Councillors have granted planning permission for a £14 million block of flats in Hove but lamented the lack of “affordable housing” in the proposed five-storey building.
The scheme involves demolishing Portslade Panelworks’ premises in Orchard Road, on the corner of Nevill Road, and replacing it with 36 flats.
Affordable housing made up 40 per cent of a similar scheme for 23 flats that was approved five years ago, Conservative councillor Carol Theobald said.
But an assessment of the latest scheme, supported by an independent district valuer, found that it would not be financially viable if it included affordable housing.
As the scheme neared completion, a “late review” would determine whether a “commuted sum” towards the cost of affordable housing elsewhere could be paid to Brighton and Hove City Council.
Councillor Theobald said: “I am very surprised members are not worried about affordable housing. It seems they don’t seem to worry about that at all. I am not happy that we have not got any affordable yet again.”
Green councillor Leo Littman said that the Planning Committee’s hands were loosely tied and that members should comply with the law, which allowed developers to make a profit, and approve the scheme.
Councillor Littman, who chairs the Planning Committee, said: “Yes, of course, we all care desperately about affordable housing – and the affordable housing policy we have at this council is as strong as it can be.
“The law of the land puts development profit ahead of affordability. There is nothing we can do about it. We have to act within the law. If they demonstrate they cannot make a certain level of profit, we cannot add affordable.”
Labour councillor Clare Moonan said that the proposal was a “reflection” of what had happened in the past eight years.
She said: “It’s the same development that’s come back with a much higher density of housing and no affordable – and that’s the story of planning in Brighton and Hove.
“It’s very depressing. We care passionately about it. What can we do? This is the application in front of us. It’s policy compliant. We need the homes in the city.
“We need national changes to assist us locally to ensure we end up with more balanced housing so everyone can have an affordable home. But today, we don’t have the power to do that.”
The committee unanimously but reluctantly approved the application at Hove Town Hall yesterday (Wednesday 5 April).
Portslade Panelworks, owned by John Chambers, 64, and Paul Chambers, 62, plans to move from the site.
Orchard Holdings (Hove) Ltd, owned by Alfred Haagman, 63, Jonathan Bennett, 36, and David Lincoln Willis, 63, submitted the plan for the 36 flats with some commercial office space.
Flats for foreign buyers, Air B&B, holiday 2nd home flats, DFL downsizers and unaffordable for local buyers
Yep Valerie. Nothing affordable for local people who need decent housing. Tories just want as many ‘homes’ built as possible, so they can brag at the next general election. They don’t care what happens once they are built.
It isn’t the tories running the council is it
Read the article- it’s national policy dictating this, local councils have to follow this -therefore yes it’s Tory policy dictating – but of course they would profit above affordable housing
Councils still have the power to refuse applications
They do. Witness John Allcock’s success in getting some very horrible Hove flats turned down by the planning inspectorate. Although I’m not a fan of Mr Allcock or Labour, he did take up the cudgels on this particular matter and won. Whereas Green Leo (chair of Planning Committee, which is totally padded out with Greens and Labs) just keeps telling the Committee that there are no grounds to turn down an application and because of the national targets they have to approve. They do not, as Allcock proved, and the tide has turned nationally re bare targets, but Leo hasn’t noticed, it seems. Just turn it down, wait for the developer’s appeal (if they don’t come back with a better idea, which they may well do) and let a councillor fight it. The Leo mantra is getting very boring, like he’s scared to oppose anything and, hopefully, come May, he will be out of the Chair. Nothing against him personally, but some fighting spirit on Planning Committee and kickback against officers’ recommendations would be very welcome. That is, councillors should show some guts.
It is indeed depressing that current national planning laws pretty much force councillors into approving such schemes.
Flats left empty or put out for Air B&B ought to pay double in council tax. Something similar happens in Germany I believe.
Yet primacy occupancy, the concept of new developments must be your main home, was repeatedly knocked down in council.
I do hope that when developers use the term affordable, they are held to their promises and if they don’t, they can’t develop.
A firmer touch.
How much profit should they be allowed to make and where is parking going to be Or are they simply going to be allowed to say public transport and cycling which as we all know is simply a get out excuse
More luxury apartments that no-one can afford…
These homes are affordable to some people – they sell like hot cakes. New homes have a 10-20% sale premium compared with exisitng older stock. Afforbale homes/lower priced homes should com from existing stock not new stock. it makes no sense. Hlep people to buy cheaper homes, not the expenseive new homes.
And 5 ‘gentlemen’ of a certain age gain a pocketful?