifications to the urban fringe housing allocation could have an adverse impact on local distinctiveness (SEA/SA p.19). (v) For the foregoing reasons the policy is also inconsistent with SA5 in that it will undermine the promotion of tourism via an improved tourist experience to the South Downs. (vi) The failure to conduct an adequate sustainability appraisal has rendered the assessment as to whether the policy is "justified" impossible.


Delete reference to the Urban Fringe Assessment (UFA) within the policy box of SA4.


By Regulation 12(2) Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 the environmental report shall include (i) the likely significant effects of implementing the plan or programme, and (ii) the reasonable alternatives. The assessment shall set-out the information directed in Schedule 2. The supplementary SEA only

Page 224 of 541


deals with the amendments to SA4 in broad terms, simply whether there should be development in the urban fringe or not (see p.19 and p.202) What it fails to do is assess whether the proposed locations and quantum of development at each of the proposed urban fringe sites as set out in the UFA is justified. The SEA/SA of the proposed City Plan 1 is therefore defective because it is contrary to Regulation 12(1) of the 2004 Regulations: (i) It fails to assess alternative urban fringe sites or other indeed any combinations of development other than that identified in the UFA; (ii) It fails to describe the likely significant effects of developing each site in the manner identified in the UFA; (iii) It fails to provide reasons for explaining why those sites were identified and why that level of housing was considered for allocation beyond merely pointing-out they were identified within the UFA. As such, we are firmly of the view that to adopt the City Plan 1 in the form it now takes would be in breach of Regulation 8(1) of the 2004 Regulations, as a key plank of the housing strategy (development of the urban fringe) has not been properly assessed.


Deans Preservation Group have additional written submissions available for the Government Inspector should these be required. They underpin our assertion that the Urban Fringe Assessment is superficial and inadequate in assessing the impact of developing 45 dwellings on Site 42, and is not fit for the purpose of allocating housing unless supplemented with additional studies as part of City Plan 2: - Biodiversity Study and Report - Landscape Study and Report




The Deans Preservation Group is of the view that a further hearing session is necessary, following publication of a revised SEA/SA to examine the appropriateness of the preferred allocations of housing in the urban fringe against the identified alternatives. The Deans Preservation Group may like to participate in that further session if it is convened, and may be represented by counsel, a planning consultant, a landscape consultant and an ecologist to assist it in putting its case. (Written Reps also)

Page 225 of 541


Respondent Number:

19

Individuals Name:

Deborah Malin

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4 Urban Fringe, page 111- 113





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



I am specifically objecting to site ref 31 ( land to the east of Whitehawk Hill Road ) being included in the sites on the urban fringe which have potential for housing, on the grounds that the proposed site includes the Cravan Vale allotments. The development would be contrary to the council's own policy objectives listed in this document which are to protect strategic views into and out of the city ( the views from the allotment site achieves this) and another listed priority to "protect and enhance" the wider landscape , something again which the allotment site achieves. Caven Vale is also a multi- function site - it promotes biodiversity and conservation.


I would recommend that you withdraw site 31 from the list of sites with potential for housing development



I cannot stress strongly enough my objection to building homes on this site. Allotments bring a multitude of benefits to a multitude of different user groups. The city, according to the report by consultants published this June, states that the city already lacks enough open space to meet the predicted demands by 2030, so there is no sense in taking this open space away.




Page 226 of 541


Respondent Number:

96


Individuals Name:

James Wright

Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:SA4 "Urban Fringe", Page 111-113




Our responses to question Q3b are that same as in our Representation 1, i.e.: We are of the view that Proposed Modification PM064 has not been properly appraised for the reasons set out under Question 5 Sustainability Appraisal�. To adopt the plan without addressing those concerns would therefore breach Regulation 8(1) Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004.


Our responses to question Q3c are the same as in our Representation 1, i.e.: Delete reference in policy SA4 (PM064) to the Urban Fringe Assessment (UFA) as operating as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications for residential development in the urban fringe. i.e. delete the 5th paragraph from the end of PM064 which currently reads "Should proposals for development come forward prior to the adoption of Part 2 of the City Plan, the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment will be a material planning consideration in the determination of applications for residential development within the urban fringe."

Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



Our answers to question 4c are the same as in our Representation 2, except for the last paragraph which proposes a different remedy. The determination in the Urban Fringe Assessment that residential development might be appropriate on Site 42, Land adjacent to Ovingdean Road and Falmer Road, Ovingdean, for 45 dwellings is unsound because it is not consistent with national policy: 1. For Site 42 the City Plan 1 is contrary to paragraph 158 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), because it fails to use an appropriate evidence base. This is because the proposed City Plan 1 will be based on the Urban Fringe Assessment (UFA) which is itself not based on "up-to-date and relevant evidence about economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area". Specifically: a) Contrary to NPPF paragraph 158 the UFA does not include up-to-date relevant information about environmental characteristics available from the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre, because the most up-to-date information was discovered and recorded after the production of the Urban Fringe Assessment. For example information not available to the UFA includes recognition that Site 42 contains: - Rare habitat Lowland Calcareous Grassland� - Rare species of plants (Cut-leaved Self-heal, Hybrid Self-heal, Corky-fruited Water-dropwort and Corn Parsley), - An extensive colony of rare Red Star-thistle grows on exactly the part of the field proposed for 45 dwellings - Rare species of animals (slow worms and common lizards), - At risk species of birds (RSPB Red List: Herring Gull; RSPB Amber List: Swift, House Martin, Green Woodpecker and other birds at risk� are feeding in Site 42) - Rare species of invertebrate (Hornet Robber Fly, Cinnabar Moth, Capsid Bug) b) The UFA for Site 42 was carried out without a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. In the case of Site 42 this is significant because the full importance of the landscape implications of development of 45 dwellings on the site are not revealed by the desktop and site visit carried out in the UFA. This constitutes failure to use an appropriate evidence base and is contrary to NPPF paragraph 158. For example factors not recognised in the UFA include that the site occupies a unique niche in the landscape linking two areas of the South Downs National Park (SDNP) and forming an integral part of important views both into and out of the National Park. It contributes to a locally important segregation between villages creating a gap between built-up areas. For other factors see 3 below. c) The lack of an appropriately detailed assessment of landscape character and landscape sensitivity for Site 42 is contrary to paragraph 170 of the NPPF which states that "Where appropriate, landscape character assessments should also be prepared, integrated with assessment of historic landscape character, and for areas where there are major expansion options assessments of landscape sensitivity."d) The UFA does not even have the address of Site 42 correct - it is in Rottingdean, not Ovingdean. Although of minor importance in itself, this point clearly demonstrates the superficial and inaccurate nature of the UFA in relation to Site 42 and how it fails to use an appropriate evidence base contrary to NPPF paragraph 158. e) The UFA is based on a flood study that makes an inadequate assessment of the environmental characteristics of the area. The main mechanism for flooding on Site 42 is rising groundwater (because the site is in a "dry" chalk valley). The Environment Agency Flood Zone maps do

Page 227 of 541


not include rising groundwater flooding, so the flood study used as the basis for the UFA is based on an inadequate information. This is contrary to paragraph 158 of the NPPF which requires that "the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence...about environmental characteristics and prospects of the area."f) The UFA for Site 42 did not include an archaeological survey - adjacent areas show many archaeological remains, but limited access has meant that no specific archaeological study has been carried out on Site 42 itself. This shows that the UFA does not take into account the environmental characteristics of Site 42 contrary to paragraph 158 of the NPPF. In addition the lack of an archaeological survey for Site 42 is contrary to paragraph 169 of the NPPF which states that "Local planning authorities should have up-to-date evidence about the historic environment in their area..". 2. For Site 42 the Proposed Modifications to City Plan 1 are contrary to the NPPF because they are based on the UFA which fails to meet the requirements of paragraph 157. Paragraph 157 states:"Crucially, Local Plans should:... - contain a clear strategy for enhancing the natural, built and historic environment, and supporting Nature Improvement Areas where they have been identified."No such strategy for Site 42 has been included in the UFA. Site 42 is a Nature Improvement Area (NIA), but although this was acknowledged in the UFA there was no assessment of how the proposal for 45 dwellings would support the NIA. It is far from clear how 45 dwellings could possibly be compatible with supporting the Nature Improvement Area, since NIAs are set up to "protect and restore chalk grassland" as part of the South Downs Way Ahead project. 3. In terms of landscape the Proposed Modifications to City Plan 1 for Site 42 are contrary to the NPPF because a) paragraph 109 of the NPPF requires that the planning system should "contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interest and soils." There is no contribution of this nature made within the UFA for Site 42, contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF. The landscape is valued for its by open views to and from the South Downs National Park that would be significantly adversely affected by the proposed 45 dwellings and cannot be mitigated with tree planting, which would itself change the open character of the landscape. Specific views of note are: - from the public footpath from Ovingdean to Woodingdean along Mount Pleasant from within the National Park across Site 42 to further areas of the National Park - from The Vale and Ovingdean Road looking east where Site 42 forms the foreground to views into the National Park formed by a sweep of original hillside rising to Balsdean Hill within the National Park. - from Falmer Road looking north-west over Site 42 into the Mount Pleasant area of the National Park and looking south with views over Site 42 to the sea. - from the Ovingdean Road hill Site 42 forms part of the rural aspect of the area with a view of old farm buildings beside open land in the surrounding setting of the National Park. In addition the soil of Site 42 is an inherent part of its classification as "Lowland Calcareous Grassland", which is not recognised in the UFA, and certainly not protected and enhanced contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF. b) Paragraph 115 requires that "Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks...which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. However, this has not been achieved since the following relevant facts are omitted from the UFA: - Site 42 is within the South Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment (SDILCA) which identifies the site as being within the Adur to Ouse Open downland character Area A2. - Site 42 is part of the narrow landbridge between two parts of National Park to the south/west and to the north/east. This landbridge is essential to maintain biodiversity connectivity between the two areas of the National Park. The landbridge is the only link between the Beacon Hill and Mount Pleasant South Downs National Park Nature Reserves to the west and the wider SDNP to the east. Again this demonstrates that the UFA for Site 42 fails to use an appropriate evidence base contrary to NPPF paragraph 158. 4. The UFA for Site 42, and therefore the City Plan, is contrary to Core Planning Principles set out in the NPPF paragraph 17: a) "...planning should...take account of the different roles and character of different areas...recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of of the countryside...". As demonstrated in sections 1, 2 and 3 above, neither the the role and character of Site 42 nor its intrinsic character and beauty has been taken into account in the UFA. b) "...planning should...contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution. "There are known health issues with nitrogen dioxide pollution levels in Rottingdean High Street, designated as an Air Quality Management Area, which is 25% above the maximum permitted level of 40 micrograms per cubic metre and rising. Development of up to 45 dwellings on Site 42 would increase such pollution in Rottingdean High Street contrary to the NPPF paragraph 17 requirement to reduce it. 5. The City Plan and UFA does not evaluate whether Site 42 is "...land of the right type...available in the right place...to support growth and innovation" which roles the planning system needs to perform to contribute to supporting sustainable development, according to Paragraph 6 of the NPPF. It is by no means a given that development of Site 42 would deliver a positive economic effect. There are extreme problems of traffic congestion in the area leading to regular peak time queues of over 2 miles backing up onto the A27 Brighton by-pass. The coastal communities of Saltdean, Peacehaven, Newhaven and Seaford all depend on a single road connection with Brighton along the coast. Extreme peak time congestion limits the ability of these communities to carry out their economic and social activity, and any housing built on Site 42 would only increase delays by contributing to the congestion at the main coast road bottleneck - Rottingdean traffic lights. A large part of the local economy derives from the tourist trade. Loss of rural views associated with the National Park and increased traffic congestion are both factors that reduce the attractiveness of the area to tourists. Neither of these significant economic and social effects are addressed in the UFA. These points demonstrate that the UFA for Site 42 is contrary to the NPPF in many respects, and development of Site 42 should not be permitted to take place based upon the UFA findings. Site 42 should therefore be deleted from the City Plan 1 housing delivery.


The following changes should be made to remove Site 42 from CP1 Housing Delivery: PM072 should be modified Page 228 of 541


as follows: - paragraph 2 delete "13,200"; replace with "13,150". - B: Distribution of new housing - table; - Delete "b) Within the urban fringe# 1060" replace with "b) Within the urban fringe# 1015"- Delete "Total 13,210"; replace with "Total 13,165"- Add footnote: "excludes Site 42"- 4.4 line 1 delete "13,200"; replace with "13,150"- Table 4: Housing delivery, supply Breakdown 2010-2030 - Delete "b) Within the urban fringe 1060" replace with "b) Within the urban fringe 1015"- Delete "Total 13,210"; replace with "Total 13,165"For consistency the SHLAA 2014 Update should also be modified as follows: - Table B Other Identified Supply not within DA's 6+ - Delete row: "722 UF Site 42 Land adjacent to Ovingdean Road 0, 45, 0, 0, 45, UF Site - Totals: - Delete "985" replace with "940"Delete "2939" replace with "2894"- Delete "1536" replace with "1491"Delete "4792" replace with "4747"


Our responses to question Q5 are tha same as in our Representation 1, i.e.: By Regulation 12(2) Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 the environmental report shall include (i) the likely significant effects of implementing the plan or programme, and (ii) the reasonable alternatives. The assessment shall set-out the information directed in Schedule 2. The supplementary SEA only deals with the amendments to SA4 in broad terms, simply whether there should be development in the urban fringe or not (see p.19 and p.202) What it fails to do is assess whether the proposed locations and quantum of development at each of the proposed urban fringe sites as set out in the UFA. The SEA/SA of the proposed City Plan 1 is therefore defective because it is contrary to Regulation 12(1) of the 2004 Regulations: (i) It fails to assess alternative urban fringe sites or other indeed any combinations of development other than that identified in the UFA; (ii) It fails to describe the likely significant effects of developing each site in the manner identified in the UFA; (iii) It fails to provide reasons for explaining why those sites were identified and why that level of housing was considered for allocation beyond merely pointing-out they were identified within the UFA. As such, we are firmly of the view that to adopt the City Plan 1 in the form it now takes would be in breach of Regulation 8(1) of the 2004 Regulations, as a key plank of the housing strategy (development of the urban fringe) has not been properly assessed.


Deans Preservation Group have additional written submissions available for the Government inspector should these be required. They underpin our assertion that the Urban Fringe Assessment is superficial and inadequate in assessing the impact of developing 45 dwellings on Site 42, and is not fit for the purpose of allocating housing on Site 42. - Biodiversity Study and Report - Landscape Study and Report




The Deans Preservation Group is of the view that a further hearing session is necessary, following publication of a revised SEA/SA to examine the appropriateness of the preferred allocations of housing in the urban fringe against the identified alternatives. The Deans Preservation Group may like to participate in that further session if it is convened, and may be represented by counsel, a planning consultant, a landscape consultant and an ecologist to assist it in putting its case. (And Written Reps)

Page 229 of 541


Respondent Number:

18

Individuals Name:

Dr Samer Bagaeen

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4 Urban Fringe, page 111- 113: Paragraph between 3.157 and 3.158





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The reference in the following paragraph is to 'meeting local housing needs' only. Some land within the citys urban fringe has been identified as having potential to help meet the citys housing requirements (see Part B, Policy CP1 Housing Delivery). Sites identified through the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment Study (or parts of sites where relevant) will be considered to have potential for housing in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment exercise. Further consideration and a more detailed assessment of potential housing sites will be undertaken to inform allocations made in Part 2 of the City Plan with a particular emphasis on delivering housing to meet local needs. As part of this process, the City Council will consider how best to ensure that opportunities for community land trusts, community-led development, right to build, and housing co-operatives are brought forward/ safeguarded in order to maximise housing opportunities that meet local housing needs. This will be taken forward through the City Plan Part 2. Sites coming forward for development ahead of the preparation of Part 2 of the City Plan will need to address criteria c) to e) set out in Policy SA4 above and satisfy detailed information requirements# at the planning application stage.







The arguments for building far more widely and more substantially on the city's urban fringe have not come through the modifications and the case needs to be put forward in a public forum.

Page 230 of 541


Respondent Number:

17

Individuals Name:

Mrs C Carruthers

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:


RE: Land at Coombe Farm, Saltdean - Urban Fringe Assessment Object to housing at Coombe Farm on grounds of traffic generation, GP Surgeries being full, Schools being full, air pollution and flooding problems. Concern at traffic on South Coast Road.


Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


RE: Land at Coombe Farm, Saltdean - Urban Fringe Assessment Object to housing at Coombe Farm on grounds of traffic generation, GP Surgeries being full, Schools being full, air pollution and flooding problems. Concern at traffic on South Coast Road.






Page 231 of 541


Respondent Number:

97



Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:SA4




CPRE Sussex welcomes and supports paragraph 3.154's recognition that much of the city's urban fringe meets the NPPF definition of existing open space and represents a significant proportion of the city's open space resource. We also welcome and support the recognition of the biodiversity importance of the urban fringe. However, this paragraph should also recognise that much of the land within the defined urban fringe is also of high landscape sensitivity. This is recognised in paragraph 7.29 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, which states in part, "Countryside areas outside the AONB in Brighton & Hove are felt to be of exceptional quality. It is therefore felt that such areas should be afforded similar protection to other areas of exceptional landscape value which are included in the formally designated AONB. These areas have already enjoyed similar protection for many years by virtue of the policies in previous local plans.� In addition to its inherent sensitivity, the urban fringe forms the setting of the South Downs National Park. Although the National Planning Policy Framework does not specifically protect the setting of National Parks, it is clear that landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park could be adversely affected by inappropriate development within its setting. This was recognised in paragraph 7.41 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and in a statement by the then Planning Minister, Nick Boles, in April 2014. The then Minister referred to the Planning Practice Guidance published in March 2014, which explains the duty of local planning authorities to "have regard" to the purpose of national parks in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in national parks. The then Minister further explained that the guidance is clear that the duty is relevant in considering development proposals that are situated outside national parks, but which might have an impact on the setting of, and implementation of the statutory purposes of, these protected areas. It is therefore very important that particular care is taken over the design of any development proposed within the urban fringe, so that potential adverse impacts on the quality of the urban fringe landscape and the National Park are avoided as far as possible, and mitigated as far as possible where adverse impacts are unavoidable and outweighed by any benefits of the development. The design of new development should particularly seek to avoid adverse impacts on the tranquility of the National Park through light or noise pollution. Paragraph 3.154 should highlight this importance.


Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:









Page 232 of 541


Respondent Number:

92

Individuals Name:

Wendy Barrett

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


The areas of Patcham and Hollingbury are enhanced by their proximity to to open green space, these spaces are easily accessible by those from other areas of Brighton & Hove and therefore of benefit to many. Brownfield sites must be built on first, this is logical and obviously the first step. Therefore I am against the current proposals.






Page 233 of 541


Respondent Number:

101

Individuals Name:

Valerie Axcell

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


As briefly mentioned in 'the argus', i have been feeding badgers in my garden for the last 20 years. As i live at the top of Sylvester Way immediately next to Benfield Valley I see the wide variety of wildlife which inhabits the valley and which would disappear if the current planning proposal is adopted. The badgers have already lost their main field due to the Meads Avenue extension and these poor animals are yet again being threatened. On the subject of housing the country as a whole might need more but the south east is already at saturation point and more building would encourage yet more people which the area would have difficulty coping with. In conclusion i would reiterate the fact that wildlife has decreased by 50% over the last 40 years so do we want to see animals in the future or all our remaining green spaces covered in concrete?






Page 234 of 541


Respondent Number:

27

The Open Spaces Society

Individuals Name:

Chris Smith

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:








No one disputes the value of open spaces, especially those in the countryside, but those on the edge of cities often get short shrift. City parks are valued, but when considering green areas at the edge, commentators too often stand on the edge of the countryside looking in, rather than on the edge of town looking out. So it is far too common to devalue small edge of town green spaces when they have value in their own right and also as links to the wider countryside beyond. We believe this is the case in these proposals. We are particularly concerned at the treatment of Whitehawk Hill. Our detailed comments can be found below. The Mile Oak Valley: sites 1 to 6 The Mile Oak Valley suburb already damages the National Park landscape,. Yet its surrounding landscape is of crucial landscape, wildlife, archaeological, and recreational importance. It has a half mile boundary with Southwick Hill - the only archaic down pasture site on the 15 mile conurbation urban fringei with an intact historical continuity of management. It is a fully publicly accessible site of SSSI quality (though not designated because already protected by National Trust ownership) and a major recreational resource for people of Portslade, Southwick, and the wider conurbation. All of these sites are part of the open, corrugated geography of the Downs. All of them constitute part of an important Gateway to the wider Downs. All of them have a buffering function for the wider Downscape. Sites 5a/6 have an allotment site. Hangleton Bottom and Benfield Valleys: sites 7 to 12 The old closes (small, enclosed farmstead paddocks forming sites 11 & 12) are a key part of the linked historic complex of Benfield Farmstead and Hangleton Manor. The setting of the Manor has already been damaged by inappropriate development of its protecting wooded grounds, and this should be avoided at all costs at its sister manorial farmstead of Benfield. Indeed, these sites were earmarked for management as a pocket park by the Director of Leisure and the Deputy Director of Planning in the old Hove Councilii. Benfield Farm / Hangleton Manor constitute an important and much used Gateway to the wider Downs and should be managed to enhance that function, not detract from it. Hangleton Bottom (sites 8 & 9) would be most usefully used as a travellers site, given its past successful usage for that purpose, and given the extreme need for such provision in the conurbation. Old Patcham, Ladies Mile: sites 16 & 17 Old Patcham (site 16) forms a key complex of medieval parish church, great barn and other historic farmstead and cottage buildings, allotment sites and recreation ground. It retains this rural quality despite the close proximity and awful noise pollution of the A27 bypass and A23 interchange. No-one, given free choice, would choose a home in such an exposed and noisepolluted site. By contrast, most people can enjoy the recreational usage of this site as a Gateway to the Downs, and as a part of the historic landscape setting of this ancient Downland village. Ladies Miles open Downland (site17) is a key wildlife, archaeological, landscape, and recreational Gateway resource for the Park and the City. It has one of the two best surviving archaic plateau chalk grassland sites in the Cityiii. (Plateau chalk grassland is extremely rare on the Downs because its flatness makes it most vulnerable to ploughing and improvement, and because most plateau archaic Down pasture sites are acid and heathy in character, not calcareous). It is also the only surviving archaic Down pasture site along the three mile long Ditchling Road Ridge from Hollingbury Castle Iron Age hillfort to Ditchling Beacon Iron Age hillfort. Coldean: site 21 The Coldean Lane woods and meadows are an important part of the historic Stanmer Park constellation of designed and planted woodlands. Recent new halls of residence developed at Varley Halls have already ramped up the damage to the unity of the open upper slopes of the Coldean Valley, risking ending the visual containment of the Valley estate and breaking in to the visual integrity of the high plateau landscape. The meadows are best managed as a recreational facility with high aesthetic and wildlife value. The Racecourse Landscape. Whitehawk Hill / Warren Road Ridge: sites 27 to 35 Whitehawk Hill isa sub-landscape of national importance. It is also, of course, set in a large area of working class housing, and its proximity to marginalised communities lays it open to these sort of abusive proposals. Site 30 (suggested for 150 homes) is also, of course, within the bounds of the 105 acre

Page 235 of 541


Race Ground, which was dedicated as a recreational common at the 1822 enclosure of Brightons commons and open fields. The deed of dedication states that the inhabitants of Brighton and the public in general should have the use of it for the purposes of racing and other purposes of exercise and diversion... The combined Whitehawk / Warren Road sites have a Local Nature Reserve, a Scheduled Ancient Monument, an adjacent area of archaeological importance, and a large, historic allotment complex. This landscape is the key to unlocking the prehistory and history of Brighton. It is the core landscape feature of Old Brighton, the best archaic chalk grassland and old scrub site on the City urban fringe, the oldest (c. 1770) formal Downland public recreational site in Brighton, and the most prominent Downland feature along the coast for many miles. It is also one of the oldest sacred sites in Britain, having a continuing funerary function, which first commenced in the Neolithic, and continued into late prehistoric and maybe Saxon times before its revival 160 years ago (Woodvale). Its causewayed enclosure is one of only 10 well-preserved examples in Britain. Furthermore, its chalk grassland and scrub forms a wildlife ecosystem with a direct continuity back to the Neolothic clearances of the Downland wildwood. They are a rare example of living archaeology, with an ancient wildlife assemblage which is anthropogenic in origin, but natural in its constituent species (molluscs, spiders and other arthropods, fungi and flowering plants). A key part of this assemblage (in site 30) is the ancient Gorse thicket at the north end of Whitehawk Hills steep slope, adjacent to the North Whitehawk flats, which the Assessment falsely describes as in (...) the Whitehawk Estate. (In fact they are in the Local Nature Reserve). It hosts Stonechat, Dartford and other Warblers, and many other scrub dependant birds and insects. A key part of the open landscape setting of the causewayed camp are the historic allotments (in site 31) targeted as of housing potential. They also host many of the rough ground species of the Local Nature Reserve, such as the nationally scarce and charismatic Great Green Bush Cricket. Sites 32 and 33 on the Race Hill / Warren Road ridge top are absurd as sites of housing potential. They remind one of the hill top beauty spot housing schemes of the inter-war years, such as for a bungalow estate at the Devils Dyke, or plotlands on Patchams Sweet Hill, or Standean....or the housing estates right on the crest of the North Downs at Box Hill and Woldingham. Black Rock: site 37 Extant open cliff top east of Brighton has intrinsic rarity value. This site is important for informal recreation and has potential for archaic grassland restoration. Ovingdean: sites 38 to 42 Sites 38 and 39 embrace the extended agribusiness farmyards, sheds and paddocks of Ovingdean Farm, which were constructed as a result of past strategic misjudgements in managing the Brighton Council farmlands estate. Since then their usage has been intensified with infill residential development. Any further intensification of built development in this very exposed nodal site will further damage this extended hill-valley-farm-medieval hamlet panorama in this part of the National Park. The site needs roll-back of its excessive sprawl, and a new, high quality set of built-to-last farm buildings, not residential development. Site 41 is a ridge top Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) designated for its old Downland flora and fauna, which the Council planning function should seek to preserve and enhance and re-incorporate within the wider public landscape. Site 42 was wrongly omitted from the National Park and should be treated for what it is: - a part of the wider, open Downscape. North Saltdean: sites 46 to 48 Both the Looes Barn and Coombe Farm sites form important Gateways to the open Downs. Both have been damaged by neglect and inappropriate piecemeal built development. Both require remediation and roll-back of this neglect, and a proper integration of their Downland farming and Gateway functions. The north slope of Tenant Hill, overlooking Coombe Farm, is an open access archaic chalk grassland site of high value. The views from there should be enhanced, not eroded. Chris Smith, for the Open Spaces Society 8/12/14



Page 236 of 541


Respondent Number:

102

Individuals Name:

Ms Brenda Pollack

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



I believe PM 062 (4?) - and PM 072 are unsound for the following reasons. The change of emphasis in this policy, away from protecting and maintaining the urban fringe for people and wildlife to enjoy, and towards seeing it as potential housing infill sites is unwarranted. I acknowledge the need to build housing to meet some need but there has to be a point at which the council says it has reached capacity. I believe that the previous submitted plan showed what could be achieved in the city and the only reason the Urban Fringes and our Park are now under threat of development is because the Inspector decided that more housing could be developed in the City. This seems without regard to the fact that infrastructure such as schools and hospitals would also need to expand as housing expands beyond the original numbers set. The 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment Report is inaccurate and very open to challenge, certainly on Area 18. This was never consulted on publicly and the first that residents in this area knew of the idea that Hollingbury Park could be allocated for residential development was before a council meeting to discuss the City Plan. There was never an opportunity to comment on the process or content of the development of the sites that now form the basis of the numbers set out in Policy Modification 072. The consultants included sites in area 18 because they state that there is a surplus� of green space in the Hollingbury and Stanmer Ward. They base this on the existence of Stanmer and Wild Parks in this ward. Local residents in Hollingbury and Hollingdean would not class those areas as easily accessible. It is clear that looking at this at ward level does not make sense. The study also notes that there is an under-provision of open space in the ward of Preston Park, which is our neighbouring ward and one where many users of Hollingbury Park would come from A Park should not be on the list of possible housing options. No other Park is on the list and as such Hollingbury Park should not have been looked at in the study. This is an area valued and much used by residents in various local communities near it. It also has good wildlife value and provides a green gateway up to the South Downs. Knock on effects If this site gets allocated it would encourage development all along the edge of the Park changing the character of this area completely. I believe Area 18 is wholly unsuitable for housing development as concluded by the council when it first drew up the City Plan.


No change to the policy but the background text must clarify that the target number of housing from the Urban Fringe is an estimate and is subject to change depending on further full impact assessment and full consultation with the public.



I feel that the process which was conducted to determine sites that might be suitable for development on urban fringes of the City was completely undemocratic and is causing much stress to individuals and groups that utilise some of these areas. The Urban Fringe Assessment was carried out for the council and the housing figures revised without input from the public. I hope that there will be an opportunity for those of us with concerns about some sites on the list to have a say as soon as possible.




Page 237 of 541


Respondent Number:

14

Individuals Name:

George McAlpine

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


Wanted to register my no vote to the proposed use of land at ladies mile / Carden ave of 35 units location 17 and would like to be kept up with devolpments in this matter.






Page 238 of 541


Respondent Number:

4

Individuals Name:

Gavin Fitzgerald

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4




The urban fringe should only be used after brownfield sites have been exhausted, infrastructure is improved and school places increased


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



It contains inappropriate sites on the edge of the SDNP


Increase density in brownsfield sites with high architectural quality



Not at this time




Page 239 of 541


Respondent Number:

8

Herandi Management Ltd

Individuals Name:

Emad Herandi

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


The City Plan Consultation We refer to the above and we would like you to note that we consider that before building outside the city there should be efforts made to use existing space for development within the city boundaries leading to less cars and less costs. We therefore oppose this new idea for Patcham






Page 240 of 541


Respondent Number:

15

Individuals Name:

Jill and Paul Corlett

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


We live at 18 Ridge Close Mile Oak Portslade BN41 2Yh and what sold this house to us was the spectacular views at the back of the house looking towards Southwick Hill. We gather you are planning to build on the land between us and Mile Oak Road. I feel there are many sites still available either brownfields or derelict buildings and empty properties that could be used before you wreck another piece of the countryside. We know our comments will not make any difference where there is a chance for Property Developers and Farmers to make money, but felt we had to make some sort of comment and not be treated like we do not matter.


I feel there are many sites still available either brownfields or derelict buildings and empty properties that could be used before you wreck another piece of the countryside.





Page 241 of 541


Respondent Number:

70

Individuals Name:

Grenville Nation

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4 Urban Fringe, page 111-113





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Concerns on the allocation of land in Hollingbury Park for housing We believe that the Urban Fringe Assessment by consultants LUC that led to the proposals was inaccurate and has some fundamental flaws. These include: A Public Park should not be on the list of possible housing options. As far as we are aware no other Park is on the list and as such Hollingbury Park should not have been included in the study. This is an area much used and valued by residents in the local area and communities near it. The consultants included the area because they state that there is a surplus� of green space in the Hollingbury and Stanmer Ward because Stanmer Park and Wild Park is in this ward, however local residents in Hollingbury and Hollingdean would not class those areas as easily accessible due to the topography and the isolation of Stanmer Park. It is clear that looking at this at ward level does not make sense. The study also notes that there is an under-provision of open space in the ward of Preston Park, which is our neighbouring ward and one where many users of Hollingbury Park would come from. Keeping the area as Open space benefits residents and visitors alike. At present there are no buildings fronting the east side of Ditchling Road further north than number 414, immediately to the south of Area 18. Instead there is a variety of green features all the way north into the SDNP. It would be a gross disservice to the city to interrupt the green character of this part of Ditchling Road with its view to the woods beyond by developing above and below the reservoir, a development which would mean that the open feel of the Area 18 did not begin until close to its northern boundary. This area is a gateway to the South Downs National Park and should remain as open green space. Building housing in Hollingbury Park would be detrimental to the wider landscape and change the nature of this area. Building on this area would be contrary to the findings of a recent survey commissioned by the Council on the value of parks and open spaces which stated residents should have access to green open space within 10 minutes walk of where you live - this would compromise these findings. Wildlife/Biodiversity: the report mentions that this is designated as a 'proposed Local Nature Reserve' within the City Plan and that there are some notable species of wildlife here. Whilst the report points out the range of reasons why the council deemed this area unsuitable for residential development when it was originally assessed by the Council in 2013, the list of reasons does not include the importance of this area for biodiversity. There is mention of the northern corner of the site being earmarked for higher level Stewardship� funding to deliver significant environmental benefits� to the Site. It has however failed to recognize the work of FHBW and its volunteers over the last 25 years in having already implemented many of the improvements listed: the Council and FHBW have recently updated the Management Plan for the area which has a priority to further improve biodiversity. This is an important asset for the community and as such should not be developed. The meadow area and Elm hedge: the Urban Fringe Assessment has also failed to take into consideration the importance of the burgeoning Elm hedge running parallel to the Ditchling Road and the meadow to the north of the reservoir. Thanks to the Council implementing a new mowing regime the meadow has become a haven for many butterflies and other insects that now feed on the increasing numbers of wild flower species that have colonised the area. This has recently been further enhanced by the creation of a chalk flower bank to encourage more butterfly species and the rare White Letter Hairstreak butterfly has been seen feeding on the Elm hedge: any housing development would almost certainly mean the destruction of the Elm hedge and trees and seriously impinge on the size of the meadow and see the removal of part of the chalk bank for butterflies contrary to Higher Level Stewardship guidelines. The Urban Fringe Assessment also showed the size of the meadow incorrectly as it relied on out-of-date maps which failed to show the extended woodland area known as Triangle Copse. To the south of the reservoir is the historic Tram shelter, whose setting would also be compromised if surrounded by houses. If this area were to be allocated for housing in the City Plan this would set a precedent for further development in this, and other green open spaces in the city and make it more difficult for the Council to refuse planning applications in the future: we could end up with housing all the way up the eastern side of Ditchling Road! The Urban Fringe Assessment offers "mitigation" measures but as mentioned earlier these are of little value: FHBW and the Council have already installed interpretation boards and have an on-going

Page 242 of 541


programme of work to improve biodiversity. If housing was allowed on this site we believe the overall impact would be significantly negative due to the impact on the landscape, the character and the biodiversity of the area.




As a local resident and regular user of Hollingbury Park I feel that a housing development is totally inappropriate.




Respondent Number:

34

Individuals Name:

Duncan Bassett

Agents Name:


1






It is my belief that, in respect of Urban Fringe site 50 Land west of Falmer Avenue, the plan is not sound and not positively prepared and we therefore object to the modifications. Land Use Consultants Ltd (LUC) in their detailed site plans & pro forma, appendix 4 for site 50 state that; 1) The site sits within land classified as urban land. - It is my belief that this is incorrect and the land retains its agricultural classification. 2) There are no significant environmental issues. The site is featured on the Environment Agency flood maps as being a Surface Water High Risk area and this is borne out by the personal knowledge of local residents. Additionally and vitally, 3) There is no mention that the site has no vehicular access of any form. I would assert that (as for site 15) this renders the site as being unsuitable for housing development. Overall it is my contention that these errors and omissions from the site assessment, conducted by LUC, clearly demonstrate that the assessment in respect of site 50 Land west of Falmer Avenue, which gives rise to potential for 12 new dwellings is flawed. It cannot be relied upon, which results in the City Plan Modifications being unsound and not positively prepared. To allow the City Plan to be considered sound and positively prepared in respect of the urban fringe assessment, the following changes must be made; 1) Site 50 must be amended to indicate: Housing Potential - No Potentially Developable Area of site - 0 (0%) Density - N/A Indicative Number of Dwellings 0 2) The recorded number of new homes contained throughout the city plan must be amended as below; Within the urban fringe from 1060 to 1048 Total housing delivery from 13210 to 13198


N/a

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:









Page 243 of 541


Respondent Number:

35


Individuals Name:




1


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Objection submitted on behalf of the owners of part of the Urban Fringe Site 43 (Land to rear of Longhill Road, Ovingdean). The Proposed Modifications do not go far enough to overcome the Inspector's initial findings into the City Plan (see Inspector's letter dated 13 December 2013). The Councils Urban Fringe Assessment (that informs the Councils revised housing targets) has not taken full account of potential sites, and so recommends too low a figure for urban fridge sites and their contribution to overall housing supply. The Councils Urban Fringe Assessment (that informs the Councils revised housing targets) has not taken full account of potential sites, and so recommends too low a figure for urban fridge sites and their contribution to overall housing supply. (Submission included extracts considered relevant from the Inspectors letter and the Councils Urban Fringe Analysis dated June 2014. For reference these have been abbreviated as follows: Inspectors letter (13 December 2013) paras: Bearing in mind the Frameworks requirements the full objectively assessed need is the higher end of the range, ie 20,000 new dwellings. The Plan proposes a target for the provision of new housing of 11,300represent a significant shortfall and substantial weight must be given to the consequent failure to meet the social dimension of sustainable development. I recognise that there are significant constraintsHoweverit is important that the Council rigorously assesses all opportunities to meet that need. Urban Fringe Sites. These sites are not subject to nationally recognised designations I have doubts as to whether some of these areas would meet the requirements of paragraph 77 of the Framework. Having now seen some of the sites possibility of allowing development on these sites, which would enable the provision of good quality public open space, as part of a package of development. In view of the significant shortfall in meeting objectively-assessed needs I consider the Council should undertake a more rigorous analysis of the urban fringe sites,for the delivery of new housing from this source. I recognise the constraints faced by the Council but if I am to find the Plan sound, notwithstanding such a significant shortfall in the provision of new housing, I would need to be satisfied that the Council had left no stone unturned in seeking to meet as much of this need as possible. Urban Fringe Assessment June 2014 Extract from Main Report page 39 showing assessment of site 43 Extract of site 43 assessment map provided Assessment Proforma for site 43 attached as an Appendix to the representations submitted. Page 39 of the Urban Fringe Assessment states that site 43 is suitable for a low density development of just 6 units. The Assessment has only considered the north east corner of the site (shaded in red hatching) as suitable for development, and has left the remainder of our clients site as undeveloped. The inspector should note that the land has never been open land or publically accessible, and so there is no reason why the Council should be attempting to restrict this land for Natural and Semi Natural Urban Green Space (brown shading) and as a Nature Improvements Area (vertical blue hatching). RE Urban Fringe Assessment: Given the Inspectors observations that there should be a rigorous analysis of urban fringe sites, and that the Council should leave no stone unturned in seeking to meet as much of its need as possible it is clear that the Urban Fringe Assessment is lacking in terms of advising on the potential of sites to contribute to housing need. Our clients site is roughly 4 times larger than the area considered suitable for development in the Urban Fringe Assessment (see submitted map of clients site). The site is clearly suitable for development as it a) could easily accommodate in the order of up to 25 dwellings; b) benefits from direct road access onto Longhill Close (to the south-west) and Wanderdown Close (to the north); and c) is not of high ecological value. The site is in private ownership and the Council has no power to demand that our clients facilitate nature improvements to the site (in itself, this implies that the site is not currently of high ecological value). The Urban Fringe Assessment therefore underplays the sites potential for contributing to housing need. Whilst we appreciate that the Council is intending to make specific site allocations in its forthcoming City Plan Part Two document, those allocations will be based on the proposed quantum of housing development set out in the City Plan Part 1. The quantum of development set out in Part 1 is based (in part) on the Urban Fringe Assessment, and so it is correct to consider the failings of the Assessment (to rigorously assess the potential of urban fringe sites to contribute to housing need) at this time. With regard to the Assessments findings (in so far as they impact on our clients part of site 43), please note the following comments (the following is a reduced version of what was submitted): With regard to our clients land, there are no ownership or access constraints. The site is being transferred into the ownership of a new

Page 244 of 541


company, Ovingdean Estates Limited, and benefits from excellent readily accessible road access from the existing public highway of Longhill Close. In fact, Longhill Close was designed and developed by a previous landowner to accommodate future housing on the remainder of the site. Regarding access from Wanderdown Close, that is another but less favourable option, where there is a potential random strip (which is a part of a private garden, not a dwelling). (Re designation as natural and semi-natural greenspace) The site is privately owned. There is no grassland, meadow and very few native trees. To emphasise, our clients land is simply overgrown former back gardens (off Longhill Close) with scrub and occasional Sycamores. There is no existing public open space. The public footpath mentioned is nowhere near our clients land. There can therefore be no loss of public open space or access. The northern-most 1.13ha of private open space quoted is our clients which they are proposing should be made available for housing development. In reality as seen from ground level, the site is not heavily wooded. Where there are trees, most are Sycamores of low arboricultural and ecological status. There are no constraints regarding removal of a significant proportion of these trees, and any planning application for development would take account of retention of trees where possible, and planting of replacement trees elsewhere on the site where desirable. (Re Grade 3 Agricultural Land classification) Being overgrown former back gardens, a desktop categorisation using DEFRA definitions appears curious. In addition, a lack of topsoil and the gradient to the land, would limit cultivation and harvesting. Our clients land is separated from the Ovingdean Conservation Area and its listed buildings by the higher elevated natural ridgeline on which Longhill Road sits (itself fully developed with houses). It would be impossible to see the roof lines of any house built on our land from the Ovingdean Conservation Area and its listed buildings. As a result, trees would not need to be retained to minimise negative effects (as there will be none). There are no eastern vistas from the Ovingdean Conservation Area to protect, or in fact to any orientation that could possibly be affected by a development on our clients site. The whole of our clients site is developable, and there is plenty of space for changes in land levels to be incorporated into future design work. A typical gradient directly down the slope is approximately just over 10% - which is very similar to the gradient in the adjacent post-war development of the Wanderdown Estate, to the north. As our site is wide, there is scope for a snaking road pattern to ameliorate road gradients further. Brighton and Hove is a hilly City, and developers are used to dealing with changes in gradients which can lead to more imaginative scheme layouts. Any development on our land would be at a lower elevation and be far less prominent than the existing houses built on the natural ridgeline above on Longhill Road, Longhill Close and Martyns Close. Our clients have had discussions with designers who are familiar with the geology and hydrology of this location. The site in general overlays permeable chalk strata, and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) to manage surface water drainage will be achievable with straightforward design solutions. Subject to soakage test results, these are likely to comprise soak-a-ways that will then feed into the natural aquifers below. Secondary to this, even the lowest parts of the site lie a few metres above neighbouring Elvin Crescent, and already one existing homeowner in Elvin Crescent has approached our clients to offer full access to services through his/her land. On the separate matter of dealing with damp, this would be covered under building regulations and good building practice. Existing trees are not of any special environmental value, and ecological benefits can be incorporated into any development this (significant tree loss) is not a reason to exclude the majority of site 43 from being suitable for development. Creating access would not result in the loss of an existing property on the road to the north of the site. The Councils own proposed small scheme for 6 houses would only require the purchase of a ˜ransom strip of part of an L-Shaped garden from a homeowner in Wanderdown Close, not the demolition of the house itself. But that is clearly a less favourable option, with the existing readymade road of Longhill Close (to the south west of the site), being the obvious access point. Emerging Policy SA4 relates to the urban fringe development. The amended policy makes no real reference to the potential of the urban fringe to help contribute to the Citys housing need, and so is not positively constructed. Furthermore, the amended text states that proposals for development with the urban fringe will be assessed against the findings of the Urban Fringe Assessment June 2014. As noted earlier in this letter, the Urban Fringe Assessment, has not adopted a rigorous enough approach to identifying potential housing sites, and so should not therefore be used as a formal planning policy document for determining planning applications. The Inspector will note that at paragraph 1.3 of the Executive Summary for the Urban Fringe Assessment, the assessors confirm that not all urban fringe sites (identified in the study) have even been the subject of a site visit. This does not provide a level of analysis that is sufficient to be used in a development plan document. The supporting text to the policy proposes a new paragraph between 3.157 and 3.158. As above, the reliance on the Urban Fringe Assessment is not acceptable in a planning policy context. These representations demonstrate that the Council has not paid sufficient regard to the Inspectors observations from 13 December 2013, and so is not proposing a sufficiently high enough target for new housing in order meet with its Objectively Assessed Need for housing. The proposed modifications do not allow for sufficient housing development, and the supporting documentation (the Urban Fringe Assessment) does not provide a robust enough analysis of sites to ensure that the ability of the urban fringe (to help with housing supply) has been maximised.





Page 245 of 541



Page 246 of 541


Respondent Number:

75

Individuals Name:

Mr D Hunter



1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


These representations into the Proposed Modifications (October 2014) to the City Plan Part One) are made on behalf of the Hunter family - owners of the site to the rear of 30 Longhill Road - part of an Urban Fringe site (number 43) in Ovingdean (Please Note - ownership and location map included with representation). Submissions regarding the sites inclusion in the Councils SHLAA have already been made to the Council (see Lewis and Co Planning letter dated 21 February 2014 included as appendix to representation). In essence, our clients objections to the Proposed Modifications are that they do not go far enough to overcome the Inspectors initial findings into the City Plan that were published by way of letter dated 13 December 2013. The Councils Urban Fringe Assessment (that informs the Councils revised housing targets) has not taken full account of potential sites, and so recommends too low a figure for urban fridge sites and their contribution to overall housing supply. Please note - The hard copy of the representation includes relevant extracts from the Inspectors letter related to the need for a a more rigorous analysis of the urban fringe sites and extracts (Page 39) from the Urban Fringe Assessment June 2014 which states that Urban Fringe Site 43 is suitable for a low density development of just 6 units. Also included with the representation is a copy of the Assessments pro-forma for site and an extract from the Assessments map from the Councils Urban Fringe Study. As can be seen, the Assessment has only considered the north east corner of the site (shaded in red hatching) as suitable for development, and has left the remainder of the site, including our clients site as undeveloped. The Inspector should note that the land has never been open land� or publically accessible, and so there is no reason why the Council should be attempting to restrict this land for Natural and Semi Natural Urban Green Space (brown shading) and as a Nature Improvements Area (vertical blue hatching). URBAN FRINGE ASSESSMENT Given the Inspectors observations that there should be a rigorous analysis of urban fringe sites, and that the Council should leave no stone unturned� in seeking to meet as much of its need as possible it is clear that the Urban Fringe Assessment is lacking in terms of advising on the potential of sites to contribute to housing need. Our clients site is roughly equivalent in size to the area of the urban fringe site considered suitable for development in the Urban Fringe Assessment (see map extract on page 2 of the representation). The site is clearly suitable for development on the level (west) part of the site as it a) could easily accommodate in the order of up to 10 dwellings; b) benefits from direct road access onto Longhill Road (to the west); and c) is not of high ecological value. The site is in private ownership as residential garden land (albeit overgrown on the eastern slope) and the Council has no power to demand that are clients facilitate nature improvements to the site (in itself, this implies that the site is not currently of high ecological value). The Urban Fringe Assessment therefore underplays the sites potential for contributing to housing need. Whilst we appreciate that the Council is intending to make specific site allocations in its forthcoming City Plan Part Two document, those allocations will be based on the proposed quantum of housing development set out in the City Plan Part 1. The quantum of development set out in Part 1 is based (in part) on the Urban Fringe Assessment, and so it is correct to consider the failings of the Assessment (to rigorously assess the potential of urban fringe sites to contribute to housing need) at this time. As noted earlier, a copy of the Urban Fringe Assessments analysis of site number 43 is included with the representation (Appendix A). With regard to the Assessments findings� (in so far as they impact on our clients part of site 43), please note the following comments which are set out in the same order as they appear in the Urban Fringe Assessments pro forma at Appendix A of the representation: Summary of assessment undertaken by B&HCC in September 2013�: The site was deemed unsuitable for residential development due to the ownership and access issues associated with the site.� With regard to our clients land, there are no such issues. The site as highlighted on page 2 of the representation is in single ownership of my clients and benefits from excellent readily accessible road access from the existing public highway of Longhill Road. Longhill Close to the north of the Hunters site is a good demonstration of how the land to the east of Longhill Road can be developed from Longhill Road. Furthermore, the majority of the site (the densely wooded part) is designated as natural and semi-natural greenspace.� This is not correct, our clients land was simply rear garden land to homes on Longhill Road, which remains in garden use on the upper part of the and has became overgrown with scrub on the steeply sloping western part There is no existing public open space. There can therefore be no loss of public open space or access. Site Characteristics�: The site is privately owned.� - Correct. Heavily wooded with

Page 247 of 541


significant access and ownership constraints� - In reality as seen from ground level, the site is not heavily wooded. As set out in detail in our letter to the Local Plans Team on 12th February 2014, the upper part of the site is relatively open garden land and parking areas, while the eastern part of the site is overgrown with self seeded hawthorn and other small trees, with some self seeded sycamore between of low arboricultural and ecological status. There are no constraints regarding removal of a significant proportion of these trees, and any planning application for development would take account of retention of trees where possible, and planting of replacement trees elsewhere on the site where desirable. With regard to our clients land, there are no access or ownership constraints. The site benefits from excellent readily accessible road access from the existing public highway of Longhill Road. Open space (northern section grass and dense trees); some private open space associated with adjacent residential properties.� - There is no grassland, meadow and very few native trees. To emphasise, our clients land was simply rear gardens to homes on Longhill Road, which became overgrown with scrub. There is no existing public open space. There can therefore be no loss of public open space or access. The whole site sits within Grade 3 Agricultural Land.� - Being overgrown former back gardens, a desktop categorisation using DEFRA definitions appears incorrect. ~This is not agricultural land. In addition, a lack of topsoil depth and the gradient to the land, would limit cultivation and harvesting. Historic Environment� Our clients land is separated from the Ovingdean Conservation Area and its listed buildings by the higher elevated natural ridgeline on which Longhill Road sits (itself fully developed with houses). It would be impossible to see the roof lines of any house built on our land from the Ovingdean Conservation Area and its listed buildings. As a result, there are no eastern vistas from the Ovingdean Conservation Area to protect, or in fact to any orientation that could possibly be affected by a development on our clients site. Open Space� To reiterate, our clients land is simply overgrown former back gardens, with occasional Sycamores and hawthorns. There is no existing public open space, and the public footpath� mentioned is nowhere near our clients land. There can therefore be no loss of public open space or access. As recognised it the Councils assessment: Residential development within part of the site could create new publically accessible open space within the remainder of this privately owned site, resulting in a net increase of publically accessible open space overall�. This is true for the Hunters Land as development of the upper part of the site could potentially lead tot he sloping part of the site being gifeted to the Coucil as publicly accessible space, subject to negotiation. Landscape� Any development on my clients land would be likely to be restricted to the western, higher area of land and the sloping part of the land would be retained as natural trees and shrubs. This will retain a visual buffer between the development in Ovingdean at the top of the slope, and the development in Elvin Crescent at a lower end of the site. The land that this letter promotes for development sits behind the houses in Longhill Road and is at a lower level is lower than the existing houses built on the natural ridgeline on Longhill Road. This will mean that correctly scaled development of this part of the site will not affect the silhouette of the ridgeline when viewed from east or west. Other Environmental Issues� The site in general overlays permeable chalk strata, and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) to manage surface water drainage will be achievable with straightforward design solutions. Subject to soakage test results, these are likely to comprise soak-a-ways that will then feed into he natural aquifers below. Secondary Constraints� Much of the site is steeply sloped and heavily wooded. Access to the site is very difficult in parts. However, there is potential for a few houses in the northern tip of the site through the extension of Wanderdown Close southwards. Although the land is sloping, the slope within the sites northern tip is of a similar gradient to that in Wanderdown Close. The trees higher up the slope should be preserved to retain a wooded backdrop.� As noted above, the whole of our clients site is developable, albeit the upper part of the site is more suited to development because of its level ground free from significant trees or other constraints. Access to the site is easily achieved for vehicles and pedestrians. The extension would likely result in some significant tree loss, the ecological effects of which would have to be mitigated within the surrounding woodland.� Existing trees are not of any special environmental value, and ecological benefits can be incorporated into any development this is not a reason to exclude the majority of site 43 from being suitable for development. The northern half of the site is recognised as natural/semi-natural greenspace; however the land is privately owned and inaccessible.� As noted earlier, our clients land is simply overgrown former back gardens, with occasional Sycamores. Creating access may result in the loss of an existing property on the road to the north of the site.� This would not be the case for the site promoted in this letter. Access can be achieved without the loss of any existgin houses on Longhill road, or anywhere else."Finally, there is a risk of groundwater flooding, although this could be managed through sustainable urban drainage systems."See comments under other environmental issues�. PM064 (incorrectly cited in representation as PM063) Emerging Policy SA4 relates to the urban fringe development. The amended policy makes no real reference to the potential of the urban fringe to help contribute to the Citys housing need, and so is not positively constructed. Furthermore, the amended text states that proposals for development with the urban fringe will be assessed against the findings of the Urban Fringe Assessment June 2014. As noted earlier in this representation, the Urban Fringe Assessment, has not adopted a rigorous enough approach to identifying potential housing sites, and so should not therefore be used as a formal planning policy document for determining planning applications. The Inspector will note that at paragraph 1.3 of the Executive Summary for the Urban Fringe Assessment, the assessors confirm that not all urban fringe sites (identified in the study) have even been the subject of a site visit. This does not provide a level of analysis that is sufficient to be used in a development plan document. The supporting text to the policy proposes a new paragraph between 3.157 and 3.158. As above, the reliance on the Urban Fringe Assessment is not acceptable in a planning policy context.


Page 248 of 541




These representations demonstrate that the Council has not paid sufficient regard to the Inspectors observations from 13 December 2013, and so is not proposing a sufficiently high enough target for new housing in order meet with its Objectively Assessed Need for housing. The proposed modifications do not allow for sufficient housing development, and the supporting documentation (the Urban Fringe Assessment) does not provide a robust enough analysis of sites to ensure that the ability of the urban fringe (to help with housing supply) has been maximised.



Respondent Number:

37

Individuals Name:

Jon Newsom-Ray

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:








Subject: Potential Development Saltdean Page 1 of 1 10/12/2014 The urban fringe assessment has not conducted assessment of the proposed developments in Saltdean in accord with the principles of the nation park concept. It is an infringement of the basic concepts of national park to consider building on a site designated as being in the national park: what is the point of duch a designation if it can be lifted for the financial benefit of others? It is at the convenience of developers and others who have vested financial interest that this is even being considered; once we are built over the developers move on and do the same somewhere else. It is time to take a stand. Those concerned with this proposed development have no regard for the preservation or betterment of the area or even the protection of the green belt. This cavalier attitude towards development does nothing to take regard of the over stretched infrastructures such as extra burden on roads, increased pollution, the strain on already overstretched community facilities such as doctor's surgeries, schools and parking problems. I register my protest at the concept of developing this and similar sites in Saltdean and the surrounds.



Page 249 of 541


Respondent Number:

109

Individuals Name:

Vivien Robertson

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing with regard to the proposed building of approximately 380 dwelling in the Benfield Valley on the land currently a 9 hole golf course. I think the idea is totally wrong and I intend to oppose the plans as I don't believe the area could sustain any further housing. For a start the local infrastructure would not cope with the extra amount of housing, the schools, doctors etc. could not cope with the amount of families and so on that this development would bring to the area. Another reason for my opposition is that the local roads in the area could not cope with the obvious increase in cars, vans etc. The roads all around here such as Hangleton Lane, Fox Way the Hangleton Link Road all get very busy at certain times of the day and could not cope with all the extra traffic this development would bring. There are lots of area's that would be more suitable for new housing and would not make already quite busy area's even more congested and more frustrating for the local people, not to mention the added pollution that the extra traffic would create, also does not say much for the 'green' policies supposedly in place!! I wish to be informed of any development with these ridiculous plans.






Page 250 of 541


Respondent Number:

86

Individuals Name:

Mark Hayes

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4




Site 50, Land west of Falmer Avenue, Saltdean. It is legally unsound due to the classification of the land as urban when it should be agricultural.


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


City Plan Part One Proposed Modification Consultation November 2014. Site 50, Land west of Falmer Avenue, Saltdean. I wish to formally object to the Urban Fringe Assessment Study of June 2014 in respect of the above sites potential for 12 new dwellings which I believe to be lacking in its preparation and legally unsound. There is no access to this field. Flooding is an issue on this field which is shown on the environment agency website, building on this field will cause faster runoff of water down into the lower houses and into further flood areas down into Saltdean. If this land is built on Defra potentially could face a large compensation bill to nearby residents for loss of value to their homes for making a procedural error and allowing this land to fall out of the national park. This cost to the government purse would seem unacceptable to build twelve houses.






Page 251 of 541


Respondent Number:

1

Individuals Name:

Dr Michael Ray

Agents Name:


2




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


Benfield Valley, Hove I object to any proposals to develop additional parts of Benfield Valley. When I took responsibility for planning in Hove, the town was covered by the 1958 Town Map which identified the central portion of the valley for development. But the 1973 Greater Brighton Structure Plan identified the valley as a green lung. The land was occupied by the West Hove Golf Club but was owned by the Clark family. We learnt that the family had sold the land to Wimpeys and the company started making moves for redevelopment. Hoves first Local Plan was the Benfield Vallety Local plan and this tried to resolve theses conflicts. By then the Hangleton link to the proposed by-pass had been put forward. Then Wimpeys did a deal with Sainsburys to build a superstore and housing. The Borough Council wished to preserve the green lung but was hampered by the by-pass proposal and the fact that Wimpeys had bought land which had a partial residential allocation. After much hard bargaining, which lasted until the day before the Planning Committee met, it was agreed that the valley should be preserved from all development with the exception of the superstore which was to be extensively landscaped and have a grass-covered roof to its superstore storage area. This agreement, which was tested by a public inquiry, was enshrined in a section 108 agreement. These days I no longer have any of the relevant papers but I have a memory that the position was further strengthened by land exchanges. The Council became the freeholder but there was a very long lease to Sainsburys. A retreat from this solution would represent a betrayal of the previous assurances given to the inhabitants of Hove and especially Portslade and Hangleton. The landscape quality of the by-pass has not been diminished over the years since the agreements were made. It still has a most useful function at a green wedge and is inherently beautiful. The planting associated with the Hangleton link and the superstore has matured well and improved the overall appearance of the land. Please accept my objection. If you would like to discuss the history of development in the Valley, I would be very pleased to met representatives of the Planning Department. Michael Ray Director of Planning, Hove Borough Council 1973-1997.






Page 252 of 541


Respondent Number:

77

Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead Woods

Individuals Name:

Mr Adrian Peasgood

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4





Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



The assessment points out that over 90% of Site 18 is a proposed Local Nature Reserve and of high landscape value; nonetheless it concludes that housing to the north and south of the covered reservoir would have manageable adverse impacts. It is our view that the report which led to that assessment, and to the inclusion of Site 18 as an Urban Fringe site suitable for residential development, was inaccurate and has some fundamental flaws. This piece of work cannot be seen as a robust and credible evidence base�. We seek to ensure that the policy and implementation of the Plan is not based on work that could be unsound. The following notes address perceived weaknesses in the assessment of Area 18 of the Urban Fringe assessment. Ecology: Exclusion of the reservoir from the review has meant that the account of secondary constraints does not mention the important orchid colonies there, including the early spider orchid, a red listed species, and protected under schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The two areas marked for residential development are adjacent to this site and could impact negatively on this and other species. The white-letter hairstreak butterfly is a species of principal importance for purposes of conserving biodiversity (Natural environment and Rural communities act, 2006), and the Local Biodiversity Action Plan identifies it as a locally important species, dependent on mature elms. . It is, however, not mentioned either in the Councils original assessment or this review. Within Area 18 elms occur both in the woodland and along the edge of Ditchling Road (in the area suggested for possible housing). If the immature trees and burgeoning elm hedge along the road edge were lost to development, mitigation by replacement elsewhere could mean the loss of several years growth and thus defer the time at which further suitable habitat for the white-letter hairstreak became available. We are aware of bats using Hollingbury Park and are concerned that housing and consequent nighttime lighting in this area could affect their roosting and flight paths. Also, the extent of meadow is overstated on the map - the northeast of the 'meadow' has been woodland ('Triangle Copse') for more than ten years - which makes any further reduction of meadow, e.g. for housing purposes, a more serious threat to the insects on which the bats depend. The Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead Woods Management Plan, for the woods and associated areas within Area 18, records biodiversity objectives some of which would be jeopardised by any development. We believe that the assessment for Ecology after mitigation is therefore likely to be nearer a negative than neutral. Open space: The mitigation assessment refers to over-provision of most kinds of open space in Area 18, as calculated with reference to the boundaries of Hollingbury & Stanmer ward. The report acknowledges that the calculation is distorted by the inclusion of Stanmer Park (beyond the Brighton by-pass) and Wild Park in the ward. It is a serious weakness of the review process and assumptions that they do not allow for the more relevant approach of considering the value of Area 18 to those living in the vicinity regardless of which wards happen to include their homes. The home addresses of members of the Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead woods indicate a wide spread of visitors including from Preston Park ward, Withdean ward, and Patcham ward, all three of which have boundaries abutting the western edge of Area 18, where development is suggested. This suggests that the over provision� as calculated is inappropriate, particularly as Preston Park ward is regarded as having an under-provision. Given the above, we suggest that there should be a re-evaluation of the assessment made of this area. . Landscape: The list of secondary constraints does not note that there are no buildings fronting the east side of Ditchling Road north of 414 Ditchling Rd, i.e. immediately south of the southern border of Area 18; rather, there is a variety of green features adjoining the east side of the road all the way north to the SDNP. This unbuilt line would be destroyed by development anywhere along it, and the present open feel of the western part of Area 18, with its views to the Iron Age Hill fort, would be lost until close to the Area's northern boundary. In the final report there is a suggestion (1.9 and 2.11) that Area 18 could be designated a Local Green Space, as one of four green wedges extending into the built up area from the SDNP; allowing development beside the reservoir is hardly compatible with that suggestion, as none of the suggested mitigations could compensate for the loss of that open feel. We also believe that the impact on views from the SDNP would be affected if interrupted by built development

Page 253 of 541


in the locations suggested. We suggest that the assessment for Landscape after mitigation is inaccurate. Setting a precedent: We are extremely concerned that if this site is allocated for residential development, a precedent will be set allowing infilling by subsequent development. This potential must be assessed further before any agreement to allocate the site for development. Overall conclusion: Given the points noted above, we suggest that the whole of Area 18 should, as originally concluded by the Council, be considered as unsuitable for housing development; If the recommendation is, nonetheless, retained, then before any development permission is considered a full environmental assessment should take place to determine the impacts likely to follow;


Given the failings we highlight in our comments on PM064 and the points above, we believe the policy should set out a sequential approach to developing the urban fringe. We also argue that the total of housing to be supplied from the urban fringe should be revised downwards by 20 dwellings (the number proposed for Area 18 in the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment Study) from 1060 to1040. We suggest the wording be amended in the supporting text, paragraph 4.6 as follows: The strategy for accommodating growth in the city continues to maximise development opportunities from brownfield sites within the built up area. It acknowledges that some housing development will come forward from some of the city's urban fringe sites and will seek to develop these after brownfield sites and the Eight Development Areas have been fully utilised. (Original wording in PM 072 para 4.6: The strategy for accommodating growth in the city continues to maximise development opportunities from brownfield sites within the built up area but it also acknowledges that some housing development will come forward from some of the city's urban fringe sites.) We note also in paragraph 4.4 the following wording and would like to suggest that "respect" be replaced with "protect "The City Plan housing target for a minimum of 11,300 13,200 new homes reflects the need to respect the historic, built and natural environment of the city



No, but for information The Friends of Hollingbury and Burstead Woods was set up after the great storm of 1987. We are a group of local volunteers who look after two areas of woodland, associated glades and adjacent meadow within Site 18, so that people can enjoy the area and wildlife can thrive. We have a constitution and an elected Committee. Total current members: 58 The Committee has approved this response




We would only wish to appear if the Inspector wanted to re-assess the Urban Fringe Housing Study.

Page 254 of 541


Respondent Number:

68

Individuals Name:

Mr Andrew Doig

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



PARAPHRASED SUMMARY - Object to identification of Craven Vale allotments in Urban Fringe Study. As a retired person I greatly value my allotment - it acts as an incentive to get out of the house and exercise. Many local people who work plots do not have gardens. I am well aware of the housing crisis and the need to provide as much new housing as possible without extending the city onto the Downs, but there are limits as to how much we can do without degrading the environment.


PARAPHRASED SUMMARY - Should consider the redevelopment of Brighton & Hove to a higher density to accomodate more people using the same infrastructure and within the same urban envelope. Consider developing old cemetaries and low density housing areas in Hove.






Page 255 of 541


Respondent Number:

67

Individuals Name:

Mrs S Finlayson

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I would like to advise you that I do not agree with this proposed planning application on Benfield Valley due to the following points: 1. There are too many properties in such a small area. 2. Leading to over population. 3. No parking. 5. No local amenities to be increased. 6. Homeless people can have problems like alcohol or drug dependency.






Page 256 of 541


Respondent Number:

66

Individuals Name:

Dr Lydia Burgess-Gamble

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



I would fully support protecting sites 18 and 20 as green wedges so that they are retained as wildlife corridors and not subject to housing development. I would also be happy to advise you on how this greenspace could be enhaced for wildlife. I do not support developing sites 18 and 20 for housing (Holingbury and Burstead Woods) is: Contrary to policies NC5 and NC6 in your local plan. There are other, better, bigger, brownfield sites which should be developed first to fulfil your housing quota and would more effectively meet your housing needs. But you have failed to identify these adequately. If development is allowed here there will be nothing to stop the whole of our park being developed, then the woods then the allotments. The development would have a negative impact biodiversity of the local woods. The development would have a negative impact on transport/highways, increasing air pollution and increasing the number of vehicles on the road in this part of town The development would block the uninterrupted views of the sea and ruin the area aesthetically. This valuable area of green space would be lossed, this would negatively impacts the local community who cherish this park. This loss of green space and its associated recreational value cannot be compensated for.


Removes sites 18 and 20 from your urban fringe plan and portecting them as green wedges so they become a valued wildlife corridor rather than a development site. Ensure that your proposal is not contrary to your own policies especially policies NC5 and NC6 in your local plan. Undertake a thorough and extensive process of identifying all available brownfield sites and build on these rather than building on the very limited green space available in this city.






Page 257 of 541


Respondent Number:

65

Individuals Name:

Jo Graver

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I live in Patcham and want to register my objection to the Council's plans to earmark land for housing development at Horsdean Recreation Ground; Ladies Mile/Carden Avenue; land south of Hollingbury Golf Course; and land at Braypool. All these sites are currently green rather than brownfield and are important open spaces for the local community. They contribute to the community's well�being as they are places where we can take exercise and enjoy nature, both of which have been shown to be important in maintaining good mental and physical health. In addition, one of the main reasons people come to live in Patcham and Hollingbury is because of their attractive green open spaces, and brownfield sites should be built on first. The number of houses planned would also significantly increase the traffic and parking problems in these areas. I am amazed that a Council that is supposedly Green should be putting forward these proposals. If these areas are built on, they represent the thin end of the wedge, gradually in�filling the green space that we have between us and the A27, and would doubtless lead to yet more development. I trust that the Council will take into account the representations of the local community, and reject these areas as being suitable for housing development.






Page 258 of 541


Respondent Number:

52

Individuals Name:

Heidi Mueller

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA 4 Urban Fringe


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


In addition to my objection of 25th August 2014 - letter to Brighton & Hove City Council, Kings House, Grand Avenue, Hove, BN3 2LS, and email to [email protected] - I am now objecting against including Meadow Vale Fields as suitable for development in the City Plan. I repeat my objection already given before: 1. No immediate necessitity for the planned development, plenty of brownland sites existing; 2. Not characteristic for the area; 3. Historical English countryside of special beauty should be protected as English heritage; 4. Substantial increase of traffic, air pollution and noise pollution. Not fitting into this rural area of outstandingly healthy air quality due to the combination of sea and woodland; 5. No infrastructure for this kind of development, which is not suitable in this area and therefore not acceptable. The private road "The Vale" is as risk for flooding. Access to the residents' houses will soon be impossible. The resulting damage will be considerable. I object against the use of Meadow Vale Fields for any housing. I object against any planning application and planning in favour of such developments.






Page 259 of 541


Respondent Number:

58

Roedean Residents Association

Individuals Name:

Rosemary Shepherd

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:3.155




Presumably since BHCC own this land, legally they can do what they want but whether it is in the public interest is another matter.


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


The hectare within the Roedean Pitch and Putt curse should not be considered for housing development as it cannot conform with SA Urban Fringe 5, d,e and f.



The bus service is very poor throuh Roedean which is regularly invaded by coaches parked for the day and cars parked for the day all to avoid payment. Cycling is not a serious option due to the hills and winds.


We wonder why a London firm LUC was engaged for the UFA which surely would have been better done by someone with local knowledge. The UFA for area 37 states 25 dwellings on one hectare with no indication as to what form these dwellings might take. This information should be available to the residents of Roedean.




Page 260 of 541


Respondent Number:

2

Individuals Name:

Tony Lees

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


Housing Development At Coombe Farm, Westfield Avenue North, Saltdean I raise the following objections/observations. I have no problem with the houses per se, but: Westfield Avenue North is already very congested and is a bus route, with buses frequently having to slalom round parked cars. More cars at Coombe Farm's development can only aggravate the problem, aside, of course, from the further noise and air pollution (Do I really need to spell this out to a Green Council?) All these additional cars would then feed into Coombe Vale, already a race track and badly in need of traffic calming measures. And then finally, all these cars end up on the A259. I do not need to say more about that, do I? And the there are the general infrastructure problems, notably healthcare and schools. Where are all these extra people meant to go? As I say, it is mainly not the houses themselves, but all the extra cars. Fifty houses presumably equates to 50 - 70 cars, hardly a green ideal. I would like to be kept informed of progress and update, please.






Page 261 of 541


Respondent Number:

29

Individuals Name:

Andy Davies

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:








I appreciate the need for the council to take a strategic approach in planning to meet the citys future housing requirements and that there will be some difficult decisions to be taken to provide the necessary housing for the city. However, Im surprised at the proposals to identify some sites in the urban fringe upon which new homes may be built. The following areas are ones that I understand have been identified as having potential for new housing. Im not convinced that these sites are suitable for additional housing and would like my views to be considered as part of the councils consultation. <!��[if !supportLists]��>1. <!��[endif]��>Braypool Lane (Location 54), where 2 units may be considered. I dont believe this site is suitable for housing due to: its location; lack of proximity to local services; proximity to the A27 / A23 junction and being outside of the A27. <!��[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]��> <!��[endif]��> <!��[if !supportLists]��>2. <!��[endif]��>Land adjoining Horsdean Recreation Ground (Location 16), where 30 units may be considered. I dont believe this site is suitable for housing due to: its location on a green open space; the additional traffic that would result in the area where the current road infrastructure struggles, particularly at rush hour and when the recreation ground is being used; and the principle of building on green field sites. In addition, the way the proposal / plan has been produced would create housing in the middle of two green areas and I suspect that this would be the thin end of the wedge and that the next step would be to build on the adjoining land to the east of the proposed site. <!��[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]��> <!��[endif]��> <!��[if !supportLists]��>3. <!��[endif]��>Land at Ladies Mile / Carden Avenue (Location 17), where 35 units may be considered. I believe this site is the most unsuitable proposed site in Patcham for housing due to: its location on a green open space, which is one of the reasons people choose to live in the area; the additional traffic that would result in an area where the current road infrastructure is under pressure due to the existing residential properties, the Crowhurst Road development of retail and wholesale businesses as well as the other retails areas further down Carden Avenue, with traffic issues being throughout the day and not just during rush hour. A few years ago the site was considered as a base for a local football club, which I supported provided the use was occasional and that the site was secured appropriately. <!��[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]��> <!��[endif]��> <!��[if !supportLists]��>4. <!��[endif]��>Land south of Hollingbury Golf Course (Location 18), where 20 units may be considered. This is probably the least worst option for additional housing in the Patcham and Hollingbury areas. It would still involve building on a green field site, although the road infrastructure could probably cope better than the other proposed sites for consideration. In principle Im opposed to the city council building on green field sites � no, no, no. I believe that it should be focusing its efforts on finding suitable brownfield sites, although I appreciate this is sometimes a less easy and more expensive option. Its at a time like this when I remember one of John Prescott MPs comments: The Green Belt is a Labour achievement, and we mean to build on it.� I expect more of a Green council or any future city council administration. Id like my views to be included as part of the councils consultation.



Page 262 of 541


Respondent Number:

24

Bouygues DevelopmentIndividuals Name:

Mr James Rogers

Agents Name:Mr Ben Christian, Vail Williams LLP


2




Legally Compliant?:





Please see full Representations Report and Site Analysis for Benfield Valley. Policy SA4 - Urban Fringe 2.16. Policy SA4 discusses the careful use and management of land within the urban fringe and how, where appropriate, the Council will promote and enhance its use through protecting its landscape role as part of the setting of the South Downs National Park. This is to be achieved by: ‚· better management for environmental improvements and safe public access; ‚· encouraging its multi-functional use for appropriate recreation, biodiversity and local food production; ‚· protection of the urban fringe as a sensitive ground water source and as a gateway to the South Downs National Park, and; ‚· support for sustainable tourism. 2.17. The policy goes on to state that development will only be permitted in the urban fringe where the site has been: ‚· allocated for said development; ‚· a countryside location can be justified; ‚· the proposal has regard to the landscape setting; ‚· adverse impacts of the development are minimised, and; ‚· the proposal helps to achieve the above aforementioned mentioned uses of the urban fringe. 2.18. The Council has proposed changes to this policy through the following points: ‚· Paragraph 3.155 in support of Policy SA4 has identified that there are opportunities for development to meet the city wide needs as long as these needs retain the downland landscape setting of the area. Bouygues Development is supportive of the widening of this paragraph as it enables development throughout the urban fringe, subject to respecting the National Park setting, which will assist in meeting the citys needs particularly that of its large housing need. ‚· It is noted as part of the proposed modifications that until the adoption of Part 2 of the City Plan (the citys allocations document) the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment (UFA) will be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications for residential development within the urban fringe. My client views this as an acceptable addition as the UFA has successfully identified locations for the provision of well needed homes within the city albeit our view that the Benfield Valley Golf Course sites and therefore probably others can provide a significantly larger number of dwellings without substantial harm. 2.19. It is noteworthy to mention here that the public was not consulted on the creation of the UFA and therefore counter evidence for the appropriateness of a site for residential development should be considered. Although the UFA is useful in identifying appropriate locations for residential development the detail behind this may not be considered acceptable by the local community. This is evidenced through the public consultation exercise undertaken for Benfield Valley which details that a number of local people would support an increased number of residential dwellings proposed within Benfield Valley than is identified within the UFA (see Section 4 below). In summary the UFA is a useful document in supporting the allocation of much needed housing but its detail must be considered carefully as certain locations have been identified as being able to accommodate a larger number of dwellings than is proposed within the assessment such as Benfield Valley Golf Course. Extract from conclusions: Evidence for the sites being identified for an under provision of new homes is provided through a study and public consultation exercise of the Benfield Valley Golf Course which was identified for a total of 30 dwellings. However, from highways, ecology and landscape assessments the site is considered to be able to provide circa 350-400 new homes which is significantly greater that identified under the UFA. From the public consultation event the public are understood to have an understanding of the housing need in the area and were generally supportive in principle of the higher number of dwellings on the Benfield Valley Golf Course. 9.8. From the above Benfield Valley Golf Course study it is apparent that the designated sites within the UFA could provide a higher number of dwellings than attributed and therefore it is considered suitable for the Council to raise their housing target and thus ensure the housing needs of the local community are met. 9.9. It is noteworthy to mention here that the public was not consulted on the creation of the UFA and therefore counter evidence by specialist consultants for the appropriateness of a site for residential development should be considered. Although the UFA is useful in identifying appropriate locations for residential development the detail behind this may not be considered appropriate by the local public. This is evidenced through the public consultation exercise undertaken for Benfield Valley Golf Course which details that a number of local people are happy to see an increased number of residential dwellings proposed than is identified within the UFA. In summary the UFA is a useful document in supporting the allocation of well needed houses but its detail must be considered carefully as certain locations have been identified as being able to support a larger number of

Page 263 of 541


dwellings than is identified within the assessment.




See full Representations Report.




Page 264 of 541


Respondent Number:

90

Craven Vale & Whitehawk Hill Allotment Society

Individuals Name:

James Gilderoy

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing on behalf of the Craven Vale & Whitehawk Hill Allotment Society to object to the inclusion of actively used allotment sites as having potential for housing use in the Urban Fringe Assessment Report (the Report�), a development plan document being considered as part of the City Plan Part One. The Society represents 352 plot holders on what is identified as site 31 in the Report. Brighton and Hove City Council administers site 31 as two separate allotment sites: Craven Vale (173 plots) and Whitehawk Hill (179 plots), reflecting their development over the years. The Whitehawk Hill part of the site has been used as allotments for about a century, while the Craven Vale site was created in the 1950s to mitigate for the loss of allotment land as a result of the construction of the Craven Vale housing estate. Current BHCC figures show a waiting list of 106 across the two sites. The Society's objections are as follows: 1. We are concerned that the Report appears to be little more than a hastily produced desktop study, produced by consultants with little local knowledge. The detail in the report contains a number of errors about site 31. For example, it refers only to Whitehawk Hill allotments (an inaccurate 177 plots�) whereas the area identified as potential for housing is shown on the map on the Craven Vale site. It also suggests that new allotment sites could be created in mitigation by expanding the allotments westwards on to the lower slopes of [site] 31b to the west�. However, this land, which is wooded and is being developed as a local nature reserve, is designated as open access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and so could not be used in mitigation. 2. The Society objects to any actively used allotment site being considered for housing potential. Allotments provide a valuable amenity both in terms of the local community and for the local ecology. Local authorities have a statutory responsibility to provide allotments and we believe that actively used sites should be protected in local development plans and not identified for other land uses. 3. The Report also considers that the structures on the allotments add clutter to the visual landscape. This view is entirely subjective; many people would consider the structures add visual interest. It should be noted that all the structures are temporary, whereas housing would be permanent. 4. The Report notes that the east Brighton area has an over-provision of open spaces. However, allotment holders come from a wider area, including the city centre, where provision of open spaces is below average. The allotment site needs to be considered in that context, as a more widely used amenity. 5. The inclusion of actively used allotment sites in the Report creates a tension with long established council policies to protect such sites and to promote the working of allotment land. Reducing food miles and encouraging healthy lifestyles, including the positive physical and mental health benefits of working allotments, are amongst the valuable benefits of the current land use. Inclusion of allotment land in the Report makes it unclear which policy has precedence. The development plan process should create clarity rather than confusion in this respect. 6. Craven Vale and Whitehawk Hill allotments are included in the Whitehawk Hill Nature Reserve an endorsement of their wildlife importance. Plot-holders cultivate in a sustainable way with respect for wildlife. Many create habitat piles for invertebrates, install small wildlife ponds allowed within the allotment rules to provide habitat for amphibians, dragonfly and damselfly larvae and many other useful interventions. A summary of some of the animal and plant species identified is attached (Annex A). 7. It should also be noted that site 31 is adjacent to site 31a, the causeway enclosure of Whitehawk Camp. This scheduled ancient monument is approximately 5,500 years old (Neolithic) and predates Stonehenge by some 1,000 years. It is of significant national importance and is the subject of current University College of London research. Site 31a in the plan is tightly drawn; digs were undertaken in summer 2014, the largest of which was in site 31b. Site 31 (the allotment site) is also of interest to the on-going archaeological research. Continued allotment use on site 31 will help protect archaeological remains and facilitate the research. 8. Any development of the sites identified in the Report will extend the built-up area of the City onto greenfield sites. Once these greenfield sites are gone they are gone forever. If they are to be included in the City Plan then policy SA4 should also ensure that all avenues to secure housing provision within the built-up area of the City have been exhausted before any planning application on an urban fringe site is considered. 9. Finally, the Society does not believe the site would be suitable for housing because road access is unsuitable. Currently road access is via Beresford Road and Donald Hall Road. Both are effectively single track roads because

Page 265 of 541


of the large amount of on-road car parking (the Bristol Manor estate, through which the roads pass, has very little off road parking). As such pressure on the local road network, both during construction and during occupation of the houses, should they be developed, would be unacceptable.






Respondent Number:

89

Individuals Name:

Linnette Fellingham

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


Please ensure that this message is noted as part of you consultation on the development of Benfield Valley. I accept that there is a housing shortage but please consider that once you build on an important green wedge like the Benfield Valley then it is gone forever. This is one of the very few areas in the city with a bridge link over the A27 to Southdowns National Park. It is well used by general public for outdoor recreation and contains significant wildlife habitats. This type of green wedge has important benefits on biodiversity and human wellbeing. The plans put forward for 380 dwellings (including four storey blocks of flats) seem excessive and unsustainable without huge clearance. There appear to be no additional facilities to support this number of dwellings either, e.g. medical centre, schools, community store, sewage, water, parking and access would appear to be problematic. Additionally I'm concerned that this proposal will not provide council housing of the type that this Council has been calling for as there would be difficult leasehold arrangements to be negotiated that would deter most people. For a small area the Bouygues Development that I have seen is too large and it was very apparent that they had no idea about the real usage and current biodiversity of the area. A rethink is needed.






Page 266 of 541


Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


6




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Under SA4, we would ask when it would not be appropriate for the Council to promote and support the careful use and management of the land etc.? The same principle applies in para. 3. Our main concern with the modification PM64 is the inclusion of the new paragraph between 3.157 & 3.158 and any proposals that come forward prior to the adoption of Part 2 of the City Plan. Our concern is that it could allow development to take place on any site listed in the Urban Fringe Assessment 2014 as soon as Part 1 of the City Plan is adopted if decisions were made without any further consultation on the suitability of sites. We do not believe that there has been any scrutiny of the Urban Fringe Assessment and it would be a mistake if decision were made solely against this. There are a number of urban fringe sites that are either contiguous, a gateway or provide access to the National Park which if permission for development was granted, could have an everlasting negative impact on its setting. Therefore we believe that this modification should be deleted.


3.154 We consider that it would be more appropriate if the new paragraph should firstly read The urban fringe is important in terms of biodiversity........ before reference is made to much of the Citys urban fringe meets the NPPF definition.......... 3.155 The first line should read Within the urban fringe there MAY be some opportunities for development....Our understanding is that if there are any suitable sites they are not meant to be allocated for development until Part 2 of the City Plan which will be at a later date. We believe the revised housing supply numbers on the scale set out within the urban fringe and adjacent to the SDNP would cause permanent and irreversible damage. We go back to the 2010 Consultation on Housing Delivery which contained a caveat that any future managed release of land within the Urban Fringe for residential development would only be considered on a contingency basis in the post 2020 plan period, should this be required to help meet local needs. Given the strategic locations adjacent to the National Park, we would say that development of any type within the Urban Fringe must be considered ONLY as a last resort.





Page 267 of 541


Respondent Number:

26

Individuals Name:

Jamie Burston

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:








The community group 'Friends of Hollingbury and Burstead Wood' has highlighted a serious issues, I want Site 18 removed from the list of proposed areas to be earmarked for residential development. I completely agree with 'Friends of Hollingbury and Burstead Wood' when they say "I believe the inclusion of the site at Hollingbury Park for housing is based on a flawed consultants report and urge you to delete this site from the list of urban fringe sites."The following paragraph is a personal message I sent to their Facebook page, where I voiced my concerns over the proposed developments at Hollingbury Park. I would be grateful if you to could read and consider the points I make � ''Birds, Butterflies and Bats are of main concern with regard to light and sound pollution being a huge problem, especially as they would be located so close to Hollingbury Wood. Additionally serious damage to wildlife habitat could be caused during the construction process. The bats would be affected by the lighting that would have to be installed. The important White�letter Hairstreak Butterfly may be affected in regard to shading out of it's larval and nectar food plants. The same affect could effect shrubs that produce berries in the winter for the birds. These houses would also ruin the point of the wild flower bank due to the close proximity, as any bees and butterflies that use this are coming off of the meadow, the grassland butterflies lay their eggs on the grasses of the meadow! Furthermore this could effect the species rich reservoir regarding both flora and fauna. I personally feel that if this development work went a head it would cast a serious shadow over the amazing work the rest of council put in when they applied for and won Biosphere status. Please don't undo this incredible work. I visit Hollingbury Park every year to see the different range of Butterflies you can find on site, I would definitely be put off going, not only because of the way it would look, or because of the loss of important meadow grassland habitat but because it would be a reminder that in the end nature always comes last. Below are point that 'Friends of Hollingbury and Burstead Wood' have main, I personally agree with ever point, and I would appreciate that you took the time to read them as I feel every point is fair and reasonable and gives more than enough reason to remove Site 18 from the list of proposed areas to be earmarked for residential development. Concerns on the allocation of land in Hollingbury Park for housing We believe that the Urban Fringe Assessment by consultants LUC that led to the proposals was inaccurate and has some fundamental flaws. These include: � A Public Park should not be on the list of possible housing options. As far as we are aware no other Park is on the list and as such Hollingbury Park should not have been included in the study. This is an area much used and valued by residents in the local area and communities near it. The consultants included the area because they state that there is a surplus of green space in the Hollingbury and Stanmer Ward because Stanmer Park and Wild Park is in this ward, however local residents in Hollingbury and Hollingdean would not class those areas as easily accessible due to the topography and the isolation of Stanmer Park. It is clear that looking at this at ward level does not make sense. The study also notes that there is an under-provision of open space in the ward of Preston Park, which is our neighbouring ward and one where many users of Hollingbury Park would come from. Keeping the area as Open space benefits residents and visitors alike. At present there are no buildings fronting the east side of Ditchling Road further north than number 414, immediately to the south of Area 18. Instead there is a variety of green features all the way north into the SDNP. It would be a gross disservice to the city to interrupt the green character of this part of Ditchling Road with its view to the woods beyond by developing above and below the reservoir, a development which would mean that the open feel of the Area 18 did not begin until close to its northern boundary. This area is a gateway to the South Downs National Park and should remain as open green space. Building housing in Hollingbury Park would be detrimental to the wider landscape and change the nature of this area. Building on this area would be contrary to the findings of a recent survey commissioned by the Council on the value of parks and open spaces which stated residents should have access to green open space within 10 minutes walk of where you live this would compromise these findings. Wildlife/Biodiversity: the report mentions

Page 268 of 541


that this is designated as a proposed Local Nature Reserve within the City Plan and that there are some notable species of wildlife here. Whilst the report points out the range of reasons why the council deemed this area unsuitable for residential development when it was originally assessed by the Council in 2013, the list of reasons does not include the importance of this area for biodiversity. There is mention of the northern corner of the site being earmarked for higher level Stewardship funding to deliver significant environmental benefits to the Site. It has however failed to recognize the work of FHBW and its volunteers over the last 25 years in having already implemented many of the improvements listed: the Council and FHBW have recently updated the Management Plan for the area which has a priority to further improve biodiversity. This is an important asset for the community and as such should not be developed. � The meadow area and Elm hedge: the Urban Fringe Assessment has also failed to take into consideration the importance of the burgeoning Elm hedge running parallel to the Ditchling Road and the meadow to the north of the reservoir. Thanks to the Council implementing a new mowing regime the meadow has become a haven for many butterflies and other insects that now feed on the increasing numbers of wild flower species that have colonised the area. This has recently been further enhanced by the creation of a chalk flower bank to encourage more butterfly species and the rare White Letter Hairstreak butterfly has been seen feeding on the Elm hedge: any housing development would almost certainly mean the destruction of the Elm hedge and trees and seriously impinge on the size of the meadow Page 2 of 3 09/12/2014 and see the removal of part of the chalk bank for butterflies contrary to Higher Level Stewardship guidelines. The Urban Fringe Assessment also showed the size of the meadow incorrectly as it relied on out-of-date maps which failed to show the extended woodland area known as Triangle Copse. � To the south of the reservoir is the historic Tram shelter, whose setting would also be compromised if surrounded by houses. � If this area were to be allocated for housing in the City Plan this would set a precedent for further development in this, and other green open spaces in the city and make it more difficult for the Council to refuse planning applications in the future: we could end up with housing all the way up the eastern side of Ditchling Road! The Urban Fringe Assessment offers mitigation measures but as mentioned earlier these are of little value: FHBW and the Council have already installed interpretation boards and have an on-going programme of work to improve biodiversity. If housing was allowed on this site we believe the overall impact would be significantly negative due to the impact on the landscape, the character and the biodiversity of the area. Many thanks, Jamie Burston



Page 269 of 541


Respondent Number:

85

Individuals Name:

Richard Everest

Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:SA4





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:










Page 270 of 541


Respondent Number:

33

Individuals Name:

Mia Vrachimis

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


i write to express disbelief that developments on top of well established allotments are being considered - as an allotmenteer, i know how important they are especially as Brighton is becoming busier, noisier and more polluted. Green spaces to grow food is essential for people's physical and mental health as the Councils own health and wellbeing strategy has stated. There are so many central derelict buildings which could be developed and/or returned to use - building on allotment sites is unnecessary.






Page 271 of 541


Respondent Number:

84

Individuals Name:

Ann R Hayes

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


City Plan Part One Proposed Modification Consultation November 2014. Site 50, Land west of Falmer Avenue, Saltdean. I wish to formally object to the Urban Fringe Assessment Study of June 2014 in respect of the above sites potential for 12 new dwellings which I believe to be lacking in its preparation and legally unsound. Land Use Consultants Ltd classified the land as Urban in spite of it being long established agricultural land, or Greenbelt, in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It was previously part of Coombe Farm, before being purchased, with an alleged smallholding license, by Mr E McNorvell for use as a field for horses; it is situated immediately below and behind my back garden. Similar purchases of land were made by nearby residents in Westmeston Avenue and Wivelsfield Road and remain as green space within the new Southdowns National Park, they are not classified as urban which is, to say the least, inconsistent. As with site 50 there is no road access to them which defies logic as to how they, or it, could ever be considered suitable for development. Site 50 was originally recognized as being worthy of being included in the SDNP but, was excluded only on the basis of a procedural error, its worthiness has not been diminished nor its agricultural or greenbelt classification changed merely as a result of that error. It is claimed by LUC Ltd that the site has no environmental issues associated with it, yet it remains at risk from flooding, as happened many years ago when I saw the water running off and through the gardens and houses in nearby Bishopstone Drive. The flooding was so severe that the Department of the Environment excavated a flood pond at the lower end of the field to catch and slowly release the floodwater. I later saw Mr McNorvell, who was associated with a haulage company, fly-tipping and filling in the pond with lorry loads of spoil excavated from a building site in Rottingdean before he grassed it over. I attach a copy of B&HCCs letter to Ms Tanya Arkle of DEFRA dated 29th October 2010 Ref: ENV/CP/RF/ requesting a variation order to the South Downs National Park border to include the field to the west of Falmer Avenue, Saltdean. The letter, which you may not have seen, was sent by Martin Randall and relates to deletion 13, now referred to as plot 50, and contains B&HCCs objections to the exclusion of the land from the SDNP. I would ask that the procedural error which is referred to in that letter may now be partially mitigated by excluding this plot from the revised city plan.




see additional copy of letter to Mrs Tanya Ankle dated 29th October 2010



Page 272 of 541


Respondent Number:

32

Individuals Name:

Nick Fry

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I want it known that I am completely opposed to the possibility of housing development on the Craven Vale allotment site. As a plotholder there myself for the last six years, I have spent a lot of time and effort cultivating the plot, enhancing the local environment through planting of native trees and shrubs and developing the fertility of the soil. My time spent up at the allotments is a welcome break from my commuting to London for work and gives me mental and physical benefit, as well as allowing me to grow and harvest my own organic, fresh produce. I also enjoy the diversity of wildlife on the site and have regularly come across frogs, toads, newts, lizards, slow worms, dragon flies, grasshoppers and other invertebrates. Although East Brighton does have a lot of green space, as a resident in North Laine with no garden, I very much appreciate having an area in which to grow my own fruit and veg within an easy cycle ride's distance. Craven Vale is statutory allotments and there is nowhere else nearby that could possibly replace them. Craven Vale is a really special green place, benefitting many hundreds of people - and a wealth of wildlife - and should never be lost to housing development.






Page 273 of 541


Respondent Number:

30

Individuals Name:

Tessa Pawsey

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:








I am writing in response to the identification of Craven Vale allotments (Local Nature Reserve) as possible building land in the urban fringe to register my opposition and my reasons for this. I have had an allotment on the Craven Vale and Whitehawk Hill site for 24 years. I live in Hampden Road in the dense residential area known as Hanover. The allotments provide huge physical and mental well-being for me and also the many friends who regularly visit my plots to help and socialise. Being able to walk to a piece of land which still has some remnants of wildness is very important in such a busy city. Growing our own vegetables means we get good fresh local food, and having put in lots of time and effort to grow it we don't waste any, even if some of it does'nt look air brushed perfect. Any peelings or outer leaves are composted on site to maintain soil fertility. The physical exercise of gardening is important but so is the slowly biult community of tenants of many ages and backgrounds, retired people, busy mums, children, people who have been made redundant, people who have been bereaved, people with stressful jobs. We help each other at first on the allotments and then often in our wider lives. The nature of an allotment site between town and countryside is also important. There are many downland species of plants and insects on the site, important in their own right but also for the many children ( and adults! ) to learn about the variety and excitement of wild creatures, lizards, smooth newts, numerous jewel like beetles. Watching great green bush crickets use their sword like ovipositors to lay their eggs in the soil to carry on the generations after this years adults die as winter sets in, long winged and short winged coneheads ( crickets ), speckled bush crickets. Rarely occuring butterflies such as the long tailed blues, Lampides boeticus. The solitary bee, Osmia bicolour, which lays it's eggs in empty snails shells along with a supply of pollen to feed the grubs when they hatch and then carefully disguises the snail shell with a tent of cut dried grass stalks to try and evade the many parasitis wasps which also want to lay thier eggs there to eat the bee grubs. Our allotments are also a sanctuary for chalk downland arable plants, we have weasel's snout, Misopates orontium ( in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan ), yellow vetch, Lathyrus aphaca ( Species Action Plan ), rough poppy, Papaver hybridum, Venus's looking glass, Legousia hybrida. These annuals are disappearing from farmed land due to herbicide use but they need the disturbance of cultivated soil to allow them to germinate. Our organically cultivated allotments provide an important, though scarce, haven for them. These are some of the many reason's I think show that biulding on these allotments ( or any allotments ) would result in a loss for the city and it's people. Yours sincerely, Tessa Pawsey



Page 274 of 541


Respondent Number:

82

Individuals Name:

Caroline Martin

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I am a tenant of Craven Vale allotments and I'm writing to express my concern about the site being identified in the City Plan as an area of urban fringe that may be suitable for housing development. I have been a tenant at Craven Vale for three and half years and I thoroughly value the time I spend on the site. I selected the site because of its location, within walking distance of my flat (I don't own a car). One of my concerns about the potential for redevelopment is the prospect of moving allotments. I would not find it so convenient to visit my allotment regularly if I had to travel across the city by bus, and where is the space to move tenants to I wonder? I also feel that having battled with the tough conditions on the site (my plot is at the far, exposed reaches, near Manor Hall road), were finally at the point where we can focus on maintaining the plot and have a chance to experiment with new crops. We've just had a fabulously productive year and frankly the idea that we could easily relocate is laughable. And that's from a position of just a few years of labour and commitment I cant begin to imagine how it must feel to plot holders who have more established plots, with fruit trees and the like. My allotment brings me huge joy and pleasure. I don't have the luxury of any outside place with my small flat so the allotment gives me some space to enjoy the fresh air. I find the process of gardening hugely therapeutic. Whatever frame of mind I'm in, I feel better for spending time on the site. My mood lifts, I have a great sense of achievement from growing veggies and flowers, and from simple tasks like weeding. I also value being part of the allotment community. Anecdotally I hear that gardening is highly regarded as a form of therapy, especially for mental health conditions. I can well believe it given my personal experience as it does wonders for my wellbeing. I appreciate the demands on the housing supply in this crowded city. But I also feel that we need to find ways of respecting the value of our green space too. Has sufficient effort been made to investigate alternatives to the urban fringe, such as existing buildings (how many are empty, including commercial sites), or brown field sites? Allotments are far too easily targeted. I'm also learning about the valuable contribution the Craven Vale site makes to the local ecology. I have no expertise in this area, but I'm pleased to hear that our patch of green is doing its bit in the same way that I was pleased to see the South Downs National Park achieve its protected status. Doesn't Craven Vale deserve the same kind of recognition and appreciation for the part it plays to the state of our environment? My allotment is part of my life and Id be really sad to lose this outside space. I hope that the views of allotment tenants will be taken fully into account during the consultation and decision process.






Page 275 of 541


Respondent Number:

81

Individuals Name:

Paul Davey

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I rent allotment plot 62/2 on the Craven Vale site, and I want you to know that I am opposed to any proposal to close the site and build over it. My reasons for objecting are: --- I have rented this plot for two years now and have expended a lot of effort and energy and money into it. I spent weeks manually clearing weeds from it, I planted fruit trees and bushes, not cheap, and built up soil fertility, by buying and digging in, manures, also not cheap. -- I am retired, and my allotment is my main means of gaining exercise and getting away from being sedentary and from city centre pollution. -- Any proposal to replace the site with new allotments on the west side of Whitehawk Hill is misguided. Local enthusiasts and the local city ranger have expended a lot of time and energy, and money, on Craven Vale Wood and its general area, and made it a valuable leisure resource. It would be wrong and a shame to waste all that. -- I share my plot with wildlife. I regularly see: a family of foxes, red Admiral butterflies, and small blue butterflies, which I believe, though I am no expert, are Southdown chalk blues. I believe badgers use the site.






Page 276 of 541


Respondent Number:

80

Individuals Name:

Jacqueline Inns

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I've just returned from a wonderful walk through Hollingbury Park and Woods and around the Roedale allotments - a walk I have been enjoying for 40 years. Many others were out in the sunshine as well. I cannot imagine what it would be like not having this green space - of value not just to people but to wildlife as well. I remember the devastation of the woods after the Great Storm of October 1987 and have watched the regrowth over the years, marveling at nature's ability to regenerate. Now all this is in danger of being lost. I'm aware of the need for more housing but wonder where it will end. Will this 'green tongue' be eventually filled in right up to Old Boat Corner? Will it be Wild Park next? Please consider very carefully before condemning this beautiful site to the bulldozer .






Page 277 of 541


Respondent Number:

79

Individuals Name:

Colin Inns

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The assessment points out that over 90% of Site 18 is a proposed Local Nature Reserve and of high landscape value; nonetheless it concludes that housing to the north and south of the covered reservoir would have manageable adverse impacts. It is our view that the report which led to that assessment, and to the inclusion of Site 18 as an Urban Fringe site suitable for residential development, was inaccurate and has some fundamental flaws. This piece of work cannot be seen as a robust and credible evidence base�. We seek to ensure that the policy and implementation of the Plan is not based on work that could be unsound. The following notes address perceived weaknesses in the assessment of Area 18 of the Urban Fringe assessment. Ecology. Exclusion of the reservoir from the review has meant that the account of secondary constraints does not mention the important orchid colonies there, including the early spider orchid, a red listed species, and protected under schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The two areas marked for residential development are adjacent to this site and could impact negatively on these species. The white-letter hairstreak butterfly is a species of principal importance for purposes of conserving biodiversity (Natural environment and Rural communities act, 2006), and the Local Biodiversity Action Plan identifies it as a locally important species, dependent on mature elms. . It is not mentioned either in the Councils original assessment or this review. Within Area 18 elms occur both in the woodland and along the edge of Ditchling Road (in the area suggested for possible housing). If the immature trees along the road edge were lost to development, mitigation by replacement elsewhere could mean the loss of several years growth and thus defer the time at which further suitable habitat for the white-letter hairstreak became available. We are aware of bats using Hollingbury Park and are concerned that housing and consequent nighttime lighting in this area could affect their roosting and flight paths. The Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead Woods Management Plan, for the woods and associated areas within Area 18, records biodiversity objectives some of which would be jeopardised by any development. We believe that the assessment for Ecology after mitigation is therefore likely to be nearer a negative than neutral. Open space. The mitigation assessment refers to over-provision of most kinds of open space in Area 18, as calculated with reference to the boundaries of Hollingbury & Stanmer ward. The report acknowledges that the calculation is distorted by the inclusion of Stanmer Park and Wild Park in the ward. It is a serious weakness of the review process and assumptions that they do not allow for the more relevant approach of considering the value of Area 18 to those living in the vicinity regardless of which wards happen to include their homes. The home addresses of members of the Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead woods indicate a wide spread of visitors including from Preston Park ward, Withdean ward, and Patcham ward, all three of which have boundaries abutting the western edge of Area 18. This suggests that the over provision� as calculated is inappropriate, particularly as Preston Park ward is regarded as having an under provision. Given the above, we suggest that there should be a re-evaluation of the assessment made of this area. . Landscape. The list of secondary constraints does not note that there are no buildings fronting the east side of Ditchling Road north of 414 Ditchling Rd, i.e. immediately south of the southern border of Area 18; rather, there is a variety of green features adjoining the east side of the road all the way north to the SDNP. This unbuilt line would be destroyed by development anywhere along it, and the present open feel of the western part of Area 18 would be lost until close to the Area's northern boundary. In the final report there is a suggestion (1.9 and 2.11) that Area 18 could be designated a Local Green Space, as one of four green wedges extending into the built up area from the SDNP; allowing development beside the reservoir is hardly compatible with that suggestion, as none of the suggested mitigations could compensate for the loss of that open feel. . We also believe that the impact on views from the SDNP would be affected if interrupted by built development in the locations suggested. We suggest that the assessment for Landscape after mitigation is inaccurate. Setting a precedent We are extremely concerned that if this site is allocated for residential development, a precedent will be set allowing infilling by subsequent development. This potential must be assessed further before any agreement to allocate the site for development. Overall conclusion. Given the points noted above, we suggest that the whole of Area 18 should, as originally

Page 278 of 541


concluded by the Council, be considered as unsuitable for housing development; If the recommendation is, nonetheless, retained, then before any development permission is considered a full environmental assessment should take place to determine the impacts likely to follow;


We do not wish to propose a change to the policy wording. But we would like to see proper reassurance given in the background text that the final scale of expected housing in urban fringe sites would be determined following further studies and full consultation with the public.



No, but for information The Friends of Hollingbury and Burstead Woods was set up after the great storm of 1987. We are a group of local volunteers who look after two areas of woodland within Site 18, so that people can enjoy the area and wildlife can thrive. We have a constitution and an elected Committee. Total current members: 58 The Committee has approved this response




Written Reps also We would only wish to appear if the Inspector wanted to re-assess the Urban Fringe Housing Study.

Respondent Number:

91

Individuals Name:

Derek Allen

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I hereby wish to register my total opposition to the proposed housing development on the golf course within Hangleton Valley, Hove. This area could easily be described as an "island" surrounded, as it is, by Hangleton Valley Drive, Hangleton Lane, The Link Road and the Brighton Bypass. Purely from the point of view of traffic entering and leaving the site, I find it amazing that anyone could seriously think of building up to 380 dwellings there. Add to that the obvious need for additional doctors and school places , I find it inconceivable that this is being given serious consideration!!! Please do all you can to ensure this proposal is thrown out now and forever.






Page 279 of 541


Respondent Number:

28

Individuals Name:

Sara Padhiar-Tutton, Carer' s Garden

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:








I run a community allotment project (No 25 Craven Vale) aimed at providing carers and bereaved people a space to meet and share in growing fruit, vegetables & flowers. We call it 'the Carers Garden'. Seven years ago when we took on the allotment it was just a bramble infested wasteland. As a group we have worked on the allotment and turned it into a productive, peaceful and positive space which people really enjoy being part of. It's not just about growing, but being able to meet with like minded people and enjoy a beautiful natural environment ( many of the people who use the space don't have access to their own garden). The 'Carers Garden' has become a place of tranquility and support for many carers and bereaved people who can have a break from their caring role & a supportive environment when life gets tough. When we recently discussed the possibility that we could loose the space to make way for houses, the response was 'very shocked' and a 'great sense of potential loss'. People really felt really sad at the prospect and quite angry as we have put so much time & energy into making the allotment what it is! The people who use this space are often isolated and vulnerable and to take this vital element of support away is devastating! Please don't do it! Sara Padhiar�Tutton The Carers Garden



Page 280 of 541


Respondent Number:

164

Individuals Name:

Jane Moss-O'Brien

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


City Plan - Urban fringe housing sites proposal Location 17 (35 units) Land at Ladies Mile, Carden Avenue, Patcham I write to raise my strong objections to the proposed siting of 35 housing units to the rear of my property, location 17 as detailed above. When I moved here in August 2011, no reference to the proposed city plan was highlighted on my local searches. Local search result lists as "Greenway (indicative), Archaeologically sensitive area. The rear of the property abuts a countryside area". The area behind my property, I understood to be marked as an area of natural conservation and this was a major factor in the decision to move to Brighton, and to my home in Windmill View, just south of the proposed housing estate. I now understand that this has progressed and is currently in the middle of the conservation project with the introduction of sheep grazing rites and the preservation of and sowing of additional wild flowers. Particular objections: Loss of an area of natural conservation Archaeologically sensitive area Increased traffic Access issues, congestion Noise pollution Estate backing on to my property/land Increased use of amenities and limited resources Schools unable to cater for demand Affect on house of prices Low cost/council housing in area of middle price bracket With a large number of brown land sites within the Brighton and Hove Conurbation (within the A27), with less impact on the local communities. I would have thought this should be the initial focus. The cost of housing in Brighton and Hove itself is above the average for the county. With the cost of living also being above average, it's residents are already having to seek employment outside of the area as the local job market is already stretched. With the trains at breaking point, restricting the option of commuting to London and other key commercial areas, it may become a situation where the local community cannot support additional housing. It is currently cheaper to live on the outskirts of the conurbation, with greater scope for expansion of the housing portfolio due to available land. I respectfully suggest that this is were the Council should focus it's fulfilment of the Government run initiative, to build on it's housing stock, in areas that can support the increase to the community. I would highlight that the local schools are already at capacity with an inspected large growth in the coming few years to an earlier baby boom, they shall not be able to cope. Local schools are already having to look at options to expand to cater for this, some being forced to consider building upwards due to lack of space. Where do you propose to site the access road because, due to the nature of the location, extreme weather conditions can also affect access with a residential narrow gauge road structure. Being at the top of a steep hill, with limited residential road access, it has been known to be cut off in bad winter weather. There is no scope for an additional road into the proposed area, so increased traffic and access will cause considerable congestion. I strongly feel that the Patcham (Location 17), Ladies Mile site is not best suited to the growth of the housing stock and for the reasons laid out above, I wish to register my strongest objections to the proposed development that backs on to my property.






Page 281 of 541


Respondent Number:

118

Saltdean Residents' Association

Individuals Name:

Cathy Gallagher Vice Chair and Treasurer

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Overall the Plan is acceptable and makes good use of brown field sites and the commercial needs of the City. Recognition is given to the need to provide for Travellers who are a cost to the tax payers of B&H. Transport and the difficulties of moving around the City are considered from Shoreham to the Marina but not beyond. Saltdean lies at the edge of the City and for many reasons walking and cycling from the City Centre is not possible for most of the inhabitants, we rely on Buses and cars as there is no train station. We therefore rely on the A259 and B2123 which are already congested. The main of our comments are about the Urban Fringe especially plots 46a,48,48a,48b,48c,50 which impact Saltdean. SALTDEAN sites designated on the Urban Fringe SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT and not go through to Part 2. The Urban Fringe assessment is not comprehensive and has not undertaken a detailed study of local circumstances. The redevelopment of Saltdean Lido as a major tourist attraction and the expansion of Saltdean Primary School to take 150 more pupils (to satisfy existing need) Saltdean Residents are in danger of being cut off from access to and from the A259 and A27 as major developments in Peacehaven, Newhaven and Seaford as well as those within the City boundaries all impact on the A259 ,the entrance in and out of Saltdean. Rottingdean, Ovingdean and Saltdean are dormitory villages or towns , designated in the B&HCC Seafront strategy as Tourist and Leisure areas� with local shops, Rottingdean historic High Street, Windmill and Saltdean Grade 2* listed Lido with access to the sea and South Downs National Park. Developments on the Urban Fringe will adversely affect the settings. Within Saltdean (identified sites) 46a Former Nursery Site West of Saltdean Vale 18 48 Land at Coombe Farm Westfield Ave 50 48a Land north of Westfield Rise 12 48b Land at Westfield Ave North 2 48c Land at Saltdean Boarding Kennels 7 50 Land at the Rear of Falmer Ave 12 Total 101. Any developments on the Urban Fringe of Saltdean will increase the traffic and pollution on the A259 and Rottingdean High Street, Air Quality Management Areas. The land which is identified is in effect Green Belt, agricultural land and as such is the land referred to by Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Local Government and Communities on 4th Oct 2014 when he issued new guidance stating that inappropriate development� on Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances�. In making these comments we represent 476 households in Saltdean and the 2274 people who signed a petition calling on B&HCC to prevent development on the Greenfield sites on the edge of Saltdean. The statistics and sections of the City Plan Part 1 modifications to which we referred to in support of our comments are listed below; (with some additional comment) Brighton and Hove has a population 275,000 growing fast 35,000 students with a high percentage of young and single people 660 houses per annum to be built in this plan 16,000 to 20,000 new homes between 2010 and 2030 72%of inhabitants in the City do not earn enough to afford market price housing 1,060 Urban Fringe potential dwellings identified PM009 / Page 13, para 1.24 in City Plan : 2013 Air Quality Management Area(AQMA) Exceeding the Governments Air Quality objective for nitrogen dioxide. Transport is the main cause of poor air and noise quality in some parts of the City. PM045 / DA7, para 3.83 in City Plan : Brighton and Hove is a tightly constrained urban area, with the sea to the South Downs National Park boundaries tightly drawn to the City's edge.� need to balance development requirements with the City's need for open space and the need to safeguard the City's highly valued natural and historic environs� PM058 / SA1, para 3. 122 in City Plan : Much of the A259 corridor is included within the 2013 AQMA PM064 / SA4 Urban Fringe Page, para 3.154 : in many instances the South Downs National Park boundary is contiguous with the built up urban edge of the city. The Urban Fringe is now made up of pockets of residential green space rather than any homogenous green belt� around the City� PM064 / SA4 in City Plan: 4. The protection of sensitive groundwater source protection zones etc 5. Development will not be permitted except where: a) a site has been allocated for development in a development plan document or b) a countryside location can be justified. And where it can be clearly demonstrated that: c) the proposal has had regard to the downland landscape setting of the city; d) any adverse impacts of development are minimised and appropriately mitigated and / or compensated for; and e) where appropriate, the proposal helps to achieve the policy objectives set above. Should proposals for development come forward prior to the adoption of Part 2 of the City Plan, the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment will be a material planning consideration in the determination of applications for residential development within the urban fringe, PM070 / SA6 Sustainable Neighbourhoods in City

Page 282 of 541


Plan PM087 / CP8, para 4.77 in City Plan: B&H particularly vulnerable to climate change need to be carbon neutral. PM090 / CP9 (A.2.c) in City Plan : Ensuring that all major developments submit a Transport Assessment PM091 / CP9 (B.1) in City Plan : No railway station, 2 bus routes one very limited, cars all dependent on A259 or B212 ,inadequate for existing traffic loads. From Shoreham to Marina being looked at. From the Marina to Saltdean A259, Woodingean to Rottingdean B 2123 not being looked at. Shopping Areas, Saltdean, Rottingdean, Woodingdean, Ovingdean not mentioned. 2.11 the importance of Green spaces (BHCC Officer note: not clear to which section this relates) 2.12 the steep topography (BHCC Officer note: not clear to which section this relates)






Page 283 of 541


Respondent Number:

119



Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


We have reviewed the 66 sites detailed in Appendix 3 and in overall terms are supportive of the aim to use the urban fringe for housing. We do however have some concerns with regard to the way that some sites have been assessed, particularly in the way that some prominent hill top sites have been assessed in terms of visual impact on the landscape. A major achievement of the local planners in the post war years was to concentrate housing in the downland valleys and thus preserve the landscape of the downland surrounding Brighton and Hove. The city plan should aim to continue with this successful policy that has provided the city with a unique downland setting. We have concerns with the following: Site Reference No 18 - Land east of Ditchling Road adjacent to the reservoir. The assessment proforma includes the statement that the site is very sensitive but it suggests that the impact will be mitigated by the partial screening of the adjacent woodland. We would consider that the critical views are looking north from the beginning of Hollingbury Park to the south, and the southerly views from Hollingbury Camp, neither of which would be screened by the woodland. In addition this proposed site is on the east side of Ditchling Road which acts as the boundary for open downland extending into the city at this point. The suggestion is to use this site for a small number of dwellings but any size of development at this site will set a precedent for building on an area of elevated open downland. We would therefore suggest that the effect of this development should be regarded as significant and not as stated a minor negative effect. The suggested low number of dwellings for this site could easily be included in a number of infill valley sites. Site Reference 33 - Land North of Warren Road (Ingleside Stables). The assessment proforma for this site states that the location is very visible from many locations in the National Park. It is also at an extremely critical location where open downland clearly separates the housing at the top of Elm Grove to the housing at the western edge of Upper Woodingdean. The site is occupied at present by stables which from a distance have the appearance of a collection of agricultural buildings. Housing at this point, however designed, will bring a significant negative effect to the landscape and not as suggested a minor negative effect. The proforma suggests that in terms of mitigation the housing on the site could be set back from the road "so as not to affect distant views of the SDNP". The boundary of the site is however close to the road and it covers a relatively flat area at the top of the hill. It therefore seems unlikely that any design could achieve the objective of not affecting the downland views. We would suggest that the proposed housing numbers for this site could be included within the infill valley sites. The Schedule of Sites (Appendix 3), includes many infill sites where the visual impact will be low because they are adjacent to and sometimes within areas of existing housing. Most of these sites are also situated in valleys where the visual impact is small compared to building on areas of elevated downland. We would therefore consider that it is vital to reconsider the two sites detailed above.




We note that the City Plan promotes the re-development of brownfield sites (PM010). Past experience shows that developers much prefer developing greenfield sites. There is nothing in the modified City Plan which gives incentives to develop brownfield sites over greenfield, or suggests any mechanism by which the numbers of new dwellings is to be monitored to ensure that greenfield sites are developed in proportion to and in parallel with development of brownfield sites.



Page 284 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


15


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



In general support, but object to some of the proposed housing allocations in the Urban Fringe Assessment which are believed to be unsound. Question whether the figure for 1,060 units for the urban fringe is justified and sound given the fact that some sites proposed as suitable for development appear to have been put forward using inaccurate and incorrect information within the Urban Fringe Assessment. For example, the allocation of Hollingbury Park for housing is made predominantly on the assertion that there is a surplus of green space in Hollingdean and Stanmer ward. However, this fails to consider the elongated shape of the ward and that it contains citywide parks in the form of Wild Park and Stanmer Park in the centre and north of the ward respectively. However, for the residents of Hollingdean, neither of these parks is particularly local or accessible, given the steep gradients needed to access Wild Park, once you have negotiated the threat of flying golf balls on the golf course. That leaves only Hollingbury Park as an accessible green space for many residents in Hollingdean. Also this area serves residents in neighbouring wards of Preston Park, Withdean and Patcham where there is a shortage of green space. Therefore to assess this site in that context is plainly wrong. There are other issues with the assessment of this site too. Another area where mistakes have been made is on the Craven Vale allotments where the mitigation for building houses on the allotments is to create new allotments nearby, but the land proposed for this is Open Access land. A fact not recognised in the report.






Page 285 of 541


Respondent Number:

148

Individuals Name:

Heather smith

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:Sa4





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Site 18 - 90% is proposed local nature reserve - spider orchid colony on reservoir area may depend on surrounding habitat so could disappear. - development of habitat for white letter hairstreak butterfly and many other species will be set back and possibly fail - increase of nighttime lighting and additional roads will disturb species currently established e.g. bats.


Further studies and full public consultation must be undertaken



The friends of hollinbury and burstead woods have been managing woodland in this area for nearly 27 years in order to promote the ecology of this area. Many local people are actively involved and many others are inspired by the commitment and vision of the volunteers. It is shocking and depressing to see how little their work and the results of their efforts are appreciated or understood. Didn't this area and the community involvement in its biodiversity contribute to the success of our Unesco Biosphere bid?




Page 286 of 541


Respondent Number:

173

WEAIndividuals Name:

John Williams

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4




I am a frequent user - walking, picnicking, dogwalking - of the green spaces at Hollingbury, and am appalled at the proposal for houses to be built on this valuable green space. Building on this area would be contrary to the findings of a recent survey commissioned by the Council on the value of parks and open spaces which stated residents should have access to green open space within 10 minutes walk of where you live this would compromise these findings. The report mentions that this is designated as a proposed Local Nature Reserve within the City Plan and that there are some notable species of wildlife here. Whilst the report points out the range of reasons why the council deemed this area unsuitable for residential development when it was originally assessed by the Council in 2013, the list of reasons does not include the importance of this area for biodiversity. There is mention of the northern corner of the site being earmarked for higher level Stewardship� funding to deliver significant environmental benefits� to the Site. It has, however, failed to recognize the work of FHBW and its volunteers over the last 25 years in having already implemented many of the improvements listed: the Council and FHBW have recently updated the Management Plan for the area which has a priority to further improve biodiversity. This is an important asset for the community and as such should not be developed. At present there are no buildings fronting the east side of Ditchling Road further north than number 414, immediately to the south of Area 18. Instead there is a variety of green features all the way north into the SDNP - and these green features continue via private gardens all the way down to the Level. It would be a gross disservice to the city to interrupt the green character of this part of Ditchling Road with its view to the woods beyond by developing above and below the reservoir, a development which would mean that the open feel of the Area 18 did not begin until close to its northern boundary. This area is an important gateway out of the city into the South Downs National Park and should remain as open green space. Coming in to the city, the traveller is greeted with a wide landscape and skyscape, taking in the earthworks, Race Hill, Downs to the east of Brighton, and the seafront. Building housing in Hollingbury Park would be detrimental to the wider landscape and irrevocably change the nature of the area, and the boundary of the city. I just cant believe it's a serious proposal, it does so much damage and ignores so much benefit.


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The assessment points out that over 90% of Site 18 is a proposed Local Nature Reserve and of high landscape value; nonetheless it concludes that housing to the north and south of the covered reservoir would have manageable adverse impacts. It is our view that the report which led to that assessment, and to the inclusion of Site 18 as an Urban Fringe site suitable for residential development, was inaccurate and has some fundamental flaws. This piece of work cannot be seen as a robust and credible evidence base�. We seek to ensure that the policy and implementation of the Plan is not based on work that could be unsound. The following notes address perceived weaknesses in the assessment of Area 18 of the Urban Fringe assessment. Ecology. Exclusion of the reservoir from the review has meant that the account of secondary constraints does not mention the important orchid colonies there, including the early spider orchid, a red listed species, and protected under schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The two areas marked for residential development are adjacent to this site and could impact negatively on these species. The white-letter hairstreak butterfly is a species of principal importance for purposes of conserving biodiversity (Natural environment and Rural communities act, 2006), and the Local Biodiversity Action Plan identifies it as a locally important species, dependent on mature elms. It is not mentioned either in the Councils original assessment or this review. Within Area 18 elms occur both in the woodland and along the edge of Ditchling Road (in the area suggested for possible housing). If the immature trees along the road edge were lost to development, mitigation by replacement elsewhere could mean the loss of several years growth and thus defer the time at which further suitable habitat for the white-letter hairstreak became available. We are aware of bats using Hollingbury Park and are concerned that housing and consequent nighttime lighting in this area could affect their roosting and flight paths. The Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead Woods Management Plan, for the woods and associated areas within Area 18, records biodiversity objectives which would be jeopardised by any development. We believe that the assessment for Ecology after mitigation is therefore likely to be nearer a

Page 287 of 541


negative than neutral. Open space. The mitigation assessment refers to over-provision of most kinds of open space in Area 18, as calculated with reference to the boundaries of Hollingbury & Stanmer ward. The report acknowledges that the calculation is distorted by the inclusion of Stanmer Park and Wild Park in the ward. It is a serious weakness of the review process and assumptions that they do not allow for the more relevant approach of considering the value of Area 18 to those living in the vicinity regardless of which wards happen to include their homes. The home addresses of members of the Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead woods indicate a wide spread of visitors including from Preston Park ward, Withdean ward, and Patcham ward, all three of which have boundaries abutting the western edge of Area 18. This suggests that the over provision� as calculated is inappropriate, particularly as Preston Park ward is regarded as having an underprovision. Given the above, we suggest that there should be a re-evaluation of the assessment made of this area. . Landscape. The list of secondary constraints does not note that there are no buildings fronting the east side of Ditchling Road north of 414 Ditchling Rd, i.e. immediately south of the southern border of Area 18; rather, there is a variety of green features adjoining the east side of the road all the way north to the SDNP. This unbuilt line would be destroyed by development anywhere along it, and the present open feel of the western part of Area 18 would be lost until close to the Area's northern boundary. In the final report there is a suggestion (1.9 and 2.11) that Area 18 could be designated a Local Green Space, as one of four green wedges extending into the built up area from the SDNP; allowing development beside the reservoir is hardly compatible with that suggestion, as none of the suggested mitigations could compensate for the loss of that open feel. We also believe that the impact on views from the SDNP would be affected if interrupted by built development in the locations suggested. We suggest that the assessment for Landscape after mitigation is inaccurate. Setting a precedent We are extremely concerned that if this site is allocated for residential development, a precedent will be set allowing infilling by subsequent development. This potential must be assessed further before any agreement to allocate the site for development. Overall conclusion. Given the points noted above, we suggest that the whole of Area 18 should, as originally concluded by the Council, be considered as unsuitable for housing development; If the recommendation is, nonetheless, retained, then before any development permission is considered a full environmental assessment should take place to determine the impacts likely to follow;










Page 288 of 541


Respondent Number:

157

Individuals Name:

Graham Levett

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I would like to register my opposition to the idea of building new housing on the Craven Vale allotments in East Brighton. While I am massively in favour of new housing I dont think this should be built on allotments or other areas of natural interest or beauty. Craven vale allotments have been around for some time and people have put a lot of work into them. I doubt moving people to allotments on another site would be much compensation to people who have spent years improving the soil and working this land. I am certain it must be heartbreaking to be worrying about whether you will lose such a precious thing. This years City Council Allotment Strategy concluded that allotments were superb for a whole variety of reasons; mental health, exercise, healthy food, wildlife etc etc. The benefits for the mental health and well being of residents; and the role that allotments play in the citys network of green spaces are also reasons for ensuring that the allotment community in the city thrives.� http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/sites/brighton-hove.gov.uk/files/Allotment%20strategy%20final.pdf My other concern is for East Brighton in general. I note that much of the City Plan suggests many areas around Whitehawk. This area is already extremely densely populated but it seems this is considered a reason to build more in that area rather than less. The strain on the area, with regard to transport, lack or resources and a general feeling of overcrowding would be greatly increased. Im sure there must be a great number of brown field sites more worthy of development or redevelopment. How about Anston House near Preston Park for example? This building has long been voted the ugliest in Sussex! Perhaps a housing revamp could make it more attractive. The building is already there. It would be about 50 flats Im sure. Or perhaps demolish the building and put up something new. Has the site of the old bakers in Woodingdean been considered? East Brighton has too much urban squashed into a small space. Anymore would make it go pop. Whitehawk Hill is quite literally full of history. In the 1990s some housing was built on top of Whitehawk Hill, it later turned out that this was right on top of a site of massive archealogical importance ie Whitehawk Hill Neolithic Camp, top build anywhere around this site is bordering on vandalism. I also believe that Whitehawk Hill is home to the Whitehawk Soldier Beatle and several unusual species of apple. I have myself seen several slow worms near to Craven Vale allotments. There seems to be an idea around that just because a piece of land is what is deemed to be urban fringe that it isnt somehow countryside, on the contrary it is the START of the countryside. Please do not build housing on Craven Vale or anywhere on Whitehawk Hill. Uprooting this widely valuable resource and natural area would do nothing but harm Brighton. We would lose so much more than we would gain. I urge you to reject this idea please.






