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
The outcome of the Forum will be…
• 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
Havant Retail Park
Havant Retail Park
Havant Retail Park
Planning Policy – Framework
• 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 – Material Considerations
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 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?
Key Planning Issues
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
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.
Key Planning Issues
Developer Contributions and S106 requirements:
Possible contributions at present towards:
• HCC Highway Contributions
• Affordable Housing
• Open Space Provision
• Education
• Community provision
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.
Invited speakers:
North Hill Bedhampton Residents’ Assoc
• 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:
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
Invited speakers:
West Bedhampton Residents’ Assoc
• 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?
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 floor
Q 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.