Agenda item - BH2020/01403 - 64 - 68 Palmeira Avenue & 72 - 73 Cromwell Road, Hove - Heads of Terms for S106 to be tabled to Planning Inspectorate for Appeal

1.    The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application report to the committee.

Responses to Questions

2.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the S106 Heads of Terms would be in draft form for the Planning Inspector to agree should they over they grant the appeal. The inspector has the ability turn down or change the Heads of Terms suggested by the council.

3.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed that Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) had been brought in since application was refused and the open spaces would be included in the CIL. It was noted that no formal consultation process had taken place regarding the CIL, however the Ward councillors had been informed and the three Members are proposing to attend the appeal hearing.

4.    Councillor Childs was informed that the introduction of CIL had resulted in a revisit of the finances for the development company, and the district valuer also revisited the scheme, and all commuted sums are CIL viable. It was noted that it would be unviable to build affordable housing within the scheme. The viability statement shows the reasonable profit built into the scheme.

5.    The Planning Manager stated that the Heads of Terms has a review mechanism, and the costs and sales can be revalued and put towards affordable housing contributions.

6.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the costs of the scheme had increased since the application was submitted to the authority and the district valuer had noted this.

7.    Councillor Moonan was informed that the extra costs would be commuted sums.

8.    Councillor Yates was informed that the committee were being asked to agree the S106 agreement as it would have been last year provided the viability statement was correct and if the appeal was allowed. The Planning Manager informed the councillor that the difference between S106 and CIL is a wider matter and not for this meeting. The viability assessment was undertaken for CIL and could change over time.

Debate

9.    Councillor Yates stated agreed that the council needed to defend the authorities position and they supported the report.

10.Councillor Moonan agreed with the objections raised by the council and felt the lack of provision for affordable housing within the scheme was not good.

11.Councillor Theobald considered the development to be too much for the plot and hoped the appeal was not successful. The councillor supported the report.

12.Councillor Shanks asked that the difference between CIL and S106 be looked at later and noted the lack of affordable housing within the scheme.

13.Councillor Childs raised concerns at the lack of affordable housing. The councillor supported the report and felt that affordable housing needs to prioritised.

14.Councillor Fishleigh considered the conclusion would be done to the Planning Inspector. The councillor did not support the report.

15.Councillor Littman noted the affordable housing objective of 40% and supported the report as the Heads of Terms would be needed should the Planning Inspector uphold the appeal.

Vote

16.A vote was taken, and the committee agreed 6 to 1 the Heads of Terms. (Councillor Ebel took no part in the discussions or decision making process).

17.RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the Heads of Terms set out below for a draft S106 agreement to be tabled to the Planning Inspectorate for the forthcoming Appeal Hearing, in the event that the appeal is allowed by the Secretary of State.