Page 289 of 541


Respondent Number:

171

Individuals Name:

Ian Mallin

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I would like to register my objection to plans to build houses on part of the Craven Vale allotment site.No political party is in favour of building on allotments which have been called the "green lungs of cities".This is certainly the case in this part of Brighton, a densely-populated area where many homes, including my own, do not have gardens large enough to grow fruit and vegetables. while I appreciate the need to build new homes, I think it is morally wrong to earmark allotments for development.






Page 290 of 541


Respondent Number:

120

Individuals Name:

Cathy Wenger

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I have read the City Plan and the Urban fringe document and I am struck by how little attention is given to the East of the City beyond the Marina. Except for picking out potential further residential development for Saltdean, Rottingdean and Ovingdean , no proposals are made to improve the existing inadequate infrastructure including congested roads.






Page 291 of 541


Respondent Number:

121

Individuals Name:

Veronica Atkinson

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


he assessment points out that over 90% of Site 18 is a proposed Local Nature Reserve and of high landscape value; nonetheless it concludes that housing to the north and south of the covered reservoir would have manageable adverse impacts. It is our view that the report which led to that assessment, and to the inclusion of Site 18 as an Urban Fringe site suitable for residential development, was inaccurate and has some fundamental flaws. This piece of work cannot be seen as a robust and credible evidence base�. We seek to ensure that the policy and implementation of the Plan is not based on work that could be unsound. The following notes address perceived weaknesses in the assessment of Area 18 of the Urban Fringe assessment. Ecology. Exclusion of the reservoir from the review has meant that the account of secondary constraints does not mention the important orchid colonies there, including the early spider orchid, a red listed species, and protected under schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The two areas marked for residential development are adjacent to this site and could impact negatively on these species. The white-letter hairstreak butterfly is a species of principal importance for purposes of conserving biodiversity (Natural environment and Rural communities act, 2006), and the Local Biodiversity Action Plan identifies it as a locally important species, dependent on mature elms. . It is not mentioned either in the Councils original assessment or this review. Within Area 18 elms occur both in the woodland and along the edge of Ditchling Road (in the area suggested for possible housing). If the immature trees along the road edge were lost to development, mitigation by replacement elsewhere could mean the loss of several years growth and thus defer the time at which further suitable habitat for the white-letter hairstreak became available. We are aware of bats using Hollingbury Park and are concerned that housing and consequent nighttime lighting in this area could affect their roosting and flight paths. The Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead Woods Management Plan, for the woods and associated areas within Area 18, records biodiversity objectives some of which would be jeopardised by any development. We believe that the assessment for Ecology after mitigation is therefore likely to be nearer a negative than neutral. Open space. The mitigation assessment refers to over-provision of most kinds of open space in Area 18, as calculated with reference to the boundaries of Hollingbury & Stanmer ward. The report acknowledges that the calculation is distorted by the inclusion of Stanmer Park and Wild Park in the ward. It is a serious weakness of the review process and assumptions that they do not allow for the more relevant approach of considering the value of Area 18 to those living in the vicinity regardless of which wards happen to include their homes. The home addresses of members of the Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead woods indicate a wide spread of visitors including from Preston Park ward, Withdean ward, and Patcham ward, all three of which have boundaries abutting the western edge of Area 18. This suggests that the over provision� as calculated is inappropriate, particularly as Preston Park ward is regarded as having an under-provision. Given the above, we suggest that there should be a re-evaluation of the assessment made of this area.





We are a family with 2 children (aged 14 and 9) and a dog. Hollingbury Park provides beautiful views, fresh air, wild-life, dog walks, cycling, ball games, kite-flying, picnics, etc. It is an invaluable and irreplaceable natural place in an urban setting. We and thousands of other Brighton and Hove residents enjoy and benefit from it daily. As local GPs, my husband and I have no doubt about the huge positive health and wellbeing effects of access to open spaces and exercise. It would be tragic to lose this wonderful local natural resource.


Page 292 of 541




We would only wish to appear if the Inspector wanted to re-assess the Urban Fringe Assessment.

Page 293 of 541


Respondent Number:

122


Mrs Anna Budge

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The National Trust is grateful for the opportunity to comment on the proposed modifications to the emerging City Plan. The National Trust owns and manages a significant amount of land around Brighton and Hove within the South Downs National Park including Devils Dyke and Newtimber Hill, Fulking Escarpment and Edburton Hill, Southwick Hill, Ditchling Beacon and Black Cap. In addition to the land the Trust owns and manages Saddlescombe Farm to the north of the City which provides a unique insight into a historic farmstead within the South Downs and provides a learning space and education facility right on the South Downs Way. The National Trust has not previously commented on the City Plan as it has progressed but considers that the proposed modifications to the plan do have the potential to impact on the Trusts land and property which sits in close proximity to the City. The National Trust recognises that the City Council has to try and provide for its housing needs through the plan period and whilst every effort was made to protect the urban fringe land from development this has not been possible to achieve. However, the Trust is concerned that the proposed modifications to Policy SA4 to reflect the Councils new approach are not justified as there has been no assessment undertaken of the impact on the National Park and what might be required to compensate for the additional dwellings. As indicated above the Trust has substantial land around the City and it is considered that the development proposals in the north and north west of the City will potentially have the most impact on Trust land. The Trust is concerned about the cumulative impact that development of housing will have in this area, where there is already limited access to open space within the City boundaries. The Trust would request that consideration be given by the City Council to adopting the Urban Fringe Assessment as SPD until such time as Part 2 of the City Plan is adopted to give a greater statutory weight to the document and its contents as some sites are suggested as needing to be dealt with in a comprehensive manner and the Trust would strongly endorse this approach, not only for securing the best possible design and layout of development but for also securing well design and accessible open space on the site and to comprehensively address the need for off-site mitigation. In this respect The National Trust would consider that the criteria under c) and d) of the Policy should be strengthened to minimise the impact on the character and setting of the National Park and to advocate that compensatory measures should first be considered on-site before off-site works or contributions are taken. Also consider that additional text should be added into the supporting paragraph highlighting the need for master planning of some of the sites and that early dialogue with relevant landowners and other stakeholders in the South Downs National Park is important for ensuring that compensatory measures are effective.


c) the proposal has had regard to the downland landscape setting of the city through its design approach, layout and inclusion of appropriate green space to provide a buffer to the National Park d) any adverse impacts of development are minimised and appropriately mitigated and/or compensated for within the site itself in the first instance and then beyond the site boundaries where this is considered to be appropriate following discussion with the City Councils Officers






Page 294 of 541


Respondent Number:

144


Jonathon Calcutt



3


Policy/Section:sa4




The Proposed Modifications are considered to be legally compliant for the following reasons: They have been subject to a 6 week consultation period in line with the Council's Statement of Community Involvement and subsequently have complied with the Local Planning Authorities regulations. They have been subject to an addendum Sustainability Appraisal for the City Plan as a whole.


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:

It is not positively prepared in that it is not prepared on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.; It is not effective in that it is not deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross boundary strategic priorities.


It is recognised by the Local Planning Authority that they are unable to meet their objectively assessed housing needs. In order to address this urban fringe sites have been assessed as a source of housing, this has improved the supply of housing by 1,160 but this is still not sufficient to meet the assessed needs. Should the urban fringe sites not be delivered this would result in the LPA further failing their commitment to meet their assessed needs. Given the importance of the Urban Fringe sites as a source for housing, it is considered that this policy should be amended to reflect the potential for housing delivery within the urban fringe as set out by the amended housing strategy for Brighton. As currently drafted there is no implicit recognition that the urban fringe sites should be recognised as a source for housing (other than in the supporting text). Consequently, as drafted, we do not consider that the plan is positively prepared nor is it effective. It is considered that greater certainty could be provided in respect of such sites by direct acknowledgment that appropriate development of urban fringe sites for housing shall be considered acceptable.


There should be an additional bullet point, as below: 6. A total of 1,160 dwellings shall be delivered on the suitable urban fringe sites identified by the Urban Fringe Assessment. These will be allocated in Part 2 of the City Plan but should proposals come forward prior to its adoption the UFA will be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.







Page 295 of 541


Respondent Number:

142


Individuals Name:

J Frowde

Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:










Page 296 of 541


Respondent Number:

124

Individuals Name:

Mrs Kate Mullins

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4




No comments to add.


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



I don't believe an objective assessment of the value of the proposed site 18 (land south of Hollingbury Golf Course and east of Ditchling Road) can be prepared without extensive local consultation, research and observation. The proposed location should not be classed as a low value green space. This open space is highly valued by the local community for its natural beauty, its historical significance, its recreational and social value, its tranquility and its importance as wildlife habitat. The land to the north and south of the reservoir may currently have "limited ecological value as mown amenity greenspace", however it still has a higher ecological value than any potential new housing development and hard landscape areas. The site currently provides a valuable corridor and greenway to link thriving wildlife habitats. It also helps our city to breathe, contributing to better air quality and injecting life into the built environment. Semi-natural grassland is a vital resource for carbon storage, helping us to tackle the huge challenges posed by our changing climate. The park enhances the quality of life of the residents, fostering a connection between the community and the natural environment that surrounds us and thus allowing for a more livable city. This is essential in order for our community to be sustainable. Both the park and meadow are used extensively by local residents and the green space has significant recreational and social value, providing somewhere to walk or run, a space to play games, to meditate, to gather or to simply rest. With a front row seat, I observe the large numbers of people of all ages using this flexible open space on a daily basis, rain or shine, to walk their dogs and get their exercise, as well as meeting up with friends and neighbours for a chat. At a time when the health of the population and the increase in obesity is a major concern, the loss of any green space cannot be supported. The tram shelter is part of our local heritage and contributes immeasurably to the character and appearance of the park and should be preserved in its current setting, not surrounded by tarmac and houses. If we lose this open green space, we will lose more than just a view, a space to walk or play or an easy escape from the city. We will lose land that has its own identity and plays an intrinsic role in Brighton's heritage. The openness of this park should to be cherished and protected permanently to maintain our countryside and help regenerate our city.


I don't wish to propose a change to the policy wording, however I would welcome an objective assessment of the value of the site be conducted with full local consultation.



No.




Page 297 of 541


Respondent Number:

175

Individuals Name:

Becky Reynolds

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


Im writing to object to Hollingbury Park and meadow being designated for housing in the City Plan i.e. the inclusion of Site 18, appendix 4. The evidence used by the Council in including Site 18 in the City Plan is unsound as the consultants LUC in their Urban Fringe Assessment for Site 18 have used an-out-of-date map, did not take into account the biodiversity of the area (no assessment of the impact of housing on wildlife has been undertaken), failed to recognise that the character and nature of this gateway� to the South Downs National Park will be compromised and have not shown any regard to the historic Trolley Bus shelter south of the covered reservoir. The covered reservoir itself contains relic chalk grassland with important species on it. The Council Ranger & Countryside service along with the Friends Of Hollingbury & Burstead Woods group have worked hard over the last 25 years to enhance this area of Hollingbury for wildlife and for the enjoyment of residents.






Page 298 of 541


Respondent Number:

130

The Vale Residents Association

Individuals Name:

c/o Helen Trundle and Suzanne Woods

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4 "Urban Fringe"






Delete reference in policy SA4 to the Urban Fringe Assessment as operating as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications for residential development in the urban fringe.

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



It fails to assess alternative urban fringe sites or other indeed any combinations of development other than that identified in the UFA; It fails to describe the likely significant effects of developing each site in the manner identified in the UFA; It fails to provide reasons for explaining why those sites were identified and why that level of housing was allocated beyond merely pointing-out they were identified within the UFA. The failure to conduct an adequate sustainability appraisal has rendered the assessment as to whether the policy is "justified" impossible. "


Delete reference to the Urban Fringe Assessment within the policy box of SA4.


By Regulation 12(2) Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 the environmental report shall include (i) the likely significant effects of implementing the plan or programme, and (ii) the reasonable alternatives. The assessment shall set-out the information directed in Schedule 2. The supplementary SEA only deals with the amendments to SA4 in broad terms, simply whether there should be development in the urban fringe or not (see p.19 and p.202) What it fails to do is assess the proposed locations and quantum of development at each of the proposed urban fringe sites set out in the UFA. The SEA/SA of the proposed City Plan 1 is therefore defective because contrary to Regulation 12(1) of the 2004 Regulations: (i) It fails to assess alternative urban fringe sites or other indeed any combinations of development other than that identified in the UFA; (ii) It fails to describe the likely significant effects of developing each site in the manner identified in the UFA; (iii) It fails to provide reasons for explaining why those sites were identified and why that level of housing was allocated beyond merely pointing-out they were identified within the UFA. As such, we are firmly of the view that to adopt the City Plan 1 in the form it now takes would be in breach of Regulation 8(1) of the 2004 Regulations, as a key plank of the housing strategy (development of the urban fringe) has not been properly assessed.





Page 299 of 541


Respondent Number:

138

Individuals Name:

Sarah Wilkins

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:site 18 Hollingbury woods




I believe the inclusion of the site at Hollingbury Park for housing is based on a flawed consultants report and urge you to delete this site from the list of urban fringe sites.



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:












Page 300 of 541


Respondent Number:

136

Horsdean Community Sports Association

Individuals Name:

Alan Wildig

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing on behalf of the Horsdean Community Sports Association (HCSA) concerning the proposed 30 units to be built on land adjoining Horsdean Recreation Ground. HCSA consists of 4 local cricket clubs and Patcham junior football club who regularly use Horsdean, this represents some 300 juniors & adults partaking in healthy outdoor team sports. We have obtained Fields in Trust status for Horsdean, with a view to upgrading and expanding the sporting facilities via grant funding, we are currently in discussions with the Council to obtain these objectives. We can forward details of these plans if required. We wish to be involved & informed of any future proposed housing development plans and details of road access to the units. We are assuming the proposed plans will have no restrictions or adverse impact on the current usage of the recreation ground for the sports clubs and local community.






Page 301 of 541


Respondent Number:

140

Left Unity Brighton & Hove Branch

Individuals Name:

Dave Bangs

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:Policy SA4, pages 111-113


Legally Compliant?:


Representation refers to attached paper 'Brief Assessment of the 2014 Brighton & Hove Urban Fringe Assessment'. 1. Preamble The City of Brighton is a Downland City. That is, it is largely built upon the same rolling chalk hills that are now largely within the South Downs National Park. This means that the open Downland of the National Park is hugely inter-visible with the built-upon Downland of the Brighton conurbation. The remaining area of open Downland north of the greater Brighton conurbation is so narrow that its integrity as an area of natural beauty worthy of National Park status is at severe risk. Indeed, the inescapable visual interference of the built-up area with the naturalness of the open Downland, and the noise pollution caused by the A27 and A23 corridors, already hugely reduce the integrity of the National Park landscape. In sum, the National Park landscape is at severe risk, and is already severely damaged. It cannot manage any further damage to its core qualities . 2. The Assessment Findings The Assessment fails to understand either the core qualities of the urban fringe sites it judges as having housing potential, or the wider role they play in protecting the integrity of the designated National Park landscape. It is striking that seven of the clusters this Assessment considers as having housing potential are important Gateways for accessing the National Parks open Downland: - Mile Oak Valley, Hangleton / Benfield Valleys, Old Patcham, Ladies Mile, Coldean Woods, Whitehawk Hill / Warren Road Ridge, North Saltdean. It is striking that several clusters have multiple layers of public qualities which demand respect, enhancement and remediation, not damage or obliteration. Thus: - Hangleton / Benfield Valleys, Old Patcham, and Ovingdean Farm have important historic built assemblages, and landscape features. - The Mile Oak Valley, Ladies Mile, and Whitehawk Hill have crucial wildlife and archaeological assemblages, which, in the case of Whitehawk Hill, are of national importance. - The Coldean Woods and Ovingdean Farm sites have important landscape functions within larger complexes (the Stanmer Woods constellation, and the Ovingdean Valley view shed). - The Mile Oak Valley, Coldean Woods, Whitehawk Hill / Warren Road Ridge, Ovingdean Farm, and North Saltdean sites are hugely inter-visible with the wider National Park. The 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment is instrumental and without substance. It is absolutely imperative that this Assessment NOT become a material consideration in the determination of applications for residential development within the urban fringe. 3. Assessment sites considered as having housing potential 3.a. West The Mile Oak Valley: sites 1 to 6 The Mile Oak Valley suburb already greatly damages the National Park landscape, forming a mile long salient into open Downland of great inter-visibility with the surrounding National Park landscape. Yet its surrounding landscape is of crucial landscape, wildlife, archaeological, and recreational importance. It has a half mile boundary with Southwick Hill - the only archaic down pasture site on the 15 mile conurbation urban fringe with an intact historical continuity of management. It is a fully publicly accessible site of SSSI quality (though not designated because already protected by National Trust ownership) and a major recreational resource for people of Portslade, Southwick, and the wider conurbation. All of these sites are part of the open, corrugated geography of the Downs. All of them constitute part of an important Gateway to the wider Downs. All of them have a buffering function for the wider Downscape. Sites 5a/6 have an allotment site. 3.b. West - Hangleton Bottom and Benfield Valleys: sites 7 to 12 The old closes (small, enclosed farmstead paddocks forming sites 11 & 12) are a key part of the linked historic complex of Benfield Farmstead and Hangleton Manor. The setting of the Manor has already been badly damaged by inappropriate development of its protecting wooded grounds, and this should be avoided at all costs at its sister manorial farmstead of Benfield. Indeed, these sites were earmarked for management as a pocket park by the Director of Leisure and the Deputy Director of Planning in the old Hove Council . Benfield Farm / Hangleton Manor constitute an important and much used Gateway to the wider Downs and should be managed to enhance that function, not detract from it. Hangleton Bottom (sites 8 & 9) would be most usefully used as a travellers site, given its past successful usage for that purpose, and given the extreme need for such provision in the conurbation. 3.c. North Old Patcham, Ladies Mile: sites 16 & 17 Old Patcham (site 16) forms a key rus in urbe complex of medieval parish church, great barn and other historic farmstead and cottage buildings, allotment sites and recreation ground. It retains this rural quality despite the close proximity and awful noise pollution of the A27 bypass and A23 interchange. No person, given free choice, would choose a home in such an exposed and noise-polluted site. By contrast, most people can enjoy the recreational usage of this site as a Gateway to the Downs, and as a part of the historic landscape setting of this ancient Downland village. Ladies Miles open Downland (site17) is a key wildlife, archaeological, landscape, and recreational Gateway resource for the Park and the City. It has one of the two best surviving archaic plateau chalk grassland sites in the City . (Plateau chalk grassland is extremely rare on the Downs because its flatness makes it most vulnerable to sloughing and improvement, and because most plateau archaic Down pasture sites are acid and healthy in character, not calcareous). It is also the only surviving archaic Down pasture site along the three

Page 302 of 541


mile long Ditchling Road Ridge from Hollingbury Castle Iron Age hillfort to Ditchling Beacon Iron Age hillfort. Much of it is damaged by scrub incursion and under-management. Ladies Miles open Downland needs enhancement, not further major encroachment. 3.d. North Coldean: site 21 The Coldean Lane woods and meadows are an important part of the historic Stanmer Park constellation of designed and planted woodlands. Recent new halls of residence developed at Varley Halls have already ramped up the damage to the unity of the open upper slopes of the Coldean Valley, risking ending the visual containment of the Valley estate and breaking in to the visual integrity of the high plateau landscape. The meadows are best managed as a recreational facility with high aesthetic and wildlife value. 3.e. South - The Racecourse Landscape. Whitehawk Hill / Warren Road Ridge: sites 27 to 35 It is extraordinary that Whitehawk Hill should have been treated in such a cavalier fashion in the Assessment, for it is a sub-landscape of national importance. It is also, of course, set in a large area of working class housing, and its proximity to marginalised communities lays it open to these sort of abusive proposals. It is fish and chip Downland, not cream tea Downland, and it suffers accordingly, despite its objective resources. Site 30 (suggested for 150 homes) is also, of course, within the bounds of the 105 acre Race Ground, which was dedicated as a recreational common at the 1822 enclosure of Brighton's commons and open fields. The deed of dedication states that the inhabitants of Brighton and the public in general should have the use of it for the purposes of racing and other purposes of exercise and diversion...� The combined Whitehawk / Warren Road sites have a Local Nature Reserve, a Scheduled Ancient Monument, an adjacent area of archaeological importance, and a large, historic allotment complex. This landscape is the key to unlocking the prehistory and history of Brighton. It is the core landscape feature of Old Brighton, the best archaic chalk grassland and old scrub site on the City urban fringe, the oldest (c. 1770) formal Downland public recreational site in Brighton, and the most prominent Downland feature along the coast for many miles. It is also one of the oldest (5000 BP) sacred sites in Britain, having a continuing funerary function, which first commenced in the Neolithic, and continued into late prehistoric and maybe Saxon times before its revival 160 years ago (Woodvale). Its causewayed enclosure is one of only 10 well-preserved examples in Britain. Furthermore, its chalk grassland and scrub forms a wildlife ecosystem with a direct continuity back to the Neolithic clearances of the Downland wildwood. They are a rare example of living archaeology, with an ancient wildlife assemblage which is anthropogenic in origin, but natural in its constituent species (mollusks, spiders and other arthropods, fungi and flowering plants). A key part of this assemblage (in site 30) is the ancient Gorse thicket at the north end of Whitehawk Hills steep slope, adjacent to the North Whitehawk flats, which the Assessment falsely describes as in (...) the Whitehawk Estate�. (In fact they are in the Local Nature Reserve). It hosts Stonechat, Dartford and other Warblers, and many other scrub dependent birds and insects. A key part of the open landscape setting of the causewayed camp are the historic allotments (in site 31) targeted as of housing potential. They also host many of the rough ground species of the Local Nature Reserve, such as the nationally scarce and charismatic Great Green Bush Cricket. Sites 32 and 33 on the Race Hill / Warren Road ridge top are absurd as sites of housing potential. They remind one of the hill top beauty spot housing schemes of the inter-war years, such as for a bungalow estate at the Devils Dyke, or plot lands on Patchams Sweet Hill, or Standean....or the housing estates right on the crest of the North Downs at Box Hill and Woldingham. 3.f. East Black Rock: site 37 Extant open cliff top east of Brighton has intrinsic rarity value. This site is important for informal recreation and has potential for archaic grassland restoration. 3.g. East Ovingdean: sites 38 to 42 Sites 38 and 39 embrace the extended agribusiness farmyards, sheds and paddocks of Ovingdean Farm, which were constructed as a result of past strategic misjudgments in managing the Brighton Council farmlands estate. Since then their usage has been intensified with infill residential development. They now constitute an eyesore in this two mile long Downland dry valley, which extends to Ovingdean Gaps cliffs. Any further intensification of built development in this very exposed nodal site will further damage this extended hill-valley-farm-medieval hamlet panorama in this part of the National Park. The site needs roll-back of its excessive sprawl, and a new, high quality set of built-to-last farm buildings, not residential development. Site 41 is a ridge top Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) designated for its old Downland flora and fauna, which the Council planning function should seek to preserve and enhance and re-incorporate within the wider public landscape. Site 42 was erroneously omitted from the National Park and should be treated for what it is: - a part of the wider, open Downscape. 3.h. East North Saltdean: sites 46 to 48 Both the Looes Barn and Coombe Farm sites form important Gateways to the open Downs. Both have been damaged by neglect and inappropriate piecemeal built development. Both require remediation and roll-back of this neglect, and a proper integration of their Downland farming and Gateway functions. The north slope of Tenant Hill, overlooking Coombe Farm, is an open access archaic chalk grassland site of high value. The views from there should be enhanced, not eroded.


Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


Page 303 of 541



Representation refers to two papers attached. Our comments relate to two proposed modifications within the Proposed Modifications Schedule. ONE. This refers to The Spatial Distribution of Development (Your Ref PM010 / The Strategy, pages 24, 28, 29) paragraphs 2.7, 2.19, 2.20, and Table 3 Summary of Development Proposals. We reject the modifications proposed within this section. The quantum of New Homes and Employment Floorspace proposed in the cell entitled Rest of the City: a/ within the built-up area. b/ within the urban area does not accurately reflect the objective potential within these two categories. Whilst not, in these comments, seeking to challenge the mapped development areas DA1 to DA8 (which include the appalling Toads Hole Valley proposals) it must be pointed out that the quantum misses the areas with the largest development potentials. In doing so, these proposals thrust the direction of development onto the urban fringe, despite its intrinsic resources and its critical functions of buffering the National Park landscape and supporting National Park objectives. We argue that four large areas of development potential (SEE ATTACHED MAP) are missed by these modifications. These four large areas have much in common. They consist of: - Very low density housing of high monetary value, providing for economically privileged residents with levels of locational housing choice which greatly exceed those in real housing need in the City. - Both their housing density and their levels of occupation are grossly wasteful, such that if they were public housing a huge proportion of their residents would be subject to the Bedroom Tax. - These areas privatise potential shared green space, which is, as a result, greatly under-used. Area 1: Land west of the London-Brighton railway line between the Upper Drive, Old Shoreham Road, Hove Park, Three Cornered Copse, and Devils Dyke Road, with an additional area between Preston Park railway station and Withdean Woods. Area 2: Land east of the London Brighton railway line between the London Road, Carden Avenue, Braybon Avenue, Surrenden Road, Ditchling Road, and Preston Drove. Area 3: Land at Roedean, east of Black Rock - north and south of Roedean Road. Area 4: Land at Rottingdean - north of St Margarets Church, and between Dean Court Road and Bazehill Road. In addition, it must be pointed out that the levels of housing development which Government seeks to impose on the City are intrinsically unsustainable and reflect patterns of uneven (and therefore unjust and environmentally damaging) development both within the United Kingdom, at the level of the European Union, and globally. They must be challenged, not accommodated. TWO. This refers to the Urban Fringe (Your Ref PM064, Policy SA4 Urban Fringe, page 111-113). We reject the modifications proposed within this section. We seek particularly to highlight our objection to your addition (base of page 42 / top of page 43) worded Should proposals for development come forward prior to the adoption of Part 2 of the City Plan, the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment will be a material planning consideration in the determination of applications for residential development within the urban fringe�. The case for our objection is outlined in our ATTACHED document entitled A brief assessment of The 2014 Brighton and Hove Urban Fringe Assessment � A brief assessment of The 2014 Brighton and Hove Urban Fringe Assessment 1. Preamble The City of Brighton is a Downland City. That is, it is largely built upon the same rolling chalk hills that are now largely within the South Downs National Park. This means that the open Downland of the National Park is hugely inter-visible with the built-upon Downland of the Brighton conurbation. The remaining area of open Downland north of the greater Brighton conurbation is so narrow that its integrity as an area of natural beauty worthy of National Park status is at severe risk. Indeed, the inescapable visual interference of the built-up area with the naturalness of the open Downland, and the noise pollution caused by the A27 and A23 corridors, already hugely reduce the integrity of the National Park landscape. In sum, the National Park landscape is at severe risk, and is already severely damaged. It cannot manage any further damage to its core qualities . 2. The Assessment Findings The Assessment fails to understand either the core qualities of the urban fringe sites it judges as having housing potential, or the wider role they play in protecting the integrity of the designated National Park landscape. It is striking that seven of the clusters this Assessment considers as having housing potential are important Gateways for accessing the National Parks open Downland: - Mile Oak Valley, Hangleton / Benfield Valleys, Old Patcham, Ladies Mile, Coldean Woods, Whitehawk Hill / Warren Road Ridge, North Saltdean. It is striking that several clusters have multiple layers of public qualities which demand respect, enhancement and remediation, not damage or obliteration. Thus: - Hangleton / Benfield Valleys, Old Patcham, and Ovingdean Farm have important historic built assemblages, and landscape features. - The Mile Oak Valley, Ladies Mile, and Whitehawk Hill have crucial wildlife and archaeological assemblages, which, in the case of Whitehawk Hill, are of national importance. - The Coldean Woods and Ovingdean Farm sites have important landscape functions within larger complexes (the Stanmer Woods constellation, and the Ovingdean Valley view she'd). - The Mile Oak Valley, Coldean Woods, Whitehawk Hill / Warren Road Ridge, Ovingdean Farm, and North Saltdean sites are hugely inter-visible with the wider National Park. The 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment is instrumental and without substance. It is absolutely imperative that this Assessment NOT become a material consideration in the determination of applications for residential development within the urban fringe. 3. Assessment sites considered as having housing potential 3.a. West The Mile Oak Valley: sites 1 to 6 The Mile Oak Valley suburb already greatly damages the National Park landscape, forming a mile long salient into open Downland of great inter-visibility with the surrounding National Park landscape. Yet its surrounding landscape is of crucial landscape, wildlife, archaeological, and recreational importance. It has a half mile boundary with Southwick Hill - the only archaic down pasture site on the 15 mile conurbation urban fringe with an intact historical continuity of management. It is a fully publicly accessible site of SSSI quality (though not designated because already protected by National Trust ownership) and a major recreational resource for people of Portslade, Southwick, and the wider conurbation. All of these sites are part of the open, corrugated geography of the Downs. All of them constitute part of an important Gateway to the wider Downs. All of them have a buffering function for the wider

Page 304 of 541


Downscape. Sites 5a/6 have an allotment site. 3.b. West - Hangleton Bottom and Benfield Valleys: sites 7 to 12 The old closes (small, enclosed farmstead paddocks forming sites 11 & 12) are a key part of the linked historic complex of Benfield Farmstead and Hangleton Manor. The setting of the Manor has already been badly damaged by inappropriate development of its protecting wooded grounds, and this should be avoided at all costs at its sister manorial farmstead of Benfield. Indeed, these sites were earmarked for management as a pocket park by the Director of Leisure and the Deputy Director of Planning in the old Hove Council . Benfield Farm / Hangleton Manor constitute an important and much used Gateway to the wider Downs and should be managed to enhance that function, not detract from it. Hangleton Bottom (sites 8 & 9) would be most usefully used as a travellers site, given its past successful usage for that purpose, and given the extreme need for such provision in the conurbation. 3.c. North Old Patcham, Ladies Mile: sites 16 & 17 Old Patcham (site 16) forms a key rus in urbe complex of medieval parish church, great barn and other historic farmstead and cottage buildings, allotment sites and recreation ground. It retains this rural quality despite the close proximity and awful noise pollution of the A27 bypass and A23 interchange. No person, given free choice, would choose a home in such an exposed and noise-polluted site. By contrast, most people can enjoy the recreational usage of this site as a Gateway to the Downs, and as a part of the historic landscape setting of this ancient Downland village. Ladies Miles open Downland (site17) is a key wildlife, archaeological, landscape, and recreational Gateway resource for the Park and the City. It has one of the two best surviving archaic plateau chalk grassland sites in the City . (Plateau chalk grassland is extremely rare on the Downs because its flatness makes it most vulnerable to ploughing and improvement, and because most plateau archaic Down pasture sites are acid and heathy in character, not calcareous). It is also the only surviving archaic Down pasture site along the three mile long Ditchling Road Ridge from Hollingbury Castle Iron Age hillfort to Ditchling Beacon Iron Age hillfort. Much of it is damaged by scrub incursion and under-management. Ladies Miles open Downland needs enhancement, not further major encroachment. 3.d. North Coldean: site 21 The Coldean Lane woods and meadows are an important part of the historic Stanmer Park constellation of designed and planted woodlands. Recent new halls of residence developed at Varley Halls have already ramped up the damage to the unity of the open upper slopes of the Coldean Valley, risking ending the visual containment of the Valley estate and breaking in to the visual integrity of the high plateau landscape. The meadows are best managed as a recreational facility with high aesthetic and wildlife value. 3.e. South - The Racecourse Landscape. Whitehawk Hill / Warren Road Ridge: sites 27 to 35 It is extraordinary that Whitehawk Hill should have been treated in such a cavalier fashion in the Assessment, for it is a sub-landscape of national importance. It is also, of course, set in a large area of working class housing, and its proximity to marginalised communities lays it open to these sort of abusive proposals. It is fish and chip Downland, not cream tea Downland, and it suffers accordingly, despite its objective resources. Site 30 (suggested for 150 homes) is also, of course, within the bounds of the 105 acre Race Ground, which was dedicated as a recreational common at the 1822 enclosure of Brighton's commons and open fields. The deed of dedication states that the inhabitants of Brighton and the public in general should have the use of it for the purposes of racing and other purposes of exercise and diversion...� The combined Whitehawk / Warren Road sites have a Local Nature Reserve, a Scheduled Ancient Monument, an adjacent area of archaeological importance, and a large, historic allotment complex. This landscape is the key to unlocking the prehistory and history of Brighton. It is the core landscape feature of Old Brighton, the best archaic chalk grassland and old scrub site on the City urban fringe, the oldest (c. 1770) formal Downland public recreational site in Brighton, and the most prominent Downland feature along the coast for many miles. It is also one of the oldest (5000 BP) sacred sites in Britain, having a continuing funerary function, which first commenced in the Neolithic, and continued into late prehistoric and maybe Saxon times before its revival 160 years ago (Woodvale). Its causewayed enclosure is one of only 10 well-preserved examples in Britain. Furthermore, its chalk grassland and scrub forms a wildlife ecosystem with a direct continuity back to the Neolithic clearances of the Downland wildwood. They are a rare example of living archaeology, with an ancient wildlife assemblage which is anthropogenic in origin, but natural in its constituent species (mollusks, spiders and other arthropods, fungi and flowering plants). A key part of this assemblage (in site 30) is the ancient Gorse thicket at the north end of Whitehawk Hills steep slope, adjacent to the North Whitehawk flats, which the Assessment falsely describes as in (...) the Whitehawk Estate�. (In fact they are in the Local Nature Reserve). It hosts Stonechat, Dartford and other Warblers, and many other scrub dependent birds and insects. A key part of the open landscape setting of the causewayed camp are the historic allotments (in site 31) targeted as of housing potential. They also host many of the rough ground species of the Local Nature Reserve, such as the nationally scarce and charismatic Great Green Bush Cricket. Sites 32 and 33 on the Race Hill / Warren Road ridge top are absurd as sites of housing potential. They remind one of the hill top beauty spot housing schemes of the inter-war years, such as for a bungalow estate at the Devils Dyke, or plot lands on Patchams Sweet Hill, or Standean....or the housing estates right on the crest of the North Downs at Box Hill and Woldingham. 3.f. East Black Rock: site 37 Extant open cliff top east of Brighton has intrinsic rarity value. This site is important for informal recreation and has potential for archaic grassland restoration. 3.g. East Ovingdean: sites 38 to 42 Sites 38 and 39 embrace the extended agribusiness farmyards, sheds and paddocks of Ovingdean Farm, which were constructed as a result of past strategic misjudgments in managing the Brighton Council farmlands estate. Since then their usage has been intensified with infill residential development. They now constitute an eyesore in this two mile long Downland dry valley, which extends to Ovingdean Gaps cliffs. Any further intensification of built development in this very exposed nodal site will further damage this extended hill-valley-farm-medieval hamlet panorama in this part of the National Park. The site needs roll-back of its excessive sprawl, and a new, high quality set of built-to-last farm buildings, not residential development. Site 41 is a ridge top Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) designated for its old Downland flora and fauna, which the Council planning function

Page 305 of 541


should seek to preserve and enhance and re-incorporate within the wider public landscape. Site 42 was erroneously omitted from the National Park and should be treated for what it is: - a part of the wider, open Downscape. 3.h. East North Saltdean: sites 46 to 48 Both the Looes Barn and Coombe Farm sites form important Gateways to the open Downs. Both have been damaged by neglect and inappropriate piecemeal built development. Both require remediation and roll-back of this neglect, and a proper integration of their Downland farming and Gateway functions. The north slope of Tenant Hill, overlooking Coombe Farm, is an open access archaic chalk grassland site of high value. The views from there should be enhanced, not eroded.


See attached papers.


It is wholly instrumental and poorly informed.





The case needs to be made orally

Page 306 of 541


Respondent Number:

135

Individuals Name:

Chris & Linda Whitby

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


1. I refer specifically to sites referred to as Urban Fringe. - Each site should be evaluated on its own merits with the driver being to conserve green field sites wherever this is appropriate and possible. In any case brown field sites should be developed before green field sites are even considered for development. 2. I refer to the Natural England objection to the development of the Falmer Avenue site in Saltdean in which they state that 'development should not be undertaken where a site is not only adjacent to the National Park but is also part of the setting of the National Park. 3. I refer specifically to the Urban Fringe sites in Rottingdean and Saltdean where, since 2010 a number of major developments have taken place and further developments are being considered (including further east of Brighton in Telscombe, Peacehaven and Newhaven). These development have already saturated the infrastructure on the coast road (which has not been expanded in 100 years!) and the Falmer Road (used to connect to the A27). Due to the restraints of the geography (Downs/National Park to the north and the sea to the south) this has had a devastating impact causing traffic congestion and pollution. The infrastructure of this area can no longer cope - schools are full, doctors and dentists are full, The infrastructure issue needs to be addressed before consideration is given to further development 4. Whilst the government of the day is calling for the blanket development of new homes each area has different issues which are not being considered. All development should be approved at local council level with the approval of local residents. Short of this I believe that our democratic right is being removed. This should cease forthwith. Each site should be evaluated on its own merit without the interference from Central Government who have no understanding of local conditions etc. 5 Whilst considering the current sites under planning application in the Rottingdean/Saltdean area I have yet to see a Need analysis. A need analysis should accompany any planning consideration. This would ensure that the right type of houses are built in the right area, with the correct infrastructure to satisfy the Market demand of the area under consideration. It is useless to build Â£1 million homes when the need is for affordable homes. By way of an example the proposed development at Falmer Avenue Saltdean, as proposed, is not satisfying any Market Need that relates to this area - just a tick in the box for Westminster!!! Summary - No development on green field sites when there are brown field sites available No development on Urban fringe or sites adjacent to the National Park where this site forms part of the setting of the National Park Upgrade the infrastructure before further development in any case Each site should be assessed on its own merits and decisions made at local level Market or Need analysis should be undertaken before any further planning is considered We would sincerely appreciate it if the comments above could be considered and included, in clear terminology, into the City Plan for Brighton & Hove. Development of Urban Fringe sites should be considered as a last resort and then only after lengthy consideration and consultation.






Page 307 of 541


Respondent Number:

134

Individuals Name:

Richard & Theresa Pearce

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


We would like our views to be considered under the consultation procedure. The sites identified in the urban fringe for an additional 1,060 new homes is unacceptable. The brownfield sites throughout the city should be built on first. A new housing development has only just been completed this year in Saxon Way, Patcham, (off Vale Avenue) providing approx 12 homes. The green spaces around Patcham are already greatly reduced since the By-pass was built cutting off direct access to the countryside and, later, the travellers site and the proposed permanent travellers site which is to be added. You are already aware of the water table concerns that any new development on the Horsdean site will cause. Also, there is no support structure for another community of 30 families in this area and this will put more pressure on the existing village facilities.






Page 308 of 541


Respondent Number:

125

Individuals Name:

Edgar Miller

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



I walk my dog there everyday


Build on the golf course



Stop taking our parks away




Page 309 of 541


Respondent Number:

131

Individuals Name:

Anthony Rogers

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4




x


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



With the development being proposed for the most impressive route into Brighton, one that is both predominantly green in character and a Local Nature Reserve of high landscape value it appears strongly inappropriate to conclude that housing to the north and south of the covered reservoir would have manageable adverse impacts. There is no other route into Brighton that holds the environmental qualities of the proposed site on Ditchling Road.


The proposal for this site is unsound when considered against other options. Of course Brownfield sites should be considered first for addressing the housing demand of the City, however this site should be removed from the plan given the small number of homes that are proposed in relation to the loss to the natural environment and the amenity value to local residents and visitors to the City alike.



No




Page 310 of 541


Respondent Number:

126

Individuals Name:

Roger & Sue Harper

Agents Name:


2







Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



I object to the changes set out in PM064 and reference to the accommodation of additional housing within areas of urban fringe. The provision of housing developments within the City underlines the importance of the retention of these areas as green open space to accommodate the increase in population. Paragraph 3.157 and 3.158 as it stands will be a catastrophic mistake for the City.


Reference to housing within the urban fringe needs to be removed






As outlined in objection to modifications to PM010

Page 311 of 541


Respondent Number:

129

Friends of Hollingbury and Burstead Woods

Individuals Name:

Adam Penwarden

Agents Name:None


1


Policy/Section:SA4





Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



The assessment points out that over 90% of Site 18 is a proposed Local Nature Reserve and of high landscape value; nonetheless it concludes that housing to the north and south of the covered reservoir would have manageable adverse impacts. It is our view that the report which led to that assessment, and to the inclusion of Site 18 as an Urban Fringe site suitable for residential development, was inaccurate and has some fundamental flaws. This piece of work cannot be seen as a robust and credible evidence base�. We seek to ensure that the policy and implementation of the Plan is not based on work that could be unsound. The following notes address perceived weaknesses in the assessment of Area 18 of the Urban Fringe assessment. Ecology. Exclusion of the reservoir from the review has meant that the account of secondary constraints does not mention the important orchid colonies there, including the early spider orchid, a red listed species, and protected under schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The two areas marked for residential development are adjacent to this site and could impact negatively on these species. The white-letter hairstreak butterfly is a species of principal importance for purposes of conserving biodiversity (Natural environment and Rural communities act, 2006), and the Local Biodiversity Action Plan identifies it as a locally important species, dependent on mature elms. . It is not mentioned either in the Councils original assessment or this review. Within Area 18 elms occur both in the woodland and along the edge of Ditchling Road (in the area suggested for possible housing). If the immature trees along the road edge were lost to development, mitigation by replacement elsewhere could mean the loss of several years growth and thus defer the time at which further suitable habitat for the white-letter hairstreak became available. We are aware of bats using Hollingbury Park and are concerned that housing and consequent nighttime lighting in this area could affect their roosting and flight paths. The Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead Woods Management Plan, for the woods and associated areas within Area 18, records biodiversity objectives some of which would be jeopardised by any development. We believe that the assessment for Ecology after mitigation is therefore likely to be nearer a negative than neutral. Open space. The mitigation assessment refers to over-provision of most kinds of open space in Area 18, as calculated with reference to the boundaries of Hollingbury & Stanmer ward. The report acknowledges that the calculation is distorted by the inclusion of Stanmer Park and Wild Park in the ward. It is a serious weakness of the review process and assumptions that they do not allow for the more relevant approach of considering the value of Area 18 to those living in the vicinity regardless of which wards happen to include their homes. The home addresses of members of the Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead woods indicate a wide spread of visitors including from Preston Park ward, Withdean ward, and Patcham ward, all three of which have boundaries abutting the western edge of Area 18. This suggests that the over provision� as calculated is inappropriate, particularly as Preston Park ward is regarded as having an under-provision. Given the above, we suggest that there should be a re-evaluation of the assessment made of this area. . Landscape. The list of secondary constraints does not note that there are no buildings fronting the east side of Ditchling Road north of 414 Ditchling Rd, i.e. immediately south of the southern border of Area 18; rather, there is a variety of green features adjoining the east side of the road all the way north to the SDNP. This unbuilt line would be destroyed by development anywhere along it, and the present open feel of the western part of Area 18 would be lost until close to the Area's northern boundary. In the final report there is a suggestion (1.9 and 2.11) that Area 18 could be designated a Local Green Space, as one of four green wedges extending into the built up area from the SDNP; allowing development beside the reservoir is hardly compatible with that suggestion, as none of the suggested mitigations could compensate for the loss of that open feel. . We also believe that the impact on views from the SDNP would be affected if interrupted by built development in the locations suggested. We suggest that the assessment for Landscape after mitigation is inaccurate. Setting a precedent We are extremely concerned that if this site is allocated for residential development, a precedent will be set allowing infilling by subsequent development. This potential must be assessed further before any agreement to allocate the site for development.

Page 312 of 541


Overall conclusion. Given the points noted above, we suggest that the whole of Area 18 should, as originally concluded by the Council, be considered as unsuitable for housing development; If the recommendation is, nonetheless, retained, then before any development permission is considered a full environmental assessment should take place to determine the impacts likely to follow


We do not wish to propose a change to the policy wording. But we would like to see proper reassurance given in the background text that the final scale of expected housing in urban fringe sites would be determined following further studies and full consultation with the public







Page 313 of 541


Respondent Number:

127

Individuals Name:

Mrs Polly Charlton

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The assessment points out that over 90% of Site 18 is a proposed Local Nature Reserve and of high landscape value; nonetheless it concludes that housing to the north and south of the covered reservoir would have manageable adverse impacts. It is our view that the report which led to that assessment, and to the inclusion of Site 18 as an Urban Fringe site suitable for residential development, was inaccurate and has some fundamental flaws. This piece of work cannot be seen as a robust and credible evidence base�. We seek to ensure that the policy and implementation of the Plan is not based on work that could be unsound. The following notes address perceived weaknesses in the assessment of Area 18 of the Urban Fringe assessment. Ecology. Exclusion of the reservoir from the review has meant that the account of secondary constraints does not mention the important orchid colonies there, including the early spider orchid, a red listed species, and protected under schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The two areas marked for residential development are adjacent to this site and could impact negatively on these species. The white-letter hairstreak butterfly is a species of principal importance for purposes of conserving biodiversity (Natural environment and Rural communities act, 2006), and the Local Biodiversity Action Plan identifies it as a locally important species, dependent on mature elms. . It is not mentioned either in the Councils original assessment or this review. Within Area 18 elms occur both in the woodland and along the edge of Ditchling Road (in the area suggested for possible housing). If the immature trees along the road edge were lost to development, mitigation by replacement elsewhere could mean the loss of several years growth and thus defer the time at which further suitable habitat for the white-letter hairstreak became available. We are aware of bats using Hollingbury Park and are concerned that housing and consequent nighttime lighting in this area could affect their roosting and flight paths. The Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead Woods Management Plan, for the woods and associated areas within Area 18, records biodiversity objectives some of which would be jeopardised by any development. We believe that the assessment for Ecology after mitigation is therefore likely to be nearer a negative than neutral. Open space. The mitigation assessment refers to over-provision of most kinds of open space in Area 18, as calculated with reference to the boundaries of Hollingbury & Stanmer ward. The report acknowledges that the calculation is distorted by the inclusion of Stanmer Park and Wild Park in the ward. It is a serious weakness of the review process and assumptions that they do not allow for the more relevant approach of considering the value of Area 18 to those living in the vicinity regardless of which wards happen to include their homes. The home addresses of members of the Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead woods indicate a wide spread of visitors including from Preston Park ward, Withdean ward, and Patcham ward, all three of which have boundaries abutting the western edge of Area 18. This suggests that the over provision� as calculated is inappropriate, particularly as Preston Park ward is regarded as having an under-provision. Given the above, we suggest that there should be a re-evaluation of the assessment made of this area. . Landscape. The list of secondary constraints does not note that there are no buildings fronting the east side of Ditchling Road north of 414 Ditchling Rd, i.e. immediately south of the southern border of Area 18; rather, there is a variety of green features adjoining the east side of the road all the way north to the SDNP. This unbuilt line would be destroyed by development anywhere along it, and the present open feel of the western part of Area 18 would be lost until close to the Area's northern boundary. In the final report there is a suggestion (1.9 and 2.11) that Area 18 could be designated a Local Green Space, as one of four green wedges extending into the built up area from the SDNP; allowing development beside the reservoir is hardly compatible with that suggestion, as none of the suggested mitigations could compensate for the loss of that open feel. . We also believe that the impact on views from the SDNP would be affected if interrupted by built development in the locations suggested. We suggest that the assessment for Landscape after mitigation is inaccurate. Setting a precedent We are extremely concerned that if this site is allocated for residential development, a precedent will be set allowing infilling by subsequent development. This potential must be assessed further before any agreement to allocate the site for development. Overall conclusion. Given the points noted above, we suggest that the whole of Area 18 should, as originally

Page 314 of 541












Page 315 of 541


Respondent Number:

160

Butterfly ConservationIndividuals Name:

Nigel Symington Chair, Sussex Branch

Agents Name:


1







Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Butterfly Conservation contends that the proposal to develop housing on Site 18 is unsound on the basis of ecology. The area for development supports an elm hedge which in turn is home to the White-letter Hairstreak butterfly. Brighton and Hove council has a duty which is set out in Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006, and states that: Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity�. The same Act identifies the White Letter hairstreak butterfly as a 'species of principle importance for the purposes of conserving biodiversity' and the Local Biodiversity Action Plan identifies the species as of local importance. As you are aware Brighton and Hove was awarded full National Collection Status for the Elm assemblage in 1998, an achievement which the city should be proud of. This summer, our White-letter hairstreak species champion, Carole Mortimer, reported the presence of Dutch Elm Disease (DED) in Hollingbury park to the arboricultural team. The team acted quickly and removed the trees, but this did mean that the butterfly was harder to see this summer in its usual haunts. It is evident, from local reports, that the species is taking advantage of the elm hedge which would be lost as part of the development. If DED has infiltrated into the city then every remaining elm should be protected by the council. The Sussex branch of Butterfly Conservation was proud to be part of the drive for UNESCO Biosphere status for Brighton and Hove and Lewes Downs and we are active partners in the project. We believe that the Biosphere was awarded to the city for its outstanding community resource in terms of green space and feel that the reference to 'over-provision' of open space in the mitigation report is counter-productive and, moreover, incorrect. The science of metapopulation biology has highlighted the importance of a landscape scale approach the coordinated management of habitats across a large natural area, made up of a network of sites - to conservation. This is indeed a central plank of the Governments Biodiversity 2020 strategy and is being rolled out on a wider scale, for example in the 12 Nature Improvement Areas that came out of the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper The Natural Choice, part of the Governments response to Making Space for Nature (Lawton 2010) (The Lawton Report). Put simply, this means that the loss of one key site for the White Letter Hairstreak will affect not just that site, but will diminish the value of the city as a whole in ensuring the survival of the species. This point is reinforced by the observation above that the necessary removal of some diseased elms this summer made the butterfly harder to see in its usual haunts. It is essential for wildlife that there are some large areas of natural open space and the relatively large tracts of land which are undeveloped helped Brighton and Hove to achieve designation as a Biosphere. It is unthinkable that the council should, after achieving this accolade, go on to build housing on one of the key Local Nature Reserves in the city.


That there should be no new dwellings built in Site 18. I don't suggest any revised wording to the proposed modification, but it does seem that the development of housing in this area contradicts the paragraphs 3.154 and 3.155 of the plan.



No



Page 316 of 541



Respondent Number:

156

Individuals Name:

Paula da Luz

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


Please remove 18 from the list earmarked for urban developemnt - I believe the inclusion of the site at Hollingbury Park for housing is based on a flawed consultants report and urge you to delete this site from the list of urban fringe sites. I am also a local resident that hasn't had heard of this proposal up until today! - where is the information for residents?! I object to the urban fringe development - especially for Hollingbury woods for the following points: The woods leads up to an ancient monument and should be left as part of public access to it; It houses various invertebrates - and has just established a wood bee area; It is adjacent to a nursery school and 3 other local schools providing recreation for many age groups - and nature trails; It is well used by dog walkers - very well used; It has a huge range of trees including Elm, established Beech trees and certain other fauna that is particular to the area; It provides a much needed woodland to the local area - and respite from the housing estates; It provides much needed cover for wildlife especially for winter. It has a much loved group called 'Friends of Hollingbury and Burstead woods' who meet regularly providing social, learning and emotional wellbeing to a group of volunteers (mainly elderly). I'm a Forest School teacher for Sussex Wildlife Trust so I am happy to elaborate all day on the benefits of being in a woodland environment! It is also the reason I moved here and I visit every day!






Page 317 of 541


Respondent Number:

141

Individuals Name:

Geoff and Jean Harris

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


Please don't allocate Hollingbury Park for housing. Hollingbury Park is our local park and my wife and I visit it at lease twice a day for walks and to take our dog out. It is a lovely clean park which is safe to walk on because it is visible from a fairly busy road. We are not alone, people of all ages go there. It is a lovely place for a walk and perhaps a chat, we have made many friends who walk there. We did try walking on thirty nine acre field a few years ago. One night we parked our car beside the Ditchling Road and walked round the field. We returned to find an air gun dumped under the back of the car and the car's windscreen was smashed. The police were called but nothing could done. We now only walk on Hollingbury Park, especially at night! Please don't build on this beautiful area. It is used by a large number of people of all ages at all times of day.






Page 318 of 541


Respondent Number:

145

Individuals Name:

Ray Tyler

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


As a resident in Hangleton Valley Drive I would like to register my views on the proposed development of Benfield Valley. I attended the presentation at Hangleton Manor in November which gave very limited information, only a brief outline of the extent of the development, and nothing of the impact upon the residents in the area in regard to increased traffic congestion; impact on schools ; and other services such as doctors surgeries. The plan to provide the access to the development is via Hangleton Lane for both the areas south and north of the lane. The lane is already heavily congested at peak periods and the roundabout at its junction with the link road is very hazardous at the best of times with limited visibility north and south when emerging from the lane. This lane is used by children as access to Hove Park School from Portslade and children from Hangleton to the Portslade Aldridge Academy in Chalky Road .The development will only add to the congestion and hazards at the junction. The schools in the area are already at full capacity with little or no room for expansion. 387 houses will add to the problem. I accept that some development is required but feel this should be limited to the south side of the lane. This area is a eyesore and used only as a dog toilet. Sympathetic building would be a benefit but the provision of a duck pond must be a joke. Who would maintain it? Not the council as they are already incapable of cutting the grass verges in the area. Surely they would not wish to take on the responsibility of maintenance and safety for the future generations. There is land , a brown field site, at Hangleton Bottom ( currently used as a refuge for travellers ). Surely it would be more beneficial to build there and benefit from the income of the community tax from residents rather than regularly paying clear up cost when and if the so called travellers move on. I recall, when the by-pass and link road were formed, the Benfield Valley was regularly referred to by the then Council as "the lungs of Hove". Is it now the plan to cut out the lungs and let Hove suffocate by over development of our limited green spaces? I sincerely hope that all councilors will give careful consideration to the developers plans and choose the best option without political points scoring in the run up to the elections in May 2015.






Page 319 of 541


Respondent Number:

158

Individuals Name:

Steve Dunnill

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


As a local resident I was disturbed to receive your recent site plans. The open spaces seem to becoming less and I fear that the value of our house will be effected if these brownfield sites are built upon. In particular site 17. Does this site not belong to Patcham school ? Proposed plans were for sport , not housing. Another example of selling off playing fields. Where is the access to this site ? I WILL be objecting to any building on these brownfield sites. (NB: assume respondent means greenfield sites)






Page 320 of 541


Respondent Number:

185

Member of Parliament for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven

Individuals Name:

Simon Kirby MP

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


I am receiving representations from constituents in Ovingdean regarding the proposal to develop over 50 properties in the Conservation Area. As you will know, I firmly believe that the City Council should be looking at brownfield sites, city centre sites and locations like Shoreham Harbour before considering areas on the urban fringe for development. Therefore, I would be grateful if my objection to this part of the Urban Fringe Report could be noted by the City Council. I would be grateful if you could note that as the Member of Parliament, representing Ovingdean, that I formally object to the inclusion of the following parcels of land for use as housing land: Land at Wanderdown Road Open Space and adjacent to Ovingdean and Falmer Road, Ovingdean (50 homes); Land to rear of Longhill Road (6 homes).






Page 321 of 541


Respondent Number:

183

Individuals Name:

Dr Philip Denbigh and Mrs Denise Denbigh

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Regarding the revised application BH2014/02589 for 85 one, two, three and four bedroom dwellings on the Meadow Vale fields our original objections stated in our letter to Liz Arnold dated 29 August remain unchanged. The reduction from 100 houses to 85 houses would still be a disaster in terms of 1. The merger of Rottingdean and Ovingdean, such a conurbation resulting in a total change to the rural character of the area 2. The likelihood of increased flooding, particularly at the low point of Ovingdean 3. increased traffic in Ovingdean Road but also extending to Rottingdean, the old part of Ovingdean, Woodingdean and even on the A27 at the turn off the the B2123. 4. Loss of flora and fauna - some rare






Page 322 of 541


Respondent Number:

172

Individuals Name:

Christopher Harvey

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4




Development of Hollingbury Park would damage this important amenity and the current plans are likely to be the thin end of the wedge - and further would set a dangerous precedent in relation to other public spaces. I note the consultants' view that there is an excess of green space in the area. The idea that residents who currently use the park can just as easily access Stanmer and the Wild Park fails to appreciate the convenience of Hollingbury Park. Furthermore building at the top of the park will interrupt what is presently a green corridor to the South Downs National Park.


There should be no housing construction on this site.

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The assessment points out that over 90% of Site 18 is a proposed Local Nature Reserve and of high landscape value; nonetheless it concludes that housing to the north and south of the covered reservoir would have manageable adverse impacts. The inclusion of Site 18 as an Urban Fringe site suitable for residential development, was inaccurate and fundamentally flawed. This piece of work cannot be seen as a robust and credible evidence base�. We seek to ensure that the policy and implementation of the Plan is not based on work that could be unsound. The following notes address perceived weaknesses in the assessment of Area 18 of the Urban Fringe assessment. Ecology. Exclusion of the reservoir from the review has meant that the account of secondary constraints does not mention the important orchid colonies there, including the early spider orchid, a red listed species, and protected under schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The two areas marked for residential development are adjacent to this site and could impact negatively on these species. The white-letter hairstreak butterfly is a species of principal importance for purposes of conserving biodiversity (Natural environment and Rural communities act, 2006), and the Local Biodiversity Action Plan identifies it as a locally important species, dependent on mature elms. This is not mentioned either in the Councils original assessment or this review. Within Area 18 elms occur both in the woodland and along the edge of Ditchling Road (in the area suggested for possible housing). If the immature trees along the road edge were lost to development, mitigation by replacement elsewhere could mean the loss of several years growth and thus defer the time at which further suitable habitat for the white-letter hairstreak became available. I am aware of bats using Hollingbury Park and are concerned that housing and consequent nighttime lighting in this area could affect their roosting and flight paths. The Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead Woods Management Plan, for the woods and associated areas within Area 18, records biodiversity objectives some of which would be jeopardised by any development. I believe the assessment for Ecology after mitigation is therefore more likely to be negative than neutral. Open space. The mitigation assessment refers to over-provision of most kinds of open space in Area 18, as calculated with reference to the boundaries of Hollingbury & Stanmer ward. The report acknowledges that the calculation is distorted by the inclusion of Stanmer Park and Wild Park in the ward. It is a serious weakness of the review process and assumptions that they do not allow for the more relevant approach of considering the value of Area 18 to those living in the vicinity regardless of which wards happen to include their homes. The home addresses of members of the Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead woods indicate a wide spread of visitors including from Preston Park ward, 5 Withdean ward, and Patcham ward, all three of which have boundaries abutting the western edge of Area 18. This suggests that the over provision� as calculated is inappropriate, particularly as Preston Park ward is regarded as having an underprovision. Overall conclusion. Given the points noted above, I suggest that the whole of Area 18 should, as originally concluded by the Council, be considered as unsuitable for housing development; If the recommendation is, nonetheless, retained, then before any development permission is considered a full environmental assessment should take place to determine the impacts likely to follow;


I do not wish to propose a change to the policy wording. But I would like to see proper reassurance given in the background text that the final scale of expected housing in urban fringe sites would be determined following further

Page 323 of 541


studies and full consultation with the public.



no




I would only wish to appear if the Inspector wanted to re-assess the Urban Fringe Housing Study.

