Agenda item - BH2022/02361 - 76 - 79 And 80 Buckingham Road, Brighton - Removal or Variation of Condition

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

Answers to Committee Members Questions

2.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the costs of building had risen since the COVID 19 pandemic. The Head of Planning noted that the existing use value was to be considered for viability rather than how much the site had been bought for some years ago. The Heads of Terms covered the whole development. The Head of Planning confirmed that the application was policy compliant.

3.    Councillor Winder was informed by the Head of Planning that the commuted sum would be ring-fenced to buy affordable homes.

4.    Councillor Thomson was informed that the scheme would be car free by informative not condition.

5.    Councillor Allen was informed that the space standards were complied with.

6.    Councillor Loughran was informed that the length of build was not a material consideration.

7.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the application was not started again, and the extant permission had to be considered.

8.    The legal officer advised that the amendment to the legal agreement could be refused if members so wished.

Debate

9.    Councillor Theobald considered it was a pity no affordable housing was included on site. The site had been an eyesore for so long, it was hoped that the developer would take action.

10. Councillor Thomson supported the application as it was policy compliant.

11. Councillor Shanks considered the development needed to be completed. Affordable housing was needed in the city, and it complied with policy.

12. Councillor Sheard considered that 14 units did not equal £500,000, however, the application needed to be agreed as it was policy compliant.

13. Councillor Allen noted that the application was policy compliant and therefore needed to be agreed.

14. Councillor Winder considered the committee had to go along with the application and the scheme needed to be completed.

15. Councillor Fishleigh noted the last administration at the council wanted to compulsory purchase the site.

16. Councillor Loughran noted that the price of the land had risen creating difficulties. The councillor considered the application should be deferred to revisit the methodology.

17. The Head of Planning noted the Planning Policy Guidance sets out a methodology for calculating the value of the land and the viability assessment had considered this and was reviewed by the DVS. The scheme needs to be viable. This scheme in terms of policy and national guidance is acceptable.

18. Councillor Thomson considered there was no point in deferring.

19. Councillor Fishleigh queried what questions would be answered if the committee deferred the application.

20. Councillor Loughran considered they would benefit from more investigation and counsel advice.

21. Councillor Winder considered deferring did not mean a refusal.

22. The Head of Planning noted that further legal advice would be unlikely to assist in viability matters, that the government were looking at changes to National Planning Policy Framework and City Plan Part Two was currently being reviewed and that this was when the methodology for assessing viability would be considered.

23. Councillor Allen noted the framework would not change in the next 4 weeks.

24. Councillor Loughran proposed a motion to defer the application, seconded by Councillor Theobald.

Vote

25. A vote was taken to defer the application, and by 3 to 5 against. The committee did not agree to defer the application.

26. A vote was taken, and by 5 to 3 the committee agreed to grant planning permission. (Councillors Nann and Galvin took no part in the discussions or decision-making process).

27. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement on the Heads of Terms set out in the report and the following Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 27^th November 2024 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 12 of the report.