City Plan Part Two – Conservative Group Submission

231 CITY PLAN PART TWO – CONSERVATIVE GROUP SUBMISSION 30th October 2020 1. INTRODUCTION This submission in response to Brighton & Hove City Council’s City Plan Part Two (‘CPP2’) Consultation has been prepared by Cllr Robert Nemeth in his capacity as Conservative Group Spokesman for Tourism, Equalities, Communities & Culture (TECC) on behalf of the Conservative Group of Councillors (‘Group’) under the leadership of Cllr Steve Bell CBE. It briefly touches upon the areas of agreement where there is much to celebrate, but principally focuses on a controversial area of disagreement – the question of the future of the City’s ‘Urban Fringe’ which Group recommends is removed from CPP2. The submission details concerns over a democratic deficit that has prevailed throughout the process which has been exacerbated by the coronavirus crisis, and gives a simple recommendation on how the failings of the process may be remedied. 1 2. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Sites as detailed within H2 Housing Sites – Urban Fringe, including Special Area SA7 Benfield Valley, should be removed from the housing allocation. 2. The Inspector should order a fresh consultation process for CPP2 to be undertaken by Brighton & Hove City Council (BHCC) on the question of the Urban Fringe specifically with the results to be presented to Full Council. 2 3. KEY ARGUMENTS 1. The presentation of CPP2 to Councillors, as undertaken by BHCC was flawed. Councillors were not briefed on up-to-date housing numbers and votes were not taken on key amendments. 2. The Green Administration of 2011-2015 and Labour Administration of 2015-2020 offered up important natural sites without due weight being placed on environmental, amenity and leisure concerns. 3. CPP2 lacks a democratic mandate from residents of Brighton & Hove. The public consultation process for CPP2, as undertaken by BHCC, has been flawed. Residents have not been provided with a reasonable chance to properly engage with CPP2. Election pledges have been abandoned; petitions ignored; and deputations disallowed. 3 4. GENERAL There is much to be positive about when analysing City Plan Part Two which has been prepared professionally and diligently by Council Officers. The Conservative Group approached past debates with positivity and passion, and sought throughout to improve CPP2 with helpful tweaks and supportive comments where appropriate. Group wishes to touch upon some of these before discussing the main issues of contention. In the debate at a Special Council meeting on 23rd April 2020, Group highlighted numerous issues of agreement and submitted 30 amendments in total of which 22 were deemed to be ‘sound’ and 8 ‘unsound’. Group was pleased to receive backing on the majority of the 22 sound amendments. Most of Group’s requests were simple tweaks rather than wholesale changes as a demonstration of the comprehensiveness of the document. Group was particularly happy with the Employment & Retail section as was discussed by Cllr Brown during the debate. Cllr Brown, however, set out that this section may well need the biggest changes in the future due to predictions about the resilience of Brighton & Hove’s economy to the ongoing coronavirus crisis. Group was also broadly happy with the Environment & Energy section. Cllr Bagaeen set out why this support is reliant on the City’s ultra-ambitious 2030 zero net carbon being met which, separately, will be a huge challenge. As a general point, given the long period that the overall plan covers, ultimately 2016-2030, it is inevitable that some modification will be necessary, in ways that will be unpredictable, as the situation on the ground changes. As far as the Greens’ Amendments went, all of which were reasonable, Group was happy to confirm in advance that it supported 26 of the 33. Some concerns were raised during the debate and these were set out by Cllr Lewry. The Labour Group failed to submit any amendments. Conservative amendments fell within three broad themes: 1. Protect the natural environment – Group’s concerns here were set out by Cllr Barnett and Cllr Simson. 2. Promote family homes – more to the point, promoting homes of all shapes and sizes to build strong communities rather than block after block of identikit flats, or street after street of HMOs. Cllr Mears and Cllr Miller spoke on these points. 3. Reduce carbon – already mentioned above. 4 Group submitted a number of other helpful amendments; some of which were quite fun such as Cllr Peltzer Dunn’s call for more area-specific signage. Cllr Theobald addressed the question of the maintenance of materials that require extra levels of care and attention in our harsh seafront location. Cllr Wares called for proper parking surveys to be carried out; a subject which annoys residents hugely during the planning process. Cllr McNair highlighted the issue of pollution outside schools. There was much agreement which is a credit to all concerned in the process. 