Development Consultation Forum

Havant Retail Park

Portsdown Hill Road

17th January 2013

Programme

• 18.00 - Introduction – Councillor David Guest• 18.05 - Explanation of Process and outline of planning

policy and planning history – Chris Murray• 18.15 - Presentation by Developers• 18.35 – Invited speakers• 18.45 – Written consultee responses – Sally Smith• 18.55 - Developer response to issues raised• 19.05 – Councillors’ questions• 19.35 – Summary of key points – Chris Murray• 19.45 - Chairman closes Forum meeting

The purpose of the Forum is…• To allow developer to explain development proposals

directly to councillors, public & key stakeholders at an early stage

• To allow Councillors to ask questions

• Informs officer pre application discussions with developer

• Identify any issues that may be considered in any formal application.

• Enable the developer to shape an application to address community issues

The Forum is not meant to…• Negotiate the proposal in public

• Commit councillors or local planning authority to a view

• Allow objectors to frustrate the process

• Address or necessarily identify all the issues that will need to be considered in a future planning application

• Take the place of normal planning application process or role of the Development Management Committee

• Developer will have a list of main points to consider

• Stakeholders and public will be aware of proposals and can raise their concerns

• Councillors will be better informed on significant planning issues

• Officers will be better informed as to community expectations during their pre application negotiations with developers

The outcome of the Forum will be…

Havant Retail Park

Havant Retail Park

Havant Retail Park

• Applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012

• Development Plan includes:– Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011– Saved policies from 2005 Local Plan

• Other material considerations include:– NPPF – Draft Local Plan (Allocations)

Planning Policy – Framework

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)• Plan positively to support local development• Planning should be genuinely plan led, empowering local

people to shape their surroundings• In response, HBC are positively progressing Local Plan

Draft Local Plan (Allocations)• Aims to allocate sites to meet development needs• Consultation currently underway to ensure local people have

an opportunity to shape their surrounding through plan led system

• Adoption scheduled December 2013

Planning Policy – Material Considerations

Planning History

• There is no planning history relevant to a proposal for housing on this site.

• The current uses comprise the Homebase retail unit and a bowling alley.

• The site originally gained planning permission on appeal for 2 retail units in 1987.

• Change of use of one of the retail units to a bowling alley permitted 1991.

• In 1997 permissions were granted for use of the retail unit for a child activity centre and for a leisure activity centre including a dry ski slope. Neither were implemented.

Key Planning Issues

Planning Policy• Loss of the bowling alley, a community facility, needs to

be addressed.

• The site is proposed for mixed use development and 33

dwellings in the Draft Allocations Plan.

Employment• Is the loss of employment acceptable?

Highways and Access• Amount of traffic that will be generated.• The impact of the traffic generated on the access

junction and the surrounding road network. • Adequacy of site layout and parking

Environment• Noise levels and mitigation measures• Contamination

Key Planning Issues

Residential Mix• Can the number and size of dwellings be suitably

provided?• Is the mix of house types and sizes acceptable?• Affordable housing – level of provision and location.

Open Space• Location, function and amount

Key Planning Issues

Key Planning Issues

Built form and Design• Are the layout, scale, impact, roofs cape and elevations

appropriate?

Impact upon surroundings• Impact on boundary trees and acceptability of internal

landscaping.

Developer Contributions and S106 requirements: Possible contributions at present towards:• HCC Highway Contributions• Affordable Housing• Open Space Provision• Education• Community provision

Key Planning Issues

Presentation by Developers

Invited Speakers

Invited speakers:North Hill Bedhampton Residents’ Assoc

• The entrance should include a roundabout at the entrance to slow down the speed of traffic.

• In places the footpath is less than 1m wide – it should be approximately 2m

• The Belmont Roundabout is currently problematic. It has not been addressed, despite the approval of the application at Scratchface Lane.

• The proposed amenity space appears to be very small and does not include an equipped children’s area.

• The development is not close enough to a school• Proposed car parking adjacent to the motorway would be

very noisy. The trees around the perimeter would not provide an adequate noise barrier.

