A developer’s bid to reduce the number of affordable homes in a new 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 it secured planning permission in 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 today.

East Brighton Labour councillor Gill Williams has opposed the application to change the agreement.

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 to the committee says 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.”