Agenda item - BH2014/03742 - Hove Business Centre, Fonthill Road, Hove - Full Planning

Creation of 4no one bedroom flats, 4no two bedroom flats and 1no three bedroom flat on existing flat roof incorporating revised access and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Creation of 4no one bedroom flats, 4no two bedroom flats and 1no three bedroom flat on existing flat roof incorporating revised access and associated works.

Officer Introduction

1)               The Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings.  It was explained that this application was presented to the Committee on 9 December 2015 with a recommendation of Minded to Grant subject to a s106 agreement. The s106 was not received until after the adoption of the City Plan Part One therefore it fell that the application had to be re-considered against the new development plan for the City prior to any formal decision being issued, including an affordable housing contribution which the applicant was not willing to provide. The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

Questions for Officers

2)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald, the Solicitor clarified that a draft s106 undertaking was sent to the applicant on 11 December 2015 to consider, comments were received 12 January 2016, and further amendments were made 19 January 2016 and the document sent out for signature on 25 February 2016. The applicant returned the signed undertaking on 28 April 2016, by then the City Plan Part One had been adopted; therefore, the application could not be granted. The Planning Manager added that there was a long consultation period before adopting the City Plan Part One and all agents would have been aware of these changes.

Debate and Decision Making Process

3)               Councillor C. Theobald noted that the situation was unfair on the applicant.

4)               Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the applicant should be willing to provide a contribution towards affordable housing in the city during the housing crisis.

5)               Councillor Littman agreed with Councillor Mac Cafferty and noted that smaller developments were willing to provide a contribution; therefore the bigger developments should.

6)               Councillor Miller noted that it would have been useful to have provided information regarding s106 in the previous report in the eventuality that the City Plan Part One was approved. He added that it could have been a smoother process and felt it was unfair; therefore, would be abstaining from the vote.

7)               Councillor Hamilton noted that it was common for developers to produce 9 units rather than 10, before the threshold for affordable housing contributions. He felt that if the policy has changed and the units had not yet been developed, then the applicant should pay their contribution to affordable housing; therefore, he would be supporting the Officer recommendation to refuse the application.

8)               Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that it was a big development and should contribute towards social housing. He noted that it was important to the city and he would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

9)               Councillor Moonan stated that she would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

10)            Councillor Morris noted that there was a desperate need for affordable housing in the city and would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

11)            A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee refuse planning permission was carried on a vote of 8 in support with 2 against and 2 abstention.

18.4       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to REFUSE planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in section 11.