Agenda item - BH2022/02821 - 65 Orchard Gardens Hove - Full Planning

1.         The Planning Manager introduced the application and informed the committee that two additional representations had been received and all issues raised have been covered in the report. An additional Head of Term for monitoring fees was also received.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

2.         Councillor Theobald was informed by Huw James, agent acting on behalf of the applicant that the previous application number of units of 23 has been enlarged to 36 by a more efficient floor layout. The mix of units has been deemed acceptable with more amenity space with the north and south elements forming a T shaped building. All the units meet space standards and the previous scheme included affordable housing; however, the scheme was unviable.

3.         Councillor Hills was informed that conditions 31 and 32 required the management and layout of the parking to be agreed by the local planning authority. The Head of Transport Policy & Strategy stated that the cycle parking would provide 58 spaces for residents and 8 more in the basement for visitors. The level of parking is set out in standards and the scheme is in line with standards. The allocation of parking spaces will by condition need to be agreed by the local planning authority.

4.         Councillor Appich was informed that the dimensions of the parking spaces were not yet known. The estimated square meterage of the communal garden was 176sqm.

5.         Councillor Hugh-Jones was informed that M4(3) and M4(2) were building control standards, M4(3) being adaptable space and M4(2) being already adapted. Huw James stated an accessible ramp will be included at the entrance to the scheme. It was noted that a late stage review would not usually come back to committee.

6.         Councillor Littman was informed that three feature trees were to be planted and the Neville Road frontage to be landscaped by condition.

7.         Councillor Moonan was informed that the previous scheme has lapsed, policy was still the same and the principle agreed.

Debate

8.         Councillor Theobald considered there should be a choice of car parking and they were concerned at the lack of affordable housing.

9.         Councillor Ebel was concerned at the lack of affordable housing, however, to refuse would only delay the scheme, which was policy complaint. The councillor supported the application.

10.      Councillor Hugh-Jones considered that building costs have increased considerably and was concerned at the lack of affordable housing across the city. However, as there was no reason to refuse, the councillor supported the application.

11.      Councillor Moonan noted the high density of the scheme, and it was policy compliant. Homes were needed in the city. The councillor supported the application and noted that the number of parking spaces may not be needed.

12.      Councillor Hills was concerned at the lack of affordable housing. The councillor supported the application as it was policy compliant.

13.      Councillor Appich considered there was no choice, and the existing site was unacceptable. Fewer cars would be better. The councillor supported the application.

14.      Councillor Littman wanted affordable housing; however, the development was profit driven in line with the law. The development would be an improvement on the existing situation and would help with housing and employment.

Vote

15.      A vote was taken, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.

16.      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 THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 26 July 2023 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to