It is with pleasure that I introduce some of our amendments, one deemed sounds and 2 unfortunately deemed unsound in the Housing, community and accommodation section of CPP2.
The first of these, which was deemed unsound, was to make it harder for build to rent developers to sell units for profit after their 15 year covenants to keep the property as build to rent units had passed. In our view, it is unfair for one developer to build now and for them to have the burden of 40% affordable housing, and for another type of developer to build now and not have that liability because they have chosen the build to rent model, which as we have seen recently on planning can minimise their liability to provide build to rent affordable accommodation due to viability issues. But instead who would have the option in 15 years time to sell their 100% or 80% build to rent units (as we are only in this CPP2 requesting 20% affordable for build to rent units, another inequity that is going to encourage even more build to rent in the city over sale and long term affordable accommodation, where we request 40% affordable). Our amendment was aimed to level this unlevel playing field we are creating between developer types and provide more affordable accommodation in our city now: or when these build to rent units get sold in 15 years time. I appreciate the officer response as to why it has been found unsound, but respectfully disagree, and I look forward to submitting this to the inspector at the examination stage.
Our second unsound amendment was aimed to make it harder to create HMO’s by reducing the threshold of concentration of HMO’s in a certain area from 20 to 15% found unsound. HMO’s are the blight on many of our communities lives, having changed many of our communities beyond belief. They do provide much needed accommodation, and are not always student houses (hopefully some of the new PBSA will take the pressure off of new HMO’s) and we are not against them per se: but having too high a concentration in certain areas as we have already seen places huge stress on communities. Whether it be the number of children going to the local school dropping resulting in financial difficulties for them, or the dentists or doctors struggling with lower patient numbers: the parking pressure placed on certain area or some of the ASB that can, and I stress can, arise from this type of intensified use. Whilst I acknowledge the current plan is ambitious in this regard, we felt it could be even more ambitious, and so for officers to deem it unsound as over ambitious was disappointing and we will look forward to see what the inspector says in this regard at examination stage.
Finally, having chaired the Live Music Policy Panel sometime ago with Cllr Atkinson and Deane: where we recommended strengthen planning policies to protect Brighton’s Live Music Venues which add a huge amount culturally to our vibrant city: and economically with over £100m benefits to the city a year: I am delighted to see policy in this regard in the CPP2 but we are proposing an additional sound amendment to DM10 to go even further, to protect our public houses and other venues, many of which provide live music: by considering whether new neighbouring developments could, as we have seen before, subsequently moan to environmental health about noise disturbance coming from venues that have been there for years, resulting in their closure through the included agent of change principle. I do therefore hope this positive and constructive amendment, to support a key cultural and economic sector in our city is supported by all parties.
