Development Consultation
Forum
Land east of Langstone
Technology Park
21st February 2012
Programme
• 17.30 – Developers display
• 18.00 – Introduction – Councillor Guest
• 18.05 – Explanation of process and policy
background
• 18.15 – Presentation by the Developer
• 18.35 – Invited speakers
• 19.00 – Comments from other consultees
• 19.15 – Developer response to issues raised
• 19.25 – Councillor opportunity to ask questions
• 19.50 – Summary of key points
• 20.00 – 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
• Informs officer pre application discussions with
developer
• Identify 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
Land east of Langstone
Technology Park (Bosmere Field)
Land east of Langstone Technology Park (Bosmere Field)
Planning History
• 06/50238/083 - Construction of 3 No. two storey
business units (2,788sq.m) with single storey
day nursery unit (593.4sq.m), parking and
landscaping. Refused March 2007
• 1982 legal agreement in place to limit right turn
movements from vehicles travelling south on
Langstone Road at peak am.
Policy Background
• National Planning Policy Statements
• Havant Borough Core Strategy 2011
• Contributions Policy (SPD)
– Local Transport Strategy
Key Planning Issues
• Principle of development
– Impact and linkages to town centre
– Loss of open space
• Skills and employment
• Design
– Gateway site
• Landscaping
– Stream corridor
– Boundary planting
Key Planning Issues
• Highways
– Impact of traffic generated
• Environment
– Relationship to stream
– Noise
– Air Quality
• Neighbour Impact
Developer’s Presentation
Langstone Residents Assoc
• Hotel Futures report stated that Langstone Gate
is the strongest site for a hotel in Havant.
• Separate restaurant not required
• 2010 Hotel Futures report update: 43 hotels with
Planning Permission, but none had been
constructed
• Bear Hotel also owned by Green King, has put
its refurbishment on hold due to recession
Langstone Residents Assoc
• Highly significant that Travelodge are not
here this evening
• ‘Vulture Funds to seize control of
Travelodge’ headline
• Proposal run by Travelodge is
irresponsible
• Proposed site is too busy
• Noisy
• Holiday season impact
• Parking problem exacerbated by SSE
Langstone Village Association
• Pre-application discussions proved useful
• Expressed view by members: don’t
consider proposal to be appropriate
• Core Strategy describes Langstone Road
as polluted, congested and noisy
• SSE have exacerbated the situation
especially re traffic
Langstone Village Association
• U-turn issues onto Langstone Road a
problem
• LVA intend to undertake own traffic survey
• Asked re timings of 298 restaurant covers
at pre-application meeting
• Important to have all info up front to
enable informed representation
• Noise pollution a major issue
Langstone Village Association
• Late night disturbance likely to be an issue
• Hotel should be in a more central location
to enable regeneration of the town centre
• Proposed location inappropriate
• Bear Hotel requires refurbishment to
enable it to be competitive
Havant and Bedhampton
Community Network
• 2 main concerns:
Parking for the restaurant and hotel must be
controlled
Access – need for traffic lights?
• Will there be direct access to and from the
A27?
Havant District Residents’ Liaison
Group
• Endorse previous comments
• Parking, noise and access likely to be
problematic: realistic surveys required.
• Why is Travelodge not represented this
evening?
Hampshire Highways
• Will be working with the Borough engineer
and building on his local knowledge
• Shared use must be considered i.e.
business, leisure and hotel uses
• Traffic Assessment will have to assess no.
of trips, both shared and independent
• Impact of all trips i.e. pedestrians and
public transport
Hampshire Highways cont.d
• Key issues to be considered include:
Impact of site at the junction
Impact on A27 junction
Monitor and control trips at peak hours
How can the current position be
protected?
No. of drop offs and pick ups
Car parking: shared and local impact
Pedestrian linkage to town
Construction traffic
Hampshire Highways cont.d
• If the proposal is acceptable a Travel Plan
will be required
• The TA will be assessed once received
Consultee Responses
Policy
– Open space assessment required
– Principle acceptable having assessed against
PPS4 as it would provide economic
development and employment and it meets
the requirements of sequential and impact
assessments. This is subject to
• Enhancement of stream corridor
• Improvement of pedestrian link to town
centre
• Signage to and from the town
Consultee Responses
Policy (cont)
– Employment and skills plan required.
– Need to meet Core Strategy Infrastructure
policies.
Consultee Responses
Design
– Site requires a building(s) that takes account
of special characteristics and location
– Needs to benefit from an individually designed
high quality scheme that acknowledges
gateway position, addresses frontage and
utilises the stream setting.
– Concerned that current scheme does not do
this.
– If hotel undertaken in phases full details of
phase 1 required so it may stand alone.
– Needs to meet BREEAM standard ‘very good’
Consultee Responses
Landscape
– Arboricultural report required.
– Details of boundary planting outside site
required
– Boundary margins need to be widened
– More trees in car park required.
Consultee Responses
Development Engineer (may be covered by HCC)
– Pedestrian crossing of Langstone Road
required
– Better pedestrian links between buildings
required
– Contributions under Hampshire Transport
Contributions Strategy will be required.
– Measures will be required to prevent town
centre and industrial parking in the site and
indiscriminate parking on access road
Consultee Responses
Development Engineer cont
– The servicing yard is in an inconvenient
location
– Beneficial if TA revisited current S106
controlling peak time right turn movements
from Langstone Rd.
– Scheme should not invite ‘dropping off’ on
access or Langstone Road.
– Parking and cycle provision should accord
with SPD or otherwise be justified.
Consultee Responses
Environmental Health
– No adverse comments but advice re noise
pollution, disturbance during construction and
air quality
– If hotel is repositioned there may be the need
for an air quality assessment and potentially
noise mitigation measures.
County Ecologist
– The scope, findings and conclusions of the
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey are
acceptable
– A reptile survey is advised to be submitted
Consultee Responses
County Ecologist (cont)
– Provided the ‘no build zone’ adjacent to the
stream is maintained and no trees felled it is
unlikely that any further protected species
surveys will be required.
Consultees
Environment Agency
– A Flood Risk Assessment is required which
should include surface water drainage
management.
– Prior written consent is required for any works
or structures within 8 metres of the top of the
stream bank
– Water efficiency measures should be
incorporated
Consultees
Environment Agency (cont)
– The development must not cause deterioration
to the ecological status or quality of
designated water bodies.
– The requirements of PPS23 – Planning and
Pollution Control should be followed for the
development of the site.
Developer’s Response
• Consultants have been carefully selected
to ensure that accurate information is
gathered
• News in press re Greene King and Travel
Lodge is not new news, it is an historic
problem
• A representative from TL was unable to
attend this evening
Developer’s Response
• There are a number of hotels with
consent, however they don’t relate to the
area of need and are therefore not
relevant
• Travelodge have a real desire and
commitment to this site and to Havant
• The application will include a statement
regarding the impact on the centre of
Havant and also a sequential assessment
re other sites
Developer’s Response
• The impact assessment considers other sites for
hotels in the centre – in this case the Bear Hotel,
however this serves a ‘higher’ segment of the
market
• Ownership of The Bear Hotel by Greene King is
co-incidental
• Site research has been undertaken by the
applicants – in North St, The Arcade, West St,
Solent Road and Brockhampton Lane, however
they were not suitable for various reasons.
Developer’s Response
• The site is as close to the centre as possible.
• Hotel Report identified the need for 200 beds,
more beds than is proposed for this site.
• An acoustic report is being commissioned by an
Acoustic Specialist and will be submitted with
the application
• The placement of the restaurant is designed to
minimise noise pollution
Developer’s Response
• Loss of open space has been addressed
• The area does not have a future as an
open space due to its size and location
• The design has been amended as a result
of officer feedback: primarily the visual
appearance has been given more interest
by the addition of a third storey and the
staggering of the footprint
Developer’s Response
• Boundaries should have an increased
width: a 10m band of landscaping is to be
provided along the western side of the site
• The orientation of the building has taken
the Environmental Officer’s
recommendation into consideration hence
it does not ‘address’ the street scene
Developer’s Response
• The TA will be a robust and realistic statement
• The Traffic Survey carried out earlier this month
was carried out using CCTV and will include
traffic flows, queue length and pedestrian flow
i.e. they will provide a good base line
• Best tools used to calibrate base model against
queue length to provide a realistic model
• Software will provide a visual output to present
data
Developer’s Response
• 1982 legal agreement restricts traffic
numbers
• No. of people to be dropped off at work will
be taken into consideration
• No. of employees is expected to be below
the critical threshold
• Proposed use isn’t likely to be significant
Developer’s Response
• Secure by design has been incorporated
into the proposal
• Orientation of the proposal has been
designed to protect the neighbours
• The proposal is for a restaurant not a pub
Main Points for Discussion:
Councillors’ Questions
Q Can the design be amended to become more
distinctive?
A The brief required a residential appearance
using local materials in response to the context,
hence the design is not ‘iconic’
Q If consent is granted, could local trades people
be used where possible?
A The agent will work with the Employability
Partnership and will seek to use a local company
for construction
Councillors’ Questions
Q The traffic survey should take summer traffic into
account i.e. peak times of the year.