5 5. URBAN FRINGE REMOVAL The key issue of contention between the Labour/Green Groups and the Conservative Group is the degree to which Brighton & Hove City Council should fight to save from development 16 sites on the unspoilt Urban Fringe – a key piece of the City that is more socially valuable than ever at this time. The Labour/Green Groups are happy to proceed on the advice of a consultant who was tasked with the job of finding sites for development. This was carried out in 2014 by means of the Brighton & Hove Urban Fringe Assessment. Not only did Brighton & Hove City Council embrace this report without balancing its recommendations with adequate further environmental, amenity and leisure study, it has gone much further – by recommending additional homes over and above what was recommended for inclusion on these controversial sites, prior to knowing how many sites for potential development had been found elsewhere. Of Group’s 8 unsound amendments, 4 related to the Urban Fringe. This meant that no vote by Councillors was allowed at the crunch moment of potential democratic oversight on the most controversial topics in CPP2. There are no two ways about it, building 930 homes on the city’s 16 remaining natural sites on the Urban Fringe is a disaster for the environment. The Conservative Group was surprised that neither of the Labour/Green Groups mounted any sort of questioning of or campaign against the destruction of the Urban Fringe sites despite there being clear assurances prior to the 2019 local elections that some of the sites would be safe. Little discussion took place about detailed figures within CPP2 despite most Councillors being aware of the assessed need of 30,000 homes and an agreed minimum target of 13,200 – exceeding which is ultimately the point of CPP2. No Labour/Green Councillor seemed aware that the minimum target had been exceeded by some stretch which was most concerning. The approval of CPP2 in its proposed form would give rise to a situation where the City would surpass the agreed minimum target by over 20% – nearly 16,000 homes in total. This is not mentioned in CPP2. The figure is calculated by taking the total housing supply figure of 14,875 from the Housing Provision Topic Paper of October 2019 and adjusting it to take into account increased predictions for the Hove Station Development Area following planning permission being recently granted for the Sackville Trading Estate and Peugeot garage on Newtown Road during the course of the CPP2 process. 6 With nearly 16,000 homes in total, CPP2 ultimately provides for 2,700 homes over the minimum. There are only 930 homes in the whole Urban Fringe proposal. Looking back, it was clearly decided to exclude from consideration areas with what were considered to be ‘Absolute Constraints’, including areas with national level designations such as Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and above. Correspondence shows that the Inspector was not prescriptive on how BHCC should look again at the Urban Fringe, or which sites should be included or excluded from any assessment. In the Inspector’s letter to BHCC of 13th December 2013, she wrote: “Whilst it may be the Council’s aspiration to designate some of these sites as Local Green Space (i.e. not to be identified for developed), …. I have doubts as to whether some of these areas would meet the requirements of paragraph 77 of the Framework.” As an example, Whitehawk Hill would meet the requirements of paragraph 77 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). Further, the Inspector wrote: “However, your own analysis concludes that some of these sites do not make a significant contribution to the provision of useable open space, and have limited potential to do so in the future. No consideration appears to have been given to the possibility of allowing development on these sites.” Again, as an example, Whitehawk Hill does indeed make a very significant contribution to the provision of open space in the City. It would have been possible for BHCC to have chosen, with reasoned justification, to exclude, for example, Local Nature Reserves and areas of statutory Access Land from the Urban Fringe Assessments by identifying them as Absolute Constraints. In her letter to BHCC of 13th February 2014, the Inspector said: “According to your Urban Fringe Assessment September 2013, it appears that there are a limited number of sites which are subject to national designations such as SSSI or Scheduled Monument, and such designations apply to parts of sites, rather than the whole of identified sites. In the case of sites affected by SSSI/RIGS designation (site 37 is the only one identified in your Assessment) you will need to consider the extent to which development of parts of the site not covered by the designation would have an adverse impact on the notified special interest features, and the extent to which any harm could be adequately mitigated.

Load more