A developer has offered to pay Brighton and Hove City Council at least £500,000 instead of offering 14 flats as “affordable” homes on the site of an old maternity hospital.
Martin Homes Buckingham Road Limited has also applied for planning permission to include two more flats in its plans for the site, taking the total up to 36.
The extra flats would be contained within the five-storey building in Buckingham Road, Brighton, that already has planning permission. The proposals are due to go before the council’s Planning Committee next Wednesday (4 September).
Martin Homes created 14 flats in the townhouses at 76-79 Buckingham Road and these were intended to form the “affordable” element of the scheme.
But no “registered provider” could be found to take on the modest number of affordable homes despite approaches to a number of housing associations.
The council has also turned down the chance to take on similar-sized schemes in the past, prompting some to ask whether the policy should be reviewed.
The council agreed to amend the planning permission to allow Martin Homes to sell the 14 flats to boost cash flow as it prepared to build 20 flats on the neighbouring part of the site, 80 Buckingham Road.
The amended plans included incorporating the affordable homes in the five-storey block of flats on the corner of Buckingham Road and Upper Gloucester Road.
Martin Homes said in its latest application that the project was “no longer able to support” the affordable element.
And a report to the council’s Planning Committee said: “Since that time the applicant states that delays on site and increases in building costs have stymied the continued development of the new-build block.
“It is no longer viable to provide the original approved affordable homes on site. This is even taking into account the two additional units now proposed.”
The report proposed accepting a “commuted sum” of at least £500,000 instead as an acceptable alternative. The sum could be higher if the scheme makes more money than expected.
This sum could be used towards the cost of buying or building affordable rented homes elsewhere in Brighton and Hove.
The site, which covers about a third of an acre in all, was once the home of Brighton Grammar School, which occupied a three-storey Victorian corner building at 80 Buckingham Road.
The school, now known as Brighton, Hove And Sussex VI Form College (BHASVIC), moved to the corner of Dyke Road and Old Shoreham Road, Hove, shortly before the First World War.
The site was also home to the Sussex Maternity Hospital, which ended up occupying 76-80 Buckingham Road and which closed in 1971.
Number 80, on the corner of Upper Gloucester Road, was demolished in the 1970s and replaced with a modern building which hasn’t lasted as well as its 19th century neighbours. It was used for adult social care after the maternity hospital closed.
The skeletal frame of the five-storey replacement is visible while work on the site is currently on hold.
The Planning Committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 2pm next Wednesday (4 September). The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
Take the cash and build social housing !
It’s a typical strategy by developers, and one we have seen deployed several times over the past couple of years. I think they can do better than £500,000, because that’s about £35,000 per affordable home they won’t build, and instead sell at market rate.
There’s room to negotiate that figure, methinks?
Second time (at least) this developer has done this. Happened at whitehawk road… Something fishy going on!
It’s absolutely disgusting for this amount of time to have gone by without progress. One of many similar situations across the city. I expect the royal Albion hotel site will remain in its current state for years to to come . There is no excuse for it and lessons are never learnt . Need I mention “west pier” The council need to change their practices and stop wasting years of in-decisions
Similar thing happened with the kozy living block of flats on Melbourne Street.
Council took the tiny pay off when the builder said they don’t want to build affordable housing.
Don’t make the same mistake with this build, contractors are laughing all the way to the bank.
The council need to put a strict policy in place to deal with these types of companies taking advantage.
The affordable homes often make it impossible to sell the other homes. You only need to look at the issues with the new block of flat development in Grand Avenue. People paying what should be a high premium for city centre flats don’t want some drug addict with mental health issues housed by a social housing association next door with the often associated crime. Seems crazy building so much social housing in a location that should be reserved for commuters and people working in the city centre. Better to take the cash but more of it and build more properties in the outskirts of town.
Perhaps councils should return to the requirements for letting where you had to be resident for 5 years and married with children, plus be of good character…
£500k is hardly fair compensation to not build. Developer can make a lot more by not selling affordable homes and easily recoup that.
£500,000 is not fair market value for that many homes, even allowing room for profit and recouping costs. What a joke, one of the many reasons people wait years for council homes.
Much better for developers to pay cash to council that can spend and purpose built affordable accomodation and dedicated facilities. Housing associations and the council dont want to manage 3 or 4 flats in a larger development – too complcated, not cost effective for management. Cash allocation should be the norm.
Just increase the CIL charge, let them do what they want and use the cash to buy / force purchase, abandoned properties across Brighton.
Incidentally, there are legal powers I have learnt the council can utilise to enforce rented properties up to a standard, taking over all rent and management, but not ownership, for up to a year whilst improvements are made.
There is no such thing as “affordable” and now that the brown envelopes of cash are waving publicly!
Affordable must be included in all strategic builds or you are only offering to the upper classes – this blocks the market and builds unnecessary houses that do not for fill the planning specs.
Planning specs must be met for a build to be signed off by building control. Without this sign off the building is useless.
Don’t understand why there is a policy if it is continually being circumvented! This is just another example of land grab by greedy developers who seek only to maximise their profits and have scant regard for the community. What’s to manage? Carefully vet prospective tenants and there should be minimal expense. Why do we have Housing management at the Council if they can’t manage 14 extra units?
It really isn’t in a developer’s interest to provide social housing, true. There’s a larger problem with a lack of a national housing strategy currently from central government.
That equates to only £35,714 per flat.
A very affordable bribe for the developer spending only £500,000 to get out of providing 14 ‘affordable’ flats which they can now sell at full market rate.
A ‘no-brainer’ – gaining a much larger amount than it costs them.
Any council acting in the public good would reject such an offer.
The risk is of course that if the developer goes to appeal, they might get what they want and have to pay anything at all.
Disgusting…
Again and again this happens another bribe for the council and still no affordable housing available.
Council be radical make them stick to original plan stop this happening every time
To be fair, Gaswork development got pushed denied because the council did exactly that. The problem is of course, is that the developer typically then goes to appeal, and more times than not, wins.
Given the rates range from £97,500 to £289,750 per unit depending on the zone, the total payment could range between £1,365,000 and £4,056,500, if I am reading this correctly?
Some interesting comments above no doubt reflecting the frustration felt by many at not being able to afford housing here in Brighton. It is not a “class” thing, but just one of having cash or suitable income to service a mortgage.
The real issue is that too many people want to live here, remembering that Brighton has fixed outer boundaries limiting building possibilities. Truth be told everyone wants to live close to the sea anyway.
Affordable housing is still not affordable to many. It has become a bit of a misnomer.
The real answer is to build more social housing, end reliance on the private rental sector and for Brighton to take charge of the situation. Compulsory purchase of undeveloped land is one way forward. I would however recommend a policy of priority for people who live here already or can prove a real connection to Brighton, otherwise it will be viewed as a bonanza by people who want to live here.
Disgusting offer but will most likely be accepted by this money grabbing corrupt council that just pays lip service to affordable housing whilst constantly being in the pockets of property developers
Appalling…block the entire development if they can’t afford the social housing…people not profit.
That development has been left in that state for ages, waiting for the council to give into their demands.
There should be time limits on developments. If they are not completed within a reasonable time, then they can have the sites should be subject to purchase.
What a joke of a country we live in
Here’s an interesting piece of information about commuted sums and developer contributions. This is from BHCC affordable housing guidance. Please note the amounts stated.
https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/planning/planning-applications/affordable-housing-guidance-commuted-sums-vacant-building-credit