Agenda item - BH2022/00456 - Former Dairy, 35-39 The Droveway, Hove - Removal or Variation of Condition

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

Speakers

2.         Ward Councillor Bagaeen addressed the committee and stated that registered providers not taking up the housing was an issue. The requirement for affordable housing was known when the application was agreed. It should be considered that only exceptional circumstances would a commuted sum be acceptable instead of the affordable housing, this is not the case here. Hove Park ward needs affordable housing and if a commuted sum is accepted it will go into a pot and not be used in the ward. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

3.         Sirus Taghan was not available to address the committee on behalf of the applicant.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.         Councillor Nann was informed by the Head of Strategy & Supply that the council had considered taking on the affordable housing units, and it was noted that the council do take on S106 agreement acquisitions and each case is subject to financial viability study, with technical and management considerations. The site had been previously reviewed in 2021 and found to not support a purchase for low rent levels for affordable housing. The move to a commuted sum is considered a practical option and supports the wider housing supply programme within the council.

5.         Councillor Robinson was informed by the Head of Strategy & Supply that good progress was being made regarding the annual housing targets in the city and the Buy-Back scheme has been very successful. The detailed figures would be provided to the councillor after the meeting as they were not available to the officer during the meeting.

6.         Councillor Theobald was informed by the Head of Strategy & Supply that the lowest number of units a registered provider would be prepared to accept varied. Some would take small numbers; however, each decision was independently made. Discussions are held between the council and the registered providers quarterly and are ongoing.

7.         The Planning Manager noted that the funding mechanism had changed a few years ago and it was more difficult for registered providers to access funding for smaller sites.

8.         Councillor Cattell was informed by the Head of Strategy & Supply that the commuted sum would help secure up to 10 new dwellings. It was also noted that the council are exploring expanding the list of registered providers.

9.         Councillor Nann was informed by the Head of Strategy & Supply that there was a spread of affordable housing across the city with some concentrations in certain areas and there was a need to increase supply in all areas. The case officer informed the councillor that if the application was refused by the committee, the council would need todemonstrate that the applicant was not able to viably achieve the affordable housing, however the applicant has done this. The commuted sum is the practical way forward.

10.      Councillor Robinson was informed by the Head of Strategy & Supply that the commuted sum would amount to 30% of the purchase price for 10 units, not 100%. The case officer informed the councillor that the viability assessment of the original scheme was accepted and 16% was accepted. The sum of £780,300 was equal to the properties that would have been built at the site.

11.      Councillor Pickett was informed by the case officer that the city was split into three zones regarding pricing and the application lay in zone two, where the commuted sum was deemed acceptable.

12.      Councillor Allen was informed by the Planning Manager that policy stated that commuted sums were acceptable in exceptional circumstances and as no registered providers had taken up the units the commuted sum were therefore acceptable.

13.      Councillor Nann was informed by the Head of Strategy & Supply that the location can have a bearing on the cost of affordable housing, however, units can be brought across the city.

14.      Councillor Loughran was informed by the Head of Strategy & Supply that the valuation policy was applied equally across all three zones of the city. The Planning Manager advised that three units were acceptable in the original scheme and the contribution was the only matter to looked at as the principal was agreed.

Debate

15.      Councillor Cattell considered that the situation would not change if the committee agreed to grant permission. The background explanations given by the officers was very helpful and the commuted sum was good. The councillor noted that there were less affordable homes as a result of fewer larger housing schemes across the city. The councillor considered and refusal would be difficult to defend at appeal and supported the application.

16.      Councillor Theobald considered the lack of affordable housing a long-term problem along with the number of larger schemes coming forward. The councillor did not consider the commuted sums to be the same as actual affordable housing.

17.      Councillor Robinson considered the developer should go away and try again to get registered providers to take the units. The councillor was minded to refuse the application.

18.      Councillor Nann was concerned that there were areas without affordable housing.

19.      Councillor Hamilton considered the situation had been going on for years and noted that properties in Hove Park were averaging at £1.2m for a family home. The councillor did not consider the contribution to be large enough, however, the guidance had been followed. The councillor supported the application.

20.      Councillor Allen considered the application to be within policy and therefore supported the application.

21.      Councillor Loughran was informed by the Head of Strategy & Supply that the valuation did not support the council buying the properties. The council would only manage the units if the council bought them.

22.      The Planning Manager noted that the committee did not have the authority to create policies for other committees regarding the spending of the commuted sum across the whole city.

Vote

23.      A vote was taken, and by 8 to 1 the committee agreed to grant permission.

24.      RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to AGREE the amended Head of Terms to the proposed S106 Agreement, subject to a review mechanism. The remainder of the S106 Heads of Terms would as per the original Committee agreement.