Agenda item - BH2016/05312, 65 Orchard Gardens, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 5no storey building and basement comprising a mixed use development of offices (B1) on the Ground floor and 23no one, two and three bedroom flats (C3) on the upper floors, 23no car parking spaces (including 3 Disability Spaces), cycle storage and associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL As s106 has not been completed.

Ward Affected: Hove Park

              Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 5no storey building and basement comprising a mixed use development of offices (B1) on the ground floor and 23no one, two and three bedroom flats (C3) on the upper floors, 23 no car parking spaces (including 3 Disability Spaces), cycle storage and associated landscaping.

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, explained that at their meeting held on 21 June 2017 the Committee had considered an application seeking consent for demolition of the existing buildings and erection of a five storey building with basement comprising a mixed use development of offices and 23one, two and three bedroom flats. Members approved the proposed scheme subject to completion of a s106 Legal Agreement in the terms set out in the report. Since that time the Local Planning Authority had sought to progress the Legal Agreement to completion but unfortunately in this case the applicant had not been able to complete the Legal Agreement. There had been extended periods of inactivity and no clear reasons for the lengthy delay had been provided. As the Local Planning Authority was unable to keep an application under consideration indefinitely the application had been returned back to committee.

(2)          In the absence of a Legal Agreement to secure necessary measures in regard to affordable housing, sustainable transport infrastructure, the Local Employment Scheme, education provision, the open space provision and an appropriate artistic component, the proposed development did not comply with local Planning Policies and would not mitigate the impact resulting from the development and refusal was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers

(3)          Mr Burgess spoke on behalf of the applicants and explained the reasons that delays had occurred in completing the s106 agreement, explaining that these had not occurred due to inactivity or unwillingness by the applicant. Also advising however that matters were now moving forward, could now be facilitated and that it was anticipated that the agreement could be completed in the near future.

Questions of Officers

(4)          Councillor Mac Cafferty sought clarification regarding the protocol for consideration of this matter as he had not encountered this previously. Clarification was sought regarding what the outcome/options should the motion not be carried and whether it would be appropriate for the matter to be deferred for determination by officers. Councillor C Theobald also sought clarification in respect of this matter. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, confirmed that the Committee could refuse or defer consideration and to allow a specified period for the completion of the outstanding s106 agreement following which the matter could either be brought back before the committee or alternatively officers could be given the discretion to refuse the application.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(5)          In answer to questions, officers confirmed that notwithstanding the further matters to be resolved in order to complete the s106 that to allow until 7 August to allow for completion would be a reasonable timeframe.

(6)          A vote was taken and Members voted on a vote of 8 with 2 abstentions against the Officer recommendation that planning permission be refused. Councillor Hyde proposed an alternative recommendation that a decision on the application be deferred in order to enable the s106 agreement to be completed such that if not completed by 7 August 2018 the application be refused. Councillor Miller seconded that.

(7)          A further vote was taken in respect of the alternative recommendation proposed by Councillor Hyde and seconded by Councillor Miller. The 10 Members who were present voted unanimously that a decision on the application be deferred in order to allow the S106 agreement to be concluded. If completed by 7 August 2018 officers could issue planning consent under their delegated powers. In the event that the s106 had not been concluded by that date authority was given to the Head of Planning to refuse the application.

1.2         RESOLVED – That the above application be deferred in order enable the outstanding s106 Agreement to be completed in the terms set out above.