Agenda item - BH2017/01665 & BH2020/03619 - Whitehawk Clinic, Whitehawk Road, Brighton - Deed of Variation

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

Speakers

2.       Daniel Harris addressed the committee as concerned resident and they noted that the land was a council asset, however the rehabilitation centre has been lost from the site. The speaker considered it important that the council ‘push back’ against the developer and noted that no viability assessment had been undertaken. Following the Knoll House evictions there was more need for homes and commuted sum of £56,000 was too little. The community are considered to be demoralised; therefore, the committee are requested to reject the application.

3.       Guy Dixon addressed the committee as the agent for the applicant and noted that the client was in financial difficulties and work on the site was ‘stop-start’. 15 affordable housing units is not viable now. 26% affordable housing and £56,000 are suggested. The committee are requested to approve the application.

4.       The Planning Manager noted that objections had been received from Councillor Williams and Councillor Platts.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.       Councillor Moonan was informed that the size and tenure were flexible to provide the best chance for a regulated provider to be interested. It was noted the regulated provider could say no to the development. The Housing Enabling Officer noted that small developments with few units are difficult for the council or regulated providers. It was noted that shared ownership is usually better for regulated providers. The council prefer on site affordable housing; however, a commuted sum is acceptable.

6.       Councillor Yates was informed by the Housing Enabling Officer that the total commuted sum would be £1.1m. The Planning Manager noted that a viability assessment has taken place and the £56,000 was not equal to 5 units.

7.       Councillor Hugh-Jones was informed by Lloyd King of Southern Homes that the demolition and enabling works proved very expensive and the District Valuer Service (DVS) revised report was accepted by Martin Homes. 10 units is the maximum number of units the scheme can viably sustain.

8.       Councillor Gibson was informed by Lloyd King that the contingency fund was 5% as agreed with DVS, and this has been used already. Profits were estimated by DVS and Martin Homes disagreed but accepted were 17.5% on private and 6% on affordable housing.

9.       The Planning Manager noted that Planning policy guidance finds 15 to 20% acceptable and informed Councillor Gibson that 10 affordable units could be added to the Heads of Terms.

10.      Councillor Childs was informed by Lloyd King that they were unable to say if the developers will make a profit at this time.

11.      Councillor Yates was further informed that it was within the applicants right to put the application before the committee and change items later on, and the council had to accept this.

12.      Councillor Janio was informed by Guy Dixon that the lender was unhappy at the current position and the scheme cannot be finished if the application is not agreed. Lloyd King noted that a review mechanism forms part of the conditions suggested in the recommendations. It was noted that agreement at committee would allow the scheme to be completed.

13.      Councillor Moonan was further informed by the Planning Manager that they would get back to the Member regarding how much was in the council commuted sum pot and where it will be used. It was noted that a report would be submitted on this matter to TECC.

14.      Councillor Ebel was informed that the affordable housing could not be reduced under the review mechanism.

15.      Councillor Gibson was further informed by Housing Enabling Officer that the commuted sum would usually be paid at an early stage. Guy Dixon confirmed there was approximately two months’ work left on the scheme.

Debate

16.      Councillor Moonan considered the regulated providers need to be looked at and the council should look at small sites. It was considered that mix use developments are good in the city.

17.      Councillor Janio considered that the developer needed to make a profit and supported the application.

18.      Councillor Gibson noted the scheme was two months away from being completed and considered that each home purchase would be around £75,000, therefore £1.1m equals 14 homes. The councillor considered mixed communities to be good, but the council need to maximise money.

19.      Councillor Hugh-Jones noted the site looks close to being finished and considered the situation to be awful as the affordable housing would be reduced.

20.      Councillor Childs did not support the application as it put profit before housing.

21.      Councillor Yates did not feel able to vote for the application as this would mean the developer could come back and change what was previously agreed. Affordable housing is needed everywhere, especially in this community.

22.      Councillor Littman stated they were unhappy with the application as it

Reduced affordable housing.

Vote

23.      A vote was taken, and by 7 to 1 the committee refused the officer recommendation to approve.

24.      An alternative recommendation was proposed by Councillor Yates and seconded by Councillor Childs: Members refused the deed of variation on the basis that it would not give sufficient confidence that the scheme would deliver an acceptable level of affordable housing in the city.

Vote

25.      A recorded vote was taken, and the following Councillors voted for the alternative recommendation against the officer recommendation: Councillors Ebel, Childs, Moonan, Yates, Gibson, Hugh-Jones and Littman. Councillor Janio voted against the alternative recommendation.