A developer’s bid to reduce the number of affordable homes in a new east Brighton housing scheme has come under fire from one of the area’s councillors.
Martin Homes Whitehawk Way Ltd has asked Brighton and Hove City Council to approve slashing the number of homes in a five-storey building at a former NHS clinic site from 15 to ten, with the company paying £56,664 to the council instead.
When the company secured planning permission in November 2017, the agreement signed the following year was for 40 per cent, 15, of the 38 homes to be provided as “affordable” housing, with eight for rent and seven in shared ownership.
Councillors are asked to grant a variation to the agreement, known as a section 106, to allow for the “commuted sum” and fewer affordable homes at the former Whitehawk Clinic in Whitehawk Road, when the Planning Committee meets on Wednesday 2 November.
East Brighton Labour councillor Gill Williams has opposed the application to change the agreement between the developer and the council.
She said: “It is most disappointing to see that yet again a developer is not intending to honour the pledge to provide 40 per cent affordable housing.
“This is most alarming, particularly in an area that is desperately in need of more affordable housing.
“The viability report which the developer relied upon should not be accepted. It should be rejected.
“Further, it is questionable that the sum of £56,664 could in any way compensate for the loss of dwellings which could benefit local people immeasurably.
“The Whitehawk area and indeed the whole city is in the midst of a housing crisis. We must and should do all we can supply more affordable housing, not less.”
A report going before the committee said a viability assessment carried out for the developer stated eight affordable homes could be provided on-site.
The District Valuer Service reviewed the assessment and confirmed ten units could be provided on-site, plus the contribution of £56,664.
A legal agreement would allow for a review mechanism with updates on the viability, as the council’s policy is that 40 per cent of new homes in a development should be “affordable”.
The report said: “They have also sought a clause enabling the provision of a commuted sum in lieu of affordable housing on-site, in the event that a registered provider cannot be found to take the units.
“Again, this is considered acceptable, with the clause requiring that written evidence be provided to the council confirming that reasonable endeavours have been used to dispose of the affordable housing to a registered provider for a period of at least six months.”
The Planning Committee is due to meet at 2pm on Wednesday (2 November) at Hove Town Hall. The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
Refuse the request and force the developer to honour their commitment. If they don’t the pull their permission and hand the contact to someone else.
Everyone knows that developers overbid on every project and then try to move the goalposts afterwards. It is only that councils allow them to get away with it that they continue. Start saying NO!
Charles U Farley
There’s no CONTRACT to hand to someone else.
This is a Private developer building homes for themselves not on behalf of the council.
I would suggest that this is accepted but a clause must be added in that if they have any other ongoing projects these cannot be amended and also no other developments will be approved for this company for 25 years.
Martin Homes strikes again – no developer should be allowed to do this they signed a contract and they should stick to it. Maybe a clause should be installed saying any deviation from the original contract should make it null and void and the contract given to another fi to complete as outlined in the original contract. Far too often companies like Martin Homes get away with not fulfilling their contracts
They signed a contract and should be made to honour it To many builders are being allowed to change contracts simply to suit there own greed As for the paltry sum they are offering in compensation that is a joke which they will simply claim back through taxes
Honour the contract.
Yet another developer reneges on social houseing enough is enough make these developers stick to their contracts
Charles U Farley
There’s no CONTRACT to hand to someone else.
This is a Private developer building homes for themselves not on behalf of the council.
The “contract” is the permission to develop the plot. If they can’t build according the agreement that they entered into then they don’t build at all. They can be forced to sell the site at cost and someone else can take their place.
Charles U Farley
OMG.
Completely out of touch.
No, planning permission to develop a site is needed before anything else.
The contract is to provide 40% of affordable housing.
This development has already sprung up!!!
They could be forced to sell the site, you say, but there again it depends on who actually owns the land and the land owner may decide they no longer want the site developed. Just a thought.
I have to say that it is not really possible to build “social housing” in an area where house prices are so high. The council would do better to collect the money and go build more social housing itself.
Except that a paltry £56k wouldn’t buy anything and would no doubt disappear into the muddy council coffers, never to be seen again.