Agenda item - BH2023/02756 - 65 Orchard Gardens, Hove - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.         Jo Elsden addressed the committee as a resident and stated that they considered the development not to be in keeping with the area and too high, dwarfing other buildings. The slope of the site has not been shown on the plans. The planning history of the site is controversial with previous refusals. The development feels like planning permission by stealth. Parking is an issue in the area and the development will have an overspill onto the surrounding streets. The scheme will reduce daylight to nearby houses and the proposed balconies will overlook neighbouring properties. There is no water runoff. The scheme is an overdevelopment of the site, will result in parking issues in the area and leads to environmental concerns by residents.

3.         Ward Councillor Bagaeen addressed the committee and stated that planning permission should not be granted. There was zero affordable housing. The planning inspector in Essex recently dismissed a similar scheme as a result of the effect on the character and appearance of the area. The scheme contrasts with existing homes and will be out of step with the two storey neighbours. The relationship between them will be discordant. Ward Councillor Lyons addressed the committee and stated that the existing works were not attractive, however, a more in keeping development would be preferred up against the two storey neighbours. This application is too large and not enough parking spaces. More houses would be preferred over flats. 104 objections is a lot and the ward councillors support the residents. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

4.         Sarah Hufford addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that they considered the variations to be minor. The design has already been approved. Surveys of car ownership in the area indicate that most residents of the scheme will not own cars, so parking will not be an issue. The scheme has been revised with increases in height on Neville Roadside of the development. Through CIL and the S106 agreement £1m will be spent in the area. There is no sound planning reason to refuse the application on this brownfield site.

Answers to Committee Members’ questions

5.         Councillor Allen was informed that the Southern Water response and conditions remained the same as the previous approved application.

6.         Councillor Shanks was informed that the development was outside parking zones and there was capacity in on street parking at night.

7.         Councillor Robinson was informed that if the committee refused this application the applicant could build the previously approved scheme. It was noted by the District Valuer that the build costs consisted of several elements which change over time, hence the need for a review mechanism to ensure the real build and sale costs were reflected in affordable housing provision. The Head of Transport Policy & Strategy noted that the parking surveys carried out did not include future parking demand. The Planning Manager noted the scheme complied with planning policy.

8.         Councillor Nann was informed by the agent that the previous scheme was considered less profitable and less deliverable, and not as viable as the scheme before the committee.

9.         Councillor Theobald was informed by the agent that the viability assessment looked at affordable housing and it was not viable for this scheme. Basement parking has been included in the development which added to the cost.

10.      Councillor Loughran was informed by the agent that the cost of the parking was included in the viability assessment. In previous schemes the parking had been removed but that was not popular with locals or members. For this scheme it was not viable to have both affordable housing and parking. The Head of Transport Policy & Strategy stated that the application included parking, and this was assessed and deemed acceptable.

Debate

11.      Councillor Shanks considered there was not much difference between the previous scheme and the proposed. The councillor noted there was no residents’ parking scheme and the development would be an improvement on the existing.

12.      Councillor Theobald considered the position to be prominent and the development too big with an effect on the neighbours. A commuted sum would not be as good as affordable housing. The councillor was against the application.

13.      Councillor Allen noted the application was on a brownfield site and a similar development had been approved on Old Shoreham Road. The councillor considered the scheme to be good and supported the application.

14.      Councillor Robinson considered the scheme was not very different from the approved development, however, they were disappointed that there was no affordable housing to be provided on site. The councillor noted more housing was needed and they supported the application.

15.      Councillor Theobald considered that the 106 objections should be taken into account.

16.      Councillor Cattell considered that the commuted sums were welcome and if refused the council would lose the money secured through legal agreement and CIL.

17.      Councillor Loughran noted that the need for housing was serious, and the scheme made a good contribution. They were sorry to lose the affordable housing. The councillor supported the application, and they invited the applicant to review the affordable housing if possible.

Vote

18.      A vote was taken, and by 8 to 1 the committee agreed to grant planning permission. (Councillor Thomson took no part in the discussion or decision-making process).

19.      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 6 September 2024 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 14.1 of the report.