Mixed-use redevelopment changes at Land At Former, 5 Brighton Road, Shoreham-by-Sea

Main planning issues

Officers considered the changes mostly minor but identified design harm from the lost walkway, reduced penthouse glazing and new tower entrance ramp.

“A small number of changes, including the introduction of an external stepped/ramped access forward of Block V4, the loss of a recessed external walkway featured to the eastern elevation of Block V4 and the pronounced loss of glazing to the penthouse are considered detrimental to the design quality of the approved scheme.”

“The loss of the recessed external walkway is considered detrimental to the quality of design of Block V4 and to result in conflict with the requirements of Policies CA7 and SH9 of the JAAP and Policy 15 to the ALP for development to achieve high quality design.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke in support, explaining the development’s viability difficulties and the reasons for seeking reduced financial obligations.

Members’ discussion

Members were concerned about reduced obligations but considered that refusal could leave the site undeveloped and explored an earlier profit trigger for recovering contributions.

“During debate Members recognised that if this application was refused it was likely that the site would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future which was undesirable. However the committee remained uncomfortable with the reduction of s106 payment and concurred that the review process was essential to monitor the profitability of the site.”

“Members proposed an alternative resolution to that suggested by officers, requiring an exploration of the possibility of the profit margin reduction (to 15%) by way of discussion with the applicant under delegated authority and in consultation with the chair. This was seconded and voted on with an outcome of 6 in favour and 3 against.”

Minutes

The votes

Members approved the revised resolution by 6–3, the legal-agreement variations by 5–3 with one abstention, and the plan changes by 8–1.

“The recommendations proposed, seconded and voted on separately. With regard to the Variations to the s106 undertaking, 5 Members voted in favour, 3 Members voted against and there was 1 abstention.”

“With regards to the revised s.73A proposals, 8 Members voted in favour and 1 Member voted against. Decision - 1) Approve the s.73A proposals under condition 2, and to approve the revised energy strategy under condition 21 subject to a Deed of Variation, which would capture the revised obligations sought under recommendation 2.) below, and amended wording of conditions 2, 18, 21 and 30, with added conditions 42 - 46 as set out below, and deleted condition 1 (Time limit for…”

Minutes