Page 324 of 541


Respondent Number:

114

Individuals Name:

Dr Jo Tulloch

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4




Hollingbury Park was designed and built over a hundred years ago as a place of recreation for Brighton residents, incorporating a 19th C. woodland, a golf course and a hill fort. As such the park has a long-established history of citizen use and its amenities should not be infringed in order to satisfy housing need, however important and urgent. I have lived in this area for many years, and have used the park extensively for exercise, meeting friends, and walking my dog - in fact I moved to this address six months ago in order to be closer to the park, and as I get older will depend on it more - and am dismayed to find much of the land, used by thousands of local and not-so-local people, proposed as a building site and housing stock. Plans to do so would dramatically affect the character of the neighbourhood, which is presently mixed, with private and municipal housing in Fiveways, Hollingbury and Hollingdean. This is therefore not a case of NIMBYism. I fully acknowledge the need for more housing (though I'd much prefer to see public housing projects at affordable rents), but strongly dispute the grounds of the Council's case for sacrificing public amenities to satisfy Central Government demands - after all, they are the inheritors of those who stopped local councils building municipal housing. The consultants who produced the Urban Fringe Assessment have made some fundamental errors - errors which, if their recommendations were to be followed, are potentially actionable. The first of these is that their map is inaccurate, out-of-date and misleading, so their recommendations are unsound. Secondly, they state there is enough open space in the area, including the Wild Park and Stanmer: I would urge you to try walking to Stanmer from Fiveways - for a Green council bent on reducing car use, this seems willfully to ignore the reality of walking several miles on an unpleasant road in order to access Stanmer Park. As for the Wild Park, as a woman I don't feel safe walking in such isolated parkland. Thirdly, the Urban Fringe Assessment failed to take into account the findings of a recently Council-commissioned survey that found residents should have access to green space within 10 minutes walk of their homes. The Assessment so evidently ignored critical factors that it could easily be challenged. Moreover, for this particular Council to proceed with a plan that will severely damage the ecology of a proposed nature reserve, with its valuable biodiversity, at the gateway to a national park, appears perverse in the extreme. For all these reasons it is my view that a decision to deprive thousands of local people of a long-established community amenity is legally challengeable. I urge BHCC to reconsider the whole plan with a view to finding another site in an area of the city less disruptive to local life, both human and natural. Be assured that the Council will encounter effective opposition should it decide to proceed with so ill thought-out and socially and environmentally a course of action.


No housing construction on the site in question could be safe from legal challenge. The Council should choose another site, based on a re-evaluation of Area 18.

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The assessment points out that over 90% of Site 18 is a proposed Local Nature Reserve and of high landscape value; nonetheless it concludes that housing to the north and south of the covered reservoir would have manageable adverse impacts. It is my view that the report which led to that assessment, and to the inclusion of Site 18 as an Urban Fringe site suitable for residential development, was inaccurate and fundamentally flawed. This piece of work cannot be seen as a robust and credible evidence base�. We seek to ensure that the policy and implementation of the Plan is not based on work that could be unsound. The following notes address perceived weaknesses in the assessment of Area 18 of the Urban Fringe assessment. Ecology. Exclusion of the reservoir from the review has meant that the account of secondary constraints does not mention the important orchid colonies there, including the early spider orchid, a red listed species, and protected under schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The two areas marked for residential development are adjacent to this site and could impact negatively on these species. The white-letter hairstreak butterfly is a species of principal importance for purposes of conserving biodiversity (Natural environment and Rural communities act, 2006), and the Local Biodiversity Action Plan identifies it as a locally important species, dependent on mature elms. This is not mentioned either in the Councils original assessment or this review. Within Area 18 elms occur both in the woodland and along the edge of Ditchling Road (in the area suggested for possible housing). If the immature trees

Page 325 of 541


along the road edge were lost to development, mitigation by replacement elsewhere could mean the loss of several years growth and thus defer the time at which further suitable habitat for the white-letter hairstreak became available. I am aware of bats using Hollingbury Park and are concerned that housing and consequent nighttime lighting in this area could affect their roosting and flight paths. The Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead Woods Management Plan, for the woods and associated areas within Area 18, records biodiversity objectives some of which would be jeopardised by any development. I believe the assessment for Ecology after mitigation is therefore more likely to be negative than neutral. Open space. The mitigation assessment refers to over-provision of most kinds of open space in Area 18, as calculated with reference to the boundaries of Hollingbury & Stanmer ward. The report acknowledges that the calculation is distorted by the inclusion of Stanmer Park and Wild Park in the ward. It is a serious weakness of the review process and assumptions that they do not allow for the more relevant approach of considering the value of Area 18 to those living in the vicinity regardless of which wards happen to include their homes. The home addresses of members of the Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead woods indicate a wide spread of visitors including from Preston Park ward, Withdean ward, and Patcham ward, all three of which have boundaries abutting the western edge of Area 18. This suggests that the over provision� as calculated is inappropriate, particularly as Preston Park ward is regarded as having an under provision. Given the above, I suggest that there should be a re-evaluation of the assessment made of this area. Landscape. The list of secondary constraints does not note that there are no buildings fronting the east side of Ditchling Road north of 414 Ditchling Rd, i.e. immediately south of the southern border of Area 18; rather, there is a variety of green features adjoining the east side of the road all the way north to the SDNP. This unbuilt line would be destroyed by development anywhere along it, and the present open feel of the western part of Area 18 would be lost until close to the Area's northern boundary. In the final report there is a suggestion (1.9 and 2.11) that Area 18 could be designated a Local Green Space, as one of four green wedges extending into the built up area from the SDNP; allowing development beside the reservoir is hardly compatible with that suggestion, as none of the suggested mitigations could compensate for the loss of that open feel. . I also believe that the impact on views from the SDNP would be affected if interrupted by built development in the locations suggested. I suggest that the assessment for Landscape after mitigation is inaccurate. Setting a precedent We are extremely concerned that if this site is allocated for residential development, a precedent will be set allowing infilling by subsequent development. This potential must be assessed further before any agreement to allocate the site for development. Overall conclusion. Given the points noted above, I suggest that the whole of Area 18 should, as originally concluded by the Council, be considered as unsuitable for housing development; If the recommendation is, nonetheless, retained, then before any development permission is considered a full environmental assessment should take place to determine the impacts likely to follow;


I do not wish to propose a change to the policy wording. But I would like to see proper reassurance given in the background text that the final scale of expected housing in urban fringe sites would be determined following further studies and full consultation with the public.



No, but for information The Friends of Hollingbury and Burstead Woods was set up after the great storm of 1987. They are a group of local volunteers who look after two areas of woodland within Site 18, so that people can enjoy the area and wildlife can thrive. I am not a member but am acutely aware of the work they do on behalf of my family and thousands of other local residents.




Written Representations also. I would only wish to appear if the Inspector wanted to re-assess the Urban Fringe Housing Study.

Page 326 of 541


Respondent Number:

176

Individuals Name:

Mrs Maureen Holt, BA (LS)

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:Urban Fringe


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


I wish to make representations regarding PMO45 (DA7 Toads Hole Valley) and PMO64 (SA4 Urban Fringe). These two (see below) are in my opinion closely linked in that many residents of the City consider Brighton and Hove to be already full to capacity as any expansion of the built-up area is constrained by the South Downs National Park and the sea. Further major development will put even greater pressure on the currently under-pressure hospitals; doctors; dentists; and schools let alone roads and utility services. It is also of major concern that more and more student accommodation is being provided which puts even greater pressure on the Citys infrastructure and yet makes no contribution to housing numbers. PMO64 (SA4 Urban Fringe). I fully agree with the BHWF and the statement regarding the Strategy for the future of Brighton & Hove�- that the governments suggested housing target is much higher than the City can realistically accommodate. The environment, in which we and its wildlife live, will be turned increasingly into a concrete jungle. Support for the recognition of biodiversity importance within the urban fringe is welcomed. The City plan does emphasise the fact that the council is fully aware of its Biodiversity needs and that Urban Fringe sites will be scrutinised and it is expected that each individual site will be subject to further public consultation before they can be allocated for development. Linking green space in the city, thereby connecting habitats through public land and doing more to promote private gardens as wildlife habitats and encouraging people to discover more about their own local wildlife will benefit both nature and people. This concept is essential to a successful City Plan as Biodiversity is declining throughout England, and Government Planning policy states that developments should not be permitted if they are likely to cause significant harm in this regard. A net gain in biodiversity should be provided if possible, and, in cases where wildlife is likely to be affected, a requirement for planning applications to provide a statement to show how the proposed development would achieve this. It is understood that detailed Environmental Impact Assessments will be provided for every site involving the potential for destruction of wildlife. These should include Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA). Public Bodies have a formal Duty to promote biodiversity through the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The new National Planning Policy Framework (for England) NPPF - has been published recently by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Although PPS 9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation is replaced by the new Framework, the guidance which went with PPS 9 is retained & the NPPF contains references to both geological and landscape elements in several parts of Section 11 and in the Glossary. These would appear to provide much needed guidance on useful additions to the LBAP and its importance to the Biosphere Reserve Project application to UNESCO. Whilst the people of Brighton & Hove and its wildlife have the much prized South Downs National Park which will continue to be protected and enhanced, there is a world of difference for wildlife in having green spaces actually within the area where we live. It should also be recognised that much of the land within the defined urban fringe is also of high landscape sensitivity. It is therefore felt that such areas should be afforded similar protection to other areas of exceptional landscape value which are included in the formally designated SDNP. These areas have already enjoyed similar protection for many years by virtue of the policies in previous local plans. In addition to its inherent sensitivity, the urban fringe forms the setting of the South Downs National Park. Although the National Planning Policy Framework does not specifically protect the setting of National Parks, it is clear that the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park could be adversely affected by inappropriate development within its setting. The pressure on our infrastructure is highly pertinent to wildlife in open areas. If large-scale development was to proceed, it would lead to even more infrastructure being required and the need for even more land to accommodate it. It is critical that the adoption of a more imaginative approach to provide better re-use of brown field land occurs before the use of any green field land, together with essential linking of green space and it is noted opportunities for development of brownfield sites are to be maximised. This does not just involve disused sites; it is equally applicable to existing sites still in use. For example: people are changing their shopping habits with use of the internet, which means our high streets will increasingly change thereby offering exciting possibilities for turning them back to residential areas including the flats above leading to regeneration of areas & using existing infrastructure. There are several industrial/business park areas where land is not well-used plus large / ugly open car parking in particular. Two examples are: The Goldstone Retail Park

Page 327 of 541


opposite Hove Park, and the Pavilion Retail Park in Lewes Road. Well designed mixed commercial/business and residential development together with building over parking areas would make much better use of substantial areas. The Lewes Road site in particular presents great potential if linked to the adjacent Preston Barracks and Brighton University sites. It is more difficult than developing green field sites but eventually so very much more worthwhile.






Respondent Number:

113

Individuals Name:

Paul Tibbey

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



It appears that Site 18 in this proposal will be sited on a Local Nature Reserve which I find unacceptable. Open green space is essential for the well-being of the community and the park is in regular use. I use it for walking and running. It is a well connected area which contributes to the open nature of Brighton and Hove. The report that suggested this Urban Fringe site was suitable for residential development is seriously flawed and cannot be derived from a credible evidence base. I contend that the proposal is unsound on the basis of ecology. The area for development supports an Elm hedge which in turn is home to the White letter Hairstreak butterfly. Brighton and Hove council has a duty to have regard to nature conservation as a public body under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and is also responsible for the National Elm Collection. Elm trees have already been felled in the area of Hollingbury Park due to dutch elm disease and so the immature elm which the development would impact on are needed to provide habitat for the butterfly. The butterfly is in itself a species of 'principal importance for purposes of conserving biodiversity' having declined dramatically due to the loss of it's foodplant, the elm. I note that the mitigation assessment of the report refers to 'over-provision' of open space in area 18. This is an entirely inappropriate assessment. It is essential for wildlife that there are some large areas of natural open space and the relatively large tracts of land which are undeveloped helped Brighton and Hove to achieve designation as a Biosphere. It is unthinkable that the council should, after achieving this accolade, go on to build housing on one of the key Local Nature Reserves in the city. Any attempt to buidl on this site would result in a huge uproar from the Brighton and Hove community.


Take out all reference to the development of Hollingbury park.





Page 328 of 541


Respondent Number:

112

Brighton & Hove's Wildlife Forum

Individuals Name:

Martin Robinson

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Brighton and Hove's Wildlife Forum is a non-profit community partnership of representatives from seventeen local wildlife groups with local experts in their field; and over a hundred naturalists, students and professional environmental consultants. BHWF has the commitment to conserve and enhance Biodiversity across the Brighton and Hove area and protect the very rare remaining chalk grassland. Biodiversity is declining in England, and Government Planning policy states that developments should not be permitted if they are likely to cause significant harm in this regard. A net gain in biodiversity should be provided if possible, and, in cases where wildlife is likely to be affected, we would like to see a requirement for planning applications to provide a statement to show how the proposed development would achieve this. The City plan emphasises the fact that the council is fully aware of their Biodiversity duties, and BHWF is pleased to note that it importantly states: Urban fringe sites will be scrutinised and expect that each individual site will be subject to further public consultation before they can be allocated for development. Opportunities for development of brownfield sites are to be maximised, 2.19, and the city's countryside and the South Downs National Park will continue to be protected. The urban fringe is important in terms of biodiversity. We understand that detailed Environmental Impact Assessments will be provided for every site involving the potential for destruction of wildlife. These should include Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) Public Bodies have a formal Duty to promote biodiversity through the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Section 40 aims ...to raise the profile of biodiversity in England and Wales, so that the conservation of biodiversity becomes properly embedded in all relevant policies and decisions made by public authorities�. The NPPF contains references to geological and landscape elements in several parts of Section 11 and in the Glossary. We would draw attention in particular to paragraphs 109, 113, 114, 115 and 117. These would appear to provide much needed guidance on useful additions to the LBAP and its importance to the Biosphere Reserve Project application to UNESCO. The new National Planning Policy Framework (for England) NPPF - has been published recently by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Although PPS 9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation is replaced by the new Framework, the guidance which went with PPS 9 is retained (i.e. Ref 24 in 113 refers to Government Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system).


RE-INSERT the following without the deletions - paras 3.154 & 3.155. These areas are vulnerable to development pressures./Careful use and management of land within the urban fringe is therefore essential./ SA4 URBAN FRINGE The (Where appropriate, the) council will promote and support the careful use and management of land within the urban fringe to achieve the following objectives "Where appropriate" should be removed. It leaves it too open to abuse.:


It is the strong view of many residents of the City that it is already full to capacity and expansion of the built-up area is in effect prohibited by the South Downs National Park and the sea. Further major development will put even greater pressure on the currently under-pressure hospitals; doctors; dentists; and schools let alone the roads and utility services. It is also of major concern that more and more student accommodation is being provided which puts even greater pressure on the City's infrastructure and yet makes no contribution to housing numbers and is most unlikely to release currently student occupied HMOs back to normal residential use. We fully agree with the

Page 329 of 541


statement in 2.12 Strategy for the future of Brighton & Hove� that the governments suggested housing target is much higher than the City can realistically accommodate. Our concern as a Wildlife Forum is that the town in which we live will be turned into an increasingly concreted area with adverse impact upon the environment and its wildlife. Whilst we and our wildlife have the much-prized South Downs National Park, there is a world of difference to us and our wildlife in having green spaces actually within the area where we live. Our opening comment above in relation to the pressure on our infrastructure is highly pertinent to wildlife and our open areas. If large-scale development was to proceed, it would lead to even more infrastructure being required and the need for more land to accommodate it. It is critical that more imagination is used to make better use of brown field land. This does not just involve disused sites; it is equally applicable to existing sites still in use. For example: people are changing their shopping habits with use of the internet in particular, which means that our high streets will increasingly change thereby offering exciting possibilities for turning them back to residential areas including the flats above leading to regeneration of areas using existing infrastructure. There are several industrial/business park areas where land is not well-used plus large and ugly open car parking in particular. Just two examples would be: The Goldstone Retail Park opposite Hove Park, and the Pavilion Retail Park in Lewes Road. Welldesigned mixed commercial/business and residential development together with building over parking areas would make much better use of substantial areas. The Lewes Road site in particular presents great potential if linked to the adjacent Preston Barracks and Brighton University sites. Yes, it is more difficult than developing green field sites, but surely that is no excuse? In 2010 the Forum published its Environment, Nature Conservation Agenda�. Item 3 of our 10 point Agenda was:- More could be done to promote private gardens as wildlife habitats. Linking green space in the city, thereby connecting habitats through public land and private gardens, and encouraging people to discover more about their local wildlife will benefit both nature and people. Passing sightings on to the Booth Museum and 'City Wildlife' will highlight the richness in our local ecology.� Whilst we had not seen this as representing a charter for new houses in back gardens or large house extensions to existing properties, we had seen such proposals as inevitable and taking the pressure off the development of our remaining limited green field land. Whilst we would prefer to see such gardens remain as green space, we had seen them as presenting the opportunity for the Planners to adopt a mindset of taking every opportunity to enhance the environment in which we live. This would apply to all privately and publicly owned areas. Adoption of a more imaginative approach to the re-use of brown field land, before the use of any green field land together with the linking of green space, in its broadest sense, throughout the area is essential to the success of our City Plan.





Page 330 of 541


Respondent Number:

183

Individuals Name:

Dr Philip Denbigh and Mrs Denise Denbigh

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Regarding the revised application BH2014/02589 for 85 one, two, three and four bedroom dwellings on the Meadow Vale fields our original objections stated in our letter to Liz Arnold dated 29 August remain unchanged. The reduction from 100 houses to 85 houses would still be a disaster in terms of 1. The merger of Rottingdean and Ovingdean, such a conurbation resulting in a total change to the rural character of the area 2. The likelihood of increased flooding, particularly at the low point of Ovingdean 3. increased traffic in Ovingdean Road but also extending to Rottingdean, the old part of Ovingdean, Woodingdean and even on the A27 at the turn off the the B2123. 4. Loss of flora and fauna - some rare






Page 331 of 541


Respondent Number:

181

Individuals Name:

Councillor Geoffrey Theobald

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Agree with comments made by resident John Divine I have no objection to the use of "brown field" sites nor even infill sections of unused land for construction. However the open green spaces used for leisure and recreation will have an increase in their importance as the population increases in accordance with this plan. This council should take steps to protect these open green spaces from development in perpetuity and not just within the scope of this plan and whatever follows.






Page 332 of 541


Respondent Number:

115

Individuals Name:

Anthony L Cooke

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


Urban Fringe Assessment Site 18 I am writing to voice my concern at the proposal to develop on Hollingbury Park. In my time I have seen the development of the whole of Westdene, Hollingbury and most of Patcham and I consider that building on the remaining green areas as a matter of very great concern. Whilst I appreciate that the process may well have come about as a directive from central government I believe that the objective could be fully exploiting the available brownfield sites. When I first moved into my present property in 1977 I was told by Brighton Council that Hollingbury Park was an area of Natural Beauty and would never be built on and one felt justified in accepting that statement. Unlike the proposed development at the end of Ladies Mile Road, it is not scrubland but a cultivated area which provides recreational facilities quite apart from the dozens of local people who walk their dogs on the open green area and into adjacent woods. (I have no intention of arguing in favour of the further development of Windmill View, as there may well be arguments based on the flora and other aspects there which I am not aware of as I am not familiar with the area). It is interesting to note that the area concerned is referred to in the Councils Urban Fringe Assessment as land south of Hollingbury Golf Course and north of Hollingbury Park I do not know whether this is intended to deceive, but the and is indeed part of Hollingbury Park and to describe it otherwise is a misrepresentation. I appreciate that the area at risk in Holingbury Park appears remote from the play area provided for young children adjacent to the tennis courts and Varndean School, but for those living in the upper reaches of Ditchling Road, Surrenden Road, Woodbourne Avenue and the surrounding area, it provides a facility which is much appreciated for its general character or rural aspect which will be lost if development takes place. To deprive local residents and future generations this enjoyment for the sake of 20 houses is in my opinion outrageous particularly as it represents as infinitesimal part of the whole requirement which in any case can be provided for from existing brownfield sites. It is no good arguing that only the fringe is going to be developed and that there is plenty of space to walk ones dog. The whole ambience of the area will be changed and it is inevitable that once some development takes place more will follow. It is the very nature of the beast. Small changes will be required, such as the demolition of the bus shelter opposite the turning into Surrenden Road. One of the very few now left, but I still remember with nostalgia those at the top and bottom of Beaconsfield Villas and at Fiveways. There is much generalisation in the study to justify the conclusions, which on closer inspection are nonsense. For instance, what benefit to the wider local economy and opportunities for investment and regeneration occur by destroying part of the parkland presently enjoyed by local residents? Or, what wider economic, environmental and social (e.g. health and wellbeing) benefits are there for the city; and it is ironic that the expansion of public open space is spoken of as a positive outcome. Further development in Patcham is referred to as potentially leading to the provision of open space facilities such as sports fields. Organised football matches used to be played through the season at Hollingbury Park. Presumably there are now adequate playing areas elsewhere and its slope is not ideal, but the time may well come when this facility is again required but will no longer be available. In the meantime young people are able to play improvised ball games of all sorts and indulge in activities such as kite flying, without regard to traffic or homeowners. The council appear to be concerned with maintaining the benefit of amenity green space whilst being prepared to take from the residents of this area that very benefit which as bought many to this area and which is irreplaceable. I have spoken of this being a cultivated area and presumably we will no longer have the enjoyment of the daffodils and crocus which grow and are maintained by the Council on the very spots to be vandalized.






Page 333 of 541


Respondent Number:

185

Member of Parliament for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven

Individuals Name:

Simon Kirby MP

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


I am receiving representations from constituents in Ovingdean regarding the proposal to develop over 50 properties in the Conservation Area. As you will know, I firmly believe that the City Council should be looking at brownfield sites, city centre sites and locations like Shoreham Harbour before considering areas on the urban fringe for development. Therefore, I would be grateful if my objection to this part of the Urban Fringe Report could be noted by the City Council. I would be grateful if you could note that as the Member of Parliament, representing Ovingdean, that I formally object to the inclusion of the following parcels of land for use as housing land: Land at Wanderdown Road Open Space and adjacent to Ovingdean and Falmer Road, Ovingdean (50 homes); Land to rear of Longhill Road (6 homes).






Page 334 of 541


Respondent Number:

152

Individuals Name:

Mr Colin Brace



2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Whilst the support for new housing in urban fringe areas is welcomed, the Urban Fringe Assessment (June 2014) promotes low density developments on many of these sites. This places even greater emphasis on the need to make the most efficient use of urban brownfield land in order to meet the housing needs of the city.







Page 335 of 541


Respondent Number:

147

Individuals Name:

J Shepherd

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:




inadequate appraisal


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


In adequate evaluation of alternatives shown. Fails to provide a reasonable solution to deficiencies it seeks to address, whist degrading the objectives of the original PM010 and PM064.







Page 336 of 541


Respondent Number:

108

Individuals Name:

Ian Robertson

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing with regard to the proposed building of approximately 380 dwelling in the Benfield Valley on the land currently a 9 hole golf course. I think the idea is totally wrong and I intend to oppose the plans as I don't believe the area could sustain any further housing. For a start the local infrastructure would not cope with the extra amount of housing, the schools, doctors etc. could not cope with the amount of families and so on that this development would bring to the area. Another reason for my opposition is that the local roads in the area could not cope with the obvious increase in cars, vans etc. The roads all around here such as Hangleton Lane, Fox Way the Hangleton Link Road all get very busy at certain times of the day and could not cope with all the extra traffic this development would bring. When looking around Sussex and the local area there are lots of area's that would be more suitable for new housing and would not make already quite busy area's even more congested and more frustrating for the local people, not to mention the added pollution that the extra traffic would create, also does not say much for the 'green' policies supposedly in place!! I strongly appose the proposed building of these houses and will do so until this ridiculous plan is abandoned.






Page 337 of 541


Respondent Number:

117


n/a



1


Policy/Section:SA4





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Modifications proposed to Policy SA4 include the introduction of reference to the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment as a material consideration in the determination of any application for residential development which comes forward in the urban fringe in advance of the adoption of City Plan Part 2. In light of the fact that the Urban Fringe Assessment 2014 is a broad brush exercise which has been based on a desktop assessment rather than detailed site visits or surveys, it is vital that the development capacities indicated by the Urban Fringe Assessment 2014 are not applied by the Council as an artificial cap on development. Development capacities within the Urban Fringe Assessment must be recognised as indicative only and the Council must commit within the City Plan Part One to considering opportunities to deliver higher levels of development on urban fringe sites, where justified by detailed site specific information. This is particularly important given the significant shortfall of delivery proposed by the City Plan Part One against objectively assessed housing needs. Urban Fringe Assessment Following receipt of the City Plan Inspectors initial conclusions in December 2013, which required the council to undertake a more rigorous assessment of urban fringe sites, Brighton and Hove City Council commissioned Land Use Consultants (LUC) to undertake an independent assessment of 66 urban fringe sites. The results were published on 3rd July 2014. In the City Plan Inspectors main conclusions, published 13 December 2013, Miss Graham noted that the overall impression given by the Councils assessment of urban fringe sites is that the starting point for analysis of these sites has been the desire to resist development, which is at odds with the Frameworks requirement that the plan should be positively prepared�. As clearly set out in Miss Grahams letter dated 22 July 2013, a key requirement of a rigorous and positively prepared assessment of the urban fringe sites is a consideration of whether any identified or perceived constrained can be satisfactorily overcome. Whilst the methodology proposed within the LUC Assessment includes a consideration of potential mitigation, it is clear that the actual assessment of sites has been undertaken in an inflexible and inefficient way that has maximised potential constraints and limited opportunities for mitigation. Furthermore, factual inaccuracies and errors has led to the capacity of some sites being artificially constrained. Contrary to the requirements clearly set out by the City Plan Inspector, the LUC Assessment does not represent a positive or robust assessment of urban fringe sites. For example, with regard to Land to the south of Ovingdean Road (Site Ref: 42) the LUC assessment concludes that it is suitable for development, however, recommends that development is restricted to 45 dwellings along the western edge of the site. The restriction of development to this level and area of the site is entirely unjustified by the available evidence and the limited consideration of potential mitigation demonstrates a negative starting point for the assessment. It is clear that, without any evidenced justification, the starting point for the LUC Assessment for Site 42 was that only a small proportion of the site should be developed. The assessment therefore only considered the potential to mitigate development of this small proportion, as opposed to the entire site. Contrary to the City Plan Inspectors advice, this does not represent positive or objective planning. As illustrated by our comments in Table 1 below, the scores and overall conclusion arrived at for Site 42 are based on factually inaccurate information and indicate that a site visit has not been carried out. On the basis of a limited desktop exercise, the assessment comments and places weight on matters which can only be robustly assessed by detailed on-site surveys, resulting in a clear under assessment of site capacities. For example in relation to Site 42, the assessment: - Inaccurately states that the site is part of a

Page 338 of 541


SNCI; - Gives weight to non-statutory ecological designations (e.g. Nature Improvement Area) and fails to consider the ecological quality/potential of the site on the ground, having regard to the fact that it is a heavily grazed site; - Fails to give adequate weight to ecological and biodiversity benefits that can be delivered by new development; - States that the site is visible from higher ground to the east which is factually incorrect and demonstrates that the assessment of landscape impact has not been based on a desktop exercise rather than site visit; - States that the site is surrounded by development and therefore is not in a location that would appear uncharacteristic for housing development�, however then inexplicitly rules out development of the whole site on the basis that there could be a concern about that it would leave little space between Woodingdean and Ovingdean�. It is not clarified for whom there would be a concern. There are no existing or proposed policies which seek to retain a physical gap between Ovingdean and Woodingdean. Furthermore, as a result of existing development to the north of the site, development of Site 42 in its entirety would not physically bring Ovingdean any closer to Woodingdean. The conclusion reached is therefore entirely unjustified. Furthermore, the assessment does not then consider how such concerns could be mitigated (e.g. through landscape design), indicating that the assessment is not an impartial or objective exercise. It is on this basis alone that the assessment concludes the capacity of the site should be limited to 45 dwellings and disregards the capacity of up to 100 dwellings proposed by a live planning application. The LUC Assessment is accompanied by a map which defines a small area of Site 42 as having development potential. The eastern boundary of the defined development potential area follows a agricultural track that can be viewed on aerial photography, however does not exist as a physical boundary on the ground. The boundary of the proposed development area, is therefore and exposed and artificial construct (rather than based on a natural physical boundary), again suggesting that the assessment has been based solely on a simple desktop assessment rather than a site visit and any meaningful consideration of the sites development potential.


A further modification to Policy SA4 should therefore be made to clarify that opportunities to deliver greater levels of sustainable development within the urban fringe than anticipated by the Urban Fringe Assessment 2014 will be supported where it can be demonstrated by detailed site-specific evidence that no significant adverse impacts will outweigh the benefits of development�.



(The objector has included an annotated version of the Urban Fringe Assessment of Site 42, including their comments and adjusted score, in addition to a map indicating biodiversity designations. Please see hard copy).


ii) Participate at the Examination in Public


To further explain and discuss the matters raised by these representations which are technical in nature and require in depth consideration and discussion.

Page 339 of 541


Respondent Number:

187

Individuals Name:

John Divine

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I have no objection to the use of "brown field" sites nor even infill sections of unused land for construction. However the open green spaces used for leisure and recreation will have an increase in their importance as the population increases in accordance with this plan. This council should take steps to protect these open green spaces from development in perpetuity and not just within the scope of this plan and whatever follows.






Page 340 of 541


Respondent Number:

179

Individuals Name:

Gillian Taylor

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Site 18 has been shown on the Council's previous plans as a Local Nature Reserve for a considerable number of years as the Council, quite rightly, recognizes the importance of this area for its varied biodiversity which includes some of the important and increasingly rare chalk downland. Although signs in the area clearly inform local residents that this is a Local Nature Reserve it has unfortunately never been formally declared as such and its status is only a proposed LNR so residents have been misled in thinking this area had more protection from development than it has. The Urban Fringe Assessment acknowledges that over 90% of Site 18 is a proposed Local Nature Reserve and highly valued for its landscape and yet it reaches the conclusion that the adverse impact of housing to the north and south of the covered reservoir would be manageable! Having studied this area in detail for my degree in Landscape Studies and having undertaken biological recording on the area where housing is proposed, and having read the LUC report commissioned by the Council, which led to the conclusion that Site 18 could be a suitable area to accommodate 20 houses, I have identified some fundamental flaws and the Urban Fringe Assessment for Site 18 should not be relied on as it is unsound: it is obvious that the consultants relied too heavily on "desk top" investigation and to adopt the City Plan as it stands, which allows for housing on the urban fringe, on a report that is clearly flawed would be a travesty. The following points should be noted in respect of the assessment undertaken of Site 18 in the Urban Fringe Report. The consultants failed to take into account the covered reservoir situated in the middle of the proposed housing area: this is relic chalk grassland and contains a number of orchid species, most notably the rare and protected Early Spider orchid (Ophrys spegoides) which is slowly increasing and if left undisturbed is likely to spread beyond the perimeter fence into the area identified for housing. The Council and the local conservation group has worked hard over the last 27 years to increase the biodiversity of this area and earlier this year improved the meadow north of the covered reservoir by the installation of chalk banks planted with wild flowers to attract in particular more butterfly and bee species. Since the mowing regime was changed the meadow has flourished and become a haven for insects and some of the plant species on the reservoir have successfully spread into it. If housing were allowed the size of the meadow area would be halved, but this is not clear from the Urban Fringe Assessment as the consultants have used an out-of-date map which does not show the full extent of the wooded area. Neither have they had regard to the importance of the elms in the area which support the White Letter Hairstreak butterfly, sightings of which have been numerous this summer. There are four elms in the meadow area and a line of elms fronting the road with an elm hedge developing between them, most of which would be lost, and with them the White letter Hairstreak, if development were to be allowed. Although replanting could be carried out elsewhere almost 20 years of growth would be lost. The meadow is also a hunting area for several bat species and housing would negatively impact on them. The Council and the Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead Woods has an on-going Management Plan for the woods and meadow within Site 18 and housing would not be compatible with its aims and objectives. Mitigation measures offered would be of little consequence as the loss of the area of land cannot be compensated for. The report is also flawed in that it refers to an over provision of open space in Site 18 but it does not take into account that Stanmer Park, which it includes, is separated by the busy Brighton by-pass and it also fails to take into consideration the topography of the area known as Wild Park, which again makes access more difficult and the latter serves the area of Brighton known as Moulsecoomb whereas Hollingbury park is used mainly by the residents living in the adjoining wards of Patcham, Withdean and Preston which have an under provision of open space. The Council recently conducted a survey that concluded that residents should have access to open space within 10 minutes walk of their home; developing the area for housing does nothing to help this. The consultants have also included the private land on the opposite side of Ditchling Road as public green space, another fundamental error. Allowing housing development on a public park would set a bad precedent and there would be pressure to infill the area along the whole of the eastern side of Ditchling Road. The character of the area with its views to the South Downs and Iron Age hill fort would be compromised as would the historic Trolley Bus Shelter in the area to the south of the

Page 341 of 541


reservoir. Also I do not believe that Southern Water have been consulted about any pollution issues deriving from development. Taking all of the above into consideration I would suggest that a more robust reassessment should be undertaken before allowing housing on Site 18.


A more robust reassessment should be undertaken before allowing housing on Site 18.






the respondent indicated that they would also like to make written representations, but would wish to appear if the Inspector wantde to re-assess the Urban Fringe Assessment.

Page 342 of 541


Respondent Number:

177

Individuals Name:

Richard Leggatt

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The assessment points out that over 90% of Site 18 is a proposed Local Nature Reserve and of high landscape value; nonetheless it concludes that housing to the north and south of the covered reservoir would have manageable adverse impacts. It is our view that the report which led to that assessment, and to the inclusion of Site 18 as an Urban Fringe site suitable for residential development, was inaccurate and has some fundamental flaws. This piece of work cannot be seen as a robust and credible evidence base�. We seek to ensure that the policy and implementation of the Plan is not based on work that could be unsound. The following notes address perceived weaknesses in the assessment of Area 18 of the Urban Fringe assessment. Ecology. Exclusion of the reservoir from the review has meant that the account of secondary constraints does not mention the important orchid colonies there, including the early spider orchid, a red listed species, and protected under schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The two areas marked for residential development are adjacent to this site and could impact negatively on these species. The white-letter hairstreak butterfly is a species of principal importance for purposes of conserving biodiversity (Natural environment and Rural communities act, 2006), and the Local Biodiversity Action Plan identifies it as a locally important species, dependent on mature elms. . It is not mentioned either in the Councils original assessment or this review. Within Area 18 elms occur both in the woodland and along the edge of Ditchling Road (in the area suggested for possible housing). If the immature trees along the road edge were lost to development, mitigation by replacement elsewhere could mean the loss of several years growth and thus defer the time at which further suitable habitat for the white-letter hairstreak became available. We are aware of bats using Hollingbury Park and are concerned that housing and consequent nighttime lighting in this area could affect their roosting and flight paths. The Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead Woods Management Plan, for the woods and associated areas within Area 18, records biodiversity objectives some of which would be jeopardised by any development. We believe that the assessment for Ecology after mitigation is therefore likely to be nearer a negative than neutral. Open space. The mitigation assessment refers to over-provision of most kinds of open space in Area 18, as calculated with reference to the boundaries of Hollingbury & Stanmer ward. The report acknowledges that the calculation is distorted by the inclusion of Stanmer Park and Wild Park in the ward. It is a serious weakness of the review process and assumptions that they do not allow for the more relevant approach of considering the value of Area 18 to those living in the vicinity regardless of which wards happen to include their homes. The home addresses of members of the Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead woods indicate a wide spread of visitors including from Preston Park ward, Withdean ward, and Patcham ward, all three of which have boundaries abutting the western edge of Area 18. This suggests that the over provision� as calculated is inappropriate, particularly as Preston Park ward is regarded as having an underprovision. Given the above, we suggest that there should be a re-evaluation of the assessment made of this area. Landscape. The list of secondary constraints does not note that there are no buildings fronting the east side of Ditchling Road north of 414 Ditchling Rd, i.e. immediately south of the southern border of Area 18; rather, there is a variety of green features adjoining the east side of the road all the way north to the SDNP. This unbuilt line would be destroyed by development anywhere along it, and the present open feel of the western part of Area 18 would be lost until close to the Area's northern boundary. In the final report there is a suggestion (1.9 and 2.11) that Area 18 could be designated a Local Green Space, as one of four green wedges extending into the built up area from the SDNP; allowing development beside the reservoir is hardly compatible with that suggestion, as none of the suggested mitigations could compensate for the loss of that open feel. We also believe that the impact on views from the SDNP would be affected if interrupted by built development in the locations suggested. We suggest that the assessment for Landscape after mitigation is inaccurate. Setting a precedent We are extremely concerned that if this site is allocated for residential development, a precedent will be set allowing infilling by subsequent development. This potential must be assessed further before any agreement to allocate the site for development. Overall conclusion. Given the points noted above, we suggest that the whole of Area 18 should, as originally

Page 343 of 541







The Friends of Hollingbury and Burstead Woods was set up after the great storm of 1987. We are a group of local volunteers who look after two areas of woodland within Site 18, so that people can enjoy the area and wildlife can thrive. We have a constitution and an elected Committee. Total current members: 58 The Committee has approved this response THIS WOULD BE A TRULY DREWADFUL MOVE ON ONE OF THE CITY'S ICONIC APPROACH ROADS - PLEASE RECONSIDER




The respondent also indicated that he would like to submit written representations, and would only wish to appear at the EIP is the Inspector wanted to re-assess the Urban Fringe Study.

Respondent Number:

107

Individuals Name:

Jill Humphrey

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing to express my objection to the proposal to build houses on the Crave Vale allotment site. The allotments provide a fabulous space for people living in flats with no outdoor space, to enjoy being outside at the same time as enabling them to be productive by growing fruit and veg. Personally it provides me with a real boost to be able to have some exercise in the fresh air and to meet a whole range of new people. I live within a 15 min walk of the allotment site which means that I can access it easily. I understand that if the site is developed that another site for allotments would have to be provided. I am not aware of any such site which would enable me to walk to my plot. I have invested a considerable amount of time and effort bringing my plot into use, my wellbeing is greatly improved and I am learning a range of new skills as well as having crops of delicious organic vegetables and fruit. I am not against building new homes, however there are extensive under-utilised sites in the City which should be utilised before even considering taking away any allotment sites.






Page 344 of 541


Respondent Number:

178

Individuals Name:

Celia Leggatt

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The assessment points out that over 90% of Site 18 is a proposed Local Nature Reserve and of high landscape value; nonetheless it concludes that housing to the north and south of the covered reservoir would have manageable adverse impacts. It is our view that the report which led to that assessment, and to the inclusion of Site 18 as an Urban Fringe site suitable for residential development, was inaccurate and has some fundamental flaws. This piece of work cannot be seen as a robust and credible evidence base�. We seek to ensure that the policy and implementation of the Plan is not based on work that could be unsound. The following notes address perceived weaknesses in the assessment of Area 18 of the Urban Fringe assessment. Ecology. Exclusion of the reservoir from the review has meant that the account of secondary constraints does not mention the important orchid colonies there, including the early spider orchid, a red listed species, and protected under schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The two areas marked for residential development are adjacent to this site and could impact negatively on these species. The white-letter hairstreak butterfly is a species of principal importance for purposes of conserving biodiversity (Natural environment and Rural communities act, 2006), and the Local Biodiversity Action Plan identifies it as a locally important species, dependent on mature elms. . It is not mentioned either in the Councils original assessment or this review. Within Area 18 elms occur both in the woodland and along the edge of Ditchling Road (in the area suggested for possible housing). If the immature trees along the road edge were lost to development, mitigation by replacement elsewhere could mean the loss of several years growth and thus defer the time at which further suitable habitat for the white-letter hairstreak became available. We are aware of bats using Hollingbury Park and are concerned that housing and consequent nighttime lighting in this area could affect their roosting and flight paths. The Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead Woods Management Plan, for the woods and associated areas within Area 18, records biodiversity objectives some of which would be jeopardised by any development. We believe that the assessment for Ecology after mitigation is therefore likely to be nearer a negative than neutral. Open space. The mitigation assessment refers to over-provision of most kinds of open space in Area 18, as calculated with reference to the boundaries of Hollingbury & Stanmer ward. The report acknowledges that the calculation is distorted by the inclusion of Stanmer Park and Wild Park in the ward. It is a serious weakness of the review process and assumptions that they do not allow for the more relevant approach of considering the value of Area 18 to those living in the vicinity regardless of which wards happen to include their homes. The home addresses of members of the Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead woods indicate a wide spread of visitors including from Preston Park ward, Withdean ward, and Patcham ward, all three of which have boundaries abutting the western edge of Area 18. This suggests that the over provision� as calculated is inappropriate, particularly as Preston Park ward is regarded as having an underprovision. Given the above, we suggest that there should be a re-evaluation of the assessment made of this area. Landscape. The list of secondary constraints does not note that there are no buildings fronting the east side of Ditchling Road north of 414 Ditchling Rd, i.e. immediately south of the southern border of Area 18; rather, there is a variety of green features adjoining the east side of the road all the way north to the SDNP. This unbuilt line would be destroyed by development anywhere along it, and the present open feel of the western part of Area 18 would be lost until close to the Area's northern boundary. In the final report there is a suggestion (1.9 and 2.11) that Area 18 could be designated a Local Green Space, as one of four green wedges extending into the built up area from the SDNP; allowing development beside the reservoir is hardly compatible with that suggestion, as none of the suggested mitigations could compensate for the loss of that open feel. We also believe that the impact on views from the SDNP would be affected if interrupted by built development in the locations suggested. We suggest that the assessment for Landscape after mitigation is inaccurate. Setting a precedent We are extremely concerned that if this site is allocated for residential development, a precedent will be set allowing infilling by subsequent development. This potential must be assessed further before any agreement to allocate the site for development. Overall conclusion. Given the points noted above, we suggest that the whole of Area 18 should, as originally

Page 345 of 541







For information: The Friends of Hollingbury and Burstead Woods was set up after the great storm of 1987. We are a group of local volunteers who look after two areas of woodland within Site 18, so that people can enjoy the area and wildlife can thrive. We have a constitution and an elected Committee. Total current members: 58 The Committee has approved this response THIS WOULD BE A TRULY DREADFUL MOVE ON ONE OF THE CITY'S ICONIC APPROACH ROADS - PLEASE RECONSIDER




The respondent indicated that they would like to submit written representations, and would only wish to appear if the Inspector wanted to re-assess the Urban Fringe Study.

Respondent Number:

184

Individuals Name:

Dr James Odonnell

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:








See comments for CP1.B proposed modification PM072.



Page 346 of 541


Respondent Number:

106

Preston & Patcham Society

Individuals Name:

Mr Nicholas White

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA4




I have relied on the various documents and assessments provided on BHCC's website as part of this consultation exercise. My opinion of legal compliance is based on my interpretation of the papers I have read but is not exhaustive, I'm not professionally qualified to opine on legal matters and my response is therefore given on a 'best efforts' basis without responsibility on the part of the writer or the Society I represent.


Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


We believe the proposed modification meets the soundness test criteria (set out above among other places)




We are a local amenity society committed to the preservation and enhancement of those features making a positive contribution to our area's built and natural environment. We recognise the need for appropriate development and endeavor to work positively with Brighton&Hove City Council and other amenity groups to this end. The Society wishes to record its support for BHCC's aim of establishing a new authorised City Plan. We shall look forward to the opportunity in due course to comment further on the details of potential sites (for example at Hollingbury Park and Ladies Mile Road), which might qualify for local open space designation. BHCC's guidance note 2.2 states If you are replying on behalf of an organisation or group who share a common view, please indicate how many people the organisation or group is representing and how the group has approved the comments. Please see the following paragraph The Preston and Patcham Society was founded in 1973. Our work is concerned with maintaining a sense of continuity in the community and matters related to conservation issues. It has a membership in the order of 100 paying members, a written constitution and a committee (presently of 6 active members). The response to this consultation was mentioned in the Committee's meeting minutes of 17 November 2014 and subsequently authorised by way of detailed correspondence between members, with the intention that this response be ratified at our next meeting.




Page 347 of 541


Respondent Number:

137



Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA4 Urban Fringe, pages 111 113


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


The Sussex Wildlife Trust supports the modification of paragraph 3.154 as the additional wording highlights the biodiversity value of the urban fringe in line with paragraph 117 of the NPPF. We also support the addition of and where it can be clearly demonstrated that in Policy SA4. Without this wording, we do not feel that the policy would be consistent with NPPF paragraphs 109 or 117. The Sussex Wildlife Trust supports the modification in SA4 for the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment to be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications until Part 2 of the City Plan is formally adopted. This will ensure that any development on the urban fringe is plan led as per NPPF paragraphs 17 and 150. As the UFA will be a material consideration rather than just an evidence document, we do feel that there should have been some formal public consultation. However given the current pressure to have an up to date Local Plan (NPPF, para 49) and the often irreversible damage a non-plan led system can cause, the Trust does accept that using the UFA as a material consideration is the most appropriate strategy for the time being. We do expect full public consultation on the inclusion of any of the UFA sites in Part Two of the City Plan.






Page 348 of 541


Respondent Number:

119



Agents Name:


8


Policy/Section:SA4


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


We strongly support Policy SA4. As housing developments increase so open spaces will be used up, and it is critical that what remains is suitable and adequate to serve the community's needs. We may be close to the South Downs National Park, but that is not the same as having a local park for the children to play in. We suggest that in the case of all new developments within the urban fringe there should be studies carried out of housing density in relation to available open spaces. This would ideally mean a planning brief for each identified site to ensure that enough open space is left after the housing has been built. As a minimum, each new planning application should include reference to the open spaces that would be provided to serve the development, and the amount of space should vary with the density of the development. This appears to be missing from the Plan at present. An example of the type of studies we are suggesting would be to look at ways in which new housing and open space related to it, could be better integrated so that the new houses surround a common area of open space. Land use studies have shown that high densities can be achieved by building around the perimeter of a public open space. Brighton of course has many precedents for such types of development Brunswick and Regency Squares and Palmeira Square/Adelaide Crescent are prime examples. New housing on the urban fringe could be based on similar, though probably smaller scale models






Page 349 of 541


Respondent Number:

31


Individuals Name:


Agents Name:


5







Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


Our representation relating to PM010 explains why we believe that development of a few areas within the urban fringe will be inevitable if the housing target is increased to 13,200 dwellings. However the great importance of the urban fringe to the setting of the city and the Downs will necessitate great care with the extent and nature of any development. This makes the new wording essential as proposed in paragraph 3.155, and between paragraphs 3.157 and 3.158







Page 350 of 541


Respondent Number:

133


Individuals Name:

Bob Webzell

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:




The City commissioned independent consultants to view the various urban fringe site and sound recommendations were made which the Inspector urged us to accept, in order to have the City Plan approved. This policy is in my mind essential to getting BHCC's authority approved in matters of planning and growth


Sound?:Yes

Tests of soundness:


YES, some UFS are suitable for restricted development and in meeting local growth targets some must inevitably be used. What must not happen is to exceed the proposed optimum numbers on these sites by over-zealous developers who seek to maximise







Page 351 of 541


Respondent Number:

57

Brighton & Hove Economic Partnership

Individuals Name:

Dean Orgill, Chair

Agents Name:


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


The Economic Partnership is an association of 45 individuals drawn from every sector of the local economy which works with the local authority to publish the economic strategy for the city and to respond to inward investment and business retention enquiries. It is also one of the five area partnership comprising the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership on the ground. The Partnership provides the Chair for the City Employment & Skills Steering Group and the Local Strategic Partnership [Brighton & Hove Connected] which publishes the overarching Community Strategy. I am writing this letter on behalf of the Partnership in response to the proposed modification consultation of the City Plan Part One to register our unanimous support for the proposals for additional housing on the urban fringe. The Partnership has been closely involved with the emerging Local Development Framework since 2004 and has organised a series of consultation opportunities for businesses over the past decade. We are intimately acquainted with the detail of the housing proposals and also the other elements of the City Plan that will impact upon the local economy. We have looked at the most recent urban fringe study [Brighton & Hove Urban Fringe Assessment. Final Report. LUC. June 2014] in particular detail and had the opportunity to question city council planning officers at our regular meeting in September and subsequent one-to-one meetings. We were impressed with the thoroughness of the analysis and the range of sites included in the search. It is clear that the city will never be able to accommodate the anticipated housing demand up to 2030 and consequently the City Plan must demonstrate that it has explored every avenue of possible development and formed a realistic assessment of the quantum of housing deliverable in the Plan period. The Partnership is content that this has been accomplished. We are also content that the local authority has not only satisfied the duty to cooperate with neighbouring planning authorities but has exceeded this duty with the development of the Greater Brighton City Region and its Economic Board which, for the first time, sees council leaders and chief executives addressing common issues in the citys functional economic area.






Page 352 of 541


Respondent Number:

153

Westfield Investments Ltd

Individuals Name:

Colin Brace

Agents Name:


2




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Urban Fringe Sites (SA4) Whilst the support for new housing in urban fringe areas is welcomed, the Urban Fringe Assessment (June 2014) promotes low density developments on many of these sites. This places even greater emphasis on the need to make the most efficient use of urban brownfield land in order to meet the housing needs of the city.






Page 353 of 541


Respondent Number:

167


Mike Clark

Agents Name:GVA


5


Policy/Section:SA5

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:





The UoB supports the objectives of emerging Policy SA5 to protect and enhance the natural beauty of the South Downs National Park and its setting in accordance with the statutory requirements of the Environment Act 1995. The UoB encourages the City Council to support the sustainable growth of the higher education sector and recognise appropriate opportunities for new development where this can be sympathetically incorporated into the landscape in accordance with the objectives of National Park policy. As highlighted above, UoB considers that opportunities for new development exist at the Falmer Campus, in light of the existing scale of development in the vicinity, to deliver additional academic and sporting facilities, that offers the potential for the UoB to meet its own strategic objectives whilst being sympathetic to the character and setting of the adjacent National Park. UoB encourages the City Council to recognise such opportunities for sustainable new development in sensitive locations, such as at Falmer (i.e. in the setting of the National Park) as highlighted above in reference to emerging Policy DA3 (Lewes Road) in order that the Council might realise its ambitions to develop a high-quality Academic Corridor and enhance the role of higher education provision in Brighton. The UoB does not wish to propose any amendments to emerging Policy SA5 (South Downs) but would direct the City Council towards linked comments made in respect to emerging Policy DA3 (Lewes Road) and the linked opportunities to promote sustainable growth at Falmer Campus.






Page 354 of 541


Respondent Number:

97



Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA5




Potential adverse impacts on the National Park must indeed be avoided as far as possible and mitigated as far as possible where adverse impacts are unavoidable and outweighed by any benefits of the development.


Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:









Page 355 of 541


Respondent Number:

126

Individuals Name:

Roger & Sue Harper

Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:SA5 The South Downs





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



I object to the changes in PM065 as the routes through the urban fringe clearly provide a gateway to the South Downs National Park. These routes must be protected and the revised wording offers little regard to protecting this area.


Revise wording to protect urban fringe






See comments related to objections to PM010

Page 356 of 541


Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


7


Policy/Section:The South Downs


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


Comment relates also to PM066 We are pleased to note that the draft Plan recognises that any development within the setting of the National Park should be consistent with and not prejudice National Park purposes and the duty of the National Park Authority. We generally support the modifications in PM65 and PM66.






Page 357 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


16


Policy/Section:SA5





Sound?:Yes

Tests of soundness:


Support the protection of the setting of the South Downs National Park. The Plan would be unsound if this was not included as the Council has a legal duty to have regard to National Park purposes.






Page 358 of 541


Respondent Number:

24


Mr James Rogers



3


Policy/Section:Policy SA5 The South Downs


Legally Compliant?:








Policy SA5 The South Downs 2.20. Policy SA5 has been adjusted through the proposed modifications to the City Plan and we are pleased to see that the majority of the modifications are enhancing the protection of the South Downs National Park through ensuring that adverse impacts are minimised and appropriate mitigation or compensatory measures are included. It is noted however that this should not be at the expense of providing for the Citys needs particularly that of housing, employment and transport uses.




Page 359 of 541


Respondent Number:

97



Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:SA5




Paragraph 3.168 should include a reference to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the South Downs National Park, which forms part of the first purpose of National Parks, and to tranquility (the absence of artificial light and/or noise) as an important characteristic of the National Park. Priority 4 should refer to all cultural heritage assets, not just scheduled monuments - the first purpose of National Parks refers to "cultural heritage" and not all archaeological remains of national importance are scheduled.


Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:









Page 360 of 541


Respondent Number:

126

Individuals Name:

Roger & Sue Harper

Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:SA5 South Downs





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



I object to the wording PM066. This should be expanded to not only include Stanmer Park but also protect Benfield Valley from housing development.


Re-worded to protect Benfield Valley from housing development






See previous comments against PM010

Page 361 of 541


Respondent Number:

122


Mrs Anna Budge

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:SA5





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The National Trust is grateful for the opportunity to comment on the proposed modifications to the emerging City Plan. The National Trust owns and manages a significant amount of land around Brighton and Hove within the South Downs National Park including Devils Dyke and Newtimber Hill, Fulking Escarpment and Edburton Hill, Southwick Hill, Ditchling Beacon and Black Cap. In addition to the land the Trust owns and manages Saddlescombe Farm to the north of the City which provides a unique insight into a historic farmstead within the South Downs and provides a learning space and education facility right on the South Downs Way. The National Trust has not previously commented on the City Plan as it has progressed but considers that the proposed modifications to the plan do have the potential to impact on the Trusts land and property which sits in close proximity to the City. The National Trust recognises that the City Council is trying to ensure partnership working within the South Downs to improve access through sustainable means. The Trust is clearly another major landowner that provides opportunities for accessible greenspace around the City and it is considered that discussions regarding improvements to accessibility and facilities could also be achieved on and adjacent to the Trusts land particularly at Devils Dyke. This is already a heavily used facility but one which could benefit from improvements, particularly in terms of its visitor facilities and interpretation as well as access from more sustainable modes of transport e.g.: extension of existing cycle way up dis-used railway. The Trust would request that the text be amended to recognise that some improvements are likely to be required to other facilities to promote understanding and access to the National Park for residents of the City and that this will require the involvement of other major landowners, such as The National Trust, to participate in discussions.


Para 3.165 The purpose of this policy is to provide clear planning guidance for proposals within the setting of the National Park and also to set out the Councils aspirations for the South Downs to inform planning proposals or future partnership working with the National Park authority and other major landowners, as appropriate. Para 3.166 An important role of the National Park Authority is to promote understanding of the South Downs and to promote access to the National Park by sustainable means. A number of these measures are likely to be implemented within the administrative area of Brighton and Hove and this emphasises the need for good partnership working with all key stakeholders to deliver improved interpretation, access and potentially improved visitor facilities.






Page 362 of 541


Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


11


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:





Comment relates also to PM066 We are pleased to note that the draft Plan recognises that any development within the setting of the National Park should be consistent with and not prejudice National Park purposes and the duty of the National Park Authority. We generally support the modifications in PM65 and PM66.






Page 363 of 541


Respondent Number:

7



Agents Name:


6


Policy/Section:SA6 Sustainable Neighbourhoods


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


PM068 Neighbourhoods and dwelling standards This is one of the modifications we negotiated with the city council and which we would like to see retained






Page 364 of 541


Respondent Number:

13


Individuals Name:

Sandy Crowhurst

Agents Name:


6


Policy/Section:SA6




Our concern is that there are no minimum space standards specified and there should be reference space guidelines. The term minimum space standards means nothing without actual guidance. Some change of use in North Laine has resulted in commercial property being altered to residential consisting of eg two rooms of 18 - 22 sqm, calling it a house.


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:









Page 365 of 541


Respondent Number:

119



Agents Name:


9


Policy/Section:SA6 Sustainable Neighbourhoods, page 121


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


We consider it vital that minimum space standards for all types of residential buildings are incorporated into the City Plan. We understand that these will be included in Part 2 of the Plan, but at this stage we would request that minimum space standards be subject to public consultation. We have seen recently too many instances where the lack of minimum space standards has resulted in approval of schemes which we would regard as the slums of the future.






Page 366 of 541


Respondent Number:

7



Agents Name:


7


Policy/Section:SA6 Sustainable Neighbourhoods


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


PM069 Neighbourhoods and dwelling standards This is one of the modifications we negotiated with the city council and which we would like to see retained






Page 367 of 541


Respondent Number:

167


Mike Clark

Agents Name:GVA


6


Policy/Section:CP1

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:


The main thrust of emerging Policy CP1 is to ensure the City Council makes sufficient provision of new homes to be built over the plan period (2010 2030) to meet the objectively assessed needs of its citizens. Similarly the objectives of emerging Policy CP21 is to ensure the City Council meets the increasing accommodation demands from students and to ensure new student accommodation is delivered in areas that help to create mixed, healthy and inclusive communities. The UoB supports the findings of the City Councils Housing and Development Needs Study (April 2014) which highlights the significant need for housing across Brighton & Hove. The University recognises its role in delivering key strategic allocations, such as Preston Barracks and Circus Street and welcomes the proposed uplift in housing numbers at Preston Barracks in particular. The proposed increase in housing numbers at Preston Barracks will contribute towards the more effective use of limited brownfield land within the city, consistent with the objectives of the NPPF and also assist with development viability, thereby helping to ensure that the strategic objectives of the Council to promote a comprehensive mixed use neighbourhood has financial support to achieve the envisaged outcome. UoB is committed to working with the City Council to identify opportunities to provide new housing in Brighton & Hove and in particular encourages the Council to consider opportunities for alternative uses of vacant / redundant buildings currently owned by the University and which do not reflect the Universitys strategic objectives for growth. Such assets could provide an important opportunity to contribute towards the Councils challenging housing needs and the University welcomes further discussions surrounding specific University owned sites that could contribute towards these needs, where for example they are not in the right locations for higher education provision.









Page 368 of 541


Respondent Number:

16

Individuals Name:

Steve Parry

Agents Name:


8


Policy/Section:CP1

Support / Object:



Whilst finding it possible to increase the number of new builds from 11,300 to 13,200 during the period to 2030 BHCC officers provide no rationale as to how this increase is achieved other than changing the numbers for different sites on the basis that the Inspector stated that the numbers were not adequate. Why not increase the numbers to 21,000?


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Whilst finding it possible to increase the number of new builds from 11,300 to 13,200 during the period to 2030 BHCC officers provide no rationale as to how this increase is achieved other than changing the numbers for different sites on the basis that the Inspector stated that the numbers were not adequate. Why not increase the numbers to 21,000?







Page 369 of 541


Respondent Number:

29

Individuals Name:

Andy Davies

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:CP1. B


Legally Compliant?:








I appreciate the need for the council to take a strategic approach in planning to meet the citys future housing requirements and that there will be some difficult decisions to be taken to provide the necessary housing for the city. However, Im surprised at the proposals to identify some sites in the urban fringe upon which new homes may be built. The following areas are ones that I understand have been identified as having potential for new housing. Im not convinced that these sites are suitable for additional housing and would like my views to be considered as part of the councils consultation. Braypool Lane (Location 54), where 2 units may be considered. I dont believe this site is suitable for housing due to: its location; lack of proximity to local services; proximity to the A27 / A23 junction and being outside of the A27. Land adjoining Horsdean Recreation Ground (Location 16), where 30 units may be considered. I dont believe this site is suitable for housing due to: its location on a green open space; the additional traffic that would result in the area where the current road infrastructure struggles, particularly at rush hour and when the recreation ground is being used; and the principle of building on green field sites. In addition, the way the proposal / plan has been produced would create housing in the middle of two green areas and I suspect that this would be the thin end of the wedge and that the next step would be to build on the adjoining land to the east of the proposed site. Land at Ladies Mile / Carden Avenue (Location 17), where 35 units may be considered. I believe this site is the most unsuitable proposed site in Patcham for housing due to: its location on a green open space, which is one of the reasons people choose to live in the area; the additional traffic that would result in an area where the current road infrastructure is under pressure due to the existing residential properties, the Crowhurst Road development of retail and wholesale businesses as well as the other retails areas further down Carden Avenue, with traffic issues being throughout the day and not just during rush hour. A few years ago the site was considered as a base for a local football club, which I supported provided the use was occasional and that the site was secured appropriately. 4. Land south of Hollingbury Golf Course (Location 18), where 20 units may be considered. This is probably the least worst option for additional housing in the Patcham and Hollingbury areas. It would still involve building on a green field site, although the road infrastructure could probably cope better than the other proposed sites for consideration. In principle Im opposed to the city council building on green field sites no, no, no. I believe that it should be focusing its efforts on finding suitable brownfield sites, although I appreciate this is sometimes a less easy and more expensive option. Its at a time like this when I remember one of John Prescott MPs comments: The Green Belt is a Labour achievement, and we mean to build on it.� I expect more of a Green council or any future city council administration. Id like my views to be included as part of the councils consultation.



