Development Consultation Forum Land east of Langstone Technology

Development Consultation Forum Land east of Langstone Technology Park 21 st 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, 788 sq. m) with single storey day nursery unit (593. 4 sq. 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 A 27?

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 A 27 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 PPS 4 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 S 106 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 PPS 23 – 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 news, it is an historic problem • A representative from TL was unable to attend this evening

Developer’s Response • There 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 10 m 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 A 27 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.