Agenda item

Application Proposal: Development of 29 dwellings including affordable housing with associated parking and landscaping.

The Planning Officer presented her report to members. She explained that there were two planning applications, the other being the next item on the agenda, were being considered as one application.

She advised that there was an amendment to the report on page 61, within the conclusion and the paragraph which was 2 paragraphs above the conclusion. The case officer that was previously dealing with the application had agreed that 9 intermediate affordable dwellings were acceptable and that this should be treated as an amendment to the report.

She provided plans to show the proposed development as well as showing plans to show the additional application which was also being considered and industrial units to the rear of the site which had already been granted planning approval. She also provided images to show elevations and floor plans of the proposed dwellings as well as details of the buildings on site which would be demolished.

She explained to members that planning approval had already been obtained for the site, however the new revised application had one additional dwelling included within the scheme and that the red line area had been enlarged slightly. She advised that because a new application had been submitted, rather than an amendment to the previous application, that the applicant would now be liable to making CIL contributions. She also advised that education contributions were now being sought.

She advised that the applicant claimed that the site would become unviable with the additional contributions and for this reason; she was recommending that that application be refused.

She provided a summary of the contributions being sought and advised which contributions were being disputed. The total contributions being sought amounted to £123,444, however she confirmed that the CIL contribution had been agreed by the applicant.

She further explained that the District Valuer did not agree that the scheme was now unviable. The Planning Officer advised that she had expected the applicant to argue the case further at to provide evidence to support the case.

Mr T Griffiths, the agent, addressed Members. He advised that the contributions which were previously agreed were significantly less, totalling approximately £108,000. The revised total contributions with CIL and the education contributions now amounted to £288,000. He explained that this was a high-quality scheme and that the DV figures were unreasonable.

Councillor Mike Lewis, the Ward Member, advised that the fall-back application which had already approved was an inferior development which had narrower roads within the development. He offered his support to the current application and explained that considerable contributions had already been agreed. He hoped that the application would be approved.

During the discussion, members questioned whether there was a need for the education contributions and whether the local primary schools were full. The Planning Officer confirmed that she had challenged the need for education contributions, but now accepts that they are required.

In response to a member’s question, the Legal Services Manager clarified how the contributions had been calculated and confirmed that some items fell outside of CIL, such as the education and play provision contributions.

Mr T Griffiths clarified the reasons why the application had been submitted as a new application, rather than as an amendment and advised that he had not envisaged the additional educational contribution. He further advised that considerable contributions would still be made and that he considered this application to be a superior application.

The Planning Officer responded to questions from members.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application should be approved. However, no vote was taken.

The Legal Services Manager advised members that the application was recommended for refusal due to policy reasons and pointed out that the previous application was approved and that the applicant had a fall-back position. She further advised that the contribution requests were in line with normal standard policy requests, however noted that the request was submitted late. She suggested that negotiations could take place should the application be deferred.

The Planning Officer advised that the previous application could be amended as a section 73 application. However, the red line and number of houses would need to remain the same. Additional dwellings outside of the red line would need to be dealt with by separate applications. 

It was suggested by one member that the application be deferred to allow further negotiations to take place.

It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for one month to allow further comment from the SCC Education Department, ideally with a representative from SCC Education to attend the next meeting and to resolve the issues over the contributions which have been requested.

The Area Lead Officer pointed out that the report deadline for the next meeting was a week earlier than normal and advised that meeting the report deadline for the December agenda would be difficult.

The Chairman advised that the application could be referred to the Regulation Committee.

On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 8 votes in support and 1 against.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/02045/FUL be deferred to the December meeting of Area East Committee to allow further comment from the SCC Education Department, ideally with a representative from SCC Education to attend the next meeting and to resolve the issues over the contributions which have been requested.

(voting: 8 in support, 1 against)