Page 370 of 541


Respondent Number:

154

Linden Homes (Guildford) & Cothill Educational Trust

Individuals Name:

n/a

Agents Name:Mr Philip Allin Associate Director Boyer Planning Ltd


1


Policy/Section:CP1





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Whilst we welcome the proposed change to Policy CP1 which increases the proposed housing target from at least 11,300 to 13,200 new homes (an increase of 17%), we do not consider that the Council has been sufficiently thorough in their search for potential housing sites. In her letter dated 13 December 2013, the Inspector is clear that the proposed housing target that formed part of the submitted City Plan represented a significant shortfall as it only met 56.5% of the full objectively assessed need and that this shortfall carried substantial weight. As a consequence and whilst recognising the significant constraints to providing land for development within the City, the Inspector considered it important that the Council rigorously assesses all opportunities to meet that need so as to be satisfied that the Council had left no stone unturned in seeking to meet as much of this need as possible. Since December 2013, the Council has updated some, but not all, of its evidence base including its SHLAA (September 2014) and SHMA (April 2014), prepared by GL Hearn and titled Assessment of Housing Development Needs Study: Sussex Coast HMA. The updated SHMA concludes that the housing need for the City is between 900 and 1,200 homes per annum (paragraph 3.37), which translates into a total need of between 18,000 and 24,000 new homes over the Plan period. In our view, this increase in housing need reinforces the need for a detailed and comprehensive review of potential sites that could contribute to meeting this significant need especially as the revised housing target still only meets just over half (55%) of the current full objectively assessed need (assuming the higher target). In her 13 December 2013 letter, the Inspector provided her initial view on potential sources of housing land, however we do not consider this list to be exhaustive. For example, the Council have not revisited the potential for new housing on existing open space within the urban area and have continued to rely on the Open Space Study Update completed in 2011. Given the Citys coastal location and proximity to the South Downs National Park, suitable housing land is likely to be restricted which again emphasises the need for all potential sites to be considered. The potential for development on existing open space has clearly been recognised by the Council, as the updated Sustainability Appraisal (October 2014) considers the implications of releasing 108Ha of existing open space within the urban area (32% of total supply) to provide 5,395 new homes. The development of open space at this scale is considered by the Council to result in a number of adverse impacts, however no attempt has been done to assess the impacts of a more limited release of existing open space within the City. Paragraph 74 of the NPPF identifies certain circumstances in which development on existing open spaces is acceptable, however we do not consider the Councils evidence base on the matter to be robust. The Councils Open Space Study Update was undertaken in order to address concerns by the Inspector examining the then emerging Core Strategy as the findings of the previous Study (2008) which recommended a citywide blanket approach to resisting the loss of open space was not accepted by the Inspector. The Core Strategy examination was subsequently delayed to allow the update to be undertaken. As part of the methodology of the Open Space Study Update, all school sports facilities were excluded from the assessment and their contribution towards the provision of outdoor sports provision is therefore unknown. We consider that this approach to be simplistic as some schools do offer secured community use of their playing fields. The robustness of this evidence is further undermined by the fact that the Update does not accord with Sport Englands latest methodology (which requires

Page 371 of 541


the Playing Pitch Strategy to be updated every 3 years). We understand that the Council have no current timescale for when this Study will be updated. In the absence of any updated study by the Council, we have undertaken our own research of the availability of school sports facilities to the east of the City region and have identified a number of sites that provide regular community use. This exercise has identified an additional 26Ha of playing pitches that provide some form of community access (see table below). This additional supply on its own has the potential to remedy the existing citywide shortfall up to 2030 and would appear to suggest that there is potential for some open space to be released for residential development. On this basis, we consider that it is important that the Council commit to the early preparation of an update to the 2011 Open Space Assessment. Site Name Roedean School 9.8 Ha Longhill School/Deans Leisure Centre 4.6 Ha Brighton College (Home Ground) 1.3 Ha Brighton College (New Ground) 3.3 Ha Stanley Deason Leisure Centre 1.2 Ha University of Brighton (Falmer Campus) 0.9 Ha Brighton Aldridge Academy 4.9 Ha Total 26 Ha We consider that it is important that the Council is as proactive as possible in delivering important new housing whilst also ensuring consistency within Policy CP1. We note that the Councils latest housing trajectory anticipates a step change in housing delivery, increasing from 436 new homes per annum in 2013/14 to 655 new homes in 2014/2015 (a 35% increase). The presentation of the trajectory within the SHLAA, providing completions in 5 year groups rather than on an annual basis, does not make it possible to understand whether this step change is actually deliverable. The low level of supply during 2010-2014 reiterates again the need for the Council to be proactive not only to deliver the stated level of housing supply but also to exceed this minimum requirement to meet the significant housing need that exists within the City.


In light of the above and in the case of the proposed modification, we consider that it is necessary that additional wording be added within the table at Part B of the Policy to reflect both the fact that Policy CP1 states that the Council will make provision for at least 13,200 new homes and recognition that there is potential for new housing to be provided on existing areas of open space with the City. We would recommend that the wording within the second column be amended from No. of new homes to Provision of at least the following number of new homes.






Given the significant shortfall between the Council's proposed housing target and identified need means that potential ways to increase housing supply warrant round table discussions. We have identified potential additional sources of housing land supply which we consider merit discussion.

Page 372 of 541


Respondent Number:

156

Individuals Name:

Paula da Luz

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


Please remove 18 from the list earmarked for urban developemnt - I believe the inclusion of the site at Hollingbury Park for housing is based on a flawed consultants report and urge you to delete this site from the list of urban fringe sites. I am also a local resident that hasn't had heard of this proposal up until today! - where is the information for residents?! I object to the urban fringe development - especially for Hollingbury woods for the following points: The woods leads up to an ancient monument and should be left as part of public access to it; It houses various invertebrates - and has just established a wood bee area; It is adjacent to a nursery school and 3 other local schools providing recreation for many age groups - and nature trails; It is well used by dog walkers - very well used; It has a huge range of trees including Elm, established Beech trees and certain other fauna that is particular to the area; It provides a much needed woodland to the local area - and respite from the housing estates; It provides much needed cover for wildlife especially for winter. It has a much loved group called 'Friends of Hollingbury and Burstead woods' who meet regularly providing social, learning and emotional wellbeing to a group of volunteers (mainly elderly). I'm a Forest School teacher for Sussex Wildlife Trust so I am happy to elaborate all day on the benefits of being in a woodland environment! It is also the reason I moved here and I visit every day!






Page 373 of 541


Respondent Number:

157

Individuals Name:

Graham Levett

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I would like to register my opposition to the idea of building new housing on the Craven Vale allotments in East Brighton. While I am massively in favour of new housing I dont think this should be built on allotments or other areas of natural interest or beauty. Craven vale allotments have been around for some time and people have put a lot of work into them. I doubt moving people to allotments on another site would be much compensation to people who have spent years improving the soil and working this land. I am certain it must be heartbreaking to be worrying about whether you will lose such a precious thing. This years City Council Allotment Strategy concluded that allotments were superb for a whole variety of reasons; mental health, exercise, healthy food, wildlife etc etc. The benefits for the mental health and well being of residents; and the role that allotments play in the citys network of green spaces are also reasons for ensuring that the allotment community in the city thrives.� http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/sites/brighton-hove.gov.uk/files/Allotment%20strategy%20final.pdf My other concern is for East Brighton in general. I note that much of the City Plan suggests many areas around Whitehawk. This area is already extremely densely populated but it seems this is considered a reason to build more in that area rather than less. The strain on the area, with regard to transport, lack or resources and a general feeling of overcrowding would be greatly increased. Im sure there must be a great number of brown field sites more worthy of development or redevelopment. How about Anston House near Preston Park for example? This building has long been voted the ugliest in Sussex! Perhaps a housing revamp could make it more attractive. The building is already there. It would be about 50 flats Im sure. Or perhaps demolish the building and put up something new. Has the site of the old bakers in Woodingdean been considered? East Brighton has too much urban squashed into a small space. Anymore would make it go pop. Whitehawk Hill is quite literally full of history. In the 1990s some housing was built on top of Whitehawk Hill, it later turned out that this was right on top of a site of massive archealogical importance ie Whitehawk Hill Neolithic Camp, top build anywhere around this site is bordering on vandalism. I also believe that Whitehawk Hill is home to the Whitehawk Soldier Beatle and several unusual species of apple. I have myself seen several slow worms near to Craven Vale allotments. There seems to be an idea around that just because a piece of land is what is deemed to be urban fringe that it isnt somehow countryside, on the contrary it is the START of the countryside. Please do not build housing on Craven Vale or anywhere on Whitehawk Hill. Uprooting this widely valuable resource and natural area would do nothing but harm Brighton. We would lose so much more than we would gain. I urge you to reject this idea please.






Page 374 of 541


Respondent Number:

35


Individuals Name:




7


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Objection submitted on behalf of the owners of part of the Urban Fringe Site 43 (Land to rear of Longhill Road, Ovingdean). For the reasons detailed below the revised 13,200 target is insufficient to meet the Councils Objectively Assessed Need for housing. The within the urban fringe� figure of 1060 should be raised to at least 1080 (to reflect the additional development potential on our clients site). But in all probability the figure should be much higher, depending on what other sites are proposed by other urban fringe� landowners. As with earlier comments with regard to policy SA4, the Urban Fringe Assessment should not be used as a planning policy document given that it has not rigorously assessed all sites. The modified Figure 2 Housing Trajectory� table is also unacceptable. The table shows a very large shortfall in housing provision (relative to the Councils modified housing target) for the 4 years between 2010/11 and 2013/14. The shortfall from these years needs to be accounted for in the subsequent five year period (2014/15 to 2018/19), not in later years (as shown in modified Figure 2�). This matter was also raised by the Inspector in her letter of 13 December 2013: The most common method of calculating a five-year land supply is to use the annualised housing requirement derived from the overall target. I note the Councils approach is to base its calculations on the housing trajectory, which has the effect of reducing the five-year land supply requirements in the early years of the Plan. The Framework is not prescriptive about the method that should be used to determine the five-year supply of land for housing. However, a method of calculation that suppresses housing land supply in the early years of the plan period does not, in my view, accord with the Frameworks general intent to boost significantly the supply of new housing. Such an approach could be justified if essential infrastructure requirements are likely to constrain the delivery of new development, but I am not persuaded that the impact of the economic recession is a valid reason for taking this approach.� Subsequent to the Inspectors comments, the National Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014) also states: 'Local planning authorities should aim to deal with any undersupply within the first 5 years of the plan period where possible. Where this cannot be met in the first 5 years, local planning authorities will need to work with neighbouring authorities under the Duty to Cooperate. (Paragraph 035, Reference ID: 3-035-20140306) Quite clearly the Council has to deal with its historic shortfall over next five years, not in the years commencing 2018/19 onwards. Greater reliance on urban fringe sites (such as our clients) will enable this to happen, and so there is no reason why a housing trajectory that suppresses housing supply (as is currently proposed) should be found sound with the regard to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. Comment Relating to Housing Target and Urban Fringe Assessment: The Proposed Modifications do not go far enough to overcome the Inspector's initial findings into the City Plan (see Inspector's letter dated 13 December 2013). The Councils Urban Fringe Assessment (that informs the Councils revised housing targets) has not taken full account of potential sites, and so recommends too low a figure for urban fridge sites and their contribution to overall housing supply. The Councils Urban Fringe Assessment (that informs the Councils revised housing targets) has not taken full account of potential sites, and so recommends too low a figure for urban fridge sites and their contribution to overall housing supply. (Submission included extracts considered relevant from the Inspectors letter and the Councils Urban Fringe Analysis dated June 2014. For reference these have been abbreviated as follows: Inspectors letter (13 December 2013) paras: Bearing in mind the Frameworks requirementsthe full objectively assessed need is the higher end of the range, ie 20,000 new dwellings� The Plan proposes a target for the provision of new housing of 11,300represent a significant shortfall and substantial weight must be given to the consequent failure to meet the social dimension of sustainable development.� I recognise that there are significant constraintsHoweverit is important that the Council rigorously assesses all opportunities to meet that need.� Urban Fringe Sites. These sites are not subject to nationally recognised designations I have doubts as to whether some of these areas would meet the requirements of paragraph 77 of the Framework.� Having now seen some of the sites possibility of allowing development on these sites, which would enable the provision of good quality public open space, as part of a package of development.� In view of the significant shortfall in meeting objectively-assessed needs I consider the Council should undertake a more rigorous analysis of the urban fringe sites,for the delivery of new housing from this source.� I recognise the constraints faced by the Council but if I am to find the Plan sound,

Page 375 of 541


notwithstanding such a significant shortfall in the provision of new housing, I would need to be satisfied that the Council had left no stone unturned in seeking to meet as much of this need as possible.� Urban Fringe Assessment June 2014 Extract from Main Report page 39 showing assessment of site 43 Extract of site 43 assessment map provided Assessment Proforma for site 43 attached as an Appendix to the representations submitted. Page 39 of the Urban Fringe Assessment states that site 43 is suitable for a low density development of just 6 units. The Assessment has only considered the north east corner of the site (shaded in red hatching) as suitable for development, and has left the remainder of our clients site as undeveloped. The inspector should note that the land has never been open land� or publically accessible, and so there is no reason why the Council should be attempting to restrict this land for Natural and Semi Natural Urban Green Space (brown shading) and as a Nature Improvements Area (vertical blue hatching). Given the Inspectors observations that there should be a rigorous analysis of urban fringe sites, and that the Council should leave no stone unturned� in seeking to meet as much of its need as possible it is clear that the Urban Fringe Assessment is lacking in terms of advising on the potential of sites to contribute to housing need. Our clients site is roughly 4 times larger than the area considered suitable for development in the Urban Fringe Assessment (see submitted map of clients site). The site is clearly suitable for development as it a) could easily accommodate in the order of up to 25 dwellings; b) benefits from direct road access onto Longhill Close (to the south-west) and Wanderdown Close (to the north); and c) is not of high ecological value. The site is in private ownership and the Council has no power to demand that our clients facilitate nature improvements to the site (in itself, this implies that the site is not currently of high ecological value). The Urban Fringe Assessment therefore underplays the sites potential for contributing to housing need. Whilst we appreciate that the Council is intending to make specific site allocations in its forthcoming City Plan Part Two document, those allocations will be based on the proposed quantum of housing development set out in the City Plan Part 1. The quantum of development set out in Part 1 is based (in part) on the Urban Fringe Assessment, and so it is correct to consider the failings of the Assessment (to rigorously assess the potential of urban fringe sites to contribute to housing need) at this time. These representations demonstrate that the Council has not paid sufficient regard to the Inspectors observations from 13 December 2013, and so is not proposing a sufficiently high enough target for new housing in order meet with its Objectively Assessed Need for housing. The proposed modifications do not allow for sufficient housing development, and the supporting documentation (the Urban Fringe Assessment) does not provide a robust enough analysis of sites to ensure that the ability of the urban fringe (to help with housing supply) has been maximised. (BHCC Officer note: The objector provided detailed comments on the Urban Fringe Assessment's analysis of site number 43 in order to show more of the site could be developed eg in the order of 25 dwellings rather than 6 as indicated in the Urban Fringe Assessment)






Page 376 of 541


Respondent Number:

23


Individuals Name:

n/a



2


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



Duty to Co-operate We note that BHCC has produced a revised Duty to Cooperate Update Paper, October 2014, and this sets out the various meetings which have taken place with Authorities and bodies since the Examination hearings. However, we are concerned that the Paper does not provide any indication as to any positive outcomes, in particular with Horsham District Council and Mid Sussex District Council. As a result we are concerned that the City Plan makes no statement as to how it is intended that the shortfall in housing need, now identified as being within a range of 4,800 to 10,800 dwellings over the Plan period, is to be met. After the Examination the Inspector recommended that BHCC leave no stone unturned in trying to meet its objectively assessed housing need (OAHN). Part of that process was to carry out the Urban Fringe Assessment which has revealed more opportunities for housing development, leading to the increase in the proposed housing target to 13,200. But at the same time the OAHN has increased. In addition, the Inspectors letter dated 13th December 2013 under Housing and Objectively Assessed Need for Housing is clear that bearing in mind the Frameworks requirements that local authorities should assess their full housing needs, including affordable housing, my view is that the Plan should indicate the full objectively assessed need is at the higher end of range. This should also be reflected in the main modifications and the full revised housing need identified. Under these circumstances particularly identifying a higher need, part of the process of leaving no stone unturned must involve further positive discussions with neighbouring authorities as part of the Duty to Cooperate. By way of background it is noted, BHCC formally objected to the Mid Sussex District Plan and the Council appeared at the hearing session which dealt with DtC. In Horsham District Council (HDC), HDC wrote to BHCC in April 2014 with an invitation to provide information as to how HDC could assist BHCC in meeting housing needs. BHCC responded on 17th May with the comment that the City Council will inevitably be calling on adjoining Districts to help meet its housing need. Further representations were made by BHCC to the Horsham District Planning Framework in July 2014 BHCC raised a concern that there was no indication from the published documents that specific consideration has been given to any of Brighton and Hoves unmet needs. In a further submission to the HDPF at Examination stage, BHCC set out in clearer terms how the unmet needs of BHCC is part of a key cross-boundary issue within the sub-region (appendix 1). Of particular significance is the statement by BHCC that a new market town may have to be considered in the longer term. This conclusion is very similar to that found in the Coastal West Sussex Strategic Planning Board, Housing study May 2013 (para. 6.55 - Against this context it would be appropriate to consider with adjoining authorities longer-term development options, potentially working jointly with other authorities within Northern West Sussex. This might include joint work to assess strategic development options, including the potential for a new settlement, in areas to the north of the National Park.) Having reached the position where BHCC has exhausted all avenues to find land for housing within its borders and has identified a large shortfall to meet, it is not a question of options having to be considered in the longer term: there is an urgency now to plan to meet unmet needs. There is no evidence that Coastal authorities including BHCC have jointly worked with Northern West Sussex authorities to assess strategic options. In particular there is no evidence that any joint discussions have led or are leading to a position in which clear housing needs will actually be planned and delivered, as required by the NPPF (see particularly paragraphs 17,19, 21, 179, 180, 181 and 182). It is difficult to see how the Plan can be found sound in these circumstances. The duty to cooperate expressed in the NPPF is more than a duty to recognise or discuss needs, it is a duty to plan positively and collaboratively to actually meet needs. The Mayfields Market Town proposal is the only strategic

Page 377 of 541


option which can best meet the needs of BHCC and the Gatwick Diamond. BHCC clearly recognise the benefits of Mayfields and no other strategic locations have been put forward within neighbouring authorities which can meet BHCC needs. It follows that BHCC has an obligation to work directly with its neighbours to plan positively and to meet the clear housing (and employment) needs at Mayfields if it is satisfied that a new market town at Mayfields can be considered to be sustainable development within the meaning set out at paragraph 14 of the NPPF. The Inspectors interim conclusion after the Examination was: I accept that the Council has sought to engage positively with neighbouring authorities in the region. My initial conclusion is that it has met the legal requirement under S.33A of the Act. Unfortunately, the cooperation with neighbouring councils has not led to a positive outcome, in the sense that none has offered to assist Brighton and Hove by offering to meet all or part of the objectively assessed needs that cannot be met in Brighton and Hove. Despite further discussions between BHCC and HDC against the backdrop of full OAHN not being met in BHCC these discussions cannot be said to represent positive engagement and there have been no positive outcomes, mutual or otherwise. As made clear in the PPG the DtC is required to be an on-going and meaningful process and it is evident that since the Examination BHCC has not demonstrated effective joint working to meet cross boundary strategic priorities (the test in PPG ID: 9- 002-20140306). For this reason the City Plan is unsound. Mayfields How it can meet the needs of Brighton and Hove Mayfields is a proposed new town of 10,000 homes and community facilities between Sayers Common and Henfield, being promoted by Mayfield Market Towns Limited. Mayfields is approximately 12 miles (19 km) northwest of Brighton, 12.5 miles (20km) from Crawley, and 18.5 miles (29.7km) from Gatwick. Mayfields is located on the upper reaches of the River Arun in the centre of the Weald, straddling Horsham and Mid Sussex District boundaries. It is almost equidistant between the urban areas of Brighton & Hove and Crawley and serves both housing market areas. Homes and Jobs Employers in West Sussex are finding it hard to recruit and retain staff because of a lack of good quality affordable housing. Lack of homes is hampering expansion of possible employment sites and businesses agree that a new development of 10,000 homes in Horsham and Mid Sussex would help the labour market. Brighton has many small, knowledge-based industries which are lost because when they expand and become successful they are relocating to London or larger areas. Providing more homes in this area, in particular with leading schools, good community facilities and excellent travel networks, would serve to provide a high quality environment for part of the work force needed to allow Brighton and Hove to meet their economic potential, in accordance with national policy and regional economic strategy. Mayfields wants to create a New Market Town with a market at its heart in the same way others have created new towns such as Letchworth & Welwyn Garden City. A market town will enable a community to be planned from scratch, learning lessons from experience elsewhere as well as asking the existing community what they would like to see. A mix of house types to suit people at different stages of their lives and on differing budgets will be provided, including 3,000 affordable homes to be provided by Mayfields Partner Affinity Sutton. There is a huge housing need in West Sussex and Brighton as a whole. Mayfields would meet some of the overlapping need from the housing markets of the Coastal Towns and Crawley, which is important in helping the wider region. Community Infrastructure Many housing schemes promise community benefits but are only able to deliver on a small scale play parks, community halls or financial contributions to existing projects. Mayfields would see community infrastructure - schools, roads, medical facilities, shops etc. - being delivered in full, on a large scale. Mayfields will be providing completely new schools - at least one Academy, up to five primaries & nursery schools - which together will provide a full range of academic and vocational opportunities for every child to realise their full potential. Discussions with local higher education providers about how they could tie are underway. Totally new transport infrastructure would be provided rather than overloading existing roads. Data on journeys to work in this area showed that just 12% of people travel to London and 20% travel to Brighton and the coastal towns, with the rest travelling to surrounding towns. Therefore Mayfields would concentrate investment on a new era of super buses that will deliver longer distances to Brighton and Crawley by rapid coaches and connect with Horsham and Mid Sussex towns. Mayfields Market Towns is committed to creating a community that the local people and new residents can be proud of. The objectives are to provide high quality homes to suit all pockets, a substantial number of new jobs, helping local employers and attracting more, excellent education and the infrastructure to match. The evidence base that Mayfields has submitted to both Horsham and Mid Sussex demonstrates how the land at Mayfields is relatively unconstrained, with no national, regional or even local landscape or ecological designations.








Page 378 of 541


Respondent Number:

37

Individuals Name:

Jon Newsom-Ray

Agents Name:


2




Legally Compliant?:








Subject: Potential Development Saltdean Page 1 of 1 10/12/2014 The urban fringe assessment has not conducted assessment of the proposed developments in Saltdean in accord with the principles of the nation park concept. It is an infringement of the basic concepts of national park to consider building on a site designated as being in the national park: what is the point of duch a designation if it can be lifted for the financial benefit of others? It is at the convenience of developers and others who have vested financial interest that this is even being considered; once we are built over the developers move on and do the same somewhere else. It is time to take a stand. Those concerned with this proposed development have no regard for the preservation or betterment of the area or even the protection of the green belt. This cavalier attitude towards development does nothing to take regard of the over stretched infrastructures such as extra burden on roads, increased pollution, the strain on already overstretched community facilities such as doctor's surgeries, schools and parking problems. I register my protest at the concept of developing this and similar sites in Saltdean and the surrounds.



Page 379 of 541


Respondent Number:

103


Individuals Name:




10


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Our client maintains that the Inner Harbour site is capable of delivering approximately 1,300 dwellings and that this is likely to be required to ensure a viable development. Accordingly, the table in Policy CP1 should be updated to reflect this higher residential capacity.


The table in Policy CP1 should be updated to reflect this higher residential capacity (1,300 residential units from the Inner Harbour).





Page 380 of 541


Respondent Number:

109

Individuals Name:

Vivien Robertson

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing with regard to the proposed building of approximately 380 dwelling in the Benfield Valley on the land currently a 9 hole golf course. I think the idea is totally wrong and I intend to oppose the plans as I don't believe the area could sustain any further housing. For a start the local infrastructure would not cope with the extra amount of housing, the schools, doctors etc. could not cope with the amount of families and so on that this development would bring to the area. Another reason for my opposition is that the local roads in the area could not cope with the obvious increase in cars, vans etc. The roads all around here such as Hangleton Lane, Fox Way the Hangleton Link Road all get very busy at certain times of the day and could not cope with all the extra traffic this development would bring. There are lots of area's that would be more suitable for new housing and would not make already quite busy area's even more congested and more frustrating for the local people, not to mention the added pollution that the extra traffic would create, also does not say much for the 'green' policies supposedly in place!! I wish to be informed of any development with these ridiculous plans.






Page 381 of 541


Respondent Number:

33

Individuals Name:

Mia Vrachimis

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


i write to express disbelief that developments on top of well established allotments are being considered - as an allotmenteer, i know how important they are especially as Brighton is becoming busier, noisier and more polluted. Green spaces to grow food is essential for people's physical and mental health as the Councils own health and wellbeing strategy has stated. There are so many central derelict buildings which could be developed and/or returned to use - building on allotment sites is unnecessary.






Page 382 of 541


Respondent Number:

153


Individuals Name:

Colin Brace

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1 Housing Delivery


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Further to the City Plan Proposed Modifications being issued on 4th November 2014, I am writing to respond to these proposals. These representations should be read together with my previous submissions. Previous objections to the City Plan related to housing land supply, tall building zones, urban design, housing density, affordable housing, employment sites and student accommodation. Having reviewed the proposed modifications to the City Plan, my comments remain valid. City Plan Inspectors Comments (13th December 2013) In December 2013, the City Plan Inspector required the City Council to rigorously assess all opportunities to meet the significant shortfall in housing need. The Inspector confirmed that the full objectively assessed need is for 20,000 new dwellings and concluded as follows:"I recognise the constraints faced by the Council, but if I am to find the plan sound, notwithstanding such a significant shortfall in the provision of new housing, I would need to be satisfied that the Council had left no stone unturned in seeking to meet as much of this need as possible.� The Proposed Modifications confirm that the objectively assessed housing need has since increased and the current requirement is for between 18,000 to 24,000 new dwellings by 2030. This increase places even greater pressure on the delivery of residential development in the City. Whilst the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2013 introduced permitted development rights for changes of use from offices (B1) to residential (C3), the City Council introduced an Article 4 Direction on 25th July 2014 to remove these rights in the following areas: Central Brighton, New England Quarter & London Road Area; Edward Street Quarter, Brighton; City Park, The Droveway, Hove. As a result of this Article 4 Direction, the potential addition of residential units through permitted development rights has been blocked and housing supply restricted further. Proposed Modifications The Proposed Modifications to the City Plan focus on four main areas of change: An update to housing land supply figures; The identification of urban fringe locations for housing provision; Alterations to the Brighton Marina Policy (DA2); Changes to Sustainable Building Policy CP8 These amendments have resulted in improvements to the Draft City Plan including an increase in the housing target from 11,300 to 13,200 new homes across the plan period. However, the revised housing target remains considerably short of the full objectively assessed housing need (a deficit of 13,176 dwellings) and the proposed modifications have not sought to assess all potential options to address the shortfall. Whilst I recognise the considerable amount of work which the Council has undertaken in reviewing the City Plan, I remain concerned about the potential risk of the document being declared unsound by the Planning Inspector. It is vital for the future of the City that the Plan is as robust as possible and complies with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. As such, I would suggest that the Councils approach to housing land supply is reviewed again before the proposed modifications are submitted to the Secretary of State. My proposals for specific areas for review are set out below (see 'further comments' / subsequent representations: Tall Buildings & High Density (CP14) Urban Fringe Sites (SA4) Employment Sites (CP3) Duty to Cooperate Sustainability (CP8) Affordable Housing (CP20) Student Accommodation (CP20) Deliverability Conclusions Officers will no doubt be aware of draft Local Plans prepared by other Local Authorities which have been rejected or suspended by the Secretary of State on the basis that housing targets had not been met (Rushcliffe Borough Council, Bath and North East Somerset Council, Lichfield Council etc). For the benefit of the City and all stakeholders involved, I hope that this will not be the outcome with the draft City Plan. The proposed inclusion of some urban fringe sites for residential development is welcomed. However, despite the proposed modifications, the City Plan continues to substantially under-deliver against objectively assessed housing needs. In order for the City Plan Inspector to find the plan sound, the Council was tasked with leaving no stone unturned in seeking to meet as much of this need as possible. Without an up-to date assessment of the capacity for additional tall buildings and higher density developments in the city and a review of the potential for employment sites to accommodate residential development, all the options for meeting housing need have not yet been explored. Furthermore, by introducing an Article 4 Direction removing permitted development rights and the creation of unnecessarily restrictive development briefs, the Council has shown a willful disregard for the governments and the inspectors requirement to address the shortfall in housing supply. There is a significant risk that the City Plan will be declared unsound unless further background assessments are carried out as set out above. For these reasons,

Page 383 of 541


I urge the Council not to move the City Plan forward until a full and robust assessment of housing delivery has been undertaken.




Tall Buildings & High Density Development (CP14) A capacity assessment for taller buildings in the city was last carried out in 2003 and therefore should be reviewed in light of the current housing shortage. Many planning applications for tall buildings have been resisted (or amended) despite being within tall building zones (i.e. the PortZED proposals at Shoreham Harbour and pre-application discussions for the redevelopment of 43-47 Cheapside (both sites are owned by me)). Existing tall buildings policies have been used to restrict proposals for taller buildings outside of these zones where they have otherwise been acceptable. Furthermore, tall buildings have been deliberately resisted by the creation of development briefs, such as the Shoreham Harbour Development brief (http://present.brightonhove. gov.uk/Published/C00000705/M00004848/$$ADocPackPublic.pdf). This brief has been approved by committee against the advice of senior planning officers and amended to contain wording such as any new development should not exceed the height of the recently built Vega flats (approximately 4 storeys in height)�. The effect of this amendment, requested as a last minute amendment, by the local ward councilor, is an attempt to deliberately frustrate the possibility of tall buildings coming forward despite this location having been independently assessed by the Councils own consultants as being suitable for tall buildings. In addition to this the Council also commissioned a BRE assessment of the development brief, which also concluded that In some circumstances, higher buildings could still meet the guidelines .� It then goes on to state . the new buildings could be a storey or two higher (5-6 storeys above Kingsway)� ( Please Note BRE Report attached with representation). This must surely demonstrate that the Council has not fully explored this opportunity and rather than upturning stones, has sort to bury this under layers of politically inspired development briefs. Therefore, I feel the inspectors should insist that the Council relooks at its tall buildings policy and makes significant amendments to encourage tall buildings in areas previously identified. Whilst Policy CP14 supports housing densities of 100 dwellings per hectare within the identified Development Areas, the target of 50 dwellings per hectare outside these areas is too low in light of the housing shortage and also needs to be reviewed further. Urban Fringe Sites (SA4) Whilst the support for new housing in urban fringe areas is welcomed, the Urban Fringe Assessment (June 2014) promotes low density developments on many of these sites. This places even greater emphasis on the need to make the most efficient use of urban brownfield land in order to meet the housing needs of the city. Duty to Cooperate The Duty to Cooperate Compliance Statement (June 2013) concluded that agreement could not be reached with neighbouring authorities to accommodate the unmet housing need outside of the City. It is understood that this position has not been reviewed since the Inspectors comments were provided in December 2013. Affordable Housing (CP20) Policy CP20 introduces a requirement to provide a financial equivalent of 20% affordable housing for residential developments of between 5 and 9 units. It also requires 30% on-site affordable housing provision for schemes of between 10 and 14 dwellings. I have previously objected to this policy on the basis that it could result in the number of housing applications for 5-9 dwellings being submitted, thereby lowering the number of residential units being delivered. National Planning Policy Guidance now states that affordable housing contributions should not be required for developments of 10 units or less. Parts b) and c) of Policy CP20 need to be amended to reflect the new guidance set out in the NPPG. Deliverability Part 1 of the City Plan includes a high number of complex land use policies which may be used as a basis to resist development when the plan reaches advanced stages of the adoption process. It is also anticipated that a host of additional policies will be introduced in Part 2 of the City Plan at a later date. This dense layering of development plan policies will form the basis for seeking planning obligations during the development control process including financial contributions towards open space and recreation facilities, highway infrastructure, education facilities, public art, and the local employment scheme. Such contributions are often excessive and result in residential developments becoming unviable and planning consents not being implemented. Whilst the viability of proposed developments is often reviewed by the District Valuer on behalf of the City Council, this is a lengthy process which often adds significant delays to the determination of planning applications. I therefore request that more flexibility is introduced to the appropriate policies in order to avoid onerous financial obligations and impeding the deliverability of new housing developments.




I appeared at the City Plan Examination in October 2013 and request to appear again to discuss the representations set out in this correspondence should the Inspector reopen the Inquiry.

Page 384 of 541


Respondent Number:

171

Individuals Name:

Ian Mallin

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I would like to register my objection to plans to build houses on part of the Craven Vale allotment site.No political party is in favour of building on allotments which have been called the "green lungs of cities".This is certainly the case in this part of Brighton, a densely-populated area where many homes, including my own, do not have gardens large enough to grow fruit and vegetables. while I appreciate the need to build new homes, I think it is morally wrong to earmark allotments for development.






Page 385 of 541


Respondent Number:

187

Individuals Name:

John Divine

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I have no objection to the use of "brown field" sites nor even infill sections of unused land for construction. However the open green spaces used for leisure and recreation will have an increase in their importance as the population increases in accordance with this plan. This council should take steps to protect these open green spaces from development in perpetuity and not just within the scope of this plan and whatever follows.






Page 386 of 541


Respondent Number:

3

The Baron Homes Corporation

Individuals Name:

c/o Mr Paul Burgess

Agents Name:Mr Paul Burgess Lewis & Co Planning


1


Policy/Section:CP1 & CP16





Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



Draft Brighton & Hove City Plan (Proposed Modifications) - Objection 18 Wellington Road Brighton BN2 3BG We write on behalf of the owners of the above property (The Baron Homes Corporation) to make representations on the proposed modifications to the Draft City Plan (October 2014). In December 2013, the City Plan Inspector required the City Council to rigorously assess all opportunities to meet the significant shortfall in housing need. Whilst the City Plan modifications identify sites to accommodate an additional 1900 residential units, the full objectively assessed need has increased from 20,000 new dwellings to 24,000 (by 2030). As such, the City Plan housing deficit will increase from 8650 to 10,790 dwellings over the plan period. Whilst we appreciate the constraints in identifying new housing sites, we do not believe that all opportunities have been rigorously assessed as required. The City Council has continuously resisted the provision of housing on the land at 18 Wellington Road, for reasons relating to the loss of a community facility (even though it has been vacant since 2004) and loss of private open space (despite the land being broken concrete and scrub). Sites such as this can clearly make a significant contribution to housing provision in the city (proposals for 31 flats on the site are currently subject to a planning appeal).


We therefore object to the proposed modifications on the basis that they have not sufficiently addressed the housing shortage and request the following changes accordingly: The removal of the Open Space allocation relating to part of the site at 18 Wellington Road; Allocate the whole site for housing (31 units) either as part of Policy DA3 or in Part 2 of the City Plan. We would be willing to meet and discuss this objection in further detail on request (01273 413700).






Page 387 of 541


Respondent Number:

184

Individuals Name:

Dr James Odonnell

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1.B


Legally Compliant?:








It would be wrong and reprehensible to allow houses to be built on Hollingbury Park. Park was gifted to residents for their use and enjoyment. Park is enjoyed by many people from a wide area for walking and a safe place for their children to play in the open air. There is a large water reservoir with underground connections and piping to a further reservoir higher up on Ditchling Road. Any building on the area would compromise the water system and underground piping. Southern Water frequently request notice from residents regarding any intrusion on or near the reservoir and its area and are very sensitive of parking or camping. I trust consultations will accept the very valid objections of the residents and council tax payers in this matter.



Page 388 of 541


Respondent Number:

182

Individuals Name:

J Raphael

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1.B


Legally Compliant?:








RE: Benfield Valley Benfield Valley is a haven for a variety of wildlife, which should be protected and nurtured now and for generations. If development is allowed to go ahead this lovely open space would be turned into a sprawling housing estate, bringing with it yet more traffic, with its associated noise and pollution; the need for more schools, GP Surgeries and associated infra-structure and athe serious issue of flooding which could occur in the properties in the valley if this green space is obliterated. Any major development on the site will require the need for heavy plant and machinary and enormous amounts of materials. If access to the site is going to be via Hangleton Lane, then serious consideration should be given to the chaos this would create. Hangleton has now been built on to such a degree that any further development would totally change the character of the valley and not for the better.



Page 389 of 541


Respondent Number:

181

Individuals Name:

Councillor Geoffrey Theobald

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Agree with comments made by resident John Divine I have no objection to the use of "brown field" sites nor even infill sections of unused land for construction. However the open green spaces used for leisure and recreation will have an increase in their importance as the population increases in accordance with this plan. This council should take steps to protect these open green spaces from development in perpetuity and not just within the scope of this plan and whatever follows.






Page 390 of 541


Respondent Number:

180

Individuals Name:

Richard Scott

Agents Name:


2




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


3.1 PM072 CP1 Housing Delivery. The proposed Modification is unacceptable as the numbers proposed are still far too low. BHCC is not being open about there being some 30,00 low-income households in the city who are in need of Affordable RENTED housing, yet the BHCC figurers are for a total of every kind of housing, but predominantly for affluent owner-occupiers, so much more work needs to be done to plan for housing the Citys needy.








Page 391 of 541


Respondent Number:

15

Individuals Name:

Jill and Paul Corlett

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


We live at 18 Ridge Close Mile Oak Portslade BN41 2Yh and what sold this house to us was the spectacular views at the back of the house looking towards Southwick Hill. We gather you are planning to build on the land between us and Mile Oak Road. I feel there are many sites still available either brownfields or derelict buildings and empty properties that could be used before you wreck another piece of the countryside. We know our comments will not make any difference where there is a chance for Property Developers and Farmers to make money, but felt we had to make some sort of comment and not be treated like we do not matter.


I feel there are many sites still available either brownfields or derelict buildings and empty properties that could be used before you wreck another piece of the countryside.





Page 392 of 541


Respondent Number:

17

Individuals Name:

Mrs C Carruthers

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:


RE. Land at Coombe Farm, Urban Fringe Housing. How anyone in their right mind could put bungalows at Coombe Farm I find really amazing. Object on grounds of traffic problems, GP Surgeries full, Schools full, air pollution, flooding. How much more can the South Coast Road take.


Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


RE. Land at Coombe Farm, Urban Fringe Housing. How anyone in their right mind could put bungalows at Coombe Farm I find really amazing. Object on grounds of traffic problems, GP Surgeries full, Schools full, air pollution, flooding. How much more can the South Coast Road take.






Page 393 of 541


Respondent Number:

24


Mr James Rogers



1


Policy/Section:Policy CP1 Housing Delivery




Please see Planning Representations Report submitted by Vail Williams. These representations seek to highlight the deficiencies in policy and propose solutions to them. Of particular reference is the Housing Delivery Policy CP1 which has proposed the amended housing target of 13,200 new homes by 2030 which includes an allocation of circa 1000 new homes from Urban Fringe sites.


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



See Full Representatios Report Submitted. Extracts: 1.4 These representations seek to highlight the deficiencies in policy and propose solutions to them. Of particular reference is the Housing Delivery Policy CP1 which has proposed the amended housing target of 13,200 new homes by 2030 which includes an allocation of circa 1000 new homes from Urban Fringe sites. 1.5. The representations detail Bouygues Developments proposal to develop the site known as Benfield Valley Golf Course with a housing scheme of 387 dwellings. This will make more efficient use of land, in a sustainable manner, than is proposed for the site through the City Plan Part One. Policy CP1 Housing Delivery 2.21. The Council has modified this element of the City Plan to increase the target of providing more well needed homes within the city. However, this is still not a significant enough increase to address the housing need in the City. The policy has been modified to provide a target of at least 13,200 new homes to be built over the plan period of 2010-2030 which is an increase, of 1,900 homes, from the previous 11,300 new homes over the same period. However, this is still a significant reduction from the identified need of 16,000-20,000 new homes (see Housing Development Needs Study (2014) by GL Hearn Ltd and Planning Inspectors comments starting at paragraphs 2.33 and 2.34 respectively). 2.22. The policy identifies that 1,060 new homes can be provided within the urban fringe. This figure is lower than the Urban Fringe Assessment (UFA) which identifies that 1,356 dwellings can be provided by the Urban Fringe. We believe that this and the UFA figure are cautiously low figures and that the urban fringe has capacity to provide a much greater number of new homes particularly on the Benfield Valley Golf Course site. This is further discussed within Section 3. 2.23. Paragraph 4.2 of the supporting text to Policy CP1 has been amended to include the findings of the Assessment of Housing Development Needs Study, Sussex Coast HMA, May 2014 and therefore states that to meet in full the Citys objectively assessed housing need within the plan period to 2030 could mean needing to build between 900 to 1,200 dwellings per annum or 18,000 24,000 (Note: this is greater than the housing need figure in the Planning Inspectors report) to 2030 an increase of 4,800-10,800on the currently proposed target. This is justification alone that the City Plan housing target should be significantly increased. It is noted that the housing target of 13,200 new homes is a minimum target but if there is an identified need for new housing the Council should not be setting such a low minimum target. In the future a low minimum target could be used to significantly hamper the delivery of new homes by applications being refused based on the housing target already being met. 2.24. We are pleased to note that paragraph 4.6 of the supporting text for Policy CP1 has been amended to include that the city will continue to maximise development on brownfield sites but also notes that the citys urban fringe has capacity to bring forward housing development as identified in Part B of Policy CP1. 2.25. It is noted in Paragraph 4.8 that, through the proposed modifications, the Council has adjusted its average net completions (over the last 15 years) rate of new housing development of 550 dwellings per annum down to an average net completions of 540 dwellings per annum. The paragraph still states that in recent years that annual rates of housing delivery have been far lower

Page 394 of 541


due to the global economic recession. This figure is below the housing target of 565 dwellings per annum required for hitting the previous City Plan Part One target of 11,300. This figure is significantly below the 660 dwellings per annum required to meet the new City Plan Part One target of 13,200 new homes. 2.26. The net completions figure of 540 new dwellings per annum is substantially below the 16,000-20,000 new homes (900 1,200 dwellings per annum) needed to satisfy the local housing need. Planning Representations to Proposed Modifications of City Plan Part 1: Benfield Valley Golf Course, Hove, BN3 8EB Date: December 2014 Version 1.00 7 2.27. It is interesting to note that in Paragraph 4.10, based on the 2014 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment update, the Council predicts that the housing delivery trajectory will increase post adoption of the City Plan thus enabling the Council to achieve its 5 year housing land supply. 2.28. Delivery over the last 15 years has been 540 dwellings per annum on average (based on the Annual Monitoring Report below), this is well below the 565 dwellings required per annum to meet the target of 11,300 homes (see paragraph 2.21). It is not considered likely that the housing delivery rates will significantly increase to meet the 660 homes per annum proposed (see paragraph 2.25), let alone the actual housing need of 900 1,200 homes required to meet the housing need. However, should the Council be open and proactive towards supporting development within the urban fringe particularly on sites, such as the Benfield Valley, and the provision of a larger housing target then the provision of houses should significantly increase. 2.29. The National Planning Policy Framework requires Councils to achieve a 5 year housing land supply in order to have appropriate development within the area. This can only be achieved through careful yet proactive identification of housing sites within the urban fringe and the rest of the city. Whilst the review of the Urban Fringe sites is supported as a means of providing more capacity it is considered that the figures in the Urban Fringe Assessment are unnecessarily low, and would result in an inefficient use of land and would therefore not be in accordance with national planning policy. Brighton and Hove City Council Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) (2012/2013) - Housing Provision 2.30. The AMR details that to achieve the current Submission City Plan Part 1 housing target of 11,300 requires 565 dwellings per annum. The AMR however identifies that for the five of the last six years prior to 2013 the delivery of housing has been under target with as low as 283 completed dwellings in 2010/11. 2.31. The last five years (up until 2013) have provided the following number of completed residential units: ‚· 2008/09 721 ‚· 2009/10 380 ‚· 2010/11 283 ‚· 2011/12 309 ‚· 2012/13 374 2.32. This highlights that the Council is struggling to achieve 565 dwellings per annum required to achieve the lower target (11,300 new homes) let alone the new target (13,200 new homes) and beyond this the need (16,000-20,000 new homes). Assessment of Housing Development Needs Study: Sussex Coast Housing Market Area, April 2014, Prepared by GL Hearn Ltd 2.33. Based on projected population changes, demographics and the need to overcome the shortfall identified above the proposed range of houses required per annum is 900-1200. The higher end of this range would accommodate the well needed affordable housing. Planning Inspector Initial Comments: Brighton and Hove City Plan Part 1 December 2013 2.34. Based on a housing need assessment undertaken in 2013 the objective assessment of housing need for the plan period to 2030 is 16,000 20,000 homes. This includes the provision of 210 affordable dwellings per annum. 2.35. The current target 11,300 homes, for the plan period to 2030, based on the lower end of the need, is only 70.6% of the identified housing need specified above. This is identified Planning Representations to Proposed Modifications of City Plan Part 1: Benfield Valley Golf Course, Hove, BN3 8EB Date: December 2014 Version 1.00 8 by the inspector as a significant shortfall and substantial weight must be given to the consequent failure to meet the social dimension of sustainable development. 2.36. Urban fringe sites are not subject to nationally recognised designations that may restrict development and therefore, subject to the site specific constraints, the Urban Fringe sites should be considered appropriate for development. 2.37. The Planning Inspector states that the protection from development implied by policy SA4 on all urban fringe sites is not justified as some of the sites do not make a significant contribution to the provision of useable open space and have limited potential to do so in the future. The Inspector goes on to say: No consideration appears to have been given to the possibility that allowing development on these sites [urban fringe sites], which would enable the provision of good quality public open space, as part of a package of development. 2.38. The Inspector also considers that no due consideration has been given to how other constraints e.g. archaeology can be mitigated and overcome. 2.39. The Inspector concludes that the overall impression when looking at urban fringe sites is a starting point of a desire to resist development.


8 Proposed Modifications to the City Plan: Proposed Recommendations 8.1. The majority of changes to the City Plan Part One are in the most part welcomed particularly that of allocating sites within the Urban Fringe for residential development but there are some serious short fallings in relation to housing delivery. 8.2. With regards to housing delivery, the Council included a housing target of 11,300 homes within its draft City Plan. The Planning Inspector however found this figure to be substantially low based on the identified housing need of Brighton and Hove which is 16,000 20,000 new dwellings in the plan period to 2030 (900-1200 dwellings per annum). The housing need has been confirmed by the Housing Development Needs Study by GL Hearn Ltd (2014). The Planning Inspector noted that the proposed housing target (11,300 new homes) would only meet a maximum of 70% of the housing need. 8.3. The Council in its proposed modifications to the City Plan Part One proposes an increased target of up to 13,200 homes. This new target is based on a number of evidence documents including the Urban Fringe Assessment which have studied potential housing sites and their deliverability. This new target is still substantially below the required housing need as outlined above. 8.4. It is noteworthy to mention here that the average number of completions over the last 15 years has been lowered in paragraph 4.8 of the City Plan Part One from 550 new dwellings per annum to 540 dwellings per annum due to the number of completions per annum being

Page 395 of 541


far lower in recent years. The reasoning given for this is the economic recession. 8.5. It is considered that the Urban Fringe sites such as Benfield valley Golf Course could provide substantially more dwellings than allocated under the Urban Fringe Assessment and therefore enable the Council to have a larger housing target which would meet the housing needs of the city. Benfield Valley Golf Course could deliver up to 387 units (357 more than identified under the Urban Fringe Assessment) and therefore providing a substantial amount of development. 8.6. It is therefore essential that the Council amends their housing target figures to meet the housing need. We therefore propose based on the findings outlined in this report that the housing target be raised to a minimum of 16,000 new homes the lower end of the housing target. 8.7. Based on the above comment the figures in the Urban Fringe Assessment for each site should not be considered accurate as we have demonstrated that a number of the constraints can be overcome/mitigated to allow a greater number of dwellings to be provided. This said however, it is encouraging to note that the Urban Fringe Assessment will be used as an allocations document as it identifies good locations for future residential development such as Benfield Valley Golf Course. 8.8. With regards to Open Space there are a number of points to draw upon: ‚· It is encouraging to note the Planning Inspectors comment that the Council should consider the possibility that Open Space sites can be used for residential development as part of a package of development to also provide good quality public open space. ‚· It is encouraging to note that the loss of open space would be granted if a site is allocated under the Urban fringe Assessment. This proposed modification is supported as it enables sites of poor quality open space (e.g. Benfield Valley Golf Course) to be opened for redevelopment in an appropriate manner. Planning Representations to Proposed Modifications of City Plan Part 1: Benfield Valley Golf Course, Hove, BN3 8EB Date: December 2014 Version 1.00 29 9 Conclusion 9.1. The City of Brighton and Hove has been identified as having a significant housing need of 16,000-20,000 (900 1,200 dwellings per annum). 9.2. The Planning Inspectorate felt that the initial housing target of 11,300 new homes by 2030 (565 dwellings per annum) under the City Plan Part One as significantly low based on the identified housing need of Brighton and Hove. 9.3. It is noteworthy to mention here that the Council is currently struggling to hit is current target of 565 dwellings per annum with a 15 year average of only 540 dwelling per annum. 9.4. Under the proposed modifications of the City Plan Part One the Council has suggested an increased target of 13,200 new homes by 2030 (660 dwellings per annum). This target is based upon the findings of a number of background evidence documents including the Urban Fringe Assessment (UFA) 2014. 9.5. From a study of the proposed modifications we welcome the identification of further sites for residential development but believe the identified housing numbers to be substantially low and therefore the Citys housing need under the new target is still not addressed. 9.6. Further comment on and proposed recommendations to the Proposed Modifications of the City Plan Part One have been provided in section 8 above. 9.7. Evidence for the sites being identified for an under provision of new homes is provided through a study and public consultation exercise of the Benfield Valley Golf Course which was identified for a total of 30 dwellings. However, from highways, ecology and landscape assessments the site is considered to be able to provide circa 350-400 new homes which is significantly greater that identified under the UFA. From the public consultation event the public are understood to have an understanding of the housing need in the area and were generally supportive in principle of the higher number of dwellings on the Benfield Valley Golf Course. 9.8. From the above Benfield Valley Golf Course study it is apparent that the designated sites within the UFA could provide a higher number of dwellings than attributed and therefore it is considered suitable for the Council to raise their housing target and thus ensure the housing needs of the local community are met. 9.9. It is noteworthy to mention here that the public was not consulted on the creation of the UFA and therefore counter evidence by specialist consultants for the appropriateness of a site for residential development should be considered. Although the UFA is useful in identifying appropriate locations for residential development the detail behind this may not be considered appropriate by the local public. This is evidenced through the public consultation exercise undertaken for Benfield Valley Golf Course which details that a number of local people are happy to see an increased number of residential dwellings proposed than is identified within the UFA. In summary the UFA is a useful document in supporting the allocation of well needed houses but its detail must be considered carefully as certain locations have been identified as being able to support a larger number of dwellings than is identified within the assessment. Planning Representations to Proposed Modifications of City Plan Part 1: Benfield Valley Golf Course, Hove, BN3 8EB Date: December 2014 Version 1.00 30



Please see Submitted Representations Report in full.




Page 396 of 541


Respondent Number:

21


Individuals Name:

J Ogden

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Much has been made of the Planning Inspector’s concern that ‘no stone should be left unturned’ in the search for more housing potential. Whilst the Modifications to the City Plan address this issue to a large extent, there may yet remain some stones left unturned. The pushback from BHCC against the recent lifting of the planning permission requirement for change of use from office use to residential has closed a potential source of new housing, and our association fully supports this pushback as a necessity for the city. However there remains an opportunity for the relaxation of change of use regulations in respect of visitor accommodation. In previous consultations we have highlighted the dramatic uplift in the supply of visitor accommodation which has made it harder and harder for tourist accommodation businesses to sustain their living standards. Very few bed spaces have ‘dropped off’ the list yet every year more are added into the pot. In fact, since the City Plan was originally submitted the situation has worsened. Air BnB and similar websites have made it easy for homeowners to market their spare rooms and even entire houses to accommodate visitors, advertising alongside legitimate hotels and B&Bs and competing with them head on. Conversion of normal dwellings to ‘sui generis’ short term letting houses (including many so called ‘party houses’) has fuelled a move of groups away from traditional visitor accommodation to the relative freedom of their own house. (This of course is often to the detriment of residential neighbourhoods and itself causes a reduction in available housing stock) The suggestion that existing B&Bs might be permitted to become family homes as part of the solution to the housing shortage is still not, in our view, being considered properly in the light of this capacity increase. Indeed, rather than barriers and hurdles, core zones offering ‘special protection for tourist businesses’ and a requirement to prove unviability as a business before being permitted to exit, it would make sense to welcome applications for change of use to high quality residential dwellings, so long as an overall provision of visitor accommodation continues to meet demand. Indeed it might go some way to redressing the overcapacity we believe exists today, particularly as the modified City Plan continues to promote expansion of that capacity:






Page 397 of 541


Respondent Number:

28

Individuals Name:

Sara Padhiar-Tutton, Carer' s Garden

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1.B Distribution of housing


Legally Compliant?:








I run a community allotment project (No 25 Craven Vale) aimed at providing carers and bereaved people a space to meet and share in growing fruit, vegetables & flowers. We call it 'the Carers Garden'. Seven years ago when we took on the allotment it was just a bramble infested wasteland. As a group we have worked on the allotment and turned it into a productive, peaceful and positive space which people really enjoy being part of. It's not just about growing, but being able to meet with like minded people and enjoy a beautiful natural environment ( many of the people who use the space don't have access to their own garden). The 'Carers Garden' has become a place of tranquility and support for many carers and bereaved people who can have a break from their caring role & a supportive environment when life gets tough. When we recently discussed the possibility that we could loose the space to make way for houses, the response was 'very shocked' and a 'great sense of potential loss'. People really felt really sad at the prospect and quite angry as we have put so much time & energy into making the allotment what it is! The people who use this space are often isolated and vulnerable and to take this vital element of support away is devastating! Please don't do it! Sara Padhiar�Tutton The Carers Garden



Page 398 of 541


Respondent Number:

22

Individuals Name:

Sandra Russell

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:








Very concerned about teh further housing developoment around Patcham and Hollingbury. Reason moved to Patcham was teh benefit of having plenty of green spaces nearby. Concerned about impacts on Patcham if further housing development goes ahead. Patcham Infant School is a fantastic school but classes already 30 children and the Junior school has slightly more pupils per class. Warmdene Road is a gridlock most nights when schools finish at 3.30pm as parent park illegally and free flow of traffic that yellow line should enable does not happen. Difficult to get Dr's appointment - surgeries cannot cope with more patients and even now more patients are having telephone appointments rather than seeing a Doctor. Any future housing developments even on a very small scale will simply have a very detrimental effect on Patcham, ie the roads, schools, Doctors.



Page 399 of 541


Respondent Number:

169

AEGON UK Property Fund Ltd c/o Kames Capital

Individuals Name:

c/o agent

Agents Name:Alun Evans, Director


1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



In light of the proposed modifications to the City Plan Part One, particularly regarding the citys identified housing need target, AEGON UK Property Fund Limited c/o Kames Capital propose the following alterations to emerging policy in order to ensure this is considered sound. These representations initially set out relevant planning policy framework and subsequently demonstrate that various proposed modifications to the City Plan Part One are unsound and cannot be supported in terms of proposed housing target and protection of employment floorspace in Brighton and Hove City Council. Relevant Legislation / Planning Policy The Framework was adopted in March 2012, with a presumption in favour of sustainable development as a central policy tenant. Paragraph 7 of the Framework states that: There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles: a social role supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations. Additionally, paragraph 14 states that at the heart of the Framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking. - For plan-making this means that: Local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area; Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless: - Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or - Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. - For decision-taking this means: Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: - Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or# - Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. Paragraph 17 sets out the core land use principles which should underpin both plan-making and decision taking. The 12 principles include the need to encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed. Section 6, paragraph 47 of the Framework states that Local Planning Authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Paragraph 51 of the Framework states that Local planning authorities should identify and bring back into residential use empty housing and buildings in line with local housing and empty homes strategies and, where appropriate, acquire properties under compulsory purchase powers. They should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings (currently in the B use classes) where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate. Paragraph 182 sets out the four criteria to confirm a sound� local plan, namely: i. Positively Prepared: preparation reflective of strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements; ii.

Page 400 of 541


Justified: reliant upon a proportionate evidence base and considered against reasonable alternatives; iii. Effective: plan policies should be deliverable over the plan period; and iv. Consistent: plan policies should reflect national policy. National Planning Policy Guidance The National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG, March 2014), under the heading Methodology Stage 5, states that: Local planning authorities should aim to deal with any undersupply within the first five years of the plan period where possible. This reflects the Sedgefield Approach as detailed through the planning inspectorate and the Judiciary. The NPPG, under the heading Local Plans, notes that most local plans are likely to require updating in whole or in part at least every five years. It also details that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-todate if the authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Also under this heading, the NPPG states that a Local Plan must be published for representations which provides a formal opportunity for the local community and other interests to consider the Local Plan. Brighton and Hove City Council Local Plan Saved Policies 2005 The adopted Local Plan Saved Policies 2005 notes that the total number of households in Brighton and Hove is projected to increase by 8% in the period 1991 and 2011. Policy HO1 Housing sites and mixed use sites with an element of housing states that 9,920 new homes are required from 1991 - 2013. From 1991-2003 7,765 new homes were completed therefore residual housing provision to be provided from 2003-2013 is 2,155. This policy concludes that there had planned to be a surplus of housing within the plan period of 1,196. These figures were based upon Housing Land Supply Assessment: Brighton and Hove (April 2003), and were subsequently updated in 2013 as part of the initial City Plan Part One preparation. This was adjudged by the examiner to have failed to adequately assess / identify need for housing across the plan area and the sub-region. A revised housing need survey was therefore undertaken to inform the Proposed Modifications of the City Plan. Representation regarding Proposed Modifications to the City Plan Part One Draft Policies CP1 Housing Delivery and CP3 Employment Land are unsound as they not: a) Positively Prepared; b) Justified; c) Effective; or d) Consistent with National Policy Positively Prepared: The draft policy is not supported by AEGON UK Property Fund Limited c/o Kames Capital. The main change to this draft policy regarding housing is the housing target for the city. The previous submission version of the City Plan Part One noted that the plan target for the City would be 11,300 new homes from 2013-2030. This equated to a total 565 new homes per annum. The modifications have increased this housing target to 13,200 new homes for the plan period, this totals 660 per annum. This housing figure has been derived from the Housing Implementation Strategy dated September 2014. Three options were used to calculate the five year supply requirement, the Sedgefield approach, this is assumes the shortfall of housing delivery in the period 2010-2014 is all addressed in the next five year supply period (2014-2019). The Liverpool approach, this assumes that the shortfall is addressed across the full plan period at a uniform, annualised rate. Neither of the approaches above were chosen as the most successful method. Option C was chosen as the best approach, this links the five year supply requirement to the updated hosing trajectory to reflect up to date and realistic assumptions regarding housing delivery including market signals and the latest information from developers, agents and landowners regarding anticipated delivery rates. This approach, according Brighton and Hove City Council, makes a realistic provision for the on-going process of market recovery and reflects the particular nature of housing supply in the city e.g. large scale flatted forms of development and more complex urban regeneration mixed use schemes which have a longer lead in and build out times. This approach is considered a more realistic basis against which to calculate the five year housing land supply requirements. We question how this option can be used in determining housing land target as it does not account for the 20% buffer that is required through national planning policy to meet identified housing need and is therefore unsound in this regard. This additionally leads to the request that within CP3 Employment Land, section 5 and paragraph 4.36, Housing Supply should be taken into consideration when considering applications that seek a loss of employment land or building. Therefore unallocated sites should not be protected by default in an area where previous under-supply of housing is ignored. Justified: There are two key areas within this section: 1. Historic Under-supply 2. Buffer Margin Historic Under-Supply: The emerging policy conflicts with national guidance as it identifies a housing need figure which cannot be justified in its preparation: it simply dismisses historic undersupply of housing. The total number of net completions achieved in the period 2010-2014 was 1402 dwellings (an average of 350 dwellings per annum). The Councils AMR notes that over the reporting years 2007/08 2012/13 (inclusive) the initially identified annual completion rate to meet identified need (565 units) was only achieved in 2 of the 6 reporting years. The inspector in determining appeal ref APP/W0530/A/13/2207961 refers to the Bloor Homes Judgement regarding recovery of housing need shortfall. In referring to his conclusion that the Council have presided over a persistent undersupply of housing delivery. Paragraph 37 states: This conclusion is consistent with the approach of my colleague in the Three Pots appeal and the position recorded in paragraphs 48 and 49 of Cotswold DC v SSCLG and others [2013] EWHC 3719 (admin). In both cases under-delivery in 50 % or more of the years in the periods were considered were found to comprise persistent under-delivery; Lewis J did not interfere with that finding.� Brighton & Hoves figures amount to just 53% of the planned requirement based on an implied (updated) annual average requirement of 660 dwellings per annum. This there gives a present shortfall of 1,238 new homes within a four year period. Buffer Margin: Although Brighton and Hove have identified a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements going forward (i.e for the future plan period), they have not accounted for an additional buffer of 20% to address the persistent under delivery of housing demonstrated above. This represents a material failure to reflect National Guidance regarding meeting housing supply and cannot therefore be justified. A 20% buffer in addition to the planned supply of 13,200 new homes equates to 15,180 new residential units over the plan period (an additional 15% above the cited figure). In order to address this, greater flexibility regarding protection of employment uses policy is therefore required. Effective: Monitoring of residential development activity

Page 401 of 541


demonstrates that as at 01.04.14 there were 614 dwelling units under construction; of which 108 were on small sites and 506 were on larger sites. This gives an indication of the likely housing delivery in the reporting year. This figure is still below the latest housing trajectory figure by 46 units. Consistent with National Policy: At the heart of the Framework is the need to create Sustainable Development. This includes the provision of providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations. This requirement is not fulfilled with the emerging Brighton and Hove Policy and is consequently, unsound. The inclusion of Housing Supply as a material consideration when determining proposals resulting in a loss of employment floorspace, reflects The Framework, Paragraph 51 (above) which states that LPAs should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings (currently in the B use classes) where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area. Given Brightons shortage, the loss of employment policy approach seems overly restrictive and not in line with national guidance. The Brighton and Hove Employment Land Supply Trajectory (June 2013) guides the deliverable supply of office and industrial accommodation towards the allocated Development Areas and also industrial estates and business parks. Mindful of the position detailed above, it is clear that emerging policy CP1 and CP3 are unsound and cannot be supported. Although Brighton and Hove City Council can demonstrate a five year supply going forward in accordance with Framework requirements, they cannot demonstrate the necessary 20% buffer in line with national policy and to properly meet identified housing need. It is therefore requested that the Councils emerging employment land supply policy is amended to address historic under-supply of housing across the district. As drafted the emerging City Plan remains unsound and cannot be supported.


