Agenda item - BH2026/00110 - 36 Kingsthorpe Road, Hove - Full Planning

1.    The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

2. Councillor Pickett was informed that the light assessment had been looked at the windows on the west side of the building would be affected however these were secondary windows and the development was therefore within guidelines with no primary windows being affected. It was noted that the constraints of the site meant it was no longer commercially viable.

3. Councillor Sheard was informed by the agent that solar panels were not included in the development as there were not appropriate regarding the design and air source heat pumps were better for this location.

4. Councillor Theobald was informed that the neighbouring property was a commercial building at no.34 and there are windows to the rear of the property and on the eastern elevation. Policy DM2O has been applied.

5. Councillor Robinson was informed that the air source heat pumps would be individually installed in each unit. It was noted the development was 2m from existing neighbours, which was considered acceptable for this development.

6. Councillor Shanks was informed that there was no affordable housing on the site and the developer could make a contribution instead. The development was in a controlled parking zone and there was a high take up of parking permits. Informative 6 relates the development being car free. The Principal Transport Development Officer confirmed that the no parking had been proposed by the applicant.

7. Councillor Thomson was informed that the site was near a railway station; however, access via private land was no longer possible. The small western elevation windows of neighbours would be affected by the development. The 45⁰ rule has been used to assess the impact of the development on the neighbours. It was noted that a S106 payment would be made prior to commencement.

Debate

8. Councillor Nann supported the application and noted that it may be inconvenient for neighbours; however, there was nowhere else to build in Wish.

9. Councillor Cattell noted residents may be annoyed at the development and there was no affordable housing on site; however, providers would not pick up one unit alone. The contribution sum was welcomed to build new homes across the city. The councillor supported the application.

10. Councillor Robinson considered the S106 contribution to be good, as was the design, even though the development is close to neighbours. The councillor supported the application.

11. Councillor Theobald considered it was a shame there was no affordable housing; however, the contribution sum would be good. The precedent has been set by the large flats and the development looks acceptable. The councillor supported the application.

12. Councillor Sheard considered the housing is good for the community.

13. Councillor Winder supported the application as there was mostly housing in the area and the commercial building was not needed. 14 flats were good for the area.

Vote

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

15. 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 based on the Heads of Terms set out in the report and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed or significantly advanced, on or before the 25 November 2026 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out at the end of the report.