Agenda item - BH2020/00917 - 1-3 Ellen Street, Hove - Full Planning

1.    It was noted that an in-depth presentation had been provided by officers in advance of the meeting and was included on the council website detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs which also showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development.

2.    The Members were updated by the Planning Manager that one additional condition and two informatives were listed on the late list.

Speakers

3.    Mike Gibson representing Hove Station Neighbourhood Forum stated that the forum supports the application as a car free development. It was considered that 10% affordable housing would be suitable for the scheme. Following community engagement, the improvements to the development have been good. The forum considers the engagement to have been very beneficial throughout the application process. The forum wanted to be involved and are pleased that they were.

4.    Nick Green, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, felt the current application was an improvement on the previous scheme following consultations with the local community, the authority, and the Design Review Panel. Improvements have been made in the greening of the development and the infrastructure. It was confirmed that Watkins Jones own the site and will continue to manage the site once the development is completed. It is considered that the ground floor offices will help to regenerate the area. The development will bring many benefits to the area and the city with new and improved green spaces.

Questions for the speaker

5.    Councillor Janio was informed that there was no obligation for residents of the car free development to not have cars/vehicles. The lack of parking was considered a deterrent.

6.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed that the viability assessment has been agreed and that the average affordable rent will be 25% less than market rent.

7.    Councillor Theobald was informed that there some of the disabled parking bays would be for office workers and visitors, as well as residents. The applicant had tried to ensure that as few as possible on-street parking bays had been lost as a result of the scheme.

8.    Councillor Hugh-Jones was informed that the mix of affordable housing units was under discussion.

Questions to officers

9.    Councillor Yates was informed that they were correct, page 35 of the presentation showed the proposed elevation facing onto Ellen Street not Conway Street.

Debate

10. Councillor Miller stated they supported the application with much needed housing in an area that needs developing. The S106 agreement is good and the development will help to ‘kick start’ the Hove economy after the pandemic.

11. Councillor Henry considered that the public consultation had been good. The current site is currently unpleasant and would benefit from development. The loss of parking is not worth dismissing the application at this well connected site.

12. Councillor Childs considered it was naïve to think residents would not have cars on this car free development. It is considered that there is insufficient affordable housing. Development on this site is good, but not this one.

13. Councillor Theobald was against the application and raised concerns over the density and height of the development and noted that the previous permission was granted at appeal. The 18 storeys of the highest building will require sprinklers. The target number of dwellings in the space is exceeded and the development will harm the heritage assets of the area. It is noted that 7 units are below space standards and there will be loss of daylight to neighbouring properties.

14. Councillor Janio considered that it was unrealistic that the development would be car free and did not support the application.

15. Councillor Shanks supported the application which provided much needed housing. It was noted that there were not many objections. More affordable housing would be beneficial however; the scheme before the committee is supported.

16. Councillor Hugh-Jones had reservations regarding the affordable housing. It was calculated that a one bed unit would be £200 more than market rent. The councillor was minded to support the application given the conditions, the consultations that have taken place and the green credentials.

17. Councillor Fishleigh considered that 10% affordable housing was insufficient, and the committee should reject the application and ask for more affordable housing.

18. Councillor Yates supported the application, considering the affordable housing and the consultation process was good.

19. Councillor Shanks considered the S106 consultation would be good for the community.

20. Councillor Osborne supported the application considering the community engagement that had taken place, the transport links with busses and trains next to the development, the sustainability and viability of the development.

21. Following the end of the debate the Chair invited the committee to vote: Out of the 10 Members present the vote was 6 to 4 that planning permission be granted.

22. 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 are set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 2^nd October 2020 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 10.1 of the report.