It is therefore requested that the Councils emerging employment land supply policy is amended to address historic under-supply of housing across the district. As drafted the emerging City Plan remains unsound and cannot be supported. See representation to CP3 for proposed modifications.






And written representations

Page 402 of 541


Respondent Number:

152

Individuals Name:

Mr Colin Brace



8


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Conclusions Officers will no doubt be aware of draft Local Plans prepared by other Local Authorities which have been rejected or suspended by the Secretary of State on the basis that housing targets had not been met (Rushcliffe Borough Council, Bath and North East Somerset Council, Lichfield Council etc). For the benefit of the City and all stakeholders involved, we hope that this will not be the outcome with the draft City Plan. The proposed inclusion of some urban fringe sites for residential development is welcomed. However, despite the proposed modifications, the City Plan continues to substantially under-deliver against objectively assessed housing needs. In order for the City Plan Inspector to find the plan sound, the Council was tasked with leaving no stone unturned in seeking to meet as much of this need as possible. Without an up-to-date assessment of the capacity for additional tall buildings and higher density developments in the city and a review of the potential for employment sites to accommodate residential development, all the options for meeting housing need have not yet been explored. There is a significant risk that the City Plan will be declared unsound unless further background assessments are carried out as set out above. For these reasons, we urge the Council not to move the City Plan forward until a full and robust assessment of housing delivery has been undertaken.






Page 403 of 541


Respondent Number:

164

Individuals Name:

Jane Moss-O'Brien

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


City Plan - Urban fringe housing sites proposal Location 17 (35 units) Land at Ladies Mile, Carden Avenue, Patcham I write to raise my strong objections to the proposed siting of 35 housing units to the rear of my property, location 17 as detailed above. When I moved here in August 2011, no reference to the proposed city plan was highlighted on my local searches. Local search result lists as "Greenway (indicative), Archaeologically sensitive area. The rear of the property abuts a countryside area". The area behind my property, I understood to be marked as an area of natural conservation and this was a major factor in the decision to move to Brighton, and to my home in Windmill View, just south of the proposed housing estate. I now understand that this has progressed and is currently in the middle of the conservation project with the introduction of sheep grazing rites and the preservation of and sowing of additional wild flowers. Particular objections: Loss of an area of natural conservation Archaeologically sensitive area Increased traffic Access issues, congestion Noise pollution Estate backing on to my property/land Increased use of amenities and limited resources Schools unable to cater for demand Affect on house of prices Low cost/council housing in area of middle price bracket With a large number of brown land sites within the Brighton and Hove Conurbation (within the A27), with less impact on the local communities. I would have thought this should be the initial focus. The cost of housing in Brighton and Hove itself is above the average for the county. With the cost of living also being above average, it's residents are already having to seek employment outside of the area as the local job market is already stretched. With the trains at breaking point, restricting the option of commuting to London and other key commercial areas, it may become a situation where the local community cannot support additional housing. It is currently cheaper to live on the outskirts of the conurbation, with greater scope for expansion of the housing portfolio due to available land. I respectfully suggest that this is were the Council should focus it's fulfilment of the Government run initiative, to build on it's housing stock, in areas that can support the increase to the community. I would highlight that the local schools are already at capacity with an inspected large growth in the coming few years to an earlier baby boom, they shall not be able to cope. Local schools are already having to look at options to expand to cater for this, some being forced to consider building upwards due to lack of space. Where do you propose to site the access road because, due to the nature of the location, extreme weather conditions can also affect access with a residential narrow gauge road structure. Being at the top of a steep hill, with limited residential road access, it has been known to be cut off in bad winter weather. There is no scope for an additional road into the proposed area, so increased traffic and access will cause considerable congestion. I strongly feel that the Patcham (Location 17), Ladies Mile site is not best suited to the growth of the housing stock and for the reasons laid out above, I wish to register my strongest objections to the proposed development that backs on to my property.






Page 404 of 541


Respondent Number:

162

Hyde Housing GroupIndividuals Name:

n/a



1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Brighton & Hove Draft City Plan Part 1 Proposed Modifications October 2014 Further to the City Plan Proposed Modifications being issued on 4th November 2014, we write to respond on behalf of The Hyde Group (Hyde). These representations should be read together with the following submissions previously made by Lewis & Co Planning: July 2012 (response to the Draft City Plan Part 1); April 2013 (response to Draft City Plan Submission Version). Hyde is currently the most active residential developer in the city with approximately 250 residential units currently under construction and an existing stock of around 1,300 homes in the city. The proposed modifications to the draft policies will have a significant impact on future development projects for Hyde and therefore the city as a whole. Previous objections to the City Plan related to housing land supply, affordable housing provision, tall building zones, employment sites, urban fringe sites and CIL contributions amongst other issues. Having reviewed the proposed modifications to the City Plan, our comments remain valid. City Plan Inspectors Comments (13th December 2013) In December 2013, the City Plan Inspector required the City Council to rigorously assess all opportunities to meet the significant shortfall in housing need. The Inspector confirmed that the full objectively assessed need is for 20,000 new dwellings and concluded as follows: I recognise the constraints faced by the Council, but if I am to find the plan sound, notwithstanding such a significant shortfall in the provision of new housing, I would need to be satisfied that the Council had left no stone unturned in seeking to meet as much of this need as possible.� The Proposed Modifications confirm that the objectively assessed housing need has since increased and the current requirement is for between 18,000 to 24,000 new dwellings by 2030. This increase places even greater pressure on the delivery of residential development in the City. Whilst the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2013 introduced permitted development rights for changes of use from offices (B1) to residential (C3), the City Council introduced an Article 4 Direction on 25th July 2014 to remove these rights in the following areas: Central Brighton, New England Quarter & London Road Area; Edward Street Quarter, Brighton; City Park, The Droveway, Hove. As a result of this Article 4 Direction, this will restrict housing supply in these areas through the suspension of Permitted Development rights for change of use from B1 to C3. Proposed Modifications The Proposed Modifications to the City Plan focus on four main areas of change: An update to housing land supply figures; The identification of urban fringe locations for housing provision; Alterations to the Brighton Marina Policy (DA2); Changes to Sustainable Building Policy CP8 These amendments have resulted in improvements to the Draft City Plan including an increase in the housing target from 11,300 to 13,200 new homes across the plan period. However, the revised housing target remains considerably short of the full objectively assessed housing need (a deficit of 13,176 dwellings) and the proposed modifications have not sought to assess all potential options to address the shortfall. Whilst we recognise and welcome the considerable amount of work which the Council has undertaken in reviewing the City Plan, we remain concerned about the potential risk of the document being declared unsound by the Planning Inspector. It is vital for the future of the City that the Plan is as robust as possible and complies with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. As such, we would suggest that the Councils approach to housing land supply is reviewed again before submission to the Secretary of State. Our proposals for specific areas for review are set out below.


Tall Buildings & High Density Development A capacity assessment for taller buildings in the city was last carried out in 2003 and therefore should be reviewed in light of the current housing shortage. Furthermore, the existing tall buildings policies have been used to restrict proposals for taller buildings outside of these zones where they have otherwise been acceptable. The policies for tall building proposals therefore need to be reviewed in all parts of the city. Whilst Policy CP14 supports housing densities of 100 dwellings per hectare within the identified Development Areas, the target of 50 dwellings per hectare outside these areas is considered too low in light of the housing shortage and also needs to be reviewed further. Whilst the support for new housing in urban fringe areas is welcomed, the Urban Fringe Assessment (June 2014) promotes low density developments on many of the sites. In

Page 405 of 541


light of the housing shortage, the City Plan needs to ensure that the most efficient use is made of these sites. Given that the majority of urban brownfield sites are being developed for flats, the fringe areas are an important source of land for family housing and this potential therefore needs to be maximised. Employment Sites There are currently a number of vacant employment premises which could be put to more effective use in the city, including 300,000ft2 of empty office floorspace. In order to leave no stone unturned, a further review of redundant employment sites is suggested in light of the planned under-provision of housing. Whilst Policy CP3 (Employment Land) seeks to protect a number of business parks and industrial estates, additional residential units should be encouraged in such locations subject to avoiding adverse impacts on amenity. Duty to Co-operate The Duty to Cooperate Compliance Statement (June 2013) concluded that agreement could not be reached with neighbouring authorities to accommodate the unmet housing need outside of the City. It is understood that this position has not been reviewed since the Inspectors comments were provided in December 2013. Purpose Built Student Accommodation Paragraph 4.229 of the City Plan states that additional bed spaces in purpose built student accommodation will also assist in encouraging students to choose managed accommodation over houses in multiple occupation. Whilst Policy CP21 identifies five locations suitable for purpose built student accommodation, the capacity of these sites needs to be reviewed in order to ensure the maximum number of bed spaces is stated in the policy text in order to help reduce reliance on traditional housing stock. Deliverability Part 1 of the City Plan includes a high number of complex land use policies which may be used as a basis to resist development when the plan reaches advanced stages of the adoption process. It is also anticipated that a host of additional policies will be introduced in Part 2 of the City Plan at a later date. This dense layering of development plan policies will form the basis for seeking planning obligations during the development control process including financial contributions towards open space and recreation facilities, highway infrastructure, education facilities, public art, and the local employment scheme. Such contributions risk becoming excessive and we are concerned may result in residential developments becoming unviable and planning consents not being implemented. Whilst the viability of proposed developments is often reviewed by the District Valuer on behalf of the City Council, this is a lengthy process which often adds significant delays to the determination of planning applications. We therefore request that more flexibility is introduced to the appropriate policies in order to avoid onerous financial obligations at the risk of impeding the deliverability of new housing developments. Affordable Housing The shortfall in planned housing directly limits the amount of affordable housing being provided in the city. The BHCC Housing Strategy 2015 acknowledges that there are 22,132 households in housing need which are unable to afford to buy or rent in the housing market 2012-2017. The report goes on to add that only 3500 affordable homes are expected to be built by 2030 leaving a shortfall of 18,000 affordable homes by 2017. The under delivery of housing and extreme disequilibrium between supply and demand causes the inflation of house prices, This same supply side issue is also being felt in the rental market where demand from those unable to afford to buy is pushing up rents above the rate of real inflation. This process makes it very difficult for first time buyers to afford property and risks marginalising people on low or average incomes. Furthermore, the house price and rental inflation increases are not being matched by increases in personal income, thereby compounding affordability issues further. Conclusions Officers will no doubt be aware of draft Local Plans prepared by other Local Authorities which have been rejected or suspended by the Secretary of State on the basis that housing targets had not been met (Rushcliffe Borough Council, Bath and North East Somerset Council, Lichfield Council etc). For the benefit of the City and all stakeholders involved, we hope that this will not be the outcome with the draft City Plan. The proposed inclusion of some urban fringe sites for residential development is welcomed. However, despite the proposed modifications, the City Plan continues to substantially under-deliver against objectively assessed housing needs. In order for the City Plan Inspector to find the plan sound, the Council was tasked with leaving no stone unturned in seeking to meet as much of this need as possible. Without an up-to-date assessment of the capacity for additional tall buildings and higher density developments in the city and a review of the potential for employment sites to accommodate residential development, all the options for meeting housing need have not yet been explored. There is a significant risk that the City Plan will be declared unsound unless further background assessments are carried out as set out above. For these reasons, we urge the Council not to move the City Plan forward until a full and robust assessment of housing delivery has been undertaken.





Page 406 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:



18


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


SLI notes the increased provision in Policy CP1 of 13,200 new homes to be delivered to 2030 and B. sets out the proposed distribution. It is evident that the development areas will deliver a significant proportion of new homes during the Plan period. SLI considers that the proposed number of homes (20) identified for the DA1 site is an underestimate of the capacity of this site to deliver residential development.


SLI is currently considering options for the development of the site which are likely to be in the order of 300 units. It is thus suggested that this is recognised in the Plan at Policy CP1, as part of the commentary that the development areas are a key source of housing supply and will assist in meeting some of the shortfall identified.





Page 407 of 541


Respondent Number:

26

Individuals Name:

Jamie Burston

Agents Name:


2




Legally Compliant?:








The community group 'Friends of Hollingbury and Burstead Wood' has highlighted a serious issues, I want Site 18 removed from the list of proposed areas to be earmarked for residential development. I completely agree with 'Friends of Hollingbury and Burstead Wood' when they say "I believe the inclusion of the site at Hollingbury Park for housing is based on a flawed consultants report and urge you to delete this site from the list of urban fringe sites."The following paragraph is a personal message I sent to their Facebook page, where I voiced my concerns over the proposed developments at Hollingbury Park. I would be grateful if you to could read and consider the points I make � ''Birds, Butterflies and Bats are of main concern with regard to light and sound pollution being a huge problem, especially as they would be located so close to Hollingbury Wood. Additionally serious damage to wildlife habitat could be caused during the construction process. The bats would be affected by the lighting that would have to be installed. The important White�letter Hairstreak Butterfly may be affected in regard to shading out of it's larval and nectar food plants. The same affect could effect shrubs that produce berries in the winter for the birds. These houses would also ruin the point of the wild flower bank due to the close proximity, as any bees and butterflies that use this are coming off of the meadow, the grassland butterflies lay their eggs on the grasses of the meadow! Furthermore this could effect the species rich reservoir regarding both flora and fauna. I personally feel that if this development work went a head it would cast a serious shadow over the amazing work the rest of council put in when they applied for and won Biosphere status. Please don't undo this incredible work. I visit Hollingbury Park every year to see the different range of Butterflies you can find on site, I would definitely be put off going, not only because of the way it would look, or because of the loss of important meadow grassland habitat but because it would be a reminder that in the end nature always comes last. Below are point that 'Friends of Hollingbury and Burstead Wood' have main, I personally agree with ever point, and I would appreciate that you took the time to read them as I feel every point is fair and reasonable and gives more than enough reason to remove Site 18 from the list of proposed areas to be earmarked for residential development. Concerns on the allocation of land in Hollingbury Park for housing We believe that the Urban Fringe Assessment by consultants LUC that led to the proposals was inaccurate and has some fundamental flaws. These include: � A Public Park should not be on the list of possible housing options. As far as we are aware no other Park is on the list and as such Hollingbury Park should not have been included in the study. This is an area much used and valued by residents in the local area and communities near it. The consultants included the area because they state that there is a surplus of green space in the Hollingbury and Stanmer Ward because Stanmer Park and Wild Park is in this ward, however local residents in Hollingbury and Hollingdean would not class those areas as easily accessible due to the topography and the isolation of Stanmer Park. It is clear that looking at this at ward level does not make sense. The study also notes that there is an under-provision of open space in the ward of Preston Park, which is our neighbouring ward and one where many users of Hollingbury Park would come from. � Keeping the area as Open space benefits residents and visitors alike. � At present there are no buildings fronting the east side of Ditchling Road further north than number 414, immediately to the south of Area 18. Instead there is a variety of green features all the way north into the SDNP. It would be a gross disservice to the city to interrupt the green character of this part of Ditchling Road with its view to the woods beyond by developing above and below the reservoir, a development which would mean that the open feel of the Area 18 did not begin until close to its northern boundary. This area is a gateway to the South Downs National Park and should remain as open green space. Building housing in Hollingbury Park would be detrimental to the wider landscape and change the nature of this area. � Building on this area would be contrary to the findings of a recent survey commissioned by the Council on the value of parks and open spaces which stated residents should have access to green open space within 10 minutes walk of where you live this would compromise these findings. � Wildlife/Biodiversity: the report mentions

Page 408 of 541


that this is designated as a proposed Local Nature Reserve within the City Plan and that there are some notable species of wildlife here. Whilst the report points out the range of reasons why the council deemed this area unsuitable for residential development when it was originally assessed by the Council in 2013, the list of reasons does not include the importance of this area for biodiversity. There is mention of the northern corner of the site being earmarked for higher level Stewardship funding to deliver significant environmental benefits to the Site. It has however failed to recognize the work of FHBW and its volunteers over the last 25 years in having already implemented many of the improvements listed: the Council and FHBW have recently updated the Management Plan for the area which has a priority to further improve biodiversity. This is an important asset for the community and as such should not be developed. � The meadow area and Elm hedge: the Urban Fringe Assessment has also failed to take into consideration the importance of the burgeoning Elm hedge running parallel to the Ditchling Road and the meadow to the north of the reservoir. Thanks to the Council implementing a new mowing regime the meadow has become a haven for many butterflies and other insects that now feed on the increasing numbers of wild flower species that have colonised the area. This has recently been further enhanced by the creation of a chalk flower bank to encourage more butterfly species and the rare White Letter Hairstreak butterfly has been seen feeding on the Elm hedge: any housing development would almost certainly mean the destruction of the Elm hedge and trees and seriously impinge on the size of the meadow Page 2 of 3 09/12/2014 and see the removal of part of the chalk bank for butterflies contrary to Higher Level Stewardship guidelines. The Urban Fringe Assessment also showed the size of the meadow incorrectly as it relied on out-of-date maps which failed to show the extended woodland area known as Triangle Copse. � To the south of the reservoir is the historic Tram shelter, whose setting would also be compromised if surrounded by houses. � If this area were to be allocated for housing in the City Plan this would set a precedent for further development in this, and other green open spaces in the city and make it more difficult for the Council to refuse planning applications in the future: we could end up with housing all the way up the eastern side of Ditchling Road! � The Urban Fringe Assessment offers mitigation measures but as mentioned earlier these are of little value: FHBW and the Council have already installed interpretation boards and have an on-going programme of work to improve biodiversity. If housing was allowed on this site we believe the overall impact would be significantly negative due to the impact on the landscape, the character and the biodiversity of the area. Many thanks, Jamie Burston



Page 409 of 541


Respondent Number:

27

The Open Spaces Society

Individuals Name:

Chris Smith

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1.B Distribution of housing


Legally Compliant?:








No one disputes the value of open spaces, especially those in the countryside, but those on the edge of cities often get short shrift. City parks are valued, but when considering green areas at the edge, commentators too often stand on the edge of the countryside looking in, rather than on the edge of town looking out. So it is far too common to devalue small edge of town green spaces when they have value in their own right and also as links to the wider countryside beyond. We believe this is the case in these proposals. We are particularly concerned at the treatment of Whitehawk Hill. Our detailed comments can be found below. The Mile Oak Valley: sites 1 to 6 The Mile Oak Valley suburb already damages the National Park landscape,. Yet its surrounding landscape is of crucial landscape, wildlife, archaeological, and recreational importance. It has a half mile boundary with Southwick Hill - the only archaic down pasture site on the 15 mile conurbation urban fringei with an intact historical continuity of management. It is a fully publicly accessible site of SSSI quality (though not designated because already protected by National Trust ownership) and a major recreational resource for people of Portslade, Southwick, and the wider conurbation. All of these sites are part of the open, corrugated geography of the Downs. All of them constitute part of an important Gateway to the wider Downs. All of them have a buffering function for the wider Downscape. Sites 5a/6 have an allotment site. Hangleton Bottom and Benfield Valleys: sites 7 to 12 The old closes (small, enclosed farmstead paddocks forming sites 11 & 12) are a key part of the linked historic complex of Benfield Farmstead and Hangleton Manor. The setting of the Manor has already been damaged by inappropriate development of its protecting wooded grounds, and this should be avoided at all costs at its sister manorial farmstead of Benfield. Indeed, these sites were earmarked for management as a pocket park by the Director of Leisure and the Deputy Director of Planning in the old Hove Councilii. Benfield Farm / Hangleton Manor constitute an important and much used Gateway to the wider Downs and should be managed to enhance that function, not detract from it. Hangleton Bottom (sites 8 & 9) would be most usefully used as a travellers site, given its past successful usage for that purpose, and given the extreme need for such provision in the conurbation. Old Patcham, Ladies Mile: sites 16 & 17 Old Patcham (site 16) forms a key complex of medieval parish church, great barn and other historic farmstead and cottage buildings, allotment sites and recreation ground. It retains this rural quality despite the close proximity and awful noise pollution of the A27 bypass and A23 interchange. No-one, given free choice, would choose a home in such an exposed and noisepolluted site. By contrast, most people can enjoy the recreational usage of this site as a Gateway to the Downs, and as a part of the historic landscape setting of this ancient Downland village. Ladies Miles open Downland (site17) is a key wildlife, archaeological, landscape, and recreational Gateway resource for the Park and the City. It has one of the two best surviving archaic plateau chalk grassland sites in the Cityiii. (Plateau chalk grassland is extremely rare on the Downs because its flatness makes it most vulnerable to ploughing and improvement, and because most plateau archaic Down pasture sites are acid and heathy in character, not calcareous). It is also the only surviving archaic Down pasture site along the three mile long Ditchling Road Ridge from Hollingbury Castle Iron Age hillfort to Ditchling Beacon Iron Age hillfort. Coldean: site 21 The Coldean Lane woods and meadows are an important part of the historic Stanmer Park constellation of designed and planted woodlands. Recent new halls of residence developed at Varley Halls have already ramped up the damage to the unity of the open upper slopes of the Coldean Valley, risking ending the visual containment of the Valley estate and breaking in to the visual integrity of the high plateau landscape. The meadows are best managed as a recreational facility with high aesthetic and wildlife value. The Racecourse Landscape. Whitehawk Hill / Warren Road Ridge: sites 27 to 35 Whitehawk Hill isa sub-landscape of national importance. It is also, of course, set in a large area of working class housing, and its proximity to marginalised communities lays it open to these sort of abusive proposals. Site 30 (suggested for 150 homes) is also, of course, within the bounds of the 105 acre

Page 410 of 541


Race Ground, which was dedicated as a recreational common at the 1822 enclosure of Brightons commons and open fields. The deed of dedication states that the inhabitants of Brighton and the public in general should have the use of it for the purposes of racing and other purposes of exercise and diversion... The combined Whitehawk / Warren Road sites have a Local Nature Reserve, a Scheduled Ancient Monument, an adjacent area of archaeological importance, and a large, historic allotment complex. This landscape is the key to unlocking the prehistory and history of Brighton. It is the core landscape feature of Old Brighton, the best archaic chalk grassland and old scrub site on the City urban fringe, the oldest (c. 1770) formal Downland public recreational site in Brighton, and the most prominent Downland feature along the coast for many miles. It is also one of the oldest sacred sites in Britain, having a continuing funerary function, which first commenced in the Neolithic, and continued into late prehistoric and maybe Saxon times before its revival 160 years ago (Woodvale). Its causewayed enclosure is one of only 10 well-preserved examples in Britain. Furthermore, its chalk grassland and scrub forms a wildlife ecosystem with a direct continuity back to the Neolothic clearances of the Downland wildwood. They are a rare example of living archaeology, with an ancient wildlife assemblage which is anthropogenic in origin, but natural in its constituent species (molluscs, spiders and other arthropods, fungi and flowering plants). A key part of this assemblage (in site 30) is the ancient Gorse thicket at the north end of Whitehawk Hills steep slope, adjacent to the North Whitehawk flats, which the Assessment falsely describes as in (...) the Whitehawk Estate. (In fact they are in the Local Nature Reserve). It hosts Stonechat, Dartford and other Warblers, and many other scrub dependant birds and insects. A key part of the open landscape setting of the causewayed camp are the historic allotments (in site 31) targeted as of housing potential. They also host many of the rough ground species of the Local Nature Reserve, such as the nationally scarce and charismatic Great Green Bush Cricket. Sites 32 and 33 on the Race Hill / Warren Road ridge top are absurd as sites of housing potential. They remind one of the hill top beauty spot housing schemes of the inter-war years, such as for a bungalow estate at the Devils Dyke, or plotlands on Patchams Sweet Hill, or Standean....or the housing estates right on the crest of the North Downs at Box Hill and Woldingham. Black Rock: site 37 Extant open cliff top east of Brighton has intrinsic rarity value. This site is important for informal recreation and has potential for archaic grassland restoration. Ovingdean: sites 38 to 42 Sites 38 and 39 embrace the extended agribusiness farmyards, sheds and paddocks of Ovingdean Farm, which were constructed as a result of past strategic misjudgements in managing the Brighton Council farmlands estate. Since then their usage has been intensified with infill residential development. Any further intensification of built development in this very exposed nodal site will further damage this extended hill-valley-farm-medieval hamlet panorama in this part of the National Park. The site needs roll-back of its excessive sprawl, and a new, high quality set of built-to-last farm buildings, not residential development. Site 41 is a ridge top Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) designated for its old Downland flora and fauna, which the Council planning function should seek to preserve and enhance and re-incorporate within the wider public landscape. Site 42 was wrongly omitted from the National Park and should be treated for what it is: - a part of the wider, open Downscape. North Saltdean: sites 46 to 48 Both the Looes Barn and Coombe Farm sites form important Gateways to the open Downs. Both have been damaged by neglect and inappropriate piecemeal built development. Both require remediation and roll-back of this neglect, and a proper integration of their Downland farming and Gateway functions. The north slope of Tenant Hill, overlooking Coombe Farm, is an open access archaic chalk grassland site of high value. The views from there should be enhanced, not eroded. Chris Smith, for the Open Spaces Society 8/12/14



Page 411 of 541


Respondent Number:

158

Individuals Name:

Steve Dunnill

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


As a local resident I was disturbed to receive your recent site plans. The open spaces seem to becoming less and I fear that the value of our house will be effected if these brownfield sites are built upon. In particular site 17. Does this site not belong to Patcham school ? Proposed plans were for sport , not housing. Another example of selling off playing fields. Where is the access to this site ? I WILL be objecting to any building on these brownfield sites. (NB: assume respondent means greenfield sites)






Page 412 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Question whether the figure for 1,060 units for the urban fringe is justified and sound given the fact that some sites proposed as suitable for development appear to have been put forward using inaccurate and incorrect information within the Urban Fringe Assessment. For example, the allocation of Hollingbury Park for housing is made predominantly on the assertion that there is a surplus of green space in Hollingdean and Stanmer ward. However, this fails to consider the elongated shape of the ward and that it contains citywide parks in the form of Wild Park and Stanmer Park in the centre and north of the ward respectively. However, for the residents of Hollingdean, neither of these parks is particularly local or accessible, given the steep gradients needed to access Wild Park, once you have negotiated the threat of flying golf balls on the golf course. That leaves only Hollingbury Park as an accessible green space for many residents in Hollingdean. Also this area serves residents in neighbouring wards of Preston Park, Withdean and Patcham where there is a shortage of green space. Therefore to assess this site in that context is plainly wrong. There are other issues with the assessment of this site too. Another area where mistakes have been made is on the Craven Vale allotments where the mitigation for building houses on the allotments is to create new allotments nearby, but the land proposed for this is Open Access land. A fact not recognised in the report.






Page 413 of 541


Respondent Number:

91

Individuals Name:

Derek Allen

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I hereby wish to register my total opposition to the proposed housing development on the golf course within Hangleton Valley, Hove. This area could easily be described as an "island" surrounded, as it is, by Hangleton Valley Drive, Hangleton Lane, The Link Road and the Brighton Bypass. Purely from the point of view of traffic entering and leaving the site, I find it amazing that anyone could seriously think of building up to 380 dwellings there. Add to that the obvious need for additional doctors and school places , I find it inconceivable that this is being given serious consideration!!! Please do all you can to ensure this proposal is thrown out now and forever.






Page 414 of 541


Respondent Number:

120

Individuals Name:

Cathy Wenger

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I have read the City Plan and the Urban fringe document and I am struck by how little attention is given to the East of the City beyond the Marina. Except for picking out potential further residential development for Saltdean, Rottingdean and Ovingdean , no proposals are made to improve the existing inadequate infrastructure including congested roads.






Page 415 of 541


Respondent Number:

119



Agents Name:


10


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


We note that the modified City Plan anticipates an increase in small windfall development from 600 to 1250 over the plan period. This is a more realistic figure than in the previous City Plan - in fact it is probably too conservative still. The modified plan states that 35% of the new housing built over the last 10 years has been small site developments; if this 35% is extrapolated over the plan period, 35% of 13,200 new homes = 4,620 new homes considerably more (by 3,370) than the 1,250 included in the plan. We would have thought it was worth pointing this out more emphatically. Even if the the figure was 25-30%, which could well be a reasonable estimate, this would still represent a substantial increase in the total number of new dwellings which could be achieved within the plan period.






Page 416 of 541


Respondent Number:

141

Individuals Name:

Geoff and Jean Harris

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


Please don't allocate Hollingbury Park for housing. Hollingbury Park is our local park and my wife and I visit it at lease twice a day for walks and to take our dog out. It is a lovely clean park which is safe to walk on because it is visible from a fairly busy road. We are not alone, people of all ages go there. It is a lovely place for a walk and perhaps a chat, we have made many friends who walk there. We did try walking on thirty nine acre field a few years ago. One night we parked our car beside the Ditchling Road and walked round the field. We returned to find an air gun dumped under the back of the car and the car's windscreen was smashed. The police were called but nothing could done. We now only walk on Hollingbury Park, especially at night! Please don't build on this beautiful area. It is used by a large number of people of all ages at all times of day.






Page 417 of 541


Respondent Number:

83

Individuals Name:

Graeme Forrest

Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:








Page 418 of 541


Respondent Number:

84

Individuals Name:

Ann R Hayes

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1





City Plan Part One Proposed Modification Consultation November 2014. Site 50, Land west of Falmer Avenue, Saltdean. I wish to formally object to the Urban Fringe Assessment Study of June 2014 in respect of the above sites potential for 12 new dwellings which I believe to be lacking in its preparation and legally unsound. Land Use Consultants Ltd classified the land as Urban in spite of it being long established agricultural land, or Greenbelt, in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It was previously part of Coombe Farm, before being purchased, with an alleged smallholding license, by Mr E McNorvell for use as a field for horses; it is situated immediately below and behind my back garden. Similar purchases of land were made by nearby residents in Westmeston Avenue and Wivelsfield Road and remain as green space within the new Southdowns National Park, they are not classified as urban which is, to say the least, inconsistent. As with site 50 there is no road access to them which defies logic as to how they, or it, could ever be considered suitable for development. Site 50 was originally recognized as being worthy of being included in the SDNP but, was excluded only on the basis of a procedural error, its worthiness has not been diminished nor its agricultural or greenbelt classification changed merely as a result of that error. It is claimed by LUC Ltd that the site has no environmental issues associated with it, yet it remains at risk from flooding, as happened many years ago when I saw the water running off and through the gardens and houses in nearby Bishopstone Drive. The flooding was so severe that the Department of the Environment excavated a flood pond at the lower end of the field to catch and slowly release the floodwater. I later saw Mr McNorvell, who was associated with a haulage company, fly-tipping and filling in the pond with lorry loads of spoil excavated from a building site in Rottingdean before he grassed it over. I attach a copy of B&HCCs letter to Ms Tanya Arkle of DEFRA dated 29th October 2010 Ref: ENV/CP/RF/ requesting a variation order to the South Downs National Park border to include the field to the west of Falmer Avenue, Saltdean. The letter, which you may not have seen, was sent by Martin Randall and relates to deletion 13, now referred to as plot 50, and contains B&HCCs objections to the exclusion of the land from the SDNP. I would ask that the procedural error which is referred to in that letter may now be partially mitigated by excluding this plot from the revised city plan.

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:





see attached letter to Mrs Tanya Arkle of DEFRA dated 29 October 2010



Page 419 of 541


Respondent Number:

77

Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead Woods

Individuals Name:

Mr Adrian Peasgood

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:CP1





Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



We support the objective within the policy to maximise development opportunities on brownfield sites. Whilst recognising that there may be a need to develop on the urban fringe it should only be developed after brownfield sites and the eight Development Areas have been fully utilised. The current wording of the policy implies that Urban Fringe sites could be developed at the same time, or even before these other strategic priority areas. We would not wish to see valued open spaces and sites important for biodiversity developed before other options have been exhausted. We believe this to be in line with national policy. If the Urban Fringe has to be sacrificed to the incessant growth in housing demand, the process to determine which sites around the city fringes can be developed must be comprehensive, transparent and sound. There is nothing in this policy, nor in PM064 which sets out the process for selecting sites from among those identified as having potential for housing development in the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment Study, some of which are contested by site users.


Given the failings we highlight in our comments on PM064 and the points above, we believe the policy should set out a sequential approach to developing the urban fringe. We also argue that the total of housing to be supplied from the urban fringe should be revised downwards by 20 dwellings (the number proposed for Area 18 in the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment Study) from 1060 to1040. We suggest the wording be amended in the supporting text, paragraph 4.6 as follows: The strategy for accommodating growth in the city continues to maximise development opportunities from brownfield sites within the built up area. It acknowledges that some housing development will come forward from some of the city's urban fringe sites and will seek to develop these after brownfield sites and the Eight Development Areas have been fully utilised. (Original wording in PM 072 para 4.6: The strategy for accommodating growth in the city continues to maximise development opportunities from brownfield sites within the built up area but it also acknowledges that some housing development will come forward from some of the city's urban fringe sites.) We note also in paragraph 4.4 the following wording and would like to suggest that "respect" be replaced with "protect "The City Plan housing target for a minimum of 11,300 13,200 new homes reflects the need to respect the historic, built and natural environment of the city



No, but for information The Friends of Hollingbury & Burstead Woods was set up after the great storm of 1987. We are a group of local volunteers who look after two areas of woodland, associated glades and adjacent meadow within Site 18, so that people can enjoy the area and wildlife can thrive. We have a constitution and an elected Committee. Total current members: 58. The Committee has approved this response.





Page 420 of 541


Respondent Number:

136

Horsdean Community Sports Association

Individuals Name:

Alan Wildig

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing on behalf of the Horsdean Community Sports Association (HCSA) concerning the proposed 30 units to be built on land adjoining Horsdean Recreation Ground. HCSA consists of 4 local cricket clubs and Patcham junior football club who regularly use Horsdean, this represents some 300 juniors & adults partaking in healthy outdoor team sports. We have obtained Fields in Trust status for Horsdean, with a view to upgrading and expanding the sporting facilities via grant funding, we are currently in discussions with the Council to obtain these objectives. We can forward details of these plans if required. We wish to be involved & informed of any future proposed housing development plans and details of road access to the units. We are assuming the proposed plans will have no restrictions or adverse impact on the current usage of the recreation ground for the sports clubs and local community.






Page 421 of 541


Respondent Number:

60

Individuals Name:

Sean Flanagan

Agents Name:


1






The Plan indicates potential for further development in the urban fringe areas. The majority of theses areas are to the east of the City. There are significant transport and related air pollution problems already identified in the urban fringe areas which would be exacerbated by further development in these areas. The Government inspector does not appear to be aware of these contsraints. On November 2014 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the UK government must take urgent action over its failure to tackle air pollution In response to action brought by Client Earth, the ECJs first ever ruling on the effect of the Air Quality Directive will determine what action the UK courts now take against the government. The Directive requires member states which have failed to meet air quality limits to draw up plans to achieve them in the shortest time possible�. However, UK government plans will not meet nitrogen dioxide limits until after 2030 20 years after the original deadline. Todays ruling states that the UK Supreme Court must now take action to enforce air quality limits, and could pave the way for a series of legal challenges across Europe in cases where governments are failing to protect people from air pollution. Diesel fumes are the main source of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) a harmful gas linked with heart attacks and asthma. The proposed modification to the city plan would cause an increase air pollution levels in araes already in excess of regulatory objectives. This could give rise to legal actions against B&HCC and the government inspector (for insisting on housing targets which would cause these consequential increases in air pollution).


Whilst B&HCC understand the need for increased housing, one of the requisite components is an adequate transport (both strategic and local) infrastructure. This cannot be provided without central government financial intervention.

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The modifications do not address the transport, educational or medical infrastructure needs relating to potential developments in urban fringe areas. Furthermore, there has been no assessment of the topographical features of the urban fringe development areas in relation the related the walking, cycling or public transport capacities. The NPPF clearly indicates that no planning permissions shoild be granted unless an adequate infrastructure is in place to support the development and that no planning permissions should be granted where the impact on local air pollution would cause or increase any exceedance of air quality regulatory objectives National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 162. Local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to: â—� assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and coastal change management, and its ability to meet forecast demands; and â—� take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas. National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 states in 124. Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan. .


Whilst B&HCC understand the need for increased housing, one of the requisite components is an adequate transport (both strategic and local) infrastructure. This cannot be provided without central government financial intervention. Additionally, no further development will be permitted which will cause an incease in air pollution in an Air Quality Management area or cause air pollution levels to exceed regulatory objectives


Page 422 of 541


Yes but I havent the time to present in depth except as follows. Two current applications Planning application number BH2014/02589 and Planning application number BH2014/03394 have both attempted to present the applications as supporting sustainability whereas an assessment of the applications has indicated that misleading statements and omissions have been used to demonstarate sustainability where in fact the development could lead to isolation for the elderly, infirm or younger families.


I have chosen this one modification to make commenmt however these comments can and should be applied to a number of furthrt related modifications




Written Representations also. The examination hearing needs to take into account a number of aspects such as infrastructure, biodiversity, topographical, community and cultural and other considerations which are not apparent from the inspectors previous comments.

Respondent Number:

92

Individuals Name:

Wendy Barrett

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


The areas of Patcham and Hollingbury are enhanced by their proximity to open green space, these spaces are easily accessible by those from other areas of Brighton & Hove and therefore of benefit to many. Brownfield sites must be built on first, this is logical and obviously the first step. Therefore I am against the current proposals.






Page 423 of 541


Respondent Number:

117


n/a



2


Policy/Section:CP1





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Part A The Assessment of Housing Development Needs Study: Sussex Coast HMA dated April 2014 identifies that between 18,000 and 24,000 homes are required across the City Plan area to meet objectively assessed needs. This represents an increase from the range of 16,000 to 20,000 homes as calculated by the Brighton & Hove City Council, Housing Duty to Co-Operate Study, May 2013 (Core Doc Ref: EP051) and discussed at the hearing sessions held in October 2013. The Assessment of Housing Development Needs Study: Sussex Coastal HMA does not represent a Strategic Housing Market Assessment as required by national planning policy and guidance. The study is based on projecting forwards the 2011-based interim population and household projections but is not transparent about the way that it arrives at the overall housing requirement. For example, no detail relating to underpinning assumptions such as migration or household formation rates are provided. It is not therefore possible to comment on the robustness or soundness of the Assessment of Housing Development Needs. However, the overall figure of between 18,000 and 24,000 homes would appear reasonable having regard to the CLG 2008-based household projections which represent the last full set (as opposed to interim) of household projections and projected an increase of 18,878 households between 2011 and 2031. Policy CP1 as amended makes provision for at least 13,200 homes over the period 2011 to 2031 (660 per annum). Against objectively assessed needs the City Plan Part One will therefore result in a shortfall of around 10,000 dwellings. This is a very significant shortfall and entirely contrary to the objectives of national policy and guidance which require Local Plans to identify and then meet full objectively assessed housing needs. The City Plan Part One (paragraph 4.4) acknowledges that the proposed housing requirement of 13,200 reflects the capacity/availability of sites rather than housing need i.e. it is a supply driven requirement. The Housing Implementation Strategy September 2014, which supports the City Plan Part One, cites environmental constraints (being close to the sea and South Downs National Park) as the reason it has not been possible to meet objectively assessed needs. Whilst we acknowledge these constraints, the evidence base underpinning the City Plan Part One does not justifiably nor effectively demonstrate that all potential development sites have been considered by the Council to their maximum capacity. To address this matter of unsoundness the Council must prepare a robust Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and urban fringe assessment. For the reasons discussed below, the assessments produced to date cannot be relied upon. SHLAA 2014 NPPF paragraph 159 requires Local Planning Authorities to prepare a SHLAA to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) identifies the SHLAA as an important step in the preparation of Local Plans� which should: Identify sites and broad locations with potential for development; Assess their development potential; and Assess their suitability for development and the likelihood of development coming forward (the availability and achievability); The assessment should be made publicly available and identify all sites and broad locations regardless of the amount of development needed to provide an audit of available land. The process of the assessment will, however, provide the information to enable an identification of sites and locations suitable for development in the Local Plan. Core outputs of the SHLAA, as identified by the PPG are: a list of all sites or broad locations considered, cross-referenced to their locations on maps; an assessment of each site or broad location, in terms of its suitability, availability and achievability

Page 424 of 541


(including whether the site/broad location is viable) to determine whether a site is realistically expected to be developed and when; the SHLAA should contain adequate detail to justify those sites which are considered to be realistic candidates for development and demonstrate clearly evidenced and justified reasons where sites have been discounted. The Brighton and Hove SHLAA September 2014 which identifies a citywide capacity for around 13,200 has clearly led the housing requirement proposed by Policy CP1 of the City Plan Part One. However, the SHLAA provides no detailed assessment of sites in terms of their suitability, availability and achievability and therefore provides no justification for arriving at a supply figure of 13,200. With regards to the capacity of urban fringe sites, the SHLAA 2014 relies upon the Brighton and Hove Urban Fringe Assessment June 2014, which as discussed below does not represent an accurate assessment. Urban Fringe Assessment, June 2014 Following receipt of the City Plan Inspectors initial conclusions in December 2013, which required the council to undertake a more rigorous assessment of urban fringe sites, Brighton and Hove City Council commissioned Land Use Consultants (LUC) to undertake an independent assessment of 66 urban fringe sites. The results were published on 3rd July 2014. In the City Plan Inspectors main conclusions, published 13 December 2013, Miss Graham noted that the overall impression given by the Councils assessment of urban fringe sites is that the starting point for analysis of these sites has been the desire to resist development, which is at odds with the Frameworks requirement that the plan should be positively prepared�. As clearly set out in Miss Grahams letter dated 22 July 2013, a key requirement of a rigorous and positively prepared assessment of the urban fringe sites is a consideration of whether any identified or perceived constrained can be satisfactorily overcome. Whilst the methodology proposed within the LUC Assessment includes a consideration of potential mitigation, it is clear that the actual assessment of sites has been undertaken in an inflexible and inefficient way that has maximised potential constraints and limited opportunities for mitigation. Furthermore, factual inaccuracies and errors has led to the capacity of some sites being artificially constrained. Contrary to the requirements clearly set out by the City Plan Inspector, the LUC Assessment does not represent a positive or robust assessment of urban fringe sites. For example, with regard to Land to the south of Ovingdean Road (Site Ref: 42) the LUC assessment concludes that it is suitable for development, however, recommends that development is restricted to 45 dwellings along the western edge of the site. The restriction of development to this level and area of the site is entirely unjustified by the available evidence and the limited consideration of potential mitigation demonstrates a negative starting point for the assessment. It is clear that, without any evidenced justification, the starting point for the LUC Assessment for Site 42 was that only a small proportion of the site should be developed. The assessment therefore only considered the potential to mitigate development of this small proportion, as opposed to the entire site. Contrary to the City Plan Inspectors advice, this does not represent positive or objective planning. As illustrated by our comments in Table 1 below, the scores and overall conclusion arrived at for Site 42 are based on factually inaccurate information and indicate that a site visit has not been carried out. On the basis of a limited desktop exercise, the assessment comments and places weight on matters which can only be robustly assessed by detailed on-site surveys, resulting in a clear under assessment of site capacities. For example in relation to Site 42, the assessment: - Inaccurately states that the site is part of a SNCI; - Gives weight to non-statutory ecological designations (e.g. Nature Improvement Area) and fails to consider the ecological quality/potential of the site on the ground, having regard to the fact that it is a heavily grazed site; - Fails to give adequate weight to ecological and biodiversity benefits that can be delivered by new development; - States that the site is visible from higher ground to the east which is factually incorrect and demonstrates that the assessment of landscape impact has not been based on a desktop exercise rather than site visit; - States that the site is surrounded by development and therefore is not in a location that would appear uncharacteristic for housing development�, however then inexplicitly rules out development of the whole site on the basis that there could be a concern about that it would leave little space between Woodingdean and Ovingdean�. It is not clarified for whom it would be a concern. There are no existing or proposed policies which seek to retain a physical gap between Ovingdean and Woodingdean. Furthermore, as a result of existing development to the north of the site, development of Site 42 in its entirety would not physically bring Ovingdean any closer to Woodingdean. The conclusion reached is therefore entirely unjustified. Furthermore, the assessment does not then consider how such concerns could be mitigated (e.g. through landscape design), indicating that the assessment is not an impartial or objective exercise. It is on this basis alone that the assessment concludes the capacity of the site should be limited to 45 dwellings and disregards the capacity of up to 100 dwellings proposed by a live planning application. The LUC Assessment is accompanied by a map which defines a small area of Site 42 as having development potential. The eastern boundary of the defined development potential area follows a agricultural track that can be viewed on aerial photography, however does not exist as a physical boundary on the ground. The boundary of the proposed development area, is therefore and exposed and artificial construct (rather than based on a natural physical boundary), again suggesting that the assessment has been based solely on a simple desktop assessment rather than a site visit and any meaningful consideration of the sites development potential. Part B The table included at Part B of Policy CP1 spatially distributes 13,210 homes across the City Plan Area. The use of exact figures in this table is unjustified and ineffective in light of: - the fact that the overall housing requirement of 13,200 as set out by Part A of the same policy is expressed as a minimum with no upper cap. The use of exact figures in Part B of the policy therefore undermines the effectiveness of Part A of the policy and applies an artificial policy cap on development by geographical area; - the significant shortfall against objectively assessed need and the need to therefore maximise all potential opportunities for sustainable development; - the fact that the figures listed for broad areas, particularly the urban fringe, are based on a crude assessment of capacity. Opportunities for higher levels of development within these broad areas must not be restricted. The inclusion of a precise figure for development in the urban

Page 425 of 541


fringe pre-empts the more detailed assessment of capacity to be undertaken by the City Plan Part Two (as committed to by Policy SA4 and paragraph 4.13 of the City Plan Part One). Paragraph 4.10 Acknowledges that housing delivery in the city has been well below the proposed City Plan Part One housing requirement in the first four years on the plan period (2010 2014) and suggests that this reflects the impacts of the economic recession. This stance is reflective of the Housing Implementation Strategy September 2014 which seeks to explain (at paragraph 3.11) recent low levels of housing delivery on the basis that most of the City's major development sites are brownfield sites with flatted formats of residential development which have been particularly hard hit by the costs of construction and development finance which has adversely impacted upon scheme viability in recent times�. The City Plan Part One and its accompanying evidence base fails to recognise that the low level of completions recorded in the City area since 2010 equally reflects the restrictive policy approach to greenfield development as much as the impacts of the economic recession. Given the level of identified housing need in Brighton and Hove and the thrust of national planning policy, it would be inappropriate and unjustified to continue to plan for a restrictive approach to greenfield development. As stated elsewhere in these representations, underpinning the City Plan from submission stage has been a brownfield first approach which simultaneously seeks to restrict greenfield development. Despite the initial conclusions of the City Plan Inspector, the brownfield first approach has continued to underpin the Councils approach to urban fringe site and therefore clearly constrained the level of supply identified from the urban fringe. Paragraph 4.13 States that the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment Study 2014 will be a material consideration in the determination of any applications for residential development on urban fringe sites that come forward prior to the adoption of Part 2 of the City Plan. In light of the fact that assessment is a broad brush exercise which has been based on a desktop assessment rather than detailed site visits or surveys, it is vital that the development capacities indicated by the Urban Fringe Assessment 2014 are not applied by the Council as an artificial cap on development. Development capacities within the Urban Fringe Assessment must be recognised as indicative only and the Council must commit within the City Plan Part One to favorably exploring opportunities to deliver higher levels of development on urban fringe sites, where justified by detailed site specific information. This is particularly important given the significant shortfall of delivery proposed by the City Plan Part One against objectively assessed housing needs.


Any development figures included in Policy CP1 of the Plan must therefore be expressed as minima and Part C of the Plan must be modified to remove reference to the release of land/sites for new housing being managed so that it delivers the broad amount and distribution of housing as set out above�. Brighton and Hove City Council must objectively review all options for greenfield development, particularly in the urban fringe, and accept that development of greenfield land is necessary to meet identified housing needs.



(The objector has included an annotated version of the Urban Fringe Assessment of Site 42, including their comments and adjusted score, in addition to a map indicating biodiversity designations. Please see hard copy.)




To further explain and discuss the matters raised by these representations which are technical in nature and require in-depth consideration and discussion.

Page 426 of 541


Respondent Number:

90

Craven Vale & Whitehawk Hill Allotment Society

Individuals Name:

James Gilderoy

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing on behalf of the Craven Vale & Whitehawk Hill Allotment Society to object to the inclusion of actively used allotment sites as having potential for housing use in the Urban Fringe Assessment Report (the Report�), a development plan document being considered as part of the City Plan Part One. The Society represents 352 plot holders on what is identified as site 31 in the Report. Brighton and Hove City Council administers site 31 as two separate allotment sites: Craven Vale (173 plots) and Whitehawk Hill (179 plots), reflecting their development over the years. The Whitehawk Hill part of the site has been used as allotments for about a century, while the Craven Vale site was created in the 1950s to mitigate for the loss of allotment land as a result of the construction of the Craven Vale housing estate. Current BHCC figures show a waiting list of 106 across the two sites. The Society's objections are as follows: 1. We are concerned that the Report appears to be little more than a hastily produced desktop study, produced by consultants with little local knowledge. The detail in the report contains a number of errors about site 31. For example, it refers only to Whitehawk Hill allotments (an inaccurate 177 plots�) whereas the area identified as potential for housing is shown on the map on the Craven Vale site. It also suggests that new allotment sites could be created in mitigation by expanding the allotments westwards on to the lower slopes of [site] 31b to the west�. However, this land, which is wooded and is being developed as a local nature reserve, is designated as open access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and so could not be used in mitigation. 2. The Society objects to any actively used allotment site being considered for housing potential. Allotments provide a valuable amenity both in terms of the local community and for the local ecology. Local authorities have a statutory responsibility to provide allotments and we believe that actively used sites should be protected in local development plans and not identified for other land uses. 3. The Report also considers that the structures on the allotments add clutter to the visual landscape. This view is entirely subjective; many people would consider the structures add visual interest. It should be noted that all the structures are temporary, whereas housing would be permanent. 4. The Report notes that the east Brighton area has an over-provision of open spaces. However, allotment holders come from a wider area, including the city centre, where provision of open spaces is below average. The allotment site needs to be considered in that context, as a more widely used amenity. 5. The inclusion of actively used allotment sites in the Report creates a tension with long established council policies to protect such sites and to promote the working of allotment land. Reducing food miles and encouraging healthy lifestyles, including the positive physical and mental health benefits of working allotments, are amongst the valuable benefits of the current land use. Inclusion of allotment land in the Report makes it unclear which policy has precedence. The development plan process should create clarity rather than confusion in this respect. 6. Craven Vale and Whitehawk Hill allotments are included in the Whitehawk Hill Nature Reserve an endorsement of their wildlife importance. Plot-holders cultivate in a sustainable way with respect for wildlife. Many create habitat piles for invertebrates, install small wildlife ponds allowed within the allotment rules to provide habitat for amphibians, dragonfly and damselfly larvae and many other useful interventions. A summary of some of the animal and plant species identified is attached (Annex A). 7. It should also be noted that site 31 is adjacent to site 31a, the causeway enclosure of Whitehawk Camp. This scheduled ancient monument is approximately 5,500 years old (Neolithic) and predates Stonehenge by some 1,000 years. It is of significant national importance and is the subject of current University College of London research. Site 31a in the plan is tightly drawn; digs were undertaken in summer 2014, the largest of which was in site 31b. Site 31 (the allotment site) is also of interest to the on-going archaeological research. Continued allotment use on site 31 will help protect archaeological remains and facilitate the research. 8. Any development of the sites identified in the Report will extend the built-up area of the City onto greenfield sites. Once these greenfield sites are gone they are gone forever. If they are to be included in the City Plan then policy SA4 should also ensure that all avenues to secure housing provision within the built-up area of the City have been exhausted before any planning application on an urban fringe site is considered. 9. Finally, the Society does not believe the site would be suitable for housing because road access is unsuitable. Currently road access is via Beresford Road and Donald Hall Road. Both are effectively single track roads because

Page 427 of 541


of the large amount of on-road car parking (the Bristol Manor estate, through which the roads pass, has very little off road parking). As such pressure on the local road network, both during construction and during occupation of the houses, should they be developed, would be unacceptable.






Page 428 of 541


Respondent Number:

118

Saltdean Residents' Association

Individuals Name:

Cathy Gallagher Vice Chair and Treasurer

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Overall the Plan is acceptable and makes good use of brown field sites and the commercial needs of the City. Recognition is given to the need to provide for Travellers who are a cost to the tax payers of B&H. Transport and the difficulties of moving around the City are considered from Shoreham to the Marina but not beyond. Saltdean lies at the edge of the City and for many reasons walking and cycling from the City Centre is not possible for most of the inhabitants, we rely on Buses and cars as there is no train station. We therefore rely on the A259 and B2123 which are already congested. The main of our comments are about the Urban Fringe especially plots 46a,48,48a,48b,48c,50 which impact Saltdean. SALTDEAN sites designated on the Urban Fringe SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT and not go through to Part 2. The Urban Fringe assessment is not comprehensive and has not undertaken a detailed study of local circumstances. The redevelopment of Saltdean Lido as a major tourist attraction and the expansion of Saltdean Primary School to take 150 more pupils (to satisfy existing need) Saltdean Residents are in danger of being cut off from access to and from the A259 and A27 as major developments in Peacehaven, Newhaven and Seaford as well as those within the City boundaries all impact on the A259 ,the entrance in and out of Saltdean. Rottingdean, Ovingdean and Saltdean are dormitory villages or towns , designated in the B&HCC Seafront strategy as Tourist and Leisure areas� with local shops, Rottingdean historic High Street, Windmill and Saltdean Grade 2* listed Lido with access to the sea and South Downs National Park. Developments on the Urban Fringe will adversely affect the settings. Within Saltdean (identified sites) 46a Former Nursery Site West of Saltdean Vale 18 48 Land at Coombe Farm Westfield Ave 50 48a Land north of Westfield Rise 12 48b Land at Westfield Ave North 2 48c Land at Saltdean Boarding Kennels 7 50 Land at the Rear of Falmer Ave 12 Total 101. Any developments on the Urban Fringe of Saltdean will increase the traffic and pollution on the A259 and Rottingdean High Street, Air Quality Management Areas. The land which is identified is in effect Green Belt, agricultural land and as such is the land referred to by Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Local Government and Communities on 4th Oct 2014 when he issued new guidance stating that inappropriate development� on Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances�. In making these comments we represent 476 households in Saltdean and the 2274 people who signed a petition calling on B&HCC to prevent development on the Greenfield sites on the edge of Saltdean. The statistics and sections of the City Plan Part 1 modifications to which we referred to in support of our comments are listed below; (with some additional comment) Brighton and Hove has a population 275,000 growing fast 35,000 students with a high percentage of young and single people 660 houses per annum to be built in this plan 16,000 to 20,000 new homes between 2010 and 2030 72%of inhabitants in the City do not earn enough to afford market price housing 1,060 Urban Fringe potential dwellings identified PM009 / Page 13, para 1.24 in City Plan : 2013 Air Quality Management Area(AQMA) Exceeding the Governments Air Quality objective for nitrogen dioxide. Transport is the main cause of poor air and noise quality in some parts of the City. PM045 / DA7, para 3.83 in City Plan : Brighton and Hove is a tightly constrained urban area, with the sea to the South Downs National Park boundaries tightly drawn to the City's edge.� need to balance development requirements with the City's need for open space and the need to safeguard the City's highly valued natural and historic environs� PM058 / SA1, para 3. 122 in City Plan : Much of the A259 corridor is included within the 2013 AQMA PM064 / SA4 Urban Fringe Page, para 3.154 : in many instances the South Downs National Park boundary is contiguous with the built up urban edge of the city. The Urban Fringe is now made up of pockets of residential green space rather than any homogenous green belt� around the City� PM064 / SA4 in City Plan: 4. The protection of sensitive groundwater source protection zones etc 5. Development will not be permitted except where: a) a site has been allocated for development in a development plan document or b) a countryside location can be justified. And where it can be clearly demonstrated that: c) the proposal has had regard to the downland landscape setting of the city; d) any adverse impacts of development are minimised and appropriately mitigated and / or compensated for; and e) where appropriate, the proposal helps to achieve the policy objectives set above. Should proposals for development come forward prior to the adoption of Part 2 of the City Plan, the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment will be a material planning consideration in the determination of applications for residential development within the urban fringe, PM070 / SA6 Sustainable Neighbourhoods in City

Page 429 of 541


Plan PM087 / CP8, para 4.77 in City Plan: B&H particularly vulnerable to climate change need to be carbon neutral. PM090 / CP9 (A.2.c) in City Plan : Ensuring that all major developments submit a Transport Assessment PM091 / CP9 (B.1) in City Plan : No railway station, 2 bus routes one very limited, cars all dependent on A259 or B212 ,inadequate for existing traffic loads. From Shoreham to Marina being looked at. From the Marina to Saltdean A259, Woodingean to Rottingdean B 2123 not being looked at. Shopping Areas, Saltdean, Rottingdean, Woodingdean, Ovingdean not mentioned. 2.11 the importance of Green spaces (BHCC Officer note: not clear to which section this relates) 2.12 the steep topography (BHCC Officer note: not clear to which section this relates)






Respondent Number:

89

Individuals Name:

Linnette Fellingham

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


Please ensure that this message is noted as part of you consultation on the development of Benfield Valley. I accept that there is a housing shortage but please consider that once you build on an important green wedge like the Benfield Valley then it is gone forever. This is one of the very few areas in the city with a bridge link over the A27 to Southdowns National Park. It is well used by general public for outdoor recreation and contains significant wildlife habitats. This type of green wedge has important benefits on biodiversity and human wellbeing. The plans put forward for 380 dwellings (including four storey blocks of flats) seem excessive and unsustainable without huge clearance. There appear to be no additional facilities to support this number of dwellings either, e.g. medical centre, schools, community store, sewage, water, parking and access would appear to be problematic. Additionally I'm concerned that this proposal will not provide council housing of the type that this Council has been calling for as there would be difficult leasehold arrangements to be negotiated that would deter most people. For a small area the Bouygues Development that I have seen is too large and it was very apparent that they had no idea about the real usage and current biodiversity of the area. A rethink is needed.






Page 430 of 541


Respondent Number:

126

Individuals Name:

Roger & Sue Harper

Agents Name:


5


Policy/Section:CP1 housing delivery





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



I object to changes in PM072. The previous target of 11,300 new homes should be retained. The housing requirements listed under urban fringe should be deleted. The housing trajectory should revert back to its original targets.


Remove housing requirement from urban fringe






See comments against PM010

Page 431 of 541


Respondent Number:

86

Individuals Name:

Mark Hayes

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1




Site 50, Land west of Falmer Avenue, Saltdean. It is legally unsound due to the classification of the land as urban when it should be agricultural.


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


City Plan Part One Proposed Modification Consultation November 2014. Site 50, Land west of Falmer Avenue, Saltdean. I wish to formally object to the Urban Fringe Assessment Study of June 2014 in respect of the above sites potential for 12 new dwellings which I believe to be lacking in its preparation and legally unsound. There is no access to this field. Flooding is an issue on this field which is shown on the environment agency website, building on this field will cause faster runoff of water down into the lower houses and into further flood areas down into Saltdean. If this land is built on Defra potentially could face a large compensation bill to nearby residents for loss of value to their homes for making a procedural error and allowing this land to fall out of the national park. This cost to the government purse would seem unacceptable to build twelve houses.






Page 432 of 541


Respondent Number:

85

Individuals Name:

Richard Everest

Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:CP1





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:










Page 433 of 541


Respondent Number:

75

Individuals Name:

Mr D Hunter



4




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


In the light of the objections to the Urban Fringe Assessment, the following objections are lodged in respect of the Proposed Modification PM072: As discussed earlier, the revised 13,200 target is insufficient to meet the Councils Objectively Assessed Need for housing. The within the urban fringe� figure of 1060 should be raised to at least 1070 (to reflect the additional development potential on our clients site). But in all probability the figure should be much higher, depending on what other sites are proposed by other urban fringe� landowners. As with earlier comments with regard to policy SA4, the Urban Fringe Assessment should not be used as a planning policy document given that it has not rigorously assessed all sites. The modified Figure 2 Housing Trajectory� table is also unacceptable (Please note extract included in representation). The table shows a very large shortfall in housing provision (relative to the Councils modified housing target) for the 4 years between 2010/11 and 2013/14. The shortfall from these years needs to be accounted for in the subsequent five year period (2014/15 to 2018/19), not in later years (as shown in modified Figure 2�). This matter was also raised by the Inspector in her letter of 13 December 2013: The most common method of calculating a five-year land supply is to use the annualised housing requirement derived from the overall target. I note the Councils approach is to base its calculations on the housing trajectory, which has the effect of reducing the five-year land supply requirements in the early years of the Plan. The Framework is not prescriptive about the method that should be used to determine the five-year supply of land for housing. However, a method of calculation that suppresses housing land supply in the early years of the plan period does not, in my view, accord with the Frameworks general intent to boost significantly the supply of new housing. Such an approach could be justified if essential infrastructure requirements are likely to constrain the delivery of new development, but I am not persuaded that the impact of the economic recession is a valid reason for taking this approach.� Subsequent to the Inspectors comments, the National Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014) also states: Local planning authorities should aim to deal with any undersupply within the first 5 years of the plan period where possible. Where this cannot be met in the first 5 years, local planning authorities will need to work with neighbouring authorities under the Duty to Cooperate. (Paragraph 035, Reference ID: 3-035-20140306) Quite clearly the Council has to deal with its historic shortfall over next five years, not in the years commencing 2018/19 onwards. Greater reliance on urban fringe sites (such as our clients) will enable this to happen, and so there is no reason why a housing trajectory that suppresses housing supply (as is currently proposed) should be found sound with the regard to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.






