Reserved matters application (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) following outline approval 150888 - for the erection of 35 dwellings.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Reserved matters application (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) following outline approval 150888 - for the erection of 35 dwellings.)  

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs L Dunn of Weston Under Penyard Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mr D Moore, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor H Bramer was invited to speak on the application.  He indicated that he would comment following the debate.

The principal issue the Committee discussed was the proposal to reduce the number of affordable homes the scheme would deliver from 12to 7 on the grounds that the approved outline scheme was unviable.  It was noted that this was contrary to the wish of the Parish Council and that there was an adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan.  It was suggested that it also raised a question as to whether the affordable housing targets in the Core Strategy were realistic and achievable or needed to be revisited.  The housing officer had commented at paragraph 4.6 of the report that priority should be given to the delivery of affordable dwellings rather than the payment of a commuted sum.

A concern was expressed about the layout noting the Transportation Manager’s comments that there could be some difficulties with the proposed parking arrangements.

In response to questions officers made the following points:

·        If a commuted sum were to be accepted, although this was not what the Parish Council wanted, this would be available for allocation within the housing market area; it was unlikely that this would be spent in Weston Under Penyard.  The revised scheme did still provide affordable housing for the parish.

·        The District Valuer did take account of the purchase price developers paid for land and assess whether that price was reasonable.  The price had to be realistic and reflect current land values.  There were instances in which the District Valuer had rejected submissions by developers.  The District Valuer also took into account the level of return on investment that a developer would make.  Officers did consider the District Valuer’s assumptions and challenge them when this was considered appropriate.  At an appeal Planning Inspectors would give weight to the views of the District Valuer.

·        It was confirmed that the provision of affordable housing formed part of the S106 agreement and it was appropriate for the Committee to consider whether this could be varied as part of the reserved matters application.

·        Weight had been given to the Neighbourhood Development Plan.  It was simply the case that regard also had to be had to other material considerations.  It was to be noted that policy H3 of the Weston Under Penyard NDP did state proposals for development should meet local housing needs:  “and should provide a tenure mix of 40% of Affordable Homes unless viability considerations can be shown to necessitate an alternative percentage of provision.” This took account of paragraph 173 of the National Planning Policy Framework, as set out at paragraph 6.20 of the report, that provided guidance on financial viability of schemes.  This included the following: “To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.”

·        The Forward Planning Team would be informed of the concern about whether affordable housing targets were achievable for consideration as part of the review of the Core Strategy.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that there was a dilemma.  He shared the Parish Council’s disappointment at the reduction in the number of affordable homes. However, account had to be taken of the District Valuer’s ruling. It would be regrettable if refusal of the scheme were to mean that the other benefits that would be provided through the S106 agreement were lost.  The revised scheme would also still provide some affordable housing and contribute to meeting the council’s overall housing targets.

Councillor Seldon proposed and Councillor Baker seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the printed recommendation.  The motion was carried with 6 votes in favour, 1 against and 4 abstentions.

RESOLVED: That subject to the completion of a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 obligation agreement to reduce Affordable Housing provision from twelve to seven units, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers are authorised to grant approval of reserved matters, subject to the conditions below and any other further conditions considered necessary.

INFORMATIVES:

(The meeting adjourned between 12.25 and 12.35 pm.)