Agenda item - BH2022/02534 - Land at King George VI Avenue (Toads Hole Valley), Hove - Outline Application All Matters Reserved

1.       The Case Officer introduced the application to the committee and noted that one further objection had been received, however, no new issues had been raised.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

2.       Councillor Moonan was informed that affordable housing formed part of the entire development, not just the section being discussed under this application. The biodiversity gain off site is being investigated and talks were being held with providers in Lewes District. It was noted that the developer can only be encouraged to have the gain within the city boundary.

3.       Councillor Yates was informed that it was possible to include an informative to request the biodiversity gain be provided within the city.

4.       Councillor Theobald was informed that the development had not been started as reserved matters were still to be agreed. It was noted that no consultees have objected.

5.       Councillor Hills was informed by the Highway Agreements Officer that no adverse effects were found, and a robust travel plan for the whole site will be provided.

6.       Councillor Janio was informed that the application was considered on balance to be a sustainable neighbourhood with mixed uses under policy DA7.

7.       Councillor Shanks was informed that other possible uses for this section of the whole site could not be discussed and the application should be considered as submitted to the committee.

8.       The agent noted that the need for a secondary school had been in doubt for some time as the need has changed. 40% affordable housing is being provided across the whole site, the multi use pitch is much needed and it was appropriate to submit the application at this time.

Debate

9.       Councillor Moonan supported the application as there was a need for housing, and not many large sites coming forward. The councillor requested that the biodiversity gain be provided within the city.

10.      Councillor Shanks supported the application. The councillor considered the need for a secondary school was difficult to predict and the onsite children will need to travel to school. The councillor requested the whole site include affordable housing.

11.      Councillor Yates seconded Councillor Moonan’s proposal for an informative to request the biodiversity gain to be in the city. The councillor supported the application as it was felt then the rest of the site could move forward. The councillor considered an opportunity had been missed and it was the council’s fault.

12.      Councillor Janio stated they had been to drop-in sessions by the developers and considered it a good development overall. The councillor considered the committee should hold their nerve as the site will be sold off in parcels and they should refuse this application and then the developer would come in with a better offer. The councillor did not support the application.

13.      Councillor Theobald considered the application would result in over development of the site and more family homes were needed. The councillor requested the application be deferred.

14.      Councillor Littman considered there was no sound reason to defer the application.

15.      The committee agreed the informative motioned by Councillor Moonan and seconded by Councillor Yates to retain the biodiversity gain within the city if possible. The wording to be agreed by the Planning Manager.

Vote

16.      A vote was taken, and by 5 to 2, with 1 abstention, the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

17.      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 outline planning permission subject to:

A) Completion of a Deed of Variation to the s106 Agreement attached to BH2022/00203 to include this application and secure the Heads of Term as set out at Appendix A;

B) The Conditions & Informatives set out at Appendix B SAVE THAT should the s106 agreement not be completed on or before 8th July 2023 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in Appendix C of the report.