Issue - meetings

1.      That the concept masterplan process as undertaken by the applicants be supported and the accompanying technical document that has helped to inform the preparation of the concept masterplan for Bushfield Camp, which has been undertaken in general conformity with the Councils emerging master planning process be noted; and

2.      That the Bushfield Camp concept masterplan that is attached at Appendix 1 of the report along with the accompanying technical document attached at Appendix 2 be agreed as a material consideration to inform the development management assessment of the planning application.

Councillor Porter introduced the report and emphasised that it sought approval of a high level concept masterplan but was not seeking any decision regarding specific elements of any future development.  Matters such as car parking provision or building size and heights would be considered as part of any planning application process.

She welcomed two representatives of the developer to the meeting – Nikki Davies (Meeting Place) and Neil Goldsmith (Lichfields).

Six members of the public/representatives of local groups spoke during public participation as summarised briefly below.

Councillor John Godbold (Badger Farm Parish Council chair)

He reported on a recent meeting organised by the parish council which had recorded the views of local residents on the proposals.  The developer had been unable to attend.  He stated that many people did not object to the development in principle, but had concerns regarding the scale, the impact on traffic and possible pressure on residents’ parking spaces.  In addition, residents had expressed concern regarding the visual impact on the South Downs National Park area.  The parish council was not opposed to any development but wanted it to be suitable for the area and not cause additional problems.

Siobhan Osborne

As a Badger Farm resident she objected to the proposal to develop 49 acres of land at Bushfield citing its importance ecologically.  She believed that detailed information had been omitted from the materials shared during the public consultation which made it difficult to submit meaningful comments.  In particular, she expressed concern regarding the reference to an urban campus development.  She also stated that the developer’s list of stakeholders omitted the Badger Farm and Olivers Battery residents’ association, despite a specific request for it to be included.  She referred to the petition “Protect Bushfield” which had received comments that the public consultation had been unhelpful and did not adequately represent the proposal.  In general she believed there had been a lack of transparency and engagement from the developers.

Ali Cochrane

She expressed concern that no independent viability study had been available to the public and considered that the estimate of 2,500 jobs seemed optimistic.  She queried whether there was demand for the office space proposed.  She expressed concern regarding the negative impact on the surrounding area including loss of biodiversity, traffic congestion and more pressure on local amenities.  She believed there was a lack of impartial overview with reports being prepared by the developer.  If the scheme did go ahead, she requested assurances that land handed over for public benefit was protected by covenant.

Phil Gagg (WinACC)

He considered that the draft Bushfield masterplan did not demonstrate it had undertaken the work required in a concept master planning exercise.  He believed there was not adequate demonstration of how and what feedback had been taken into account.  He queried the impact of approving the contents of the masterplan on consideration of a future outline planning application.  He highlighted that the technical report included reference to 2,520 campus jobs which would require significant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8