Agenda item - BH2021/00780 - Land at Junction of Foredown Road and Fox Way, Portslade

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

Speakers

2.    Ward Councillor Pissaridou addressed the committee and considered that the proposals were an overdevelopment of this site adjacent to a busy main road. The access would be a blind corner with no views to the left or right. Fox Way is a 30mph ‘rat run’ and very busy. The development would create displacement parking which would be an issue and visitors would need to reverse onto the new road. The site is next to an area of affordable housing. Money from commuted sums is needed now to create homes.

3.    Paul Burgess addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the development was granted planning permission on 7 July 2021 and the only difference was how the affordable housing was to be delivered. The application was to resolve the voluntary contribution. The applicant wants to deliver affordable housing and a S106 has been drawn up and agreed with the council legal team.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.    Councillor Shanks was informed by the Housing Enabling Officer that housing was much needed in the city, however, the council do not usually look at sites under 15 units for affordable housing. Registered providers also do not take on small sites. The council accepts commuted sums. The Councillor was also informed by the Planning Manager that the proposals were policy compliant and that BHCC Housing were able to buy housing with the commuted sums. There were no grounds to the defer the application. The Senior Solicitor noted that the application had not been determined and the statutory decision date had passed and so the application could be appealed

5.    Councillor Childs was informed that the Transport Team found the proposals acceptable, and they were slightly different from the previous 2019 refused application.

6.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed by the Housing Enabling Officer that it was unusual to comment on small sites and it was not too early for social landlords to look at the site as this can be within the S106 agreement. The Planning Manager confirmed that the Housing Team had been consulted and the application was policy compliant. The Senior Solicitor noted the application would be likely to fail at appeal if the committee refused the application. 

7.    Councillor Janio was informed that the Gas Governor cabin is an electric substation which is to be constructed as part of the development. The Planning Manager noted that the application red line boundary did not cover this area.

8.    Councillor Moonan was informed by the Chair that Housing policy related to larger developments and agreed that affordable housing would be better than commuted sums. The Chair agreed they would talk to the TECC committee to find a way forward.

9.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the parking issues have not been decided and the ecology of the site would be investigated by condition, along with the landscaping of the site.

10. Councillor Barnett was informed that the application was an outline application and parking was not included at this stage. All matters were reserved apart from the access.

11. Councillor Yates was informed that land could not be accepted under policy instead of commuted sums. The case officer confirmed that the policy states a contribution should be made and that policy CP20 states a financial contribution. 

12. Councillor Childs was advised that the County Archaeologists recommendation for refusal was due to insufficient information. This would be dealt with under reserved matters. The policy CP20 states a financial contribution only.

13. Councillor Shanks was informed that it would not be appropriate to condition consent of the Housing Department.

14. Councillor Fishleigh was informed that the Bentham Road development was to be linked to the application site, however, the planning application on Bentham Road had been refused at planning committee.

Debate

15. Councillor Janio considered that the council needed to spend the already accepted commuted sums. The councillor supported the application.

16. Councillor Theobald noted there was no open space on the site and 39 objections had been received. The entrance was dangerous, and the site was ideal for affordable housing. The councillor was against the application.

17. Councillor Moonan stated they supported the application as the applicant would win at appeal. The councillor considered that policy needed revising.

18. Councillor Fishleigh considered a Registered Provider may want homes on the site. The councillor wanted to see the final layout of the site and questioned why the application was outline. The councillor was against the application.

19. Councillor Childs noted that affordable housing was needed in the city and would be glad to look at policy as they considered the council were being ‘short changed’. The councillor was against the application.

20. Councillor Ebel was not happy with the constant flow of commuted sums as family homes would be more appropriate. As the application was policy complaint the councillor supported the application.

21. Councillor Barnett stated they were against the application as there were too many units on the site which would destroy the outlook for existing residents.

22. Councillor Yates was torn on the application with deep concerns about the access. The councillor considered Registered Providers may step forward and noted that outline permission allows the developer to change the number of units.

23. Councillor Shanks was against the application and wished to defer the item to the next committee.

24. Councillor Littman noted that an outline application was acceptable, and they supported the application. They understood the points raised by the committee and considered a deferment. The Senior Solicitor consider it possible to defer the application, however this application was outstanding and policy compliant. As it was suggested to defer to the next committee meeting the applicant may not appeal in the meantime.

25. The Planning Manager noted that policy CP20 states that development over 15 units would attract 40% affordable housing and more units on the site would require a new planning application. It was noted that the previous application was agreed by the committee.

Vote

26. A vote was taken, and by 2 to 5, with 3 abstentions, the committee voted against the officer recommendation for approval.

27. Councillor Yates, seconded by Councillor Shanks, proposed the application be deferred to the next committee meeting to allow the Housing Department and other housing providers to consider the affordable housing on the site.

Vote

28. A recorded vote was taken, and the following councillors voted for the motion to defer: Littman, Ebel, Childs, Fishleigh, Moonan, Shanks and Yates. The following councillors voted against the motion to defer: Theobald, Barnett and Janio.

29. RESOLVED: Deferred to allow the Housing Department and other housing providers to consider the affordable housing on the site.