• The bowling alley is a well used and highly accessible facility – used by several schools, care groups and childrens’ groups. There is also a function suite.

• The development should not be approved until an alternative facility is provided within the Borough.

• There is a petition currently being created.• Retaining wall along Portsdown HiIl should be repaired.

Invited speakers:North Hill Bedhampton Residents’ Assoc

Invited speakers:West Bedhampton Residents’ Assoc

• Support use of the site as a Brownfield site.• Money from s106 ought to go to a leisure facility, in

particular one which can be used by disabled people who currently use the bowling alley.

• Noise levels must be considered thoroughly. People need a quiet living environment.

• A slatted acoustic barrier should be used – similar to those used on the continent.

• Footpaths must be provided to create safe access routes.

• The Belmont centre must be easily accessible

• Lack of infrastructure• Soon the Highways department may be in a position

whereby they have to object to further development.• The dwellings look like barracks / prisons and do not

represent a high quality ‘gateway to Havant’• Can a condition be incorporated to ensure that all

occupiers are from within Havant Borough?

Invited speakers:West Bedhampton Residents’ Assoc

Consultee Responses

Planning Policy

• Loss of the bowling alley, a community facility, needs to be addressed. Policy DM2 requires evidence of active marketing, that it is not a viable use and, if appropriate, provision of a new community facility.

• The valuation exercise has not been completed to date to establish if the bowling alley is not a viable business.

• If the policy tests are met the Community team will assist in defining youth projects that could provide alternative provision.

Planning Policy

• The site is proposed for mixed use development, including 33 new homes in policy HB3 of the Draft Allocations Plan which seeks the retention of the bowling alley or an alternative community facility.

• An Employment and Skills Plan would be required for the construction phase.

• The proposal would contribute to the net total of 6,300 dwellings required to 2026.

• Need to meet Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

• The site lies within the urban area.

Economic Development

• Concerned that there will be a loss of 2 businesses, 65 jobs and a valued community facility, the bowling alley, which is part of our visitor offer.

• Would welcome further evidence that attempts have been made to find other employment and leisure outlets for the site. Approaches to other bowling alley operators particularly requested.

• Havant has a low job density, few leisure attractions and much out-commuting and the development will exacerbate this situation.

HBC Development Engineer - on behalf of HCC

• Transport Assessment required to quantify the amount and type of all traffic which will be generated

• The impact of the traffic generated on the surrounding road network will need to be identified with special reference to:– Junction of the Retail Park with Portsdown Hill Rd– Belmont Junction Roundabout– Rusty Cutter Roundabout– Bedhampton Rd/Hulbert Rd traffic signals

HBC Development Engineer - on behalf of HCC

• Any off-site traffic impacts to be mitigated by highway works or contributions.

• Need to demonstrate adequate servicing arrangements for emergency and refuse vehicles.

• Road will need to be built to a standard to allow for adoption by the Highway Authority

• Layout will need to provide for adequate parking for vehicles and cycles and for operatives during construction period.

• The phasing and sequence of construction will be needed.

HBC Development Engineer - on behalf of HCC

• The surface and foul water system will need to meet Southern Water requirements.

• The application site will need to include any additional offsite 3rd party land required for proposed sewers.

Environmental Health

Noise• Noise survey required which would need access to

motorway side of buildings to monitor over at least a 24hr period. Computer analysis also required to predict noise levels if existing buildings not present.

• Would need to consider effect on rest of site if dwellings provided on western boundary to screen site.

• May be possible to provide dwellings with non-habitable windows facing the A3(M) to shield the rest of the site. A bund or barrier may not be the solution for this site to mitigate the noise.

• Predicted internal and external façade and amenity noise levels required following the detailed survey of existing noise levels.

Environmental Health

Contamination• The site has historically been excavated for chalk, had a

lime kiln operation and been used as a transport depot and coal yard. Land filling has also occurred.

• Site therefore potentially contaminated and a ground investigation required for potential risk to human health and groundwater.

