Agenda item - BH2023/00912 - Knoll House, Ingram Crescent West, Hove - Full Planning

1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application to the Committee. Changes to proposed conditions were referred to and it was explained that the report recommendations had been amended to “minded to grant” as any planning permission would be subject to a S106 agreement.

Speakers

2.       Mr Daniel Harris spoke in objection to the scheme referring to the fact that existing clients could be evicted as a consequence of this scheme which had been amended since being agreed in principle by the Health and Wellbeing Board at its meeting in January. The current scheme was two storeys higher than that originally envisaged. These changes had not been debated by that Committee.

3.       Ms Mary Hutchinson spoke representing the architects for the scheme explaining that the scheme had been designed to provide 24 hour care for those with severe disabilities or acquired brain injuries in order to cater for their specific needs more appropriately than could be provided in other care home settings, particularly for young people for whom existing provision was inadequate. The scheme had been designed to be bright and welcoming with a dual aspect communal lounge providing opportunities for residents to socialise and to provide for varying levels of care need going forward.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.       In answer to questions by Councillor Pickett it was confirmed that there were no similar facilities in the city.

5.       Councillors Nann and Robinson enquired regarding the level of consultation which had taken place with local residents. Councillor Nann stressed the need for on-going dialogue and hoped that the applicants could be put forward for the considerate contractor scheme. The Planning Manager confirmed a condition was proposed to cover environmental issues and that the condition could be revised to require the applicant to engage with local residents and provide a contact number and name in the event of queries or problems.

6.       Councillor Robinson considered that it was important for residents to be aware of noise levels and hours during which work was permitted during the construction period effectively issues on which they could make complaints legitimately. It was explained that consultation was required with neighbours in respect of noise levels and timelines for completion of works.

7.       Councillor Allen asked whether there had been wider consultation in respect of the scheme with the opportunity for feedback to be obtained other than from immediate neighbours. It was confirmed that there had been an extensive pre-consultation process and a public event had also taken place in order to obtain views from the wider community and from those who had experience of the needs of those who would be living in the development.

8.       In answer to questions by Councillor Pickett the case officer explained that the development had been designed to address the perceived increasing needs of residents and the anticipated 15% increased demand.

          Debate

9.       Councillor Robinson stated that provided residents were aware of contactors’ contact details and work timings during the construction period and beyond she was happy to support the recommendation.

10.      Councillor Cattell concurred with that view.

11.      Councillor Allen considered that the scheme represented an efficient and productive use of the site.

12.      Councillor Nann was familiar with the area and considered that this was an excellent scheme.

13.      Councillor Loughran, the Chair, considered that this scheme would provide a unique and important contribution for the city which would provide for the housing and welfare needs of residents.

14.      Councillor Cattell proposed, and Councillor seconded that a line be added to condition 11 requiring details of engagement with local community.

          Vote

14.      A vote was taken, and members voted unanimously that it was minded 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 Officer Report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement on the Head of Terms set out below and the following Conditions and Informatives as set out hereunder, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 7 October 2023, the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons noted below:

Section 106 Head of Terms:

·       Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring fees of £5,405.50

P51: SECTION S106 OBLIGATION

In the event that the draft S106 Agreement has not been signed by all parties by the date set out above, the application shall be refused for the following reason:

1.The proposal fails to provide a mechanism (via a Section 106 legal agreement) to secure delivery of biodiversity net gain, contrary to policies CP10 of City Plan Part 1 and DM37 of City Plan Part 2.