A The County Council has an automatic traffic
count which will be utilised
Q Can a guarantee be made re quantity of on site
parking especially compared to other sites e.g.
The Rusty Cutter
A The traffic generation info. is used to calculate
various parking requirements throughout the
day. Comparable sites are also used to calculate
amount of parking required. Level of proposed
parking within the maximum level permitted by
policy, therefore difficult to propose more within
planning policy thresholds.
Councillors’ Questions
Q Are there any solutions to overflow customer parking?
A Parking within the Langstone Site at weekends would be
allowed.
Q How many of the 100 jobs will be: full/part time; morning
/servicing jobs and evening/restaurant jobs?
A Job creation no’s are combined for GK and TL.
Restaurant: (70)
50:50 ratio
There will be a no. of part time and full time roles. Live in
staff will share the full time roles. The key message is
that peak times will be at weekends.
Main Points for Discussion
Councillors’ Questions
Q Will a travel to work plan be submitted with the
application and where are the employees expected to
park?
A The travel plan will be based on best practice and will be
submitted with the application. Shared transport and the
use of public transport will be encouraged.
Q How will the parking of employees be enforced?
A Monitoring will be via survey and any other methods
required by the LPA.
The manager and senior staff will be ‘live in’ and will park
on site. The model is the same as 20 existing sites and
has been passed by secure by design. The existing
pedestrian link will be utilised. Majority of staff often live
close to the sites. Existing accessibility will be improved.
Main Points for Discussion
Councillors’ Questions
Q Will the stream and the adjacent road be taken
into consideration re safety of children?
A The orientation of the restaurant is designed to
maximise safety. The restaurant is positioned
away from the stream. The restaurant poses the
largest risk, however the plans incorporate a
bund.
Q Will work experience and apprenticeships be
offered for young people in the Borough?
A Every opportunity will be taken to use local
trades people and to provide work experience
where possible.
Main Points for Discussion:
Councillors’ Questions
Q If a family stays in a hotel room close to
the stream, how will the safety of the
children be ensured?
A None of the hotel bedrooms open onto the
stream side of the site. A small fence could
be incorporated. A risk assessment will be
carried out re potential for children to
wander close to the stream.
Main Points for Discussion:
Councillors’ Questions
Q What time will the last delivery to the site be
made?
A Deliveries to and from the restaurant will be
during the day. An understanding with the
residents will reached. A planning condition is
also expected re timing of deliveries.
Q Will Cloverleaf also be recruiting through job
centre plus?
A Cloverleaf’s policy is to employ local people
where possible.
Main Points for Discussion:
Councillors’ Questions
Q Will the 2 operators work with the skills and
employment partnership so that the chances of
people within the borough can be maximised?
A The 2 companies will be encouraged to support
local partnerships. Further details can be
arranged at a later stage.
Q Has any other access to the site been
investigated? Either from Langstone Tech Park
or from the top of the A27 slip road.
A Other routes have been investigated but are
inappropriate. The proposed access is the most
suitable.
Main Points for Discussion:
Councillors’ Questions
A cont.d Langstone Park is a secure Park
which can’t be accessed at night, therefore
it would not be capable of being used for
the proposal.
Q How will the kitchens be designed so as
to minimise odour release to the
neighbouring properties?
A Technical advice is required to answer this
point.
Main Points for Discussion:
Councillors’ Questions
Q The underpass is currently ‘unfriendly’.
What is proposed to enhance it?
A Improvements to the lighting are currently
being investigated. The surfacing of the
footpath south of the underpass could also
be improved as it is sometimes muddy.
HCC’s advice is being sought. Perhaps
the mural could be refreshed –
discussions with Havant College.
Main Points for Discussion:
Councillors’ Questions
Q How will the parking be controlled?
A The restaurant car park will have a barrier to
control access. Visitors to the hotel will be
advised that they must park in the correct place,
or they could be locked into the restaurant car
park overnight.
Q Could the barrier be controlled via a code?
A The barrier is required to protect the Cloverleaf
car park. This is required by Secure by Design to
protect users of the car park.
Main Points for Discussion:
Other Questions
Q What would be the maximum no. of parking
spaces proposed?
A Based on the size of scheme: 1 space per
bedroom is proposed, plus 1 space per 5 sq
metres front of house. 190 maximum.
Q How will the car park be monitored to prevent
usage by non-customers e.g. people working in
the centre of town?
A There may not be a wholesale solution to this
problem. Further info. could be considered
during the application.
Main Points for Discussion:
Other Questions
Q Could a dedicated left turn priority slip
lane onto the roundabout be considered?
Could land required be used from the
proposed site?
A The developer has an obligation to
mitigate problems from the proposal rather
than existing problems, however the
existing problem mustn’t be exacerbated.
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.