Page 434 of 541


Respondent Number:

134

Individuals Name:

Richard & Theresa Pearce

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


We would like our views to be considered under the consultation procedure. The sites identified in the urban fringe for an additional 1,060 new homes is unacceptable. The brownfield sites throughout the city should be built on first. A new housing development has only just been completed this year in Saxon Way, Patcham, (off Vale Avenue) providing approx. 12 homes. The green spaces around Patcham are already greatly reduced since the By-pass was built cutting off direct access to the countryside and, later, the travellers site and the proposed permanent travellers site which is to be added. You are already aware of the water table concerns that any new development on the Horsdean site will cause. Also, there is no support structure for another community of 30 families in this area and this will put more pressure on the existing village facilities.






Page 435 of 541


Respondent Number:

81

Individuals Name:

Paul Davey

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I rent allotment plot 62/2 on the Craven Vale site, and I want you to know that I am opposed to any proposal to close the site and build over it. My reasons for objecting are: --- I have rented this plot for two years now and have expended a lot of effort and energy and money into it. I spent weeks manually clearing weeds from it, I planted fruit trees and bushes, not cheap, and built up soil fertility, by buying and digging in, manures, also not cheap. -- I am retired, and my allotment is my main means of gaining exercise and getting away from being sedentary and from city centre pollution. -- Any proposal to replace the site with new allotments on the west side of Whitehawk Hill is misguided. Local enthusiasts and the local city ranger have expended a lot of time and energy, and money, on Craven Vale Wood and its general area, and made it a valuable leisure resource. It would be wrong and a shame to waste all that. -- I share my plot with wildlife. I regularly see: a family of foxes, red Admiral butterflies, and small blue butterflies, which I believe, though I am no expert, are Southdown chalk blues. I believe badgers use the site.






Page 436 of 541


Respondent Number:

80

Individuals Name:

Jacqueline Inns

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I've just returned from a wonderful walk through Hollingbury Park and Woods and around the Roedale allotments - a walk I have been enjoying for 40 years. Many others were out in the sunshine as well. I cannot imagine what it would be like not having this green space - of value not just to people but to wildlife as well. I remember the devastation of the woods after the Great Storm of October 1987 and have watched the regrowth over the years, marveling at nature's ability to regenerate. Now all this is in danger of being lost. I'm aware of the need for more housing but wonder where it will end. Will this 'green tongue' be eventually filled in right up to Old Boat Corner? Will it be Wild Park next? Please consider very carefully before condemning this beautiful site to the bulldozer .






Page 437 of 541


Respondent Number:

152

Individuals Name:

Mr Colin Brace



1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


City Plan Inspectors Comments (13th December 2013) In December 2013, the City Plan Inspector required the City Council to rigorously assess all opportunities to meet the significant shortfall in housing need. The Inspector confirmed that the full objectively assessed need is for 20,000 new dwellings and concluded as follows: "I recognise the constraints faced by the Council, but if I am to find the plan sound, notwithstanding such a significant shortfall in the provision of new housing, I would need to be satisfied that the Council had left no stone unturned in seeking to meet as much of this need as possible.� The Proposed Modifications confirm that the objectively assessed housing need has since increased and the current requirement is for between 18,000 to 24,000 new dwellings by 2030. This increase places even greater pressure on the delivery of residential development in the City. Whilst the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2013 introduced permitted development rights for changes of use from offices (B1) to residential (C3), the City Council introduced an Article 4 Direction on 25th July 2014 to remove these rights in the following areas: Central Brighton, New England Quarter & London Road Area; Edward Street Quarter, Brighton; City Park, The Droveway, Hove. As a result of this Article 4 Direction, the potential addition of residential units through permitted development rights has been blocked and housing supply restricted further. Proposed Modifications The Proposed Modifications to the City Plan focus on four main areas of change: An update to housing land supply figures; The identification of urban fringe locations for housing provision; Alterations to the Brighton Marina Policy (DA2); Changes to Sustainable Building Policy CP8 These amendments have resulted in improvements to the Draft City Plan including an increase in the housing target from 11,300 to 13,200 new homes across the plan period. However, the revised housing target remains considerably short of the full objectively assessed housing need (a deficit of 13,176 dwellings) and the proposed modifications have not sought to assess all potential options to address the shortfall. Whilst we recognise the considerable amount of work which the Council has undertaken in reviewing the City Plan, we remain concerned about the potential risk of the document being declared unsound by the Planning Inspector. It is vital for the future of the City that the Plan is as robust as possible and complies with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. Tall Buildings & High Density Development (CP14) A capacity assessment for taller buildings in the city was last carried out in 2003 and therefore should be reviewed in light of the current housing shortage. Many planning applications for tall buildings have been resisted (or amended) despite being within tall building zones (i.e. the PortZed proposals at Shoreham Harbour and pre-application discussions for the redevelopment of 43-47 Cheapside (both sites are owned by Mr Brace)). Furthermore, the existing tall buildings policies have been used to restrict proposals for taller buildings outside of these zones where they have otherwise been acceptable.


As such, we would suggest that the Councils approach to housing land supply is reviewed again before the proposed modifications are submitted to the Secretary of State. Our proposals for specific areas for review are set out below. The policies for tall building proposals therefore need to be reviewed in all parts of the city. Whilst Policy CP14 supports housing densities of 100 dwellings per hectare within the identified Development Areas, the target of 50 dwellings per hectare outside these areas is too low in light of the housing shortage and also needs to be reviewed further.






Page 438 of 541


Mr Brace appeared at the City Plan Examination in October 2013 and requests to appear again to discuss the representations set out in this correspondence should the Inspector re-open the Inquiry. Previous objections to the City Plan related to housing land supply, tall building zones, urban design, housing density, affordable housing, employment sites and student accommodation. Having reviewed the proposed modifications to the City Plan, our comments remain valid.

Respondent Number:

107

Individuals Name:

Jill Humphrey

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing to express my objection to the proposal to build houses on the Crave Vale allotment site. The allotments provide a fabulous space for people living in flats with no outdoor space, to enjoy being outside at the same time as enabling them to be productive by growing fruit and veg. Personally it provides me with a real boost to be able to have some exercise in the fresh air and to meet a whole range of new people. I live within a 15 min walk of the allotment site which means that I can access it easily. I understand that if the site is developed that another site for allotments would have to be provided. I am not aware of any such site which would enable me to walk to my plot. I have invested a considerable amount of time and effort bringing my plot into use, my wellbeing is greatly improved and I am learning a range of new skills as well as having crops of delicious organic vegetables and fruit. I am not against building new homes, however there are extensive under-utilised sites in the City which should be utilised before even considering taking away any allotment sites.






Page 439 of 541


Respondent Number:

151


Individuals Name:

c/o agent



5


Policy/Section:CP3 Employment Land






Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Employment Policy Constraints Policy CP3 The current policy approach to the Hove Station area will constrain the opportunities for redevelopment and for maximising the contribution the Sackville Road sites could make to meeting the housing needs of the City. Both Policy DA6 and CP3 constrain the opportunities for redevelopment by focusing on the retention or re-provision of B Class uses, at the expense of other land uses; the need for which are equally, or potentially even more pressing. We have noted above the significant need for the provision of new homes in the City and how the Plan, as currently proposed, will fall some way short of delivering the number needed. There are also other land use needs which could be restricted because of the B Class emphasis. The Council acknowledge at modified paragraph 4.26 that non-B Class uses are estimated to account for around 71% of all jobs in Brighton and Hove and this trend is predicted to continue. The Inspector highlighted in her letter to the Council dated 13th February, 2014, that in light of the significant shortfall in meeting housing needs, she was concerned that policies for employment land should not seek to protect sites in employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of use or redevelopment for employment purposes. As a result the modifications propose to introduce a viability test in the supporting text to CP3 part 4. This is broadly welcomed and a similar test should also be directly applied to CP3 part 5. But this modification does not go far enough. However the issue (of inflexible employment policies restricting the delivery of new homes - which applies to Policy DA6 and CP3) should not only be about whether the retention/redevelopment for employment uses is viable, it should also be about whether the redevelopment for other uses brings with it benefits which would outweigh the harm caused by the loss of land in B Class use. These benefits could include the delivery of much needed new homes or non-B Class employment generating uses, it might also include the regeneration of sites with enhancements to the public realm, to the design, character and visual appearance of the area. Policy CP3 part 5, should be amended to positively facilitate redevelopment for other uses where the benefits of doing so clearly outweigh any harm through the loss of employment land. Such an approach would positively acknowledge the pressing land use needs in the City and in particular the shortfall in the provision of new homes.


Policy CP3 should be amended to allow for the redevelopment of existing employment sites for other uses where such redevelopment will make a significant contribution to meeting the needs (particularly housing needs) of the City and provide other sustainability and urban design benefits.





Page 440 of 541




Respondent Number:

108

Individuals Name:

Ian Robertson

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing with regard to the proposed building of approximately 380 dwelling in the Benfield Valley on the land currently a 9 hole golf course. I think the idea is totally wrong and I intend to oppose the plans as I don't believe the area could sustain any further housing. For a start the local infrastructure would not cope with the extra amount of housing, the schools, doctors etc. could not cope with the amount of families and so on that this development would bring to the area. Another reason for my opposition is that the local roads in the area could not cope with the obvious increase in cars, vans etc. The roads all around here such as Hangleton Lane, Fox Way the Hangleton Link Road all get very busy at certain times of the day and could not cope with all the extra traffic this development would bring. When looking around Sussex and the local area there are lots of area's that would be more suitable for new housing and would not make already quite busy area's even more congested and more frustrating for the local people, not to mention the added pollution that the extra traffic would create, also does not say much for the 'green' policies supposedly in place!! I strongly appose the proposed building of these houses and will do so until this ridiculous plan is abandoned.






Page 441 of 541


Respondent Number:

102

Individuals Name:

Ms Brenda Pollack

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Please read in conjunction with my representation on PM 064 I believe PM 072 is unsound mainly because of the reasons I give for PM064. The housing that can be derived from the Urban Fringe is based on a study that has not been consulted on publicly and is contested with regard to some sites.. I am also very concerned that we should not lose parts of the City's fringe green open spaces to housing without a strong case that they are absolutely essential and critically needed. The policy mentions brownfield sites and the Development Areas but there is nothing to suggest that these need to be brought forward before losing our open spaces. Developers will seek to develop properties in the cheapest way to maximise profits. It is therefore likely that if there is a choice of a brownfield or greenfield site they are going to opt for greenfield in most cases. This could mean residential development occurring in places like Hollingbury Park near where I live, before other sites are used. I would like the policy to direct development to strategic areas first and only allow limited development on fringe open spaces once those sites have been built on. There seems to be a move away in this policy from a duty to protect our environment and just "respect" it. This is not adequate in my view.


Please amend paragraph 4.6 to something like: The city's urban fringe may provide some suitable sites for development and the strategy will seek to develop these after brownfield sites and the Eight Development Areas have met their targets.. In paragraph 4.4 please amend to replace "respect" with "protect": The City Plan the need to protect the historic, built and natural environment of the City






Page 442 of 541


Respondent Number:

142


Individuals Name:

J Frowde

Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:










Page 443 of 541


Respondent Number:

101

Individuals Name:

Valerie Axcell

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


In response to your circular I should like to place on record my opposition to this planning application. As briefly mentioned in 'the argus', i have been feeding badgers in my garden for the last 20 years. As i live at the top of Sylvester Way immediately next to Benfield Valley I see the wide variety of wildlife which inhabits the valley and which would disappear if the current planning proposal is adopted. The badgers have already lost their main field due to the Meads Avenue extension and these poor animals are yet again being threatened. On the subject of housing the country as a whole might need more but the south east is already at saturation point and more building would encourage yet more people which the area would have difficulty coping with. In conclusion i would reiterate the fact that wildlife has decreased by 50% over the last 40 years so do we want to see animals in the future or all our remaining green spaces covered in concrete?






Page 444 of 541


Respondent Number:

82

Individuals Name:

Caroline Martin

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I am a tenant of Craven Vale allotments and I'm writing to express my concern about the site being identified in the City Plan as an area of urban fringe that may be suitable for housing development. I have been a tenant at Craven Vale for three and half years and I thoroughly value the time I spend on the site. I selected the site because of its location, within walking distance of my flat (I don't own a car). One of my concerns about the potential for redevelopment is the prospect of moving allotments. I would not find it so convenient to visit my allotment regularly if I had to travel across the city by bus, and where is the space to move tenants to I wonder? I also feel that having battled with the tough conditions on the site (my plot is at the far, exposed reaches, near Manor Hall road), were finally at the point where we can focus on maintaining the plot and have a chance to experiment with new crops. We've just had a fabulously productive year and frankly the idea that we could easily relocate is laughable. And that's from a position of just a few years of labour and commitment I cant begin to imagine how it must feel to plot holders who have more established plots, with fruit trees and the like. My allotment brings me huge joy and pleasure. I don't have the luxury of any outside place with my small flat so the allotment gives me some space to enjoy the fresh air. I find the process of gardening hugely therapeutic. Whatever frame of mind I'm in, I feel better for spending time on the site. My mood lifts, I have a great sense of achievement from growing veggies and flowers, and from simple tasks like weeding. I also value being part of the allotment community. Anecdotally I hear that gardening is highly regarded as a form of therapy, especially for mental health conditions. I can well believe it given my personal experience as it does wonders for my wellbeing. I appreciate the demands on the housing supply in this crowded city. But I also feel that we need to find ways of respecting the value of our green space too. Has sufficient effort been made to investigate alternatives to the urban fringe, such as existing buildings (how many are empty, including commercial sites), or brown field sites? Allotments are far too easily targeted. I'm also learning about the valuable contribution the Craven Vale site makes to the local ecology. I have no expertise in this area, but I'm pleased to hear that our patch of green is doing its bit in the same way that I was pleased to see the South Downs National Park achieve its protected status. Doesn't Craven Vale deserve the same kind of recognition and appreciation for the part it plays to the state of our environment? My allotment is part of my life and Id be really sad to lose this outside space. I hope that the views of allotment tenants will be taken fully into account during the consultation and decision process.






Page 445 of 541


Respondent Number:

115

Individuals Name:

Anthony L Cooke

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


Urban Fringe Assessment Site 18 I am writing to voice my concern at the proposal to develop on Hollingbury Park. In my time I have seen the development of the whole of Westdene, Hollingbury and most of Patcham and I consider that building on the remaining green areas as a matter of very great concern. Whilst I appreciate that the process may well have come about as a directive from central government I believe that the objective could be fully exploiting the available brownfield sites. When I first moved into my present property in 1977 I was told by Brighton Council that Hollingbury Park was an area of Natural Beauty and would never be built on and one felt justified in accepting that statement. Unlike the proposed development at the end of Ladies Mile Road, it is not scrubland but a cultivated area which provides recreational facilities quite apart from the dozens of local people who walk their dogs on the open green area and into adjacent woods. (I have no intention of arguing in favour of the further development of Windmill View, as there may well be arguments based on the flora and other aspects there which I am not aware of as I am not familiar with the area). It is interesting to note that the area concerned is referred to in the Councils Urban Fringe Assessment as land south of Hollingbury Golf Course and north of Hollingbury Park I do not know whether this is intended to deceive, but the and is indeed part of Hollingbury Park and to describe it otherwise is a misrepresentation. I appreciate that the area at risk in Holingbury Park appears remote from the play area provided for young children adjacent to the tennis courts and Varndean School, but for those living in the upper reaches of Ditchling Road, Surrenden Road, Woodbourne Avenue and the surrounding area, it provides a facility which is much appreciated for its general character or rural aspect which will be lost if development takes place. To deprive local residents and future generations this enjoyment for the sake of 20 houses is in my opinion outrageous particularly as it represents as infinitesimal part of the whole requirement which in any case can be provided for from existing brownfield sites. It is no good arguing that only the fringe is going to be developed and that there is plenty of space to walk ones dog. The whole ambience of the area will be changed and it is inevitable that once some development takes place more will follow. It is the very nature of the beast. Small changes will be required, such as the demolition of the bus shelter opposite the turning into Surrenden Road. One of the very few now left, but I still remember with nostalgia those at the top and bottom of Beaconsfield Villas and at Fiveways. There is much generalisation in the study to justify the conclusions, which on closer inspection are nonsense. For instance, what benefit to the wider local economy and opportunities for investment and regeneration occur by destroying part of the parkland presently enjoyed by local residents? Or, what wider economic, environmental and social (e.g. health and wellbeing) benefits are there for the city; and it is ironic that the expansion of public open space is spoken of as a positive outcome. Further development in Patcham is referred to as potentially leading to the provision of open space facilities such as sports fields. Organised football matches used to be played through the season at Hollingbury Park. Presumably there are now adequate playing areas elsewhere and its slope is not ideal, but the time may well come when this facility is again required but will no longer be available. In the meantime young people are able to play improvised ball games of all sorts and indulge in activities such as kite flying, without regard to traffic or homeowners. The council appear to be concerned with maintaining the benefit of amenity green space whilst being prepared to take from the residents of this area that very benefit which as bought many to this area and which is irreplaceable. I have spoken of this being a cultivated area and presumably we will no longer have the enjoyment of the daffodils and crocus which grow and are maintained by the Council on the very spots to be vandalized.






Page 446 of 541


Page 447 of 541


Respondent Number:

94

Individuals Name:

Mr John Austin Locke

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1




Some of the above questions are difficult to answer. I have no legal knowledge of the legal side of these potential proposals and do not know which section to which they refer. I have some general comments on the proposals contained in the City Plan and some specific comments, at this early stage, around those proposed for Westfield Avenue and Coombe Farm. I am a resident of Coombe Vale and Coombe Farm immediately backs onto my property. Looking at the plan in its entirety and in general terms I find many of the proposed development sites in the plan imaginative. Clearly the City remains a popular place to live and any one of us could claim that saturation point has been reached in our area and there is "no more room". I would like to think that I am not one of those and do not subscribe to the lifeboat approach of ".there is plenty of room in the lifeboat, I'm in the lifeboat. There is no more room in the lifeboat". The "Lifeboat" in this case being housing across the City and the need to provide more of it in a sustainable way.


The number of houses proposed for the Westfield Avenue, Dog Kennel and Coombe Farm site, 71 homes in total, is too many for the area and while some development on the site would simply continue the current process, of infilling, taking place, a reduced number of new properties would be more appropriate. I would suggest that the development at Westfield Avenue, Land North of Westfield Avenue and land at the kennels provide a sustainable increase in housing in the area, and use what is nearer to "Brown Field Sites" while the use of virgin farm land does not. While the farm land is not in the National Park designation it is so close to it as to make no difference. So a partial development on this site fits better with the overall aims of the plan and demonstrates serious intent with impacting on the environment. Above all, however, I would wish to preserve the woodland on the site, (behind Coombe Vale and to the left of Westfield Avenue North at the entrance to the farm) part of which I own as a managed part of my garden. This woodland is made up almost entirely of undiseased Elm Trees and therefore represents a significant natural resource of value both in terms of its Green contribution to the area and as a wildlife preserve. The woodland is home to badger, fox, squirrels, green woodpeckers, jays, visiting peregrine falcons. I have added to these hardwood trees and have planted approximately ten thousand snowdrop, English bluebell and other bulbs on the site. I believe, from the plan that this is not currently threatened. However the substantial development of houses would undoubtedly have an impact on the wildlife habitat and activities of the wildlife and this needs to be recognised.

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



As I have suggested at 3C the plans, currently, are exaggerated and need to be reduced in volume. Further consideration also needs to be given to the wildlife habitat in the woodland at the back of Coombe Vale and to the side of Westfield Avenue and the impact any substantial development in the vicinity of the woodland. As owner of part of that woodland I undertake to co-operate with any investigation.


I would suggest wording along the lines of "Consideration will be given to the impact any development will have on the natural environment in the case of 48 a-c. In particular the plan will seek to preserve the woodland on the site and the preservation of the mature elm trees sited there. Consideration will also be given to preserving the natural environment within the woodland and the wildlife that lives there".


The current plan does not sufficiently recognise the diversity in fauna and flora in the area around the Coombe Vale/Coombe Farm/Westfield Avenue site. This needs to be acknowledged and the preservation of the woodland

Page 448 of 541


on the site guaranteed.


Clearly there is a need for further housing in the area and I do not subscribe to the NIMBY approach that precludes any further building. However all developments have to be sustainable, as we know, and the current proposals in the Westfield Avenue, Coombe Farm and Kennels area to be excessive both in terms of volume and position. The numbers proposed need to be reduced and guarantees given for the natural environment, in particular to the woodland at the entrance to Coombe Farm. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am willing to participate in any further investigation work.



Respondent Number:

145

Individuals Name:

Ray Tyler

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


As a resident in Hangleton Valley Drive I would like to register my views on the proposed development of Benfield Valley. I attended the presentation at Hangleton Manor in November which gave very limited information, only a brief outline of the extent of the development, and nothing of the impact upon the residents in the area in regard to increased traffic congestion; impact on schools ; and other services such as doctors surgeries. The plan to provide the access to the development is via Hangleton Lane for both the areas south and north of the lane. The lane is already heavily congested at peak periods and the roundabout at its junction with the link road is very hazardous at the best of times with limited visibility north and south when emerging from the lane. This lane is used by children as access to Hove Park School from Portslade and children from Hangleton to the Portslade Aldridge Academy in Chalky Road .The development will only add to the congestion and hazards at the junction. The schools in the area are already at full capacity with little or no room for expansion. 387 houses will add to the problem. I accept that some development is required but feel this should be limited to the south side of the lane. This area is a eyesore and used only as a dog toilet. Sympathetic building would be a benefit but the provision of a duck pond must be a joke. Who would maintain it? Not the council as they are already incapable of cutting the grass verges in the area. Surely they would not wish to take on the responsibility of maintenance and safety for the future generations. There is land , a brown field site, at Hangleton Bottom ( currently used as a refuge for travellers ). Surely it would be more beneficial to build there and benefit from the income of the community tax from residents rather than regularly paying clear up cost when and if the so called travellers move on. I recall, when the by-pass and link road were formed, the Benfield Valley was regularly referred to by the then Council as "the lungs of Hove". Is it now the plan to cut out the lungs and let Hove suffocate by over development of our limited green spaces? I sincerely hope that all councilors will give careful consideration to the developers plans and choose the best option without political points scoring in the run up to the elections in May 2015.






Page 449 of 541


Respondent Number:

93

Individuals Name:

Jenny Embleton

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


I am writing in response to the proposal in LUC's Brighton & Hove Urban Fringe Assessment (BHUFA) to build houses on some of the plots on the Craven Vale site and also on the Mile Oak site. Whilst I understand that you are under pressure from the government to identify suitable land for building, and that there is a need for more housing in the city, I am somewhat concerned about the errors and misunderstandings in some of the information in the BHUFA and also extremely worried that allotment sites are under attack! I don't believe that this is a viable option. I have a plot on Craven Vale and I am against the loss of any of the plots on Craven Vale, or indeed any other site in the city. I believe we should be identifying more allotment sites across the city, not losing them! I have had the plot for almost 5 years now and it has been, and continues to be, a large part of my and my family's life. A recent survey identified the health benefits, both mental and physical, of having an allotment and I can concur that this is true in my case too. My daughter has also recently been allotted a plot on Craven Vale, she has often come up to help me on my plot and she has enjoyed it so much that she now has her own plot. My particular area of concern in the BHUFA report, Appendix 4, Site: 31 is that the report suggests the ward of East Brighton 'Currently has an over provision of allotments...' The fact that this area of Brighton has more open space, including allotments, should not be taken into account because it serves the rest of Brighton too. I live in the centre of Brighton and, as you are aware, there are no allotment sites in the centre. I, and many of my neighbours, have to travel out to an allotment site on the outskirts of the city. These sites are a valuable resource for the whole city and should not be seen as an amenity solely for the local ward in which they happen to be. As you know, the site is also in the Whitehawk Hill Local Nature Reserve and the site is close to the Whitehawk Scheduled Ancient Monument, which is the largest of about 30 Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures found in Britain. I have found many interesting things on my plot, mostly glass jars and bottles from the mid-20th Century but also what I thought was a flint arrowhead. However, I have been informed by two flint experts, Matt Pope (UCL) and John Funnell (B&H Archaeology Society) that it "is a very interesting piece of flint, it has all the hall marks of a human struck flint, but it doesn't look prehistoric". The B&HA Society has sent me a fact sheet to help in identifying worked flints and I shall be on the look out for more interesting pieces! There are also many wild native plants, insects and other creatures on the site and some of these are rare species. I have found slow worms in my compost bin and several crickets and grasshoppers as well as lizards, evidence of badgers eating my sweetcorn! Craven Vale is a statutory site and the plots identified in the proposal have been used as allotments for many years; it would be a travesty for the plot holders to see all their hard work lost. Also, the suggestion of providing an alternative site is not practical as I understand the site identified is not suitable. Also, the space needed by builders during construction would encroach on a much larger area of the site, not just the highlighted section of site 31 in the report which identifies plots to the right of the rough haulage way which continues on from Beresford Road. I understand that the council have identified brownfield sites to be used for housing and this is excellent news. However, I am not sure if all the sites in the city have been included as I found it hard to find in the reports. There are far too many brownfield sites in the city, many of them have been left empty for years whilst the owners do nothing. For example, the site on the corner of Church Street and Portland Street and the large site opposite Preston Park near the southern end of the park to name but two. In conclusion, I am completely against the use of allotment sites in the city for building (in particular Craven Vale) and I hope and trust that other options will be taken and that, ideally, the council is able to allocate more sites for allotments and other food growing spaces, certainly not to lose sites are currently in use. I hope you will consider my points.





Page 450 of 541



Respondent Number:

7



Agents Name:


8




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


PM072 CP1 especially para 4.6 We support this policy as amended and especially the revised para 4.6 we believe this must lead to a journey of making even better use of the city's brownfield sites and adaptations of existing buildings, whilst accepting that there will be a need for a more comprehensive planning approach for the urban fringe.






Page 451 of 541


Respondent Number:

116



Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:CP1


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:








Page 452 of 541


Respondent Number:

57


Individuals Name:

Dean Orgill, Chair

Agents Name:


2




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


The Economic Partnership is an association of 45 individuals drawn from every sector of the local economy which works with the local authority to publish the economic strategy for the city and to respond to inward investment and business retention enquiries. It is also one of the five area partnership comprising the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership on the ground. The Partnership provides the Chair for the City Employment & Skills Steering Group and the Local Strategic Partnership [Brighton & Hove Connected] which publishes the overarching Community Strategy. I am writing this letter on behalf of the Partnership in response to the proposed modification consultation of the City Plan Part One to register our unanimous support for the proposals for additional housing on the urban fringe. The Partnership has been closely involved with the emerging Local Development Framework since 2004 and has organised a series of consultation opportunities for businesses over the past decade. We are intimately acquainted with the detail of the housing proposals and also the other elements of the City Plan that will impact upon the local economy. We have looked at the most recent urban fringe study [Brighton & Hove Urban Fringe Assessment. Final Report. LUC. June 2014] in particular detail and had the opportunity to question city council planning officers at our regular meeting in September and subsequent one-to-one meetings. We were impressed with the thoroughness of the analysis and the range of sites included in the search. It is clear that the city will never be able to accommodate the anticipated housing demand up to 2030 and consequently the City Plan must demonstrate that it has explored every avenue of possible development and formed a realistic assessment of the quantum of housing deliverable in the Plan period. The Partnership is content that this has been accomplished. We are also content that the local authority has not only satisfied the duty to cooperate with neighbouring planning authorities but has exceeded this duty with the development of the Greater Brighton City Region and its Economic Board which, for the first time, sees council leaders and chief executives addressing common issues in the citys functional economic area.






Page 453 of 541


Respondent Number:

31


Individuals Name:


Agents Name:


6







Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


The demand for housing in the city has always been high, indeed ever since the Regency period, because of the strong attraction of its maritime and downland setting in southeast England, and the vitality of its lifestyle. In the future these factors will remain a strong attraction to aspiring residents. However the factors which attract people to live here are also factors which constrain the amount of additional housing that can be satisfactorily accommidated. Therefore the supply of new housing to meet 'demand' can only ever be a choice of the numbers that can be suitably fitted into the city and its environs without serious damage to the quality of life here. The increase from 11,300 to13,200 dwelings will be challenging, as recent work for the plan now demonstrates. In our representation on PM010 we explained that the constraints within and adjoining bownfield sites and in the Development Areas (eg DA8) constrain the delivery of housing numbers. Therefore we consider that the proposed modifications to CP1 parts A and B will provide a challenging target for sustainable development of the city.







Page 454 of 541


Respondent Number:

143

Adur and Worthing Councils

Individuals Name:

Catherine Hutchins

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP1




Adur and Worthing Councils are supportive of the efforts of the City to find additional sites and the proposed modification to Policy CP1 which increases the City's housing target. As a result of the tightly drawn boundary around Brighton and Hove and significant environmental constraints it is accepted that there are only limited development opportunities in and around the City. Adur and Worthing Councils face similar issues and, as such, we understand the difficult task you are facing in trying to meet housing needs. It is clear that a positive approach has been taken to the identification of additional sites and this is supported by the Councils. The Assessment of Housing Development Needs Study of April 2014 (undertaken for the Sussex Coast Housing Market Area, including Lewes and Brighton and Hove City) indicated that the objectively assessed housing need for Adur between 2011 and 2031 is 180-240 homes pa. In terms of delivery, the Proposed Submission Adur Local Plan 2014 indicates between 174 and 182 homes per annum over this period. Whilst the upper figure potentially meets the lower end of the needs range, there is a shortfall of 1162- 1312 dwellings (58-65 dwellings per annum) when measured against the upper end of the needs range. Adur District Council has positively tested options for growth and the development strategy set out in the Adur Local Plan represents the most realistic, sustainable and deliverable option for growth in the Adur Local Plan area (excludes the national park). With regard to Worthing, the Assessment of Housing Development Needs Study of April 2014 indicates that the objectively assessed needs for Worthing is between 500 and 600 dwellings per year and further work to provide more information on this will be published in early 2015. The most recent indication is that the need is for 667 homes pa over the period 2013 to 2033. The outcomes of this work will help to inform the timetable for the full Plan review to be set out within a revised Local Development Scheme. The Coastal West Sussex Housing study Duty to Co-operate study of 2013 concludes that whilst further work is needed, it is unlikely that delivery of more than 250 homes per annum over a sustained period can realistically be achieved in the Borough. There is very limited land within Adur and Worthing to accommodate further development, in part due to environmental constraints, as well as the location of the South Downs National Park to the north and the sea to the south. As such Adur and Worthing are unable to meet their objectively assessed housing as well as employment needs and are engaging and co-operating with adjoining and other local authorities to help address these needs. We therefore welcome and look forward to continuing to work constructively and on an on-going basis together on strategic planning matters including housing. Our local planning authorities are represented on the Coastal West Sussex Strategic Planning Board addressing strategic planning issues and we have worked together on inputting into the Coastal West Sussex Local Strategic Statement and now the re-fresh of this Statement. The Board provides a platform to ensure good sub regional co-operation on wider/strategic spatial issues, including the Duty to Co-operate. Modification PM072 includes 1060 new homes within the urban fringe. We note that the Urban Fringe Assessment (2014) identifies sites at Mile Oak as having the potential to accommodate residential development. Sites 1 (Land at Oakdene, Southwick Hill) and 2 (West of Mile Oak Road, Portslade) are located within the South Downs National Park, and adjacent to the Adur District boundary. We are pleased to see that the Site of Nature Conservation Interest to the west which is within the District has been recognised in the assessment and that suitable ecological mitigation will be required for site 2. On this basis, given the size and specific location of the sites we do not consider that they impact on the district.


Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:







Page 455 of 541



Respondent Number:

133


Individuals Name:

Bob Webzell

Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:





Sound?:Yes

Tests of soundness:


Within BHCC's geography and limitations this is a sound compromise for a housing target




This target needs to be agreed and pursued over coming years to avoid the planning void that has been created in the absence of a viable City Plan, a void which developers have been leaping to fill wit excessive development proposals




Page 456 of 541


Respondent Number:

119



Agents Name:


11


Policy/Section:CP3


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The list should include sites situated within the Shoreham Harbour JAAP area.





Page 457 of 541


Respondent Number:

153


Individuals Name:

Colin Brace

Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:CP3 Employment Sites


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


There are currently a number of vacant employment premises which could be put to more effective use in the city, including 300,000ft2 of empty office floor space. In order to leave no stone unturned, a further review of redundant employment sites is suggested in light of the planned under-provision of housing. Whilst Policy CP3 (Employment Land) seeks to protect a number of business parks and industrial estates, additional residential units should be encouraged in such locations subject to avoiding adverse impacts on amenity. With regard to the modifications to part 4 of the policy (which relates to the mixed use development on five industrial sites (Franklin Road, School Road, Melbourne Street, Portland Road and land North of Newtown Road)), the policy's original restriction that there should be no net loss in employment space� was criticised by the Inspector in her December 2013 letter. The proposed modifications try to overcome this by inserting the additional wording: Unless this can be justified. Paragraph 4.36 sets out the factors that will be taken into consideration� This wording is vague, imprecise and relies upon a planning officers subjective opinion as to whether the test has been met. The amended wording does not go far enough in ensuring that the Plan is positively prepared. The wording is still restrictive, and developers and landowners will still be looking at sites from a starting point that can only be considered as on the back foot�. Planning policy should be facilitating change and the provision of housing, and the amended wording of policy CP3 will not achieve this.






Page 458 of 541


Respondent Number:

9

Palace Street Developments Ltd

Individuals Name:

Mr William Fellows

Agents Name:Mr Alex Bateman


1


Policy/Section:CP3 Employment Land (Pages 138-139)




n/a


Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



The modification PM010 sets out a minimum target of 13,200 new homes until 2030. However, this needs to be considered against the backdrop of the up-to-date objectively assessed housing requirements as set out in paragraph 2.20 of 18,000 - 24,000. Whichever figure is used as the target, it remains clear that there will be still be a shortfall of some 5,000 - 11,000 homes over the next 16 years (312-687 per annum). The revised target is based upon the council's view on where development can take place and he quantum of development that can be achieved. Although raised a specific point by the Planning Inspector, the council has not sufficiently re-assessed its employment sites as an option for residential development. PM075 sets out a number of primary industrial estates which should be protected and a number of industrial estates whereby an employment-led mixed use scheme would be suitable. This inadvertently creates a tiered approach. However the policy also seeks to protect employment sites which are not specially mentioned. This goes against the tiered approach that is put forward. The Planning Inspector recommended that the council look at releasing some employment sites for residential development which the modification does not achieve, Sites which are not listed as protected should not have to demonstrate redundancy, but instead should be released to accommodate the additional housing pressures that are being experienced in Brighton & hove. This amendment would see the gap between the target and need narrowing.


The difference between housing needs within Brighton & Hove and the identified delivery is significant and is no based upon suitable or substantial grounds. The level of housing delivery should be raised to be more in-line with the needs of the city by identifying the release of more employment land for residential or mixed-use purposes. An amendment to the employment policies, allowing for non-identified employment sites to be released to meet the housing need, would make the City Plan Legally Sound.





Page 459 of 541


Respondent Number:

169


Individuals Name:

c/o agent



2




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:




Page 460 of 541



Page 461 of 541




Mindful of the issues highlighted above, it is necessary to alter the punitive and restrictive employment use policy. The following amended text is suggested: loss of Uunallocated sites or premises in, or whose last use was, employment use (Use Class B1-B8) will not be released to other uses unless only be permitted where the site or premises it can be demonstrated to be both redundant and incapable of meeting the needs of modern alternative employment uses (Use Classes B1-B8) OR WHERE HOUSING NEED IS IDENTIFIED. Where release loss is permitted the preference priority for re-use will be for alternative employment generating uses or MIXED TENURE AND affordable housing (in accordance with CP20 Affordable Housing) IN ORDER TO MEET IDENTIFIED HOUSING NEED. Further, paragraph 4.36 of Policy CP3 Employment Land requires alteration to reflect the proposed change to the corresponding policy through addition of Housing Need in the list of considerations that will be taken into account when considering proposals where a net loss of employment floorspace is being proposed, thus the following amended text is suggested: In considering proposals where a net loss of employment floorspace is being proposed the council will take into consideration the following factors: - Site constraints (current site coverage and opportunities for more effective and efficient use of the site); - The need for environmental and townscape improvements; - Access arrangements (improved access/circulation space); - Safeguarding the amenity of surrounding users and occupiers; - The quality of the employment offer in terms of the type of employment and density of jobs; - Viability - HOUSING SUPPLY






Written Representations also.

Page 462 of 541


Respondent Number:

155

Taylor Wimpey (UK) LtfIndividuals Name:

c/o agent

Agents Name:Steven Brown


1







Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:

It is not justified in that it is not the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.; It is not effective in that it is not deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross boundary strategic priorities.; It is not consistent with national policy.


Background We refer to the above consultation exercise and set out representations on behalf of our client, Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd. in relation to land at the former Infinity Foods site in Portslade. The site benefits from an extant planning permission (BH2013/01278) granted in November 2013 for the Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a three-storey commercial building (class B1 office space) and two and three storey buildings to form 31no dwellings with associated car parking, access and landscaping works�. Inspectors Initial/Interim Conclusions The Inspectors overall conclusion upon the draft Local Plan as set out in the letter dated 13 December 2013 states: The City Plan Part 1 falls well short of meeting the objectively assessed need for new housing...I recognise the constraints faced by the Council but if I am to find the Plan sound, notwithstanding such a significant shortfall in the provision of new housing, I would need to be satisfied that the Council had left no stone unturned in seeking to meet as much of this need as possible. Furthermore, depending on the scale of unmet need it may be necessary to reduce the plan period in order that the City Plan can be found sound.� The Inspectors subsequent letter dated 13 February 2014 stated, in relation to the emerging employment policy, as follows: In the light of the significant shortfall in meeting housing needs my concern is that policies for employment land should not seek to protect sites in employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of use or redevelopment for employment purposes. Viability is clearly an important consideration and I note you have sought to address this through proposed modifications MM30 and MM31. At this stage I am content to consider this matter once representations on the modifications have been received.� (Our emphasis added) The above confirms that the Council is not meeting its objectively assessed housing needs and the Inspector has specifically referenced the potential to allow residential development on employment sites where there is no reasonable prospect of use or redevelopment for employment purposes. Proposed Modification Content Proposed Modification PM075 to Policy CP3 (Employment Land) states: In order to secure good quality modern, flexible employment floorspace the council will allow employment-led (residential and employment) mixed use development on the following employment sites: Franklin Road Industrial Estate School Road, Hove Melbourne Street Industrial Area Portland Road Trading Estate (including EDF and Martello House) Land North of Newtown Road There should be no net loss in employment floorspace unless this can be justified. Paragraph 4.36 sets out the factors that will be taken into consideration.� Paragraph 4.36 states: In considering proposals where a net loss of employment floorspace is being proposed the council will take into consideration the following factors: - Site constraints (current site coverage and opportunities for more effective and efficient use of the site) - The need for environmental and townscape improvements - Access arrangements (improved access/circulation space). - Safeguarding the amenity of surrounding users and occupiers - The quality of the employment offer in terms of the type of employment and density of jobs. - Viability� Against the above background, there remains a policy presumption against the loss of the commercial/employment floorspace approved at the former Infinity Foods site. Proposed Scheme Our clients now seek some considered changes to the form and type of development to be provided on the former Infinity Foods site. This includes the deletion of the previous proposals for employment led mixed use development on the northwestern corner of the site and use of this land for residential purposes. This is essentially for the following reasons: 1-The site was subject to extensive marketing throughout 2012, with no interest expressed by commercial developers. A planning application for a mixed use development was approved in 2013 with a commercial element required by the Council. Since the grant of planning permission no demand has been expressed in relation to occupying the commercial element of the approved scheme. The site is now being marketed again for office purposes by agents, Stiles Harold Williams at a quoting rent considered to be very low in relation to other centres in Sussex. Stiles Harold Williams experience of marketing office space in Portslade and based on the location of the site means that they have advised of the following barriers in securing an occupier for the office element of the approved scheme:

Page 463 of 541


Portslade is a secondary location, in competition with nearby Brighton and Hove to the east and Shoreham to the west, both of which provide far more amenities and access to staff via transport links. The site suffers from a complete lack of prominence being located to the west of the main commercial area within Portslade, Boundary/Station Road and being within a residential development. The office element is accessed via Franklin Road which is a one way road. The poor economy has led to a reduction in the number of enquiries throughout the south east and Portslade is no exception to this trend. A main reason why a company may choose to be located outside the centre of Brighton is a higher parking ratio. However, this development has a parking provision of only 25% of this at 1:1,000 sq ft which is similar to that of central Hove / Brighton. The lack of parking provision further undermines the lack of demand for ongoing commercial use of the site. 2-This lack of commercial interest reflects the poor location of the site for commercial purposes. We note that the subject site is identified in the saved policies of the adopted Brighton & Hove Local Plan as one of 24 designated employment sites (EMP1) for continued industrial and business use (Use Classes B1(b) B2 and B8). This policy seeks to retain designated employment sites for employment generating uses. However, the evidence base used to prepare the emerging City Local Plan suggests that the loss of some of the identified employment sites (including the Franklin Road site) for mixed use/housing redevelopment may be appropriate. Specifically, the 2006 and 2009 update Employment Land Review (ELR�) suggests that the site is not suitable for continued employment use and is more suited to residential development. The Employment Policy Options Paper (Oct 2011) summarises the findings of the ELR, stating that the site is not suitable for employment and is more suited to residential use. It is therefore apparent from the Councils own evidence base that the site is not suitable for employment use. This position is supported by the outcomes of the 2012 marketing exercise and Harold Stiles Williams experience of the local commercial property market. 3-Circumstances have changed in respect of planning policy since the mid 2000s with increasing support for housing development, especially on previously developed sites. In particular there is both a significant national and local housing land supply deficit and delivery issues whilst given the adequacy of employment land available generally in Brighton & Hove City the advice from paragraph 22 of the NPPF is that in these circumstances land such as the north-western corner of the former Infinity Foods site would be better used for housing. National Planning Policy Paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires LPAs to identify and maintain a five year housing land supply. Paragraph 22 of the NPPF requires that where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities. Assessment of Consultation Document It is evident from the above, that a housing land supply deficit presently exists in the City. It is also clear that if this deficit is to be rectified, a number of sites are likely to need to be released outside settlement boundaries unless alternatives inside the settlement can be identified. The NPPF is supportive of alternative uses on employment sites where market demand is limited. For the reasons mentioned in the proposed scheme section above the site is neither appropriate for employment use or been subject to any serious interest for this use. For the reasons set out above, the use of the former Infinity Foods site for mixed use employment purposes does not conform to the Councils strategic objectives for housing land provision. Paragraphs 22 and 47 of the NPPF strongly support its use for alternative housing development. We therefore request that the site is formally allocated for residential development. Accordingly the reference to Franklin Road Industrial Estate should be removed from Proposed Modification PM075 to enable the site to come forward for entirely residential development.


We therefore request that the site is formally allocated for residential development. Accordingly the reference to Franklin Road Industrial Estate should be removed from Proposed Modification PM075 to enable the site to come forward for entirely residential development.






Written Representations also. To discuss why the plan is unsound

Page 464 of 541


Respondent Number:

100

Cross Stone Regeneration

Individuals Name:

Ross Barbour



1




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



These representations into the Proposed Modifications (October 2014) to the City Plan Part One) are made on behalf of Ross Barbour, of Cross Stone Regeneration owners of sites in School Road and Melbourne Street. This letter refers to matters set out in the Proposed Modifications only. Consequently our earlier representations (see letter dated 11 April 2013 into the Proposed Submission Version (February 2013) of the City Plan) should still be taken into account too. CP3 Employment Land With regard to the modifications to part 4 of the policy (which relates to the mixed use development on five industrial sites (Franklin Road, School Road, Melbourne Street, Portland Road and land North of Newtown Road), the policy's original restriction that there should be no net loss in employment space� was criticised by the Inspector in her December 2013 letter. The Proposed Medications try to overcome this by inserting the additional working: Unless this can be justified. Paragraph 4.36 sets out the factors that will be taken into consideration� The amended wording does not go far enough in ensuring that the Plan is positively prepared. The wording is still restrictive, and developers and landowners will still be looking at sites from a starting point that can only be considered as on the back foot�. The Councils issues with housing supply are well documented, and the Inspector will be aware that the Councils intended target for housing is barely 50% of its Objectively Assessed Need for housing. Planning policy should be facilitating change and the provision of housing, and the amended wording of policy CP3 will not achieve this. Part 5 of the policy has been amended to say that a priority� will be attached to affordable housing. Again, such a restriction means that the policy is not positively worded: - It fails to take account of the 10 unit (1,000m2 threshold) set out in National Planning Policy Guidance (which was published after the Proposed Modifications were published by the Council). - It fails to take account of the percentage of housing development that would be provided in larger schemes (up to 40%) for affordable housing as it implies that all of the housing would have to be affordable housing. The proposed modifications do not go far enough to answer the criticisms made by the Inspector in her letter of December 2013, and do not mean that the Plan can be considered as being positively prepared.






Page 465 of 541


Respondent Number:

151


Individuals Name:

c/o agent



6







Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:











To help the Inspector to understand more fully the opportunities at Sackville Road and the implications of the

Page 466 of 541


current Policy wording for such opportunities.

Respondent Number:

152

Individuals Name:

Mr Colin Brace



3


Policy/Section:CP3


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


There are currently a number of vacant employment premises which could be put to more effective use in the city, including 300,000ft2 of empty office floorspace. In order to leave no stone unturned, a further review of redundant employment sites is suggested in light of the planned under-provision of housing. Whilst Policy CP3 (Employment Land) seeks to protect a number of business parks and industrial estates, additional residential units should be encouraged in such locations subject to avoiding adverse impacts on amenity. With regard to the modifications to part 4 of the policy (which relates to the mixed use development on five industrial sites (Franklin Road, School Road, Melbourne Street, Portland Road and land North of Newtown Road), the policy's original restriction that there should be no net loss in employment space� was criticised by the Inspector in her December 2013 letter. The Proposed Modifications try to overcome this by inserting the additional wording: Unless this can be justified. Paragraph 4.36 sets out the factors that will be taken into consideration�


The amended wording does not go far enough in ensuring that the Plan is positively prepared. The wording is still restrictive, and developers and landowners will still be looking at sites from a starting point that can only be considered as on the back foot�. Planning policy should be facilitating change and the provision of housing, and the amended wording of policy CP3 will not achieve this.





Page 467 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


17


Policy/Section:CP3


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


Strongly support the retention of industrial estates and business parks for business, manufacturing and warehouse use to enable employment land to be retained in the city to retain jobs and reduce transport movements.






Page 468 of 541


Respondent Number:

57


Individuals Name:

Dean Orgill, Chair

Agents Name:


3




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


We note that in your initial conclusions letter you posed the question about further modifications to land in employment use as part of CP3 [mixed use sites]. While we appreciate your concern to see the city council maximise the use of land for residential purposes we are particularly anxious about the loss of employment sites in the city, especially in the light of the permitted development rights to convert offices to residential. Given that the Plan can only identify land for 85% of the projected requirement for new employment space we would be worried about any loss of net employment space. As the national economy gathers speed, the need to adopt the City Plan is becoming increasingly pressing given its implications for the success of the local economy. It not only protects our unique cultural offer with policies on theatres, cinemas, leisure facilities and hotels but also sets architectural and design standards that will hopefully prevent a repetition of the mistakes of the past. Meanwhile policies to oblige developers to use local labour and offer apprenticeships will help us to address youth unemployment which is above the national avenge. Other policies on health, inequality, transport, education and sport will all count for nought in local decision making if the Plan is not adopted.




The Brighton & Hove Economic Partnership commends the revised City Plan to the Planning Inspectorate and urges you to find it sound.



Page 469 of 541


Respondent Number:

100


Individuals Name:

Ross Barbour



2




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



These representations into the Proposed Modifications (October 2014) to the City Plan Part One) are made on behalf of Ross Barbour, of Cross Stone Regeneration owners of sites in School Road and Melbourne Street. This letter refers to matters set out in the Proposed Modifications only. Consequently our earlier representations (see letter dated 11 April 2013 into the Proposed Submission Version (February 2013) of the City Plan) should still be taken into account too. CP3 Employment Land With regard to the modifications to part 4 of the policy (which relates to the mixed use development on five industrial sites (Franklin Road, School Road, Melbourne Street, Portland Road and land North of Newtown Road), the policy's original restriction that there should be no net loss in employment space� was criticised by the Inspector in her December 2013 letter. The Proposed Medications try to overcome this by inserting the additional working: Unless this can be justified. Paragraph 4.36 sets out the factors that will be taken into consideration� The amended wording does not go far enough in ensuring that the Plan is positively prepared. The wording is still restrictive, and developers and landowners will still be looking at sites from a starting point that can only be considered as on the back foot�. The Councils issues with housing supply are well documented, and the Inspector will be aware that the Councils intended target for housing is barely 50% of its Objectively Assessed Need for housing. Planning policy should be facilitating change and the provision of housing, and the amended wording of policy CP3 will not achieve this. Part 5 of the policy has been amended to say that a priority� will be attached to affordable housing. Again, such a restriction means that the policy is not positively worded: - It fails to take account of the 10 unit (1,000m2 threshold) set out in National Planning Policy Guidance (which was published after the Proposed Modifications were published by the Council). - It fails to take account of the percentage of housing development that would be provided in larger schemes (up to 40%) for affordable housing as it implies that all of the housing would have to be affordable housing. The proposed modifications do not go far enough to answer the criticisms made by the Inspector in her letter of December 2013, and do not mean that the Plan can be considered as being positively prepared.






Page 470 of 541


Respondent Number:

169


Individuals Name:

c/o agent



3




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:




Page 471 of 541



Page 472 of 541




Mindful of the issues highlighted above, it is necessary to alter the punitive and restrictive employment use policy. The following amended text is suggested: loss of Uunallocated sites or premises in, or whose last use was, employment use (Use Class B1-B8) will not be released to other uses unless only be permitted where the site or premises it can be demonstrated to be both redundant and incapable of meeting the needs of modern alternative employment uses (Use Classes B1-B8) OR WHERE HOUSING NEED IS IDENTIFIED. Where release loss is permitted the preference priority for re-use will be for alternative employment generating uses or MIXED TENURE AND affordable housing (in accordance with CP20 Affordable Housing) IN ORDER TO MEET IDENTIFIED HOUSING NEED. Further, paragraph 4.36 of Policy CP3 Employment Land requires alteration to reflect the proposed change to the corresponding policy through addition of Housing Need in the list of considerations that will be taken into account when considering proposals where a net loss of employment floorspace is being proposed, thus the following amended text is suggested: In considering proposals where a net loss of employment floorspace is being proposed the council will take into consideration the following factors: - Site constraints (current site coverage and opportunities for more effective and efficient use of the site); - The need for environmental and townscape improvements; - Access arrangements (improved access/circulation space); - Safeguarding the amenity of surrounding users and occupiers; - The quality of the employment offer in terms of the type of employment and density of jobs; - Viability - HOUSING SUPPLY






Page 473 of 541


Respondent Number:

151


Individuals Name:

c/o agent



7







Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:











To help the Inspector to understand more fully the opportunities at Sackville Road and the implications of the

Page 474 of 541


current Policy wording for such opportunities.

Respondent Number:

161


Individuals Name:

n/a



1


Policy/Section:CP4


Legally Compliant?:





Brunswick Developments Group PLC supports the deletion of the District Centre Designation at Policy CP4 of the City Plan, provided that the current designation is replaced by a strategic allocation which includes our site within its boundary






Page 475 of 541


Respondent Number:

123

Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd

Individuals Name:

Alice Broomfield (on behalf on Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd)

Agents Name:Alice Broomfield


1


Policy/Section:Policy CP4 - Retail Provision




No further comments.


Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



We write on behalf of our client, Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd, in relation to the post Submission proposed modifications City Plan Part One. Sainsbury's, as a key retailer in Brighton and Hove, support the overall aims and objectives of the post Submission proposed modifications City Plan Part One. Please see below for comments relating to specifically Policy CP4 Retail Provision. Proposed modification PM079 in relation to Policy CP4 states the following: Applications will be required to complete an impact assessment at a locally set threshold of 1,000 sqm (net) floorspace or more�. This is explained further in the supporting text under paragraph 4.46: The Retail Study identifies capacity for new food and non-food retail floorspace to the period 2030. In accordance with Government policy the council will prefer to direct retail applications to the town centre in the first instance and then edge of centre locations. Only if suitable sites are not available will out of centre sites be considered. Impact assessments will be required as a locally set threshold for proposals of 1,000 sqm net or more not within the town centre�. Whilst the adopted National Planning Policy Framework supports Local Authorities to use locally set thresholds, these must be 'proportionate' to the default threshold of 2,500 sq m. Given the lack of evidence published by the Council in support of the locally set threshold for retail impact assessments, it is unclear as to how a figure of 1,000 sq m was derived. When fully supported by a robust evidence base, locally set thresholds are likely to be useful as they are more relevant to localised need and areas which are in decline. However for Regional centres such as Brighton, such a low threshold may impact on the viability of future developments coming forward given the substantial difference between the national 'default' and the localised threshold. It is our view that this threshold is arbitrary and without justification or evidence, particularly as it is significantly lower than the national default. It is for this reason that we formally request that the Council utilises the default threshold of 2,500 sq m unless there is a robust evidence base to support this threshold.


Should there be no evidence to suggest that a 'proportionate' locally set threshold is required in Brighton and Hove, then the default threshold contained within national planning policy guidance should be used to guide the need for retail impact assessments. We therefore suggest the following policy wording: 'Applications for all new edge and out of centre retail development will be required to address the tests set out in national policy. Applications will be required to complete an impact assessment in accordance with national planning policy guidance'. It is also proposed to reword paragraph 4.46 to remove the reference to the local threshold. The suggesting wording is as follows: 'The Retail Study identifies capacity for new food and non-food retail floorspace to the period 2030. In accordance with Government policy the council will prefer to direct retail applications to the town centre in the first instance and then edge of centre locations. Only if suitable sites are not available will out of centre sites be considered. Impact assessments will be required in accordance with national planning policy guidance'.



No further comments.



Page 476 of 541



Respondent Number:

21


Individuals Name:

J Ogden

Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


does not recognise that Clause 4.58 of CP6 understates the rate of growth in capacity.We would recommend that the following be added to PM082.


‘In addition, the rapid rise of ‘sharing’ sites such as Air BnB, and the growth of short term letting options, including so called ‘party houses’, has dramatically expanded the options available to visitors seeking accommodation options. It is difficult to put a number on the capacity increase in bed spaces, but it is significant, and undoubtedly has an effect on the viability of existing businesses.’ In summary, Brighton & Hove Hotels Association proposes that given the need to address a shortage of potential housing sites, consideration should be given to relaxing change of use from C1 to quality dwellings on a case by case basis, with the need for quality accommodation outweighing the perceived need to retain every tourism business in a core zone.





Page 477 of 541


Respondent Number:

13


Individuals Name:

Sandy Crowhurst

Agents Name:


5


Policy/Section:CP6




The wording of this para is incorrect.


New wording: Since the study was completed 3 new hotels have come into operation (Jury's Inn, MyHotel and Ibis) and a YHA hostel in the Royal York hotel building.

Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:









Page 478 of 541


Respondent Number:

75

Individuals Name:

Mr D Hunter



5


Policy/Section:CP8 Sustainable Buildings


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


In the light of the objections to the Urban Fringe Assessment, the following objections are lodged in respect of the Proposed Modifications PM085: Policy CP8 has been amended to reflect future changes in Building Regulations. We would question even the need for this policy, given that its requirements are therefore covered under alternative legislation.






Page 479 of 541


Respondent Number:

35


Individuals Name:




4


Policy/Section:CP8


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Policy CP8 has been amended to reflect future changes in Building Regulations. We would question even the need for this policy, given that its requirements are therefore covered under alternative legislation.






Page 480 of 541


Respondent Number:

153


Individuals Name:

Colin Brace

Agents Name:


5




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


This policy has been amended following on from the Inspectors comments in her December 2013 letter. However, the proposed modifications result in a policy that remains inconsistent with the Inspectors findings. For residential development, the policy has been amended to say Code Level 4� for all development up to 2016, and Code Level 5 thereafter. These levels are still currently higher than Buildings Regulations, though it is appreciated that Buildings Regulations are due to increase. However, the amended policy introduces a significant inconsistency in that the sustainability standards for commercial development have not been amended in the same manner as the sustainability standards for residential development (commercial development is still graded at 3 separate levels, all above Building Regulations standards). This is inconsistent and will actually deter commercial development as it will inevitably be cheaper to provide residential development instead of commercial development, because the modified policy sets out higher sustainability standards for commercial development.