Housing• Affordable housing provision of at least 30%.• These should be split by tenure 70/30 affordable

rented/shared ownership. • The affordable housing mix should reflect the mix of

units proposed on the site including houses as well as apartments

• Any additional affordable housing provision will help to meet the demand evident by the Hampshire Homechoice

register. • Construction to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3

required and consideration of applicants with mobility issues required.

Open Spaces

• Details required of size, layout, purpose of proposed open space and whether transfer to Council intended.

• Potential disturbance to residents from use of open space.

• No requirement for play equipment on this site as it is within travel distance of Scratchface Lane open space. Arrangements for crossing Portsdown Hill Rd therefore a consideration.

• Contributions will be required towards existing sports pitches and equipped play.

Design

Flats• Principle of flats acceptable on western boundary subject

to impact, scale, roofs cape and elevations – particularly as viewed from A3M

• Flat roof elements may be acceptable.• A3M planting will need to be shown accurately to

ascertain benefit it provides to site.• Amenity space required for flats; could be balconies.

Houses• A modern design would be acceptable but emphasis on

pitched roofs welcomed.

Design

General• Scheme needs to comply with HBC Design Guide• Landscape scheme needs to be integral to design.• The extent of adoptable highway will influence design of

road layout and consequently the design of the layout of the development.

Landscape Architect

• A good quality landscape scheme is required based on an accurate survey of existing boundary trees. Any gaps in existing motorway edge tree belt will need filling by planting within the site.

• Parking bays will need to be clear of root protection areas of existing trees.

Developer’s Response•Affordable housing could be reserved for local people

•‘Gateway site’ is meant to describe it’s position adjacent to the motorway only

•Design quality in relation to the motorway has been noted

•Significant marketing already carried out

•AMF has stated intention to leave the site

Developer’s Response

•Loss of employment is due to the current economic circumstances, regardless of the proposed development

•Pleased to note that contemporary design is welcomed

•Pastiche not desirable, however emphasis on traditional form and palette of materials

•Keen to emphasise suburban, residential nature of the proposal

Developer’s Response•Internal layout can achieve acceptable living accommodation

•Existing chalk cliffs are of a significant scale. Appropriate scale of building therefore required to be consistent with the site’s topography.

•Design has been informed by discussions with acoustic specialist.

•The layout of the proposal will mitigate noise and will be more sustainable than using a separate barrier.

Developer’s Response•The acoustic barrier fence would address any potential noise pollution which may otherwise permeate through the vehicular access points at ground level in the building along the west of the site.

•Existing noise will be surveyed including reflection off the cliffs and existing buildings. This information will be used to inform the proposal and to predict future noise mitigation strategies.

Developer’s Response

•The pedestrian linkages will be considered, however the applicant can only consider the section of footpath within the site or the existing highway boundaries.

•The proposal is not likely to result in a significant increase in pedestrian footfall

Councillors’ Questions

Q Loss of amenity would be regrettable. What efforts are being made to seek a replacement facility?

A Initial discussions with HBC. Provision possibly within Bidbury Mead. Money has been set aside to provide for off-site provision of facilities for young residents.

Councillors’ Questions

Q Traffic using the Belmont Roundabout from Bedhampton Hill enters very quickly. Visibility is very limited. Can this be addressed in any way?

A Deflection of some kind could be investigated in consultation with HBC/HCC officers. Signals would be dependent on road geometry.

Councillors’ Questions

Q The number of roads entering the Belmont Roundabout make it very dangerous. This must be considered.

A (Covered previously)

Q Is residential use acceptable rather than mixed use as stated in the local plan?

A There is no policy objection to residential use provided the requirements of Policy DM2 relating to loss of community facilities are complied with.

Councillors’ Questions

Q Has the marketing been for mixed use?A Marketing has been for a range of leisure

facilities including another bowling alley operator and various fast food companies. Gunwharf and Chichester Gate provide significant competition to the site. The search for another leisure operator was the first option, but has not been successful.

