Agenda item - BH2021/02014 - Palmer and Harvey House, 106-112 Davigdor Road, Hove - Full Planning

1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee. The Principal Planning officer also updated the committee.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

2.       Councillor Moonan was informed by the Planning policy officer that there was not a masterplan for the entire site which includes a number of different owners. It was noted that Policy criteria covers the whole site and has been used across all the developments. The case officer stated that other areas of the site are still being developed and each is considered on its own merits under policies. It was confirmed that the site under consideration at this meeting was a car park with prior approval as the car park was not in use.

3.       Councillor Theobald was informed by the case officer that the disabled car parking spaces were to be retained on the north side of the larger site. The scheme has been amended following concerns raised regarding the outlook from the proposed units, which was carefully considered. The Highway Agreements Officer stated the guiding principles for parking were in the parking policy.

4.       Councillor Shanks was informed by the Planning manager that the whole site could not be considered at one time with regards to affordable housing and there was no affordable housing in the prior approval. The Housing Enabling Officer noted there was a large amount of affordable housing across the larger site, with some 150 shared ownership properties.

5.       Councillor Shanks was informed that if the application was successful the applicant could choose either the one approved here or the one under appeal.

Debate

6.       Councillor Theobald considered that 8 storeys was too high as this would have a detrimental effect on the area. Some more car parking would be preferred, and it was considered there was a lack of three bed units in the development and not enough affordable housing. The councillor preferred a previous scheme, considered 6 storeys to

be better and did not support the application.

7.       Councillor Moonan considered the officers responses regarding the consideration of the larger site in the context of this application to be disappointing and felt challenged as to which way to vote.

8.       Councillor Littman considered the bio diversity net gain and the parking were good reasons to support the application.

Vote

9.       A vote was taken, and by 3 to 2, with 1 abstention the committee agreed to grant planning permission. (Councillor Hills was not present to take part in the discussion or the decision making process).

10.      RESOVLED: 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 and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 30 November 2022 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in Section 14 of the report.