Affordable housing scheme at Sackville Road, Hove

The site and earlier schemes

The proposal was for a brownfield site, and the applicant said it broadly followed an earlier scheme.

“Benjamin Wilkinson addressed the committee as the agent and stated that there had been no objections from consultees and significant public support for the scheme, which was broadly in line with the previous scheme on this brownfield site. Sarah Poulter of Hyde Housing addressed the committee as the applicant and stated that the development was 50/50 scheme between Hyde Housing and Brighton and Hove City Council.”

Minutes

Concerns raised

Concerns covered infrastructure, highways, transport, community health, parking, refuse collection, ecological improvements and the loss of community space.

“Neighbouring Ward Councillor Bagaeen addressed the committee and stated that they had some core concerns regarding the development relating to infrastructure demands, highway and transport, and community health. The development also needed to be sustainable and requested extra conditions to cover this. The councillor requested that the highways junction improvements be completed before occupation, the bin’s location be resolved and a GP surgery be included in the scheme.”

“Councillor Robinson was informed by the applicant that the undercroft parking would have resulted in the loss of 16 units and increased the cost of fire and safety undertakings. The total build costs would have been increased by the parking. Removing the parking allows for better landscaping at ground level. The removal of the undercroft parking was broadly supported by consultees.”

Minutes

Who spoke

A neighbouring ward councillor, the agent and the applicant addressed the committee.

Members debated the scheme

Members welcomed the affordable housing and its need, but criticised aspects including parking, public realm, community space, ecology and healthcare provision.

“Councillor Theobald considered the area to be shabby, and they hoped the design would be better. They considered the loss of the undercroft parking, health care support, and the Sackville Road junction improvements, to be a shame. The current road is not wide enough. The council could have taken the community space. The councillor was glad for the affordable housing and supported the application.”

“Councillor Robinson noted the lack of parking as they considered it was needed, as was the community space. Not having a GP surgery was not good. The councillor suggested the City Plan should be reviewed regarding community spaces. The councillor agreed the housing was needed and supported the application.”

Minutes

The committee voted

The committee unanimously agreed to grant planning permission.

“A vote was held, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee was minded to grant permission subject to a legal agreement, conditions and informatives, with refusal authorised if the agreement was not completed by the deadline.

“RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement on the Heads of Terms set out in the report and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, SAVE”

“PLANNING COMMITTEE 5 NOVEMBER 2025 THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed or significantly advanced, on or before the 18 February 2026 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out at the end of the report.”

Minutes