Councillors have delayed deciding whether to take more than £750,000 from a developer towards the cost of building “affordable” homes.
They had agreed that Brighton developer Mike Stimpson could build on a corner plot in Portslade if he provided four affordable homes elsewhere.
But his hopes of building those homes in Brighton were thwarted when councillors turned down a scheme for homes that they regarded as “poky”.
Mr Stimpson came back with an offer of a “commuted sum” – more than £750,000 for Brighton and Hove City Council to put towards the cost of its own homebuilding projects.
Today (Wednesday 4 May) the council’s Planning Committee debated the offer and voted to wait for a month.
Committee members wanted to allow time for social landlords – including the council – to consider whether they could manage four of the 14 homes that Mr Stimpson wants to build in Foredown Road, Portslade.
He was granted planning permission in July last year for scrubland on the corner of Foredown Road and Fox Way on condition that he turned another of his properties into affordable housing.
But his plans to convert the former Mission Church Hall, in Bentham Road, Brighton, into flats were not approved.
Mr Stimpson’s agent, Paul Burgess, of Lewis and Co Planning, addressed the council’s Planning Committee at Hove Town Hall this afternoon.
Mr Burgess said that the cash offer complied with council policy because no housing associations wanted to take on so few homes.
Councillor Anne Pissaridou, who represents North Portslade, spoke against Mr Stimpson’s scheme, saying that the council should take on the “affordable” homes itself.
Councillor Pissaridou said: “This development is immediately next to the area of council … housing in Foredown Road, Flint Close and Forge Close, including one of the recent garage sites developments.
“I would ask if this has or can be considered as an option rather than the alternative of putting money into a pot for some time in the future. Given the housing crisis in the city, we need it now.”
Green councillor Sue Shanks also said that the council should take on the housing and that the committee should defer its decision until next month.
This would give time for the council and housing associations to consider whether they could take on the homes.
Councillor Shanks said that she had emailed the housing department when she read the application because she was not happy that the council was not taking on the housing.
Housing officer Emma Kumar said that the council was happy to look at the options but it was unusual for the council to take on fewer than 15 homes.
Councillor Shanks said: “There’s a need in a city for affordable housing. We’ve got a great opportunity here because it’s in an area particularly suitable and the housing is suitable.”
Independent councillor Bridget Fishleigh said: “The HRA (housing revenue account) has lots of money in it already. We don’t need this kind of thing. We don’t need any more money. We need the houses.
“Allowing developers to always go down the ‘commuted sum’ route is against policy as our policy is for additional houses.”
The committee’s legal adviser said that offering money was permitted by the council’s planning policies.
Labour councillor Nick Childs said that there was an urgent need for affordable housing, adding: “I remain concerned that these commutable sums are occurring more frequently as it makes financial sense for developers. They’ll make more money out of the house itself. We’re being short-changed here.”
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald said: “This area is ideal for affordable housing and is next to council buildings as well.
“I’m still upset this 30 per cent – four houses – cannot be on this site. All these developments seem to be going to commuted sums and it’s not good enough.”
However, she voted against the original recommendation to take the money and against a deferral, along with fellow Conservative councillor Dawn Barnett.
Independent councillor Tony Janio voted for the council to take the money and against delaying the application, saying: “If there is a ‘commuted sum’ then it is up to the council to spend it.
“Just because this council is so inefficient it cannot spend the money it’s got in the bank, it’s nothing to do with developers.”
