Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1) Summary of Decision Area

1.1. That an exception be made to County Council's policies relating to the requirement for transport contributions and a Travel Plan so that neither is required in relation to the Rowner Renewal Project in order to ensure its delivery.

2) Issues Covered in Report

2.1. Background.

2.2. Planning Application.

2.3. County Council Policy.

2.4. Financial Implications of Applying County Council Policy.

2.5. Government Guidance - Circular 05/2005.

3) Recommendations

It is recommended that:

3.1. An exception be made to the application of the County's Transport Contributions Policy (September 2007) and no contribution be sought under the policy from the Rowner Renewal Project.

3.2. No other contribution be sought in respect of any other highway infrastructure required to mitigate the impact of the Rowner Renewal Project.

3.3. An exception be made to the County's Travel Plan Guidance (May 2008) and no Travel Plan be required for the Rowner Renewal Project.

MAIN REPORT

1) Background

1.1. The Rowner estate was built by the Ministry of Defence for naval personnel and their families in the 1960s. The estate was sold in the 1980s and since has suffered from a lack of investment. The poor environmental standards have caused property prices to collapse and the estate to suffer from severe social problems. Rowner remains in the top 20% most deprived areas in England and is generally regarded as one of the worst estates in South East England.

1.2. The Rowner Renewal Partnership was launched in 2007 in order to deliver the regeneration of the Rowner area and consists of The Homes and Communities Agency (formerly English Partnerships), Gosport Borough Council, Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth Housing Association and Taylor Wimpey UK Limited. However, for the purposes of the application The Homes and Communities Agency, Portsmouth Housing Association and Taylor Wimpey are the applicants.

1.3. A Cabinet decision on 9 July 2007 resolved to make a financial contribution towards provision of the on-site infrastructure required to deliver the project.

2) Planning Application

2.1. Redevelopment of the site will involve the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and therefore as highway authority there is a need to assess the traffic implications.

2.2. The site currently consists of 501 dwellings and therefore the additional development can be identified as follows:

(i) 199 residential units (82 1-bed units, 57 2-3 bed units, 60 4+ bed units)

(ii) Foodstore (3,516 square metres gross floor area)

(iii) Café (197 square metres gross floor area)

(iv) Retail (235 square metres gross floor area).

2.3. The development proposals have been designed with very little parking on site. The parking provision was calculated using an average of 1.07 car parking spaces per dwelling. This level of parking was derived using current car ownership data from the Rowner area and therefore is considered appropriate. This low level of car parking will assist in minimising the number of new vehicular trips expected to be generated by the development.

2.4. The proposed supermarket on site will provide a local facility and enhance the local centre. Given the location of the store within the development it is expected that the majority of shoppers will come from the local area and may well arrive on foot or by cycle. In any event, the additional traffic expected to be generated by the development will be spread across the day, rather than being concentrated at the peak times for local congestion, and will seek to divert traffic already travelling to supermarkets either within Gosport town centre or further afield.

2.5. The Transport Assessment recommends that some local junction improvements are carried out in order to deal with congestion issues at those junctions at peak times. These improvements are not considered to provide any significant benefit to the users of the highway or the development. There is congestion at local junctions but it is considered that the mechanism for addressing the congestion is through improvements to public transport, specifically the South East Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) scheme.

3) County Council Policy

3.1. Whilst the development does seek to minimise traffic generation, through low car parking provision and improved local facilities, the County Council would normally seek to further encourage sustainable travel through the payment of financial contributions towards transport improvements and the implementation of a Travel Plan, both of which are required by County Council policies.

3.2. The County Council's Transport Contribution Policy (September 2007) requires the payment of transport contributions in relation to every development which results in the generation of additional multi-modal trips on the transport network. The policy sets out a cost per trip which can be applied to each additional multi-modal trip generated by a development per day. The policy has been consistently applied by the County and the Districts within the County since being adopted.

3.3. The County Council's Travel Plan Guidance for Developers (May 2008) sets out the scale of development that requires a Travel Plan to be provided. For residential development this is 100 units or greater. The guidance requires all Travel Plans to be secured by way of a Section 106 Agreement.

4) Financial Implications of Applying County Council Policy

4.1. Applying the County's Transport Contributions Policy to both the additional residential element of 199 units and the foodstore element of the development would result in a total contribution of £941,944 being sought. This contribution would go towards the provision of the BRT scheme which will benefit the residents of the site and help to mitigate the impact of the development on the local highway network. Due to the limited benefit of improving local junctions, any further mitigation required would also consist of a contribution towards BRT.

4.2. It is more difficult to quantify the financial implications of requiring the Travel Plan to be provided and secured by way of a Section 106 Agreement. A performance bond would be required to secure a costed list of measures to be implemented by the developer in order to meet the targets set within the Travel Plan.

5) Government Guidance

5.1. Government Circular 05/2005 provides guidance to local authorities on the use of planning obligations. The Circular clarifies the basis on which planning obligations should be assessed in terms of their acceptability against planning policy and provides further guidance on the process of securing obligations. Planning obligations are `intended to make development acceptable which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms'. Contributions are secured in order to mitigate the impact of a development or to encourage more sustainable transport practices.

5.2. However, it is recognised at paragraph B10 of the Circular that in some instances, perhaps arising from different regional or site specific circumstances, it may not be feasible for the proposed development to meet all the requirements set out in local, regional and national planning policies and still be economically viable. It goes on to advise that in such cases, and where the development is needed to meet the aims of the development plan, it is for the local authority and other public sector agencies to decide what is to be the balance of contributions made by developers and by the public sector infrastructure providers in its area supported by local or central funding. If a local authority wishes to encourage development it may wish to provide the necessary infrastructure itself in order to enable development to be acceptable in planning terms and therefore proceed, thereby contributing to the sustainability of the local area.

5.3. In this case, the County Council and anticipated Central Government funding of the BRT scheme will provide the necessary infrastructure to mitigate the impact of the development and therefore allow the development to proceed without further contributions.

6) Conclusions

6.1 The Rowner Renewal Project is of significant importance to the County Council, as a member of the Rowner Renewal Partnership. The Partnership is predominantly made up of public sector agencies and therefore the economic viability of the project is an important consideration. The application of the County Council's policies with regard to transport contributions and travel plans, would place additional financial burden on the project and would most likely result in the development being unable to proceed, The BRT scheme will deliver improvements to the transport network within Gosport which will help to mitigate the impact of the development and therefore investment by the County Council and Central Government in this scheme will enable the development to proceed without the need for contributions.

7) Recommendations

Please see Executive Summary for recommendations.

1985Rpt/646/LMcC

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

COMPREHENSIVE RISK & IMPACT ASSESSMENT:

1) Equalities Impact Assessment:

a) Assessment of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act has been considered in the development of this scheme. No adverse impact has been identified in terms of race, creed or gender.

2) Impact on Crime and Disorder:

a) The provisions of the Act have no impact on this proposal.

3) Climate Change:

a) How does what is being proposed impact on our carbon footprint / energy consumption?

· The decision not to seek contributions for junction improvements may result in increased congestion which would increase emissions. However, the investment in BRT should mitigate this impact.

· The development will vastly improve the energy efficiency of the development in comparison to the buildings currently on the site. The new residential properties will be required to meet sustainable development requirements. The reduced car parking provision on site aims to minimise the use of the private car and promote sustainable transport.

b) How does what is being proposed consider the need to adapt to climate change, and be resilient to its longer term impacts?

· There is no impact from this decision not to seek contributions but the development will be built to modern standards of thermal insulation which will reduce stress from extreme temperatures.