Councillors’ Questions

Q The market should decide what leisure facility is appropriate for the site rather than relying on HBC policy/expertise.

A Discussions have been intensive. HBC Economic Development Officer has been involved with discussions. Alternative leisure uses such as childrens’ soft play have been considered but have not been successful.

Councillors’ Questions

Q Will affordable housing be ‘pepper potted’ throughout the site?

A ‘Pepper potting’ must be defined – can be completely random, however it is more manageable when there are small clusters throughout the site. More than 2 groups in a site of this size may not be ideal in terms of management of the buildings and may reduce the attractiveness to social landlords.

Councillors’ Questions

Q Will the less desirable houses be the affordable houses?

A This is not likely as 43% are currently apartments, therefore the apartment blocks are likely to be of mixed tenure.

Q Parking in the area is problematic. How many parking spaces will be provided?

A Maximum parking standards will be met.

Councillors’ Questions

Q Air quality research is referred to in the Local Plan. Has this been considered as part of the proposal? Are there any mitigation measures proposed to address this?

A This hasn’t been raised by HBC Environmental Health Officers, but can be assessed if necessary.

Councillors’ Questions

Q Has an ice rink been considered? What about options for older residents of the borough?

A This will be considered by the marketing agent. Provision of one type of leisure facility may not satisfy all potential user groups.

Questions from the floorQ What prompted the provision of so many dwellings in a site which

has limited access? Is traffic from a residential site likely to be problematic during morning peak hours?

A A speed survey was conducted as required by Manual for Streets.Data was collated and used to inform the proposal. Existing vegetation restricts visibility but would be cleared. Visibility will accord with current requirements in Manual for Streets. Leisure and retail could generate significant morning peak traffic flows, similar to a residential development. A higher % of flats in the proposed development will generate fewer traffic movements than that at Scratchface Lane (which had more houses). Proposed use and associated traffic is to be compared to that which could be generated from the site’s lawful use. Predicted figures accord with acceptable levels of traffic generation. Figures have been taken from a development with a higher proportion of houses than that which is proposed.

Questions from the floor

Q Are you aware that Scratchface Lane noise survey took place prior to the opening of the Hindhead tunnel?

Councillor Questions

Q Were the applicants aware of all of the concerns which have been raised?

A Several issues were expressed at the previous exhibition and have been addressed by the proposal. There is still work to do to address additional matters raised.

Questions from the Councillors

Q The ‘Rusty Cutter’ roundabout must be assessed for every day of the week for noise and air quality.

Questions from the Councillors

Q How will children cross the road to go to school as there are no pedestrian pavements.

A There are narrow islands currently, these would be increased in width and tactile paving would also be provided. Also proposed to extend the footpath.

Questions from the Councillors

Q Were traffic figures actual figures or generated from a model?

A Generated by TRICS database.Q Has sewage contamination in the event of

flooding been considered.A It has not yet been resolved. Discussions with

Southern Water are ongoing. Surface water has been investigated.

Questions from the Councillors

Q How will a pavement be provided to the south of the road?

A There is sufficient space for the provision of a pavement adjacent to the site (south).

Questions from the floor

Q The speed times quoted are from peak times. Speeding during the evening is a major problem – speeds of up to 100 mph. Blind access is a problem.

A Officers will discuss this with the applicant if an application is submitted.

Q Bollards are often knocked over – this is evidence of existing problems.

A A full traffic survey has been carried out.

Questions from the floor

Q Where was the data re pedestrian footfall in the presentation taken from? New development should encourage increased walking by occupiers.

A Pedestrian movement data is taken from a recognised computer database (TRICS). This is used to examine comparable sites and the lawful use of the site.

Questions from the floor

Q Would it be appropriate to consider the use of a pedestrian crossing?

A This could be considered, but is not thought to be necessary.

What Happens Next?

• Summary notes circulated to attendees

• Officers will discuss outcomes with developer

• Developer will continue to develop proposals and consider issues raised by Forum

• Decision as to form of application and timing of submission rests with developer.