Townhouses and flats scheme at Land At Former, 5 Brighton Road, Shoreham-by-Sea

What changed

The application sought to vary the approved plans and heating condition, remove a basement and reallocate floor area, with a different energy solution.

“Proposal: Application to vary condition 2 (approved plans) Condition 21 (District Heat Network) of previously approved AWDM/1962/22 and Variation of S106 Agreement.: Amendment: Basement removal, reallocation of Floor Area between V4 and V1 Town Houses. Different sustainable and energy efficient solution has been produced.”

Minutes

Earlier permission and appeal

Officers outlined the previous applications and appeal, and updated highways and parks comments on financial contributions.

“The Planning Development Manager presented the report, outlining the previous applications and appeal and the updated comments of the Highway Authority and Parks officer regarding financial contributions.”

Minutes

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approving both the minor amendments to conditions and the changes to the section 106 obligations.

“AWDM/1193/25 Recommendations: 1) S.73A Minor Amendments with variation of planning conditions - Approve 2) S106 Obligation Amendments - Approve…”

Minutes

Who spoke

The agent was the only registered speaker, supporting the application and explaining the viability issues behind the reduced contribution.

Debate on the reduced contribution

Members were uncomfortable reducing the section 106 payment and discussed lowering the profit threshold that would trigger more payments, against officer caution.

“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

Weighing refusal against appeal

Members concluded an inspector would likely overturn a refusal at appeal, making granting permission the realistic decision.

“With the revised resolution the committee discussed the likelihood of the applicant winning an appeal should the application be refused. Most Members concurred that an Inspector may well overturn a refusal at appeal and on balance granting permission was the realistic decision.”

Minutes