Page 481 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


18


Policy/Section:CP8


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Object to the downgrading of the required standards for new development. Given the citys failure to meet its carbon reduction targets, we would object to this change as it is unjustified and unsound






Page 482 of 541


Respondent Number:

168


Individuals Name:

N/A



1


Policy/Section:CP8






Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



(BHCC Officer Note: the following is a precise of comments submitted via letter dated 16 December 2014) We have consistently opposed the inclusion of the Code for Sustainable Homes within Policy CP8. Our response to the Submission City Plan in April 2013 stated that we had undertaken an initial viability of the Toads Hole Valley (THV) scheme outlined in the masterplan and this illustrated our concern with the City Plan expecting the residential element to achieve Code Levels 5 and 6. This would have an impact on the deliverability and viability of the development when all aspects of the mix of development are taken into account including 40% affordable housing, land for a secondary school and 25,000 sqm of commercial floorspace. Our Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) with the City Council and submitted to the Inspector in October 2013 as part of the Examination also outlined the same concerns (eg agreement re DA7 "is without prejudice to either partys representations to and submissions to be made at the Examination of the soundness of policy CP8 and Viability/Deliverability (Matter 7)"). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 sets out the role of plan making in delivering sustainable development. Paragraph 173 detailed (eg attention to viability and costs. Plans should be deliverable). The NPPF gives clear advice on ensuring that Local Plans remain flexible and deliverable. The level of requirements and obligations set out in a policy should not be to such an extent that viability is threatened. We turn to this issue in more detail in the section below on the soundness of Policy CP8. MODIFICATIONS TO POLICY CP8 Within the Main Modifications October 2014, Policy CP8 has been amended to state that all development will be required to achieve the minimum standard as set out in the revised table or equivalent standards from a quality assured scheme. The revised CP8 policy states for new build residential (non major/major/greenfield), the Code for Sustainable Homes should be: 2013-2016 : Level 4 Post 2016 : Level 5 Post 2019 : Level 5 Paragraph 4.83 has also been amended and a new sentence added : Any changes to nationally described standards and or revised Buildings Regulations will be addressed through Part 2 of the City Plan or a review of this Policy.� It is noted that the previous reference in paragraph 4.87 relating to higher standards for new greenfield development has now been deleted within the Modifications. THE INSPECTORS COMMENTS ON POLICY CP8 We have taken into account the Inspectors comments relating to Policy CP8 within her various letters to the Council. The issue of Policy CP8 and the impact on viability was raised in the Inspectors letter dated 13th December 2013. (Respondent included letter as Appendix A)) The letter makes the following reference in relation to ensuring that the plan facilitates development throughout the economic cycle, as required by the NPPF (paragraph 174). In particular, you may wish to consider whether the requirements of Policy CP8 can be justified in this context, particularly bearing in mind forthcoming changes to the Building Regulations. Furthermore, the characteristics of the housing stock in Brighton are not dissimilar to those in many established urban areas and I am not convinced that this justifies a local requirement, which is more onerous than the national standards provided by the Building Regulations.� In this letter, the Inspector is inviting the Council to re-consider the implications of CP8 on the viability of development across the Plan area. The Councils response on 31 January 2014 confirmed that it would consider the Inspectors comments. Following receipt of a copy of the Councils Proposed Modifications, the Inspector wrote again to the Council on 27 June 2014 (nb respondent attached letter as Appendix C) stating the following under the sub heading Viability: I note that you have proposed modifications to Policy CP8. However, there is no evidence as to whether the modifications proposed will mean that the plan facilitates development throughout the economic cycle. It would be useful to have an update of the Combined Viability Study to demonstrate whether or not this is the

Page 483 of 541


case. I must also draw your attention to the findings of the Inspector examining the soundness of the Bath and North East Somerset in relation to the inclusion of requirements relating to the Code for Sustainable Homes. His report is available on that Councils website and paragraphs 259 265 are particularly relevant.� (BHCC Officer Note: respondent attached extract from the Bath an NE Somerset Inspectors letter as Appendix B eg Inspector sought removal of references to the CSH due to Governments clear intention to address future energy efficiency standards in Building Regulations.) It is clear from the Inspectors letters that she is concerned that Policy CP8 is not justified nor is it in compliance with the NPPF. GOVERNMENT CHANGES TO HOUSING STANDARDS The Inspector for the City Plan has made reference to changes being made by the Government to Buildings Regulations and housing standards. She has already flagged up that the Council should not apply the Code for Sustainable Homes but must refer to Building Regulations as the mechanism for securing sustainable development. The Council makes no reference to the Governments Housing Standards Review (HSR) but depends on the results of the Combined Policy Viability Study updated September 2014. We have significant concerns with the updated Viability Study. Turner Morum LLP, Chartered Surveyors and advisers to our client have reviewed the Study. (BHCC Officer Note: respondent attached this review as Appendix D - In summary Turner Morum LLP indicated They understand THV is typology 18 in submarket area 4. They find strange BNP do not indicate THV will be challenged in viability terms because like areas 5, 6 and 7, which have been noted will be challenging, THV similarly lies away from the central areas and premium waterfront area. They note BNP indicate City Plan policies will not comply with NPPF re Area 5,6 and 7 unless flexibility applied until market picks up. However Inspector made clear at EIP policies need to be deliverable/viable throughout entirety of plan period. BNP para 6.15 notes CSH level 5 challenging though will change with new technology and methods. BNP paras 6.16, 6.18 and 7.6 referenced eg indicate schemes with significant commercial and office space will have significant impact on viability in all but highest value areas; Typology 18 has most significant amount of commercial dev and viability identified as being challenging especially when non-Grade A office space outside prime office area and re THV as a Greenfield which carries additional infrastructure costs to open up the site. Typology 18, Area 4 continues to be non-viable in all scenarios even at CSH level 3. Turner Morum conclude BNP updated report fails to add much it confirms THV cannot deliver affordable housing at policy level plus a higher than current standards of building regulations. Irrespective of policies being applied flexibly, future increases in value and future reductions in sustainability unit costs; it is unlikely the BNP updated study will give the Inspector confidence a higher than current building regulation standards of construction can or should be demanded). The majority of proposals from the HSR are to become part of building regulations during the remaining period of this parliament. An HSR technical consultation was issued on 12 September 2014. It is our understanding that responses to this consultation will be considered and will form a statement of policy which the Government intends to issue in early 2015, subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Acts. The statement will be made at the same time as the publication of the associated building regulation approved documents and nationally described space standard. These will come into force six months later in Autumn 2015. Our concern therefore is that the Council is refusing to ensure the City Plan remains relevant, effective and consistent and, therefore, sound beyond Autumn 2015. WHY POLICY CP8 IS NOT SOUND (BHCC Officer Note: respondent detailed the tests of soundness provided in the NPPF, paragraph 182) In addition to ˜positively prepared and ˜justified, to be sound, a local plan should be: ¢ Effective the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and ¢ Consistent with national policy the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework. Due to the provisions within Policy CP8, the Plan is not effective or consistent with national policy for the following reasons: Policy CP8 is not Effective: Based essentially on our viability work and the comments raised by the Inspector, we consider Policy CP8 is not effective. It is not considered to be deliverable over the Plan period and it should no longer make any reference to the Code. With reference to Toads Hole Valley, it is likely development will start on site post 2016. According the Policy CP8, this will mean that the site will need to be built to Code 5 standards. We have already shown that this will render the development unviable. The Councils requirement to meet Code 5 conflicts with the clear intention of the Government regarding housing standards in relation to energy and together with the Inspector, we see no justification for including a high Code rating. To be effective, Policy CP8 should not have any regulatory or national planning barriers to its delivery. We consider elements of the Policy are not consistent with the NPPF and we outline these below. Policy CP8 is not Consistent with National Policy: The City Plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the NPPF. We consider that Policy CP8 contains elements that are not consistent with national policy. We also consider that where this has happened, there is no sound rationale for departing from national policy. Our main concern is with the reference made within the Proposed Modifications (PM085) to the amended table. This states that post 2016, new build residential development should achieve Code for Sustainable Homes level 5. We consider this is inconsistent with the advice in the NPPF on setting local requirements for a buildings sustainability (paragraph 95 refers). In order to comply with the NPPF paragraph 95, the provision of paragraphs 173 and 174 of the NPPF need to be taken into account. Careful attention to viability and costs in plan making are required and Policy CP8 is not consistent with this advice.


The table within Policy CP8 should be deleted. All the explanatory text relating to policy CP8 about the Code and BREEAM is now unnecessary and should also be deleted.


Page 484 of 541



We have concerns with the Brighton & Hove Combined Viability Policy Study Update September 2014. This background document underpins Policy CP8. (See respondents letter dated 16 December 2014 - precised in Q4c. above)




Delivering Toads Hole Valley is essential in order to allow new housing to come forward in the city. It is important that we have the opportunity to discuss the implications of the City Plan with the Inspector. Toads Hole Valley is a significant mixed use development site and matters of deliverability will need to be explained to the Inspector.

Respondent Number:

152

Individuals Name:

Mr Colin Brace



4


Policy/Section:CP8


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


This policy has been amended following on from the Inspectors comments in her December 2013 letter. However, the proposed modifications result in a policy that remains inconsistent with the Inspectors findings. For residential development, the policy has been amended to say Code Level 4� for all development up to 2016, and Code Level 5 thereafter. These levels are still currently higher than Buildings Regulations, though it is appreciated that Buildings Regulations are due to increase. However, the amended policy introduces a significant inconsistency in that the sustainability standards for commercial development have not been amended in the same manner as the sustainability standards for residential development (commercial development is still graded at 3 separate levels, all above Building Regulations standards). This is inconsistent and will actually deter commercial development as it will inevitably be cheaper to provide residential development instead of commercial development, because the modified policy sets out higher sustainability standards for commercial development.







Page 485 of 541


Respondent Number:

137



Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:CP8 Sustainable Buildings p160


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The Sussex Wildlife Trust objects to the modification of the table set out under CP8.1. We strongly support Brighton & Hove City Councils (BHCC) long term aim to become a resource-efficient, One Planet, Zero Carbon City and a city that is adapting well to climate change (City Plan Part 1, Section 2.3). We are concerned that the proposed modifications relating to Plan Viability and Sustainable Buildings undermine this aim and therefore sit contrary to paragraphs 93 95 of the NPPF. We agree with BHCCs original assertion that future development in the plan area should meet the highest possible design standards and feel that the City's designation as a UNESCO World Biosphere site justifies the sustainability standards being above national standards.


Policy CP8 was more consistent with NPPF paragraphs 56, 57 and 65 before the modification and therefore the table should be changed back to require the higher Code for Sustainable Homes Levels.





Page 486 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:



19


Policy/Section:CP8 Sustainable Buildings, page 160


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


SLI supports the reduction in requirements for Code for Sustainable Homes as proposed to be modified.






Page 487 of 541


Respondent Number:

168


Individuals Name:

N/A



2


Policy/Section:CP8






Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



(BHCC Officer Note: the following is a precise of comments submitted via letter dated 16 December 2014) We have consistently opposed the inclusion of the Code for Sustainable Homes within Policy CP8. Our response to the Submission City Plan in April 2013 stated that we had undertaken an initial viability of the Toads Hole Valley (THV) scheme outlined in the masterplan and this illustrated our concern with the City Plan expecting the residential element to achieve Code Levels 5 and 6. This would have an impact on the deliverability and viability of the development when all aspects of the mix of development are taken into account including 40% affordable housing, land for a secondary school and 25,000 sqm of commercial floorspace. Our Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) with the City Council and submitted to the Inspector in October 2013 as part of the Examination also outlined the same concerns (eg agreement re DA7 is without prejudice to either partys representations to and submissions to be made at the Examination of the soundness of policy CP8 and Viability/Deliverability (Matter 7)�). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 sets out the role of plan making in delivering sustainable development. Paragraph 173 detailed (eg attention to viability and costs. Plans should be deliverable). The NPPF gives clear advice on ensuring that Local Plans remain flexible and deliverable. The level of requirements and obligations set out in a policy should not be to such an extent that viability is threatened. We turn to this issue in more detail in the section below on the soundness of Policy CP8. MODIFICATIONS TO POLICY CP8 Within the Main Modifications October 2014, Policy CP8 has been amended to state that all development will be required to achieve the minimum standard as set out in the revised table or equivalent standards from a quality assured scheme. The revised CP8 policy states for new build residential (non major/major/greenfield), the Code for Sustainable Homes should be: 2013-2016 : Level 4 Post 2016 : Level 5 Post 2019 : Level 5 Paragraph 4.83 has also been amended and a new sentence added : Any changes to nationally described standards and or revised Buildings Regulations will be addressed through Part 2 of the City Plan or a review of this Policy.� It is noted that the previous reference in paragraph 4.87 relating to higher standards for new greenfield development has now been deleted within the Modifications. THE INSPECTORS COMMENTS ON POLICY CP8 We have taken into account the Inspectors comments relating to Policy CP8 within her various letters to the Council. The issue of Policy CP8 and the impact on viability was raised in the Inspectors letter dated 13th December 2013. (Respondent included letter as Appendix A)) The letter makes the following reference in relation to ensuring that the plan facilitates development throughout the economic cycle, as required by the NPPF (paragraph 174). In particular, you may wish to consider whether the requirements of Policy CP8 can be justified in this context, particularly bearing in mind forthcoming changes to the Building Regulations. Furthermore, the characteristics of the housing stock in Brighton are not dissimilar to those in many established urban areas and I am not convinced that this justifies a local requirement, which is more onerous than the national standards provided by the Building Regulations.� In this letter, the Inspector is inviting the Council to re-consider the implications of CP8 on the viability of development across the Plan area. The Councils response on 31 January 2014 confirmed that it would consider the Inspectors comments. Following receipt of a copy of the Councils Proposed Modifications, the Inspector wrote again to the Council on 27 June 2014 (nb respondent attached letter as Appendix C) stating the following under the sub heading Viability: I note that you have proposed modifications to Policy CP8. However, there is no evidence as to whether the modifications proposed will mean that the plan facilitates development throughout the economic cycle. It would be useful to have an update of the Combined Viability Study to demonstrate whether or not this is the

Page 488 of 541


case. I must also draw your attention to the findings of the Inspector examining the soundness of the Bath and North East Somerset in relation to the inclusion of requirements relating to the Code for Sustainable Homes. His report is available on that Councils website and paragraphs 259 265 are particularly relevant.� (BHCC Officer Note: respondent attached extract from the Bath an NE Somerset Inspectors letter as Appendix B eg Inspector sought removal of references to the CSH due to Governments clear intention to address future energy efficiency standards in Building Regulations.) It is clear from the Inspectors letters that she is concerned that Policy CP8 is not justified nor is it in compliance with the NPPF. GOVERNMENT CHANGES TO HOUSING STANDARDS The Inspector for the City Plan has made reference to changes being made by the Government to Buildings Regulations and housing standards. She has already flagged up that the Council should not apply the Code for Sustainable Homes but must refer to Building Regulations as the mechanism for securing sustainable development. The Council makes no reference to the Governments Housing Standards Review (HSR) but depends on the results of the Combined Policy Viability Study updated September 2014. We have significant concerns with the updated Viability Study. Turner Morum LLP, Chartered Surveyors and advisers to our client have reviewed the Study. (BHCC Officer Note: respondent attached this review as Appendix D - In summary Turner Morum LLP indicated They understand THV is typology 18 in submarket area 4. They find strange BNP do not indicate THV will be challenged in viability terms because like areas 5, 6 and 7, which have been noted will be challenging, THV similarly lies away from the central areas and premium waterfront area. They note BNP indicate City Plan policies will not comply with NPPF re Area 5,6 and 7 unless flexibility applied until market picks up. However Inspector made clear at EIP policies need to be deliverable/viable throughout entirety of plan period. BNP para 6.15 notes CSH level 5 challenging though will change with new technology and methods. BNP paras 6.16, 6.18 and 7.6 referenced eg indicate schemes with significant commercial and office space will have significant impact on viability in all but highest value areas; Typology 18 has most significant amount of commercial dev and viability identified as being challenging especially when non-Grade A office space outside prime office area and re THV as a Greenfield which carries additional infrastructure costs to open up the site. Typology 18, Area 4 continues to be non-viable in all scenarios even at CSH level 3. Turner Morum conclude BNP updated report fails to add much it confirms THV cannot deliver affordable housing at policy level plus a higher than current standards of building regulations. Irrespective of policies being applied flexibly, future increases in value and future reductions in sustainability unit costs; it is unlikely the BNP updated study will give the Inspector confidence a higher than current building regulation standards of construction can or should be demanded). The majority of proposals from the HSR are to become part of building regulations during the remaining period of this parliament. An HSR technical consultation was issued on 12 September 2014. It is our understanding that responses to this consultation will be considered and will form a statement of policy which the Government intends to issue in early 2015, subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Acts. The statement will be made at the same time as the publication of the associated building regulation approved documents and nationally described space standard. These will come into force six months later in Autumn 2015. Our concern therefore is that the Council is refusing to ensure the City Plan remains relevant, effective and consistent and, therefore, sound beyond Autumn 2015. WHY POLICY CP8 IS NOT SOUND (BHCC Officer Note: respondent detailed the tests of soundness provided in the NPPF, paragraph 182) In addition to ˜positively prepared and ˜justified, to be sound, a local plan should be: ¢ Effective the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and ¢ Consistent with national policy the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework. Due to the provisions within Policy CP8, the Plan is not effective or consistent with national policy for the following reasons: Policy CP8 is not Effective Based essentially on our viability work and the comments raised by the Inspector, we consider Policy CP8 is not effective. It is not considered to be deliverable over the Plan period and it should no longer make any reference to the Code. With reference to Toads Hole Valley, it is likely development will start on site post 2016. According the Policy CP8, this will mean that the site will need to be built to Code 5 standards. We have already shown that this will render the development unviable. The Councils requirement to meet Code 5 conflicts with the clear intention of the Government regarding housing standards in relation to energy and together with the Inspector, we see no justification for including a high Code rating. To be effective, Policy CP8 should not have any regulatory or national planning barriers to its delivery. We consider elements of the Policy are not consistent with the NPPF and we outline these below. Policy CP8 is not Consistent with National Policy The City Plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the NPPF. We consider that Policy CP8 contains elements that are not consistent with national policy. We also consider that where this has happened, there is no sound rationale for departing from national policy. Our main concern is with the reference made within the Proposed Modifications (PM085) to the amended table. This states that post 2016, new build residential development should achieve Code for Sustainable Homes level 5. We consider this is inconsistent with the advice in the NPPF on setting local requirements for a buildings sustainability (paragraph 95 refers). In order to comply with the NPPF paragraph 95, the provision of paragraphs 173 and 174 of the NPPF need to be taken into account. Careful attention to viability and costs in plan making are required and Policy CP8 is not consistent with this advice.


The table within Policy CP8 should be deleted. All the explanatory text relating to policy CP8 about the Code and BREEAM is now unnecessary and should also be deleted.


Page 489 of 541



We have concerns with the Brighton & Hove Combined Viability Policy Study Update September 2014. This background document underpins Policy CP8. (See respondents letter dated 16 December 2014; see Q4c. for precise).




Delivering Toads Hole Valley is essential in order to allow new housing to come forward in the city. It is important that we have the opportunity to discuss the implications of the City Plan with the Inspector. Toads Hole Valley is a significant mixed use development site and matters of deliverability will need to be explained to the Inspector.

Respondent Number:

35


Individuals Name:




5


Policy/Section:CP8


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


The amended supporting text to policy CP8 seeks to allow for future changes (to the standards set out in policy CP8) to be made in the City Plan Part Two. This cannot be possible, as it would mean that a City Plan Part Two policy (if ever justified) would be contrary to the wording of a City Plan Part One policy. Reference to future changes should therefore be deleted.






Page 490 of 541


Respondent Number:

75

Individuals Name:

Mr D Hunter



6




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


In the light of the objections to the Urban Fringe Assessment, the following objections are lodged in respect of the Proposed Modifications PM089: The amended supporting text to policy CP8 seeks to allow for future changes (to the standards set out in policy CP8) to be made in the City Plan Part Two. This cannot be possible, as it would mean that a City Plan Part Two policy (if ever justified) would be contrary to the wording of a City Plan Part One policy. Reference to future changes should therefore be deleted.






Page 491 of 541


Respondent Number:

117


n/a



3


Policy/Section:CP8





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



Paragraph 95 of the NPPF requires that when setting any local requirements for a buildings sustainability, LPAs should do so in a way that is consistent with the Governments zero carbon buildings policy and adopt nationally prescribed standards. Following the Housing Standards Review undertaken in 2013, the Government unveiled plans on 13 March 2014 to radically simplify the system for setting standards in the design and construction of new homes. The Government has made clear that housing standards relating to energy will be set solely by building regulations, with no optional additional local standards in excess of the provisions set out in Part L of the Regulations� (Ministerial Statement 13th March 2014). The Queens Speech on 4th June 2014 further confirmed the Governments commitment to set a minimum energy performance standard through the building regulations and implement a zero carbon standard for new homes from 2016. The Zero Carbon Home standard will be set at Level 5 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, but the legislation will allow developers to build to Level 4 as long as they offset through the allowable solutions scheme to achieve Code 5. Main Modification PM89 to Policy CP8 states that any changes to nationally described standards and or revised Building Regulations will be addressed through Part 2 of the City Plan or a review of this policy. This does not address the fact that Policy CP8, which seeks Code Level 5 on major and greenfield sites between 2013-2016 and Code Level 6 on all development post 2016, clearly conflicts with the intention of the Government regarding housing standards in relation to energy. As confirmed by the Bath & North East Somerset Core Strategy Inspectors Report (paragraphs 261 - 262) It would be inappropriate to undermine the clear intention of the Government by agreeing to the Councils approach.... With these changes, monitoring the delivery of homes against Code levels would be inappropriate�.


All reference to Code must therefore be deleted from the City Plan Part One in order to be consistent with national policy and therefore sound.






To further explain and discuss the matters raised by these representations which are technical in nature and require in-depth consideration and discussion.

Page 492 of 541


Respondent Number:

100


Individuals Name:

Ross Barbour



3




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



This policy has been amended following on from the Inspectors comments in her December 2013 letter. However, the proposed modifications result in a policy that is now further inconsistent with the Inspectors findings. For residential development, the policy has been amended to say Code Level 4� for all development up to 2016, and Code Level 5 thereafter. These levels are still currently higher than Buildings Regulations, though it is appreciated that Buildings Regulations are due to increase. However, the amended policy introduces a significant inconsistency in that the sustainability standards for commercial development have not been amended in the same manner as the sustainability standards for residential development (commercial development is still graded at 3 separate levels, all above Building Regulations standards). This is inconsistent, and will actually deter commercial development as it will inevitably be cheaper to provide for residential development instead of commercial development, as the modified policy now effectively provides a higher sustainability standard on commercial development (than residential development). Conclusions The proposed modifications do not go far enough to answer the criticisms made by the Inspector in her letter of December 2013, and do not mean that the Plan can be considered as being positively prepared.






Page 493 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


19


Policy/Section:CP9


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


Strongly support this amendment which by requiring travel plans for major development schemes will help address transport issues within the city.






Page 494 of 541


Respondent Number:

10

Individuals Name:

Jonathon N Bryant

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:B1




THE PLAN SEEMS TO BE ENCOURAGING VISITORS TO BRIGHTON WHICH WILL INCREASE COACHES VISITING AND NEEDING PARKING. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO PROVIDING SPACE. OTHER TOURIST TOWNS SUCH AS EASTBOURNE DO A DECENT JOB IN MSAKING APROVISION. WHY NOT BRIGHTON?


Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:








Page 495 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


20


Policy/Section:CP9


Legally Compliant?:










Page 496 of 541


Respondent Number:

10

Individuals Name:

Jonathon N Bryant

Agents Name:


2


Policy/Section:b6

Support / Object:



No provision in parking section for coaches. Insufficient space is currently provided and it is time the Council faced up to the shortage. Blackrock would be ideal.


Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


see answer to 3a







Page 497 of 541


Respondent Number:

159


Individuals Name:



20


Policy/Section:CP9 Sustainable Transport, page 168


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



SLI is concerned about the restriction set out in Policy CP9 B. 6 Car parking, which states that the capacity of car parks used by the public is not increased. Additional parking provision is essential to the delivery of DA1 and SLI thus maintains its previous position that Policy CP9 should be further modified to include with the exception of the identified Development Areas� at the end of B.6. In the absence of this suggested further modification the Plan is unsound on the basis it is not effective as it does not provide a deliverable basis for bringing forward viable development of the DA1 site.







SLI is prepared to submit further written representations at subsequent stages of the consideration of the City Plan Part One, as necessary and if an Examination in Public is scheduled, SLI confirms it would like to participate in the Examination. Please also keep SLI notified of further stages of the City Plan Part One via GL Hearn, the contact details are included in this letter.

Page 498 of 541


Respondent Number:

180

Individuals Name:

Richard Scott

Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:CP9 Sustainable Transport


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


3.2 PM093 CP09 Sustainable Transport. The attempt to ban further city-centre car parks is a doctrinaire lunacy, since other creative solutions towards getting people conveniently to where they want to be, with their car, are possible; both by adjustment of other City Plan Policies, and by following the examples of more creative cities elsewhere in the world, and thus should be developed for this City Plan.








Page 499 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


21


Policy/Section:CP9


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


Strongly support this amendment as increasing the amount of car parking available to the public would attract more cars into the city, creating more congestion and pollution as well as undermining the economic viability of the bus network. There is actually a strong case for arguing that any new car parking in the city centre is unjustified and would make the plan unsound as it will impact on bus services and increase congestion and pollution.






Page 500 of 541


Respondent Number:

119



Agents Name:


12


Policy/Section:CP14


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


We refer to our previous comments in para 3.4 above about the desirability of carrying out land use studies on a site by site basis to establish suitable densities in relation to provision of open space.






Page 501 of 541


Respondent Number:

24


Mr James Rogers



5


Policy/Section:CP14 Housing Density


Legally Compliant?:








Policy CP14 - Housing Density 2.41. Policy CP14 states that residential development should be at a density that is appropriate to the character of the neighbourhood and it therefore is determined on a case by case basis. However a high density should be located in areas where the following can be demonstrated: 1. There is a high standard of design to help maintain a coherent townscape. 2. The proposal respects, reinforces or repairs the character of the neighbourhood and contributes positively to a sense of place. 3. There is a mix of dwelling types, tenures and sizes to reflect the local needs. 4. The site is easily accessible by sustainable transport modes. 5. The site is well served by local services and community facilities. 6. The site provides outdoor recreational space appropriate to the demand it will generate. 2.42. The Council sets out target of achieving a minimum net density of 50 dwellings per hectare provided that the location is sustainable. We consider the retention of this density figure to be appropriate as it encourages efficient use of land and therefore a movement towards meeting the housing need. 2.43. The only modification to this policy is in the supporting text where reference to the South East Plan and regional targets are removed which we consider is appropriate given the Governments removal of regional plans in 2011.




Page 502 of 541


Respondent Number:

154


Individuals Name:

n/a



2


Policy/Section:CP16





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The Councils proposed changes to Policy CP16 principally relate to incorporating the findings of the Councils Urban Fringe Assessment (June 2014). The Council have not sought to review existing open space to determine whether there is potential for some areas to be released to contribute towards meeting the significant housing need that exists within the City. In light of our comments to proposed modification 72, we consider that as a minimum, the Council should commit to the early review of the existing Open Space Assessment especially as it is likely to form an important part of the evidence to support the subsequent City Plan (Part 2). We note that the PM101 refers to the overall need for additional open space required by 2030 based on ONS population projections (293Ha) and the Councils housing target of 13,200 new homes (167Ha). We consider that the statement at para 4.175 that a significant increase in open space will be required by 2030 is misleading in that it doesnot take account of the previous projected surplus of open space in some areas. (e.g. Patcham, Hollingbury and Stanmer). Furthermore, if the Open Space Assessment were to be based on need arising from the proposed housing target then the open space surplus is likely to be greater than identified in the 2011 update. In our view, this further underlines the need for the Councils evidence to be updated and that in the meantime, the City Plan should follow the approach set out within the NPPF.


A wider issue that needs to be addressed, especially in the context of the existing housing need, is the overall approach of Policy CP16. As currently worded this policy is more restrictive than para 74 of the NPPF which does allow development on existing open space if certain criteria are met.. As presently worded, Policy CP16 is more restrictive then paragraph 74, especially in respect to the proposed criterion d in particular the requirement to actively market the site before alternative proposals can be considered. Given our concerns in respect to the robustness of the supporting evidence base and the significant housing need, we consider that such an approach is not justified and in the absence of up to date assessment which complies with the latest Sport England guidance, we consider that Policy CP16 1(a-e) should be deleted and replaced with wording consistent with paragraph 74 of the NPPF.






The Council's approach is not considered to be consistent with national planning policy and is not justified by the

Page 503 of 541


supporting evidence base. We consider these to be significant issues that should be the subject of round table discussions. . Q7

Respondent Number:

133


Individuals Name:

Bob Webzell

Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:





Sound?:Yes

Tests of soundness:


BHCC and Rottingdean need to preserve their open spaces and sports fields for the use of the public and future generations. Proposals such as that by Linden Homes to build all across a 120 year sports field flies in the face of such policy and there is a need for sound City policy to direct what is or is not acceptable in development terms for such sites







Page 504 of 541


Respondent Number:

126

Individuals Name:

Roger & Sue Harper

Agents Name:


6


Policy/Section:CP16 Open Space





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



I object to PM099 and the section related to the urban fringe. The urban fringe needs to be protected from housing development not accommodated.


re-word to protect urban fringe from housing development






See comments against PM010

Page 505 of 541


Respondent Number:

35


Individuals Name:




6


Policy/Section:CP16


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Objection submitted on behalf of the owners of part of the Urban Fringe Site 43 (Land to rear of Longhill Road, Ovingdean). For the reasons detailed below the Urban Fringe Assessment is not a sufficient robust document to be used as a planning policy document. The Proposed Modifications do not go far enough to overcome the Inspector's initial findings into the City Plan (see Inspector's letter dated 13 December 2013). The Councils Urban Fringe Assessment (that informs the Councils revised housing targets) has not taken full account of potential sites, and so recommends too low a figure for urban fridge sites and their contribution to overall housing supply. The Councils Urban Fringe Assessment (that informs the Councils revised housing targets) has not taken full account of potential sites, and so recommends too low a figure for urban fridge sites and their contribution to overall housing supply. (Submission included extracts considered relevant from the Inspectors letter and the Councils Urban Fringe Analysis dated June 2014. For reference these have been abbreviated as follows: Inspectors letter (13 December 2013) paras: Bearing in mind the Frameworks requirementsthe full objectively assessed need is the higher end of the range, ie 20,000 new dwellings� The Plan proposes a target for the provision of new housing of 11,300represent a significant shortfall and substantial weight must be given to the consequent failure to meet the social dimension of sustainable development.� I recognise that there are significant constraintsHoweverit is important that the Council rigorously assesses all opportunities to meet that need.� Urban Fringe Sites. These sites are not subject to nationally recognised designations I have doubts as to whether some of these areas would meet the requirements of paragraph 77 of the Framework.� Having now seen some of the sites possibility of allowing development on these sites, which would enable the provision of good quality public open space, as part of a package of development.� In view of the significant shortfall in meeting objectively-assessed needs I consider the Council should undertake a more rigorous analysis of the urban fringe sites,for the delivery of new housing from this source.� I recognise the constraints faced by the Council but if I am to find the Plan sound, notwithstanding such a significant shortfall in the provision of new housing, I would need to be satisfied that the Council had left no stone unturned in seeking to meet as much of this need as possible.� Urban Fringe Assessment June 2014 Extract from Main Report page 39 showing assessment of site 43 Extract of site 43 assessment map provided Assessment Proforma for site 43 attached as an Appendix to the representations submitted. Page 39 of the Urban Fringe Assessment states that site 43 is suitable for a low density development of just 6 units. The Assessment has only considered the north east corner of the site (shaded in red hatching) as suitable for development, and has left the remainder of our clients site as undeveloped. The inspector should note that the land has never been open land� or publically accessible, and so there is no reason why the Council should be attempting to restrict this land for Natural and Semi Natural Urban Green Space (brown shading) and as a Nature Improvements Area (vertical blue hatching). Given the Inspectors observations that there should be a rigorous analysis of urban fringe sites, and that the Council should leave no stone unturned� in seeking to meet as much of its need as possible it is clear that the Urban Fringe Assessment is lacking in terms of advising on the potential of sites to contribute to housing need. Our clients site is roughly 4 times larger than the area considered suitable for development in the Urban Fringe Assessment (see submitted map of clients site). The site is clearly suitable for development as it a) could easily accommodate in the order of up to 25 dwellings; b) benefits from direct road access onto Longhill Close (to the south-west) and Wanderdown Close (to the north); and c) is not of high ecological value. The site is in private ownership and the Council has no power to demand that our clients facilitate nature improvements to the site (in itself, this implies that the site is not currently of high ecological value). The Urban Fringe Assessment therefore underplays the sites potential for contributing to housing need. Whilst we appreciate that the Council is intending to make specific site allocations in its forthcoming City Plan Part Two document, those allocations will be based on the proposed quantum of housing development set out in the City Plan Part 1. The quantum of development set out in Part 1 is based (in part) on the Urban Fringe Assessment, and so it is correct to consider the failings of the Assessment (to rigorously assess the potential of urban fringe sites to contribute to housing need) at this time. These representations demonstrate that the Council has not paid sufficient regard to the Inspectors observations from 13 December 2013, and so is not proposing a sufficiently high enough

Page 506 of 541


target for new housing in order meet with its Objectively Assessed Need for housing. The proposed modifications do not allow for sufficient housing development, and the supporting documentation (the Urban Fringe Assessment) does not provide a robust enough analysis of sites to ensure that the ability of the urban fringe (to help with housing supply) has been maximised. (BHCC Officer note: The objector provided detailed comments on the Urban Fringe Assessment's analysis of site number 43 in order to show more of the site could be developed eg in the order of 25 dwellings rather than 6 as indicated in the Urban Fringe Assessment)






Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


8




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Comment also relates to PM101 Our concerns regarding the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment being material in determining planning applications are as above (PM064)... Our concern is that it could allow development to take place on any site listed in the Urban Fringe Assessment 2014 as soon as Part 1 of the City Plan is adopted if decisions were made without any further consultation on the suitability of sites. We do not believe that there has been any scrutiny of the Urban Fringe Assessment and it would be a mistake if decision were made solely against this. There are a number of urban fringe sites that are either contiguous, a gateway or provide access to the National Park which if permission for development was granted, could have an everlasting negative impact on its setting. Therefore we believe that this modification should be deleted.






Page 507 of 541


Respondent Number:

154


Individuals Name:

n/a



3


Policy/Section:CP16





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The Councils proposed changes to Policy CP16 principally relate to incorporating the findings of the Councils Urban Fringe Assessment (June 2014). The Council have not sought to review existing open space to determine whether there is potential for some areas to be released to contribute towards meeting the significant housing need that exists within the City. In light of our comments to proposed modification 72, we consider that as a minimum, the Council should commit to the early review of the existing Open Space Assessment especially as it is likely to form an important part of the evidence to support the subsequent City Plan (Part 2). We note that the PM101 refers to the overall need for additional open space required by 2030 based on ONS population projections (293Ha) and the Councils housing target of 13,200 new homes (167Ha). We consider that the statement at para 4.175 that a significant increase in open space will be required by 2030 is misleading in that it does not take account of the previous projected surplus of open space in some areas. (e.g. Patcham, Hollingbury and Stanmer). Furthermore, if the Open Space Assessment were to be based on need arising from the proposed housing target then the open space surplus is likely to be greater than identified in the 2011 update. In our view, this further underlines the need for the Councils evidence to be updated and that in the meantime, the City Plan should follow the approach set out within the NPPF.









Page 508 of 541


supporting evidence base. We consider these to be significant issues that should be the subject of round table discussions. .

Respondent Number:

75

Individuals Name:

Mr D Hunter



7




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


In the light of the objections to the Urban Fringe Assessment, the following objections are lodged in respect of the Proposed Modification PM099: As with earlier comments, the Urban Fringe Assessment is not a sufficient robust document to be used as a planning policy document.






Page 509 of 541


Respondent Number:

154


Individuals Name:

n/a



4


Policy/Section:CP16





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:












Page 510 of 541


supporting evidence base. We consider these to be significant issues that should be the subject of round table discussions.

Respondent Number:

76


H Clarke

Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:

Support / Object:








Policy CP16 is proposed to be amended to permit the loss of some urban fringe sites in order to meet the city’s housing requirements. However these sites should also be consider in terms of meeting other infrastructure needs, not just housing but also sporting need in the form of built sports facilities and pitches. Sport England has been in ongoing discussions with Brighton & Hove and it has provisionally committed to undertaking a detailed Playing Pitch Strategy which will identify the detailed strategic needs for pitch sports in the City. If this piece of work identifies a strategic need for new additional pitch provision, then the need to retain some of these sites for conversion to playing field use would need to be considered. The availability of these sites for housing will therefore require to be reviewed at this point.In any event, and following Sport England’s ongoing discussions with the Council, the following further minor amendment has been agreed to Policy CP16:


1. Planning permission resulting in the loss of open space, including the beach, [insert will only be granted where] [delete: not be granted unless]

Delete text of criteria d) insert followingd) The site is :• physically incapable of meeting the city’ s wider open space needs;• is not part of the beach or a playing field (current or historical) and,• in accordance with the Open Space Study Update 2011 (or subsequent approved revisions), is of a poor quality without potential for improvement (current and potential) and there is an identified surplus (current and future) in all types of open space within the locality (ward and sub area). In order to test the importance of the site to the local community the site must be actively marketed at a price that reflects its use, condition and local market prices for at least a year with no success before alternative proposals can be considered.






Page 511 of 541


Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


10


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:





Comment also relates to PM101 Our concerns regarding the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment being material in determining planning applications are as above (PM064)... Our concern is that it could allow development to take place on any site listed in the Urban Fringe Assessment 2014 as soon as Part 1 of the City Plan is adopted if decisions were made without any further consultation on the suitability of sites. We do not believe that there has been any scrutiny of the Urban Fringe Assessment and it would be a mistake if decision were made solely against this. There are a number of urban fringe sites that are either contiguous, a gateway or provide access to the National Park which if permission for development was granted, could have an everlasting negative impact on its setting. Therefore we believe that this modification should be deleted.






Page 512 of 541


Respondent Number:

150

Individuals Name:

Abby Hone

Agents Name:


1


Policy/Section:CP16 - Open Space


Legally Compliant?:


I object to the inclusion of actively used allotment sites as having potential for housing use in the Urban Fringe Assessment Report, a development plan document being considered as part of the City Plan Part One. The Craven Vale and Whitehawk Hill Allotment Society (CVWHAS) represents 352 plot holders on what is identified as site 31 in the Report. The Whitehawk Hill part of the site has been used as allotments for about a century, while the Craven Vale site was created in the 1950s to mitigate for the loss of allotment land as a result of the construction of the Craven Vale estate. Current Council figures show a waiting list of 106 across the two sites. I fully concur with the Society's objections which are as follows: 1. Concern that the Urban Fringe Assessment Report appears to be a hastily produced desktop study, produced by consultants with little local knowledge. The detail in the report contains a number of errors about site 31. For example, it refers only to Whitehawk Hill allotments (177 plots�) whereas the area identified as potential for housing is shown on the map on the Craven Vale site. It also suggests that new allotment sites could be created in mitigation by expanding the allotments westwards on to the lower slopes of [site] 31b to the west�. However, this land, which is wooded and is being developed as a local nature reserve, is designated as open access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and so could not be used in mitigation. 2. I object to any actively used allotment site being considered for housing potential. Allotments provide valuable amenity both in terms of the local community and for the local ecology. Local authorities have a statutory responsibility to provide allotments and actively used sites should be protected in local development plans and not identified for other land uses. 3. The Report also considers that the structures on the allotments add clutter to the visual landscape. This is subjective. It should be noted that all the structures are temporary, whereas housing would be permanent. 4. The Report notes that the east Brighton area has an over-provision of open spaces. However, allotment holders come from a broader area, including the city centre, so the allotment site needs to be considered in that context as a more widely. I travel from Preston Circus by bicycle, it takes 20 minutes or more each way. 5. The inclusion of actively used allotment sites in the Urban Fringe Assessment Report creates a tension with long established council policies to protect such sites and to promote the working of allotment land. Reducing food miles and encouraging healthy lifestyles, including the positive physical and mental health benefits of working allotments, are amongst the valuable benefits of the current land use. Inclusion of allotment land in the Urban Fringe Assessment Report makes it unclear which policy has precedence; the development plan process should create clarity rather than confusion in this respect. 6. Craven Vale and Whitehawk Hill allotments are included in the Whitehawk Hill Nature Reserve an endorsement of their wildlife importance. Plot-holders cultivate in a sustainable way with respect for wildlife. Many create habitat piles for invertebrates, install small wildlife ponds allowed within the allotment rules to provide habitat for amphibians, dragonfly and damselfly larvae and many other useful interventions. 7. Any development of the sites identified in the Urban Fringe Assessment Report will extend the built-up area of the City into greenfield sites. Once these greenfield sites are gone they are gone forever. If they are to be included in the City Plan then policy SA4 should also ensure that all avenues to secure housing provision within the built-up area have been exhausted before any application on an urban fringe site will be considered.


Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:



As per full response above.






Page 513 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


22


Policy/Section:CP16


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


It is questionable whether it is justified to talk of moving uses within the South Downs National Park in paragraph 4.174 which is outside the remit of this Plan. It is also questionable whether these uses could be accommodated within the National Park without causing significant harm and therefore counter to policy SA5. Therefore this reference should be removed to ensure consistency within the Plan and to ensure its soundness.


Remove reference as described.





Page 514 of 541


Respondent Number:

154


Individuals Name:

n/a



5


Policy/Section:CP16





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:

It is not positively prepared in that it is not prepared on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.; It is not effective in that it is not deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross boundary strategic priorities.; It is not consistent with national policy.











Page 515 of 541


supporting evidence base. We consider these to be significant issues that should be the subject of round table discussions.

Respondent Number:

119



Agents Name:


13


Policy/Section:CP16 Open Space, pages 196-197


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


We have previously commented on the importance of ensuring that open space standards are not compromised by the rush to meet housing targets and increased densities. Indeed the increase in the number of dwellings and increased densities make it even more important that open space standards err on the side of generosity rather than relying on minimal standards. We therefore consider that the calculation of the open space requirement of 167 hectares using an average size of 2 bedroom units - when 62% of the projected housing need is for 3-4 bedroom houses - is plain wrong, and should be significantly increased. We also note that since 2006 there has been an under-provision of open space in relation to developments carried out in the intervening period, so there is already a considerable shortfall to be made up.






Page 516 of 541


Respondent Number:

122


Mrs Anna Budge

Agents Name:


3


Policy/Section:CP16





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



The National Trust is grateful for the opportunity to comment on the proposed modifications to the emerging City Plan. The National Trust owns and manages a significant amount of land around Brighton and Hove within the South Downs National Park including Devils Dyke and Newtimber Hill, Fulking Escarpment and Edburton Hill, Southwick Hill, Ditchling Beacon and Black Cap. In addition to the land the Trust owns and manages Saddlescombe Farm to the north of the City which provides a unique insight into a historic farmstead within the South Downs and provides a learning space and education facility right on the South Downs Way. The National Trust has not previously commented on the City Plan as it has progressed but considers that the proposed modifications to the plan do have the potential to impact on the Trusts land and property which sits in close proximity to the City. The Trust has already recognised that with development in the urban fringe there is likely to be a need to use open space more efficiently within the City and that there is likely to be more pressure on the recreational opportunities offered by the National Park which includes Trust land. The Trust considers that the supporting text to Policy CP16 should place more emphasis on on-site mitigation in the first instance with provision of new facilities in the National Park seen as a only an option after a comprehensive case has been provided as to why they cannot be provided on-site. The Trust is concerned that many of the policies and supporting text within the City Plan are offering the National Park as compensation for the loss of the green space within the urban fringe without any clear supporting evidence that the sensitive landscapes and ecology can cope with additional pressures. The NPPF is clear at paragraph 117 that Local Plans should minimise the impact on biodiversity through their policies and indeed promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of habitats. The National Trust has carried out a significant amount of restoration and habitat re-creation at our sites around Brighton, including the SSSI at Beeding Hill to Newtimber Hill, and there is concern that the current strategy has not fully considered the impact of readily allowing mitigation within the National Park. This concern is supported by work that has been undertaken by the South Downs National Park Authority regarding accessible greenspace (South Downs National Park Access Network and Accessible Natural Greenspace Study 2014). This document highlights the need to provide accessible natural greenspace (ANG) at a neighbourhood level within Brighton and Hove to relieve potential pressure on local wildlife sites and the National Park. The Trust is therefore concerned that without a strong presumption against off-site provision for open space in the first instance the important conservation work that is undertaken within the National Park could be undermined by over-use of sensitive sites, particularly the SSSI.


Para 4.174 - Unlike other urban open spaces the loss of these sites can more readily be mitigated through the provision of new publically accessible space or enhancements to existing spaces and this should be seen as the first option for mitigation proposals. Alternative provision within the National Park and/or compensation for the loss of open space within the National Park will only be considered where the long term impacts of such a proposal on the landscape and habitat have been clearly explored and mitigated for and that the biodiversity of the National Park will not be adversely affected.





Page 517 of 541



Page 518 of 541


Respondent Number:

24


Mr James Rogers



4




Legally Compliant?:








The supporting text of Policy CP16 talks about the relationship of the Citys housing requirements versus the need for open space. The proposed modifications to the City Plan have therefore included a section as part of Paragraph 4.174 which details the following: ‚· The 2014 Urban Fringe Site Assessment Study identifies that some open spaces within the Citys urban fringe have the potential to help meet the Citys housing requirements. The supporting text goes on to say that unlike other urban open spaces the loss of these urban fringe sites can more readily be mitigated through the provision of new publicly accessible open spaces enhancements to existing open space or by alternative provision within the National Park or compensated by the National Parks Open Space offer. 2.49. It is our professional view that the inclusion of this above text is essential to bring forward the necessary housing numbers that are so desperately required within the City. It is my clients view and intention that urban fringe sites which are currently open space can be used for housing whilst providing a higher quality of managed public open space on the remaining land than currently exists. This will bring about significant and demonstrable long term enhancements to the Citys public open space offer as a whole. 2.50. Paragraph 4.175 details that by 2030 a significant increase in open space will be required based on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) population projections. This paragraph, particularly the adjustment on the provision of open space in 2030, has been amended by the Proposed Modifications (The previous 2030 adjustment is shown in brackets): ‚· The proposed paragraph change is that an additional 293 (previously 237) hectares should be provided when ONS population projections are applied, however when the City Plan housing target of 13,200 is taken into account the generated demand equates to approximately 167 (previously 202) hectares. This modification to the proposed City Plan is key as it identifies that the need for housing is more significant than the need for open space. This is evidenced through the gap between the additional hectares of open space required in 2030 being increased from 237 hectares to 293 hectares. Planning Representations to Proposed Modifications of City Plan Part 1: Benfield Valley Golf Course, Hove, BN3 8EB Date: December 2014 Version 1.00 11 2.51. This change in the provision of open space based on the population projections is also due to the assumption that the average unit size is two bedrooms which is likely to be decrease to more commonly one bedroom and also that the housing target of 13,200 will restrict the growth in population. Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study Brighton and Hove, October 2008 2.52. This study identifies the open space needs and current capacity for the Brighton and Hove catchment. The below table taken from the study identifies that there is a high demand for natural and semi natural open space (119 hectares) and that there is a moderate demand for Amenity Greenspace (23.3 hectares) and Parks & Gardens (40 hectares). The space demand for Outdoor Sport is 19.5 hectares but this figure as mentioned below does not take into consideration golf courses. 2.53. It is worth noting the following points when relying on the information within this study: ‚· Golf Courses are disregarded from the local audit quantity assessments as they are not always publically accessible (para 2.18). ‚· Bowling greens and golf courses are well provided for, according to the public survey (para 4.38). ‚· The statistics are based on the population in 2006. The population will be greater now. Extract from Section 8 of Report: Proposed Recommendations 8.8. With regards to Open Space there are a number of points to draw upon: ‚· It is encouraging to note the Planning Inspectors comment that the Council should consider the possibility that Open Space sites can be used for residential development as part of a package of development to also provide good quality public open space. ‚· It is encouraging to note that the loss of open space would be granted if a site is allocated under the Urban fringe Assessment. This proposed modification is supported as it enables sites of poor quality open space (e.g. Benfield Valley Golf Course) to be opened for redevelopment in an appropriate manner.

Page 519 of 541





Respondent Number:

24


Mr James Rogers



6


Policy/Section:Policy CP17 Sports Provision

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:








CP17 Sports Provision 2.54. Policy CP17 seeks to protect and enhance the existing outdoor sports facilities. The policy details that planning permission will only be granted where one or more of the following is accorded with: ‚· The building(s) have been redundant and marketed for a period of 18 months or more. ‚· The facilities are replaced by improved facilities that help meet the sporting needs of the city and optimise sustainable access. ‚· [As a proposed modification] The site is an allocated development site. The Urban Fringe Assessment (UFA) will be a material consideration for residential development in the urban fringe prior to the adoption part 2 (allocations plan) of the City Plan. It is considered by my client that the UFA should be used as a helpful guide to the appropriate locations for residential development, albeit, as discussed earlier, the housing figures are low. However, as previously mentioned, it is not considered appropriate for the UFA to be a material consideration due to the lack of public consultation undertaken on the document. 2.55. The policy goes further to state that any new development will be required to contribute towards the quality, quantity and accessibility of sports facilities.




Page 520 of 541


Respondent Number:

76


H Clarke

Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:

Support / Object:








The proposed modification to Policy CP17 now includes the uses of standards for indoor and outdoor sports facilities. Sport England has discussed this approach with Brighton & Hove and advised that this is not the best policy route to delivering the best outcome for sport. As indicated above, Sport England has been in ongoing discussions with Brighton and Hove and it has provisionally committed to undertaking a detailed Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS) which will identify the detailed strategic needs for pitch sports in the City. The conclusions of this work will then need to feed into Policy CP17. To allow Policy CP17 to account for the most up to date information, which in time will be the outcomes of the PPS, the following changes to Policy CP17 have been agreed between Sport England and Brighton & Hove:


2. [Insert "In respect of outdoor sports facilities and spaces] [delete: sports open space]• The [delete: land has been marketed as detailed above and the] proposal complies with the Open Space policy (CP16)

5. Require new development to contribute to the provision and improvement of the quality, quantity and accessibility of sports services, facilities and spaces to meet the needs it generates in accordance with the local standards set out below (or subsequent approved revisions [insert: and/or approved assessments/strategies)] (See also CP7 Infrastructure and Developer Contributions).






Page 521 of 541


Respondent Number:

25



Agents Name:


9


Policy/Section:CP17 Sports Provision


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Our concerns regarding the 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment being material in determining planning applications are as above (PM064)... Our concern is that it could allow development to take place on any site listed in the Urban Fringe Assessment 2014 as soon as Part 1 of the City Plan is adopted if decisions were made without any further consultation on the suitability of sites. We do not believe that there has been any scrutiny of the Urban Fringe Assessment and it would be a mistake if decision were made solely against this. There are a number of urban fringe sites that are either contiguous, a gateway or provide access to the National Park which if permission for development was granted, could have an everlasting negative impact on its setting. Therefore we believe that this modification should be deleted.






Page 522 of 541


Respondent Number:

154


Individuals Name:

n/a



6


Policy/Section:CP17





Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



As with proposed modifications PM098-101, the policy wording has been amended to have regard to the findings of the Councils Urban Fringe Assessment (2014), however as with Policy CP16, in considering proposals that would result in the loss of outdoor sports facilities, the Council apply a more restrictive policy test than that set out within paragraph 74 of the NPPF. Based on our comments to proposed modifications 72 and 98-101, this approach is not considered to be justified given the lack of a robust evidence base and the significant housing need that exists citywide.


On this basis we consider that the wording of the bullet points at part 2 of the policy should be deleted and replaced with wording consistent with paragraph 74 of the NPPF






The Council's approach is not considered to be consistent with national planning policy and is not justified by the supporting evidence base. We consider these to be significant issues that should be the subject of round table discussions.

Page 523 of 541


Respondent Number:

133

Rottingdean Parish Council

Individuals Name:

Bob Wezell

Agents Name:


6


Policy/Section:







BHCC and Rottingdean need to preserve their open spaces and sports fields for the use of the public and future generations. Proposals such as that by Linden Homes to build all across a 120 year sports field flies in the face of such policy and there is a need for sound City policy to direct what is or is not acceptable in development terms for such sites






Page 524 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


23


Policy/Section:CP18


Legally Compliant?:










Page 525 of 541


Respondent Number:

133


Individuals Name:

Bob Webzell

Agents Name:


5


Policy/Section:




To comply with UK and EU air-quality standards and avoid prosecution and resident illhealth


Sound?:Yes

Tests of soundness:


Planners all too quickly appear to dismiss or minimise the impact of their proposed developments upon traffic, air quality and infrastructure deficiencies like school places and GP places. A clear statement and requirement about air-quality impact upon existing locations and cumulative effects can only help and strengthen the City's drive towards a healthy and more sustainable City and BHCC locations like Rottingdean High-Street




I welcome most of this document and would urge Councilors to move these planning revisions forward at pace to secure a sound and effective City Plan




Page 526 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


24


Policy/Section:


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Support, however, there is a question about whether the wording on air quality needs to be tightened in light of the recent Court of Justice of the European Union ruling that there is an obligation to address legal limits as soon as possible. The proposed new wording requiring new development proposals take into account impact on local air quality and that improvements and/or mitigation are sought wherever possible� is no longer strong enough, given the urgent need to address this serious issue. Therefore, this proposed modification may no longer be sound. It is worth stressing that Public Health England has estimated that premature deaths in Brighton & Hove due to particulate pollution is around 115 deaths per annum. New research coming out next year, which includes the effect of nitrous oxides, could see the number of premature deaths attributable to air pollution double3.






Page 527 of 541


Respondent Number:

180

Individuals Name:

Richard Scott

Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:CP19 Housing Mix


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:No

Tests of soundness:


3.3 PM016 CP19 Housing Mix. The proposed Modification appears to need re-wording, to reflect the applicability of HCA Space Standards required of Registered Providers.








Page 528 of 541


Respondent Number:

24


Mr James Rogers



7




Legally Compliant?:








CP19 - Housing Mix 2.56. Under Policy CP19 the Council seeks to improve and ensure that housing choice and mix through the following activities: 1. Responding to the accommodation requirements of specific groups within the City, e.g. families with children, old people, disabled people and student accommodation for example. 2. Retention of residential uses within the City. 3. (As included within the proposed modifications) introduce dwelling space standards in Part II of the Plan to secure quality and sustainability in new residential Planning Representations to Proposed Modifications of City Plan Part 1: Benfield Valley Golf Course, Hove, BN3 8EB Date: December 2014 Version 1.00 12 development. My client believes this is a good addition as this will soon become a national policy requirement and also enables the marketability of residential units to be greater. 4. The housing mix of a new residential development will have to have regard of the existing neighbourhoods and communities to ensure the development is a positive contribution. 2.57. Specific housing mix requirements are not identified within the City Plan and a housing specific Supplementary Planning Document does not exist. It is likely therefore that the mix will be on a site by site basis depending on the local housing need and character.




Page 529 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


25


Policy/Section:CP19


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


Strongly support to ensure that new homes are fit for purpose.






Page 530 of 541


Respondent Number:

7



Agents Name:


9




Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


PM106 Housing mix , housing standards This is one of the modifications we negotiated with the city council and which we would like to see retained




With best wishes for a speedy progress towards adoption of the City Plan part I and thanks for the work you have done so far.



Page 531 of 541


Respondent Number:

13


Individuals Name:

Sandy Crowhurst

Agents Name:


7


Policy/Section:CP19




We feel that this inclusion of policy is desirable. Reference to this policy should also be included in PM069.


Sound?:Yes

Tests of soundness:








Page 532 of 541


Respondent Number:

167


Mike Clark

Agents Name:GVA


7


Policy/Section:CP21

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:





according to the Councils own evidence, a significant proportion of overcrowding in the city can be directly attributed to the student housing market. The UoB welcomes efforts by the City Council to increase the supply of housing in Brighton & Hove as part of the solution to address overcrowding in the city. The second factor to consider revolves around the ability of UoB to provide sufficient student accommodation for its students in line with its own strategic objectives. In the context of UoBs strategic vision to grow its student intake significantly to 2020 it is considered that the proposed increase of housing supply alone will not resolve current over-crowding in the city and therefore requires a commitment from the City Council to ensure the provision of sufficient student accommodation is provided to meet identified needs. The objectives of the UoB and City Council are closely aligned on this matter and the UoB is committed to working with the City Council to ensure both the accommodation needs of its students and of the local population can be met. The UoB supports the City Councils requirement for new student accommodation developments to demonstrate that they have entered into a formal agreement with one of the citys two universities. This is considered to be a sensible requirement to ensure the provision of new student accommodation relates directly with the needs of the Citys higher education providers and does not result in speculative developments coming forward in unsustainable locations. This requirement also ensures that higher education providers are committed to the delivery of key strategic sites, such as Preston Barracks and Moulsecoomb campus which is fully supported by the UoB.






Page 533 of 541


Respondent Number:

116



Agents Name:


9


Policy/Section:CP21 A7


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


The change to part (i) A.7 of the Policy under the same modification reference is understood but the University considers this to only place more restrictions on the potential to deliver further purpose built student accommodation in the city which, itself, has the potential to free up more housing stock to serve residents needs. We therefore do not support this modification to the Policy.






Page 534 of 541


Respondent Number:

153


Individuals Name:

Colin Brace

Agents Name:


4


Policy/Section:CP21 Student Accommodation


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:


Paragraph 4.229 of the City Plan states that additional bed spaces in purpose built student accommodation will assist in encouraging students to choose managed accommodation over houses in multiple occupation. Whilst Policy CP21 identifies five locations suitable for purpose built student accommodation, the number of bed spaces identified for each site would not meet the identified need when combined with existing accommodation (circa 32,000). Whilst Policy CP21 allows for purpose built student accommodation on unidentified sites, the qualification criteria listed are difficult to satisfy and could stymie new student accommodation schemes being approved. The requirement to have a formal agreement with one of the city's two Universities or other existing educational establishments could unnecessarily restrict developments being approved. Firstly, the Universities require developments to comply with their own lower price structures which don't allow for higher spec accommodation (thereby limiting market choice). Secondly, the Universities are themselves developers of student accommodation and will not always support proposals on competitor sites. Policy CP21 states that purpose-built student accommodation will not be supported on sites allocated for housing, with extant planning permission for residential development or sites identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. If landowners are aware that nominating sites as part of the SHLAA process would restrict them from being considered for student accommodation, it may hinder the number of potential housing sites coming forward (thereby adding to the housing shortage rather than helping to address it). Furthermore, criteria 7 of CP21 does not allow for situations where planning permissions for housing are extant but have not been implemented for reasons such as financial viability. Where this is the case, alternative uses such as student accommodation should be considered. The removal of criteria 6 and 7 from Policy CP21 would mean that a greater number of student developments would come forward, thereby helping to meet the identified need and supporting the higher and further education growth sectors. These changes will help to improve the soundness of the City Plan on the basis that it would be more positively prepared. A lesser reliance on traditional housing stock will help to release family accommodation in the long term and potentially reduce the over-concentration of student housing and improve the social problems in wards such as Hanover, Moulsecoomb, Bevendean, St Peters and North Laine. On 5th April 2013, an Article 4 Direction relating to Houses in Multiple Occupation was introduced for five wards. This direction means that planning consent is now required to use a single dwelling house (C3) as a small house in multiple occupation (C4). Policy CP21 seeks to avoid more than 10% of dwellings within the radius of application sites being used as C4, mixed C3/C4 or other types of HMO. This policy combined with the Article 4 Direction is likely to result in a greater need for purpose built accommodation in the five wards and/or a wider spread of C4 style student accommodation in neighbouring wards (thereby increasing the social problems elsewhere).






Page 535 of 541


Respondent Number:

165

Select Property Group Ltd

Individuals Name:

n/a

Agents Name:Jeremy Castle


1


Policy/Section:CP21


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

No

Tests of soundness:



SPG objects to PM107 due to the constraints that could be imposed on the successful delivery of purpose built student accommodation. SPG is concerned that the proposed modifications to CP21 could be used to resist development in Brighton & Hove that would bring substantial benefits to the city through providing a range of student accommodation. As currently drafted, SPG considers that CP21 could have the harmful effect of reducing the city's ability to meet Strategic Goal 2 of the Student Housing Strategy, which aims to reduce or halt over concentration of HMO via the sustainable development of affordable and appropriately designed purpose built student accommodation. SPG acknowledges the balance that needs to be stuck between meeting the significant shortfall in housing provision in brighton & Hove, but believes the proposed modifications to CP21 could have the effect of placing the balance too far in favour of meeting housing needs. It believes that the policy could result in the city being unable to benefit from having a range of student accommodation types, including high-end products. The proposed modification to criterion 6 now requires schemes to "demonstrate" that they have entered into a formal agreement with one of the city's exsiting educational establishments. SPG does not enter into formal agreements with universities or other educational establishments. Therefore the proposed modification could create a reason for refusing a development that meets an important need for student accommodation. The previous drafting of the criterion 6 required schemes to have the support of an existing educational establishment, and SPG considers this is more appropriate and justified. SPG considers the additional wording to Criterion 7 "allocated for housing or" is an unnecessary and unjustified addition to the policy. The addition of these words duplicates the text in footnote 248 that states that sites identified as potential housing sites "will include those identified in other City Plan policies and those listed in the SHLAA. In additing these words, Criterion 7 sets a far stronger policy test that is not justified by the need to balance the provision of housing against meeting the needs for student accommodation. While any planning application that proposes student accommodation on housing sites would need to demonstrate material considerations to justify departure from policy, the additional words imply that there is a higher bar to clear in order to demonstrate sufficiently strong material considerations. In this context, it is important to recognise that planning permissions have been granted in Brighton & Hove for student accommodation on housing sites during the preparation of the City Plan including 27-33 Ditching Road and 50 Heath Hill Avenue, where a flexible approach was taken to securing additional student accommodation. It is also important to note the Inspector's comments on the dismiss for student accommodation at Richmond House (6.6.14). The Inspector accepted that the overall shortage in suitable student accommodation weighed in favour of granting planning permission. She acknowledged the conflicting tensions between the provision of student housing and retaining the proposed allocation for general housing, but concluded that the provision of 138 student units would contribute towards addressing the significant shortage of this type of accommodation and would be a benefit of the scheme. SPG recognises the need to demonstrate material considerations to overcome a potential policy objection in relation to criterion 7, it considers that the additional words in the proposed modifications are unjustified. If added, these words could encourage an increasingly prescriptive aproach which could seriously affect the ability to deliver much needed student accommodation in the city.


Amend Criterion 6 to: A6 Schemes should have the support of one of the city's two Universities or other educational establishments within Brighton & Hove, or ensure that accommodation is for the sole purpose of full time students studying within one of the city's existing educational establishments. Criterion 7: remove additional

Page 536 of 541


wording "allocated for housing or"






Respondent Number:

116



Agents Name:


8


Policy/Section:CP21 A6


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


The University understands the need for clarification of part (i) A.6 of the Policy through the Proposed Modifications (ref : PM107) and does not object to this.






Page 537 of 541


Respondent Number:

13


Individuals Name:

Sandy Crowhurst

Agents Name:


8


Policy/Section:CP21




We support this policy as we would not wish an increase of student/HMOs accommodation in the North Laine area.


Sound?:Yes

Tests of soundness:


The numbers of student accommodation will increase dramatically within the next few years in the City Centre. North Laine residents will be adversely affected by this increase. About 2,000 extra students will be living in the area once City College, Circus Street, Ditchling Road (Buxtons site), and Abacus House (ex Co-op) are built and fully occupied. There are also 400 students at Bellerbys on the Station site, adjoining North Laine.







Page 538 of 541


Respondent Number:

174


Individuals Name:

Chris Todd

Agents Name:


26


Policy/Section:CP21


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


Support as it is important to be able to provide housing for residents.






Page 539 of 541


Respondent Number:

116



Agents Name:


10


Policy/Section:CP21 Part 2

Support / Object:

Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:Yes

Tests of soundness:


The University has consistently supported the Councils policy approach within part (ii) of the Policy regarding Houses in Multiple Occupation in the city and we intend to continue to work with the City Council and local residents to achieve the Policy's aims. We therefore do not object to the Proposed Modification relating to part (ii) of the Policy CP21. We also do not object to the Proposed Modifications to the supporting text to the Policy (refs : PM108 and PM109).






Page 540 of 541


Respondent Number:

116



Agents Name:


11


Policy/Section:Cp21 Part ii)


Legally Compliant?:



Sound?:

Yes

Tests of soundness:


The University has consistently supported the Councils policy approach within part (ii) of the Policy regarding Houses in Multiple Occupation in the city and we intend to continue to work with the City Council and local residents to achieve the Policy's aims. We therefore do not object to the Proposed Modification relating to part (ii) of the Policy CP21. We also do not object to the Proposed Modifications to the supporting text to the Policy (refs : PM108 and PM109).






Page 541 of 541

annexe 1 – representations schedule

Documents