Agenda item - BH2018/03356 - KAP Newtown Road, Hove - Deed of Variation

1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

2.       Councillor Shanks was informed by the Empty Property officer that the council did not buy the site as it was unsuitable, and the price was too high. Peter Griffiths (applicant’s agent) informed the councillor that the applicant had approached registered providers, and none were interested in the scheme as it was considered too small. Out of the 24 providers none wanted a mixed tenure block. The commuted sum would be a better outcome for the council to use elsewhere.

3.       Councillor Moonan noted the commuted sums and was informed by the Empty Property Officer that there is a set formula for calculating commuted sums. The Empty Property Officer noted that it is not a like-for-like calculation, with the average cost of two bed property calculated to be £230,000 with 30% of that sum coming from council funding. The commuted sum in this case could buy 52 properties. The council were working closely with the registered providers to address any issues they have.

4.       The case officer stated that the affordable housing is to remain onsite.

5.       Councillor Moonan was informed by Councillor Littman that the Affordable Housing Brief was last reviewed in May 2021.

6.       Councillor Yates was informed by the Empty Property Officer that some properties were acceptable when bought and others required some works. The average costs of refurbishment will be looked into. It was noted that a local employment contribution will be made.

7.       Councillor Ebel was informed by the Empty Property Officer that the 52 units would come from regeneration schemes.

8.       Councillor Theobald was informed by the Empty Property Officer that quality of the development was not an issue and noted that 70 homes were purchased over the last year.

9.       Councillor Shanks was informed by the Empty Property Officer that the Council would look into the provision of affordable housing in blocks of flats with mixed tenure.

10.      Councillor Moonan was informed that a refusal would have to be reasonable under policy.

11.      Councillor Ebel was informed that affordable rent was the priority for affordable housing.

12.      The agent informed the committee that the 18 units were for shared equity.

Debate

13.      Councillor Yates stated they were not happy with the registered providers. The councillor supported the application given this would the rational course.

14.      Councillor Theobald expressed concerns and considered that another registered provider should have taken on the property and noted that shared equity was an option. The councillor did not support the application and requested that the application be deferred.

15.      Councillor Meadows considered the commuted sum to be good and noted that shared ownership and shared equity were not necessarily right for the city. Mixing tenures was considered a challenge. Developers need to make a profit, and this can affect the quality of affordable housing.

16.      Councillor Shanks did not support the application and considered that the council should get in at the beginning to obtain the property in reflection of the housing crisis in the city.

17.      Councillor Littman noted that the committee should only be looking at the application submitted on the agenda. Councillor could not vote against the application itself as it had been approved.

18.      Councillor Theobald proposed that the application be deferred. Councillor Meadows seconded the proposal.

19.      Councillor Meadows considered the financial implications were missing from the report.

20.      The Council Lawyer stated that the financial information was in the report and was sufficiently within guidance and policy and it would not be reasonable to defer the application.

Vote

21.      A vote was taken on the proposed deferment, and the committee voted by 4 to 2, with 1 abstention.

22.      The proposal to defer was not agreed.

Vote

23.      A vote was taken, and the committee agreed by 5 to 2, to grant planning permission.

24.      RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT the Deed of Variation to the S106 Agreement dated 28 September 2020 related to planning permission ref: BH2018/03356.