Agenda item - BH2022/02689 - 126 Gloucester Road, Brighton - Amendment to Head of Terms

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

Answers to Committee Member Questions

2.         Councillor Shanks was informed that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payment would be £57,570.

3.         Councillor Galvin was informed that the viability of the scheme was calculated using standard figures identified in national guidance.

4.         Councillor Nann was informed that the viability review would be undertaken by Brighton and Hove City Council.

5.         Councillor Sheard was informed that a large amount of up-to-date detail has been submitted to the council regarding the viability of the scheme.

6.         Councillor Robinson was informed that the applicant pays the costs of the Viability Assessment being reviewed.

7.         Councillor Theobald informed there was no information available regarding whether previous late reviews had been successful. It was noted that land value was based on benchmarking and formula.

Debate

8.         Councillor Robinson considered there was no choice and the £57,570 for CIL was a good amount. The councillor supported the application.

9.         Councillor Theobald considered that applicants in general were not building affordable housing as it was not viable.

10.      Councillor Shanks did not support the application as they wanted to stop the lack of provision of affordable housing.

11.      Councillor Galvin considered that social housing had been promised and should be supplied. The applicants only seem to want large profits. The planning manager noted that acceptable profit levels were set at 17% under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

12.      Councillor Robinson considered that the late review would provide information on how much money the applicant acquires as profit.

13.      Councillor Sheard felt uncomfortable as they considered money should be provided for affordable housing. After consideration the councillor supported the application.

14.      Councillor Earthey considered that there would be a review and upon consideration the councillor supported the application.

15.      Councillor Winder felt frustrated at the situation but considered nothing could be done.

16.      Councillor Thomson considered the more housing supplied the better.

Vote

17.      A vote was taken, and by 7 to 2 the committee agreed to grant permission.

18.      RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to agree they are MINDED TO GRANT the application, excluding the Head of Term requiring an affordable housing commuted sum, subject to the conditions set out in the original Officer Report and Heads of Term relating to a late stage viability review to confirm whether a commuted sum amount can be paid towards affordable housing, and a contribution towards Highway Works.