Agenda item - BMOHD - Appeal Change Report

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

Questions for officers

2.    Councillor Miller was informed by Carl Griffiths, the case officer, that the 26% of affordable housing was a blended total which enables works to be in Phase Two of the development. £6.5m is set aside for affordable housing and will be released by the revenue mechanism and this protects the council position. Jeffrey Solomon, the Council’s consultant from the DVS, noted that social rent units form 1% of the affordable housing and the £6.5m replaces the blended total.

3.    The Senior Solicitor informed the members that should Phase 3 of the development not come to fruition a percentage of the £6.5m should be paid as a commuted sum.

4.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed by Carl Griffiths that the reasons for refusal have been addressed and overcome in the report. It was also noted that there was no s106 ‘pot’ for local ward councillors.

5.    The Planning Manager noted that the introduction of the community infrastructure Levy (CIL) had changed s106 requirements and that this was the basis for reason for refusal 2.

6.    Councillor Childs was informed by Carl Griffiths that £6.5m was in the costings from the beginning and this was in addition to CIL.

7.    The Senior Solicitor advised that officers considered there was no reason to doubt the district valuer service’s (DVS) professional advice.

8.    Councillor Miller was informed by Carl Griffiths that Phase Three of the development would have 12.5% affordable housing in additional to the £6.5m.

9.    A vote was taken, and the committee voted by 7 to 1 that the recommendation in the report is agreed, with two abstentions.

10.RESOLVED: That the Committee agrees that the following putative reasons for refusal shall not be pursued by the Council in relation to appealed application ref. BH2019/00964:

2) Insufficient information has been submitted to justify why a non-policy compliant level of affordable housing being provided as part of the proposal, contrary to Policy CP20 of City Plan Part One.

5) The development by virtue of the inadequate levels of cycle parking within Phase 2 and the lack of dedicated accessibility for cyclists across the breakwater would fail to promote safe, sustainable modes of transport, contrary to Policies DA2 and CP9 of City Plan Part 1, Saved Policies TR7 and TR14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, SPD14: Parking Standards, and paragraphs 108 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework.