Agenda item - BH2025/01414 - Site of Sackville Road Trading Estate, Sackville Road, Hove - Full Planning

1.      The case officer introduced the report to the committee and updated the committee stating that one more representation had been received, which covered the same issues as other representations.

Speakers

2.   Neighbouring Ward Councillor Bagaeen addressed the committee and stated that they had some core concerns regarding the development relating to infrastructure demands, highway and transport, and community health. The development also needed to be sustainable and requested extra conditions to cover this. The councillor requested that the highways junction improvements be completed before occupation, the bin’s location be resolved and a GP surgery be included in the scheme.

3.   Benjamin Wilkinson addressed the committee as the agent and stated that there had been no objections from consultees and significant public support for the scheme, which was broadly in line with the previous scheme on this brownfield site. Sarah Poulter of Hyde Housing addressed the committee as the applicant and stated that the development was 50/50 scheme between Hyde Housing and Brighton and Hove City Council. Two previous projects have been completed in the city, and this was the third. The homes will be 100% affordable with 183 for rent and remainder for shared ownership. The project is going forward with funding milestones and will support the housing applications made to the city, and essential workers in this fair and inclusive scheme.

4.   The Planning Manager stated that there was no Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on this site, and the proposals did not include a GP surgery and there is no policy requirement for such

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.   Councillor Earthey was informed that there will be incentives to use sustainable transport such as reduced bus tickets and car club membership. By condition a travel plan will need to be submitted by the applicant, including encouraging the use of sustainable transport. It was noted there was not enough room for large PV panels, however, all units would benefit from those in the development.

6.   Councillor Pickett was informed that there was an obligation on the applicant of £200,000 to cover modelling for the Sackville Road junction improvements, and there was no overall scheme for the junction developed as yet. The monies would cover testing and findings. The s106 contributions will support the improvements to cycle lanes, car club bays and bus lanes improvements as part of the overall junction improvements. No safety risk has been established with the buses and refuse collection lorries sharing the bus lane. The bins will be stored within the development. It was noted that the refuse collections will be time restricted.

7.   Councillor Robinson was informed by the applicant that the undercroft parking would have resulted in the loss of 16 units and increased the cost of fire and safety undertakings. The total build costs would have been increased by the parking. Removing the parking allows for better landscaping at ground level. The removal of the undercroft parking was broadly supported by consultees. It was noted that the applicant was the freeholder, and the PV panels will benefit all the units, not just the one’s beneath the panels. It was noted that there was the potential for a pedestrian and cycleway cut through in the development. A new travel plan will be required by condition. The site is not within a Parking Zone (CPZ) and the parking survey showed capacity for overspill parking in the area.

8.   Councillor Parrott was informed that the 5% of parking bays would be for disabled drivers. The applicant confirmed that analysis showed that one loading bay would be sufficient and there will be three dedicated mail rooms across the development. The applicant’s transport consultant stated that an exercise had been undertaken for deliveries, the there was little chance of two deliveries taking place at the same time. It was noted that there was no specific planning policy for a doctor’s surgery to be included in the scheme.

9.   Councillor Sheard was informed by the applicant’s transport consultant that deliveries at the bus stop could be prevented by traffic regulation orders.

10. Councillor Theobald was informed that a road safety audit had been undertaken, and no risk was found. Southern Water objected as it was considered that there was not enough contamination information. The contamination was considered to be the same as the previous approved scheme, and it would be unreasonable to do more prior to determination. There will be no piling without agreement by condition, and the Environment Agency are to be consulted. It was noted that the flats at lower ground level would receive less light however, the addition of balconies is considered an improvement and is on balance acceptable. The inclusion of a community space is not a planning policy requirement. It was stated that it was too early in the process to see the finalised the junction improvements for Sackville Road. The BHCC Highways officer noted that cycleway improvements were required. This would be after modelling and surveys. The s106 monies would go towards design.

11. Councillor Cattell was informed that the travel plan for the adjoining development has been very successful and has been used to incentivise sustainable transport. Residents will access to the mail rooms to collect and deliver.

Debate

12. Councillor Theobald considered the area to be shabby, and they hoped the design would be better. They considered the loss of the undercroft parking, health care support, and the Sackville Road junction improvements, to be a shame. The current road is not wide enough. The council could have taken the community space. The councillor was glad for the affordable housing and supported the application.

13. Councillor Robinson noted the lack of parking as they considered it was needed, as was the community space. Not having a GP surgery was not good. The councillor suggested the City Plan should be reviewed regarding community spaces. The councillor agreed the housing was needed and supported the application.

14. Councillor Pickett considered the low-rise design was good, however the ecological enhancements could have been better. The councillor considered the undercroft parking would have been good and the refuse collection arrangements not to be good. The councillor considered that the basic plan is good and supported the application.

15. Councillor Winder considered the housing was needed and the scheme not all bad. However, the public realm design was not good. The scheme was considered disappointing but needed. The councillor supported the application.

16. Councillor Earthey stated they had concerns and public transport should be looked at, but they supported the application.

17. Councillor Parrott supported the application as the housing was needed, however, the scheme seemed to be only achieving minimum requirements.

18. Councillor Sheard considered the loss of the undercroft parking not to be good; however, this is a city centre location. The loss of the community space was also not good compared to the previous scheme. The City Plan therefore needs to be reviewed. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

19. A vote was held, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.

20. 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 Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, SAVE PLANNING COMMITTEE 5 NOVEMBER 2025 THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed or significantly advanced, on or before the 18 February 2026 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out at the end of the report.