Agenda item

Application Proposal: Application to vary S106 agreement dated 31^st March 2017 between SSDC, Somerset County Council, Caroline Anne (otherwise Annie) Melville Boxall and Annie Margaret Nora Melville Elcomb (deceased) acting through Executors to vary affordable housing contributions

The Planning Officer presented his report to members. He advised that the application had been submitted retrospectively to vary the S106 which was agreed at the time of the outline approval.

He summarised that the agreed S106 specified that of the 35% affordable homes on the site, 80% should be social rent and only 20% intermediate housing. The variation was to amend the 35% affordable home to a 100% intermediate affordable type of housing or in this case ‘rent to buy’.

The Area Lead Planning Officer presented a timetime of events, which had led to this application, and the reasons why the application was now being considered retrospectively.

He explained that in2015, an outline application was submitted and was subsequently was approved in 2017 as a delegated decision. The permission was subject to a S106 agreement to secure 35% affordable homes.

In 2017, a reserved matters application was submitted and whilst being considered a deed of variation was submitted to the council to vary the S106 to allow all of the 35% affordable homes to be intermediate rent, or in this case ‘rent to buy’. This was agreed.

In 2018, the reserved matters application was approved, subject to a requirement to comply with the existing S106, additional conditions and a unilateral undertaking to cover the ongoing maintenance and management of the site.

The Area Lead Planning Officer advised members that the deed of variation should not have been agreed before the council had considered this DPO application. He explained that the proposed amendments met policy requirements and saw no reason why the DPO would not have been approved.  He advised that this agreement cannot be undone and advised that the application was essentially for information only.

Councillor Colin Winder, Ward Member, questioned the dates on which documents were received and signed by SSDC. He felt that the planning team had opportunities to consult the ward members, however they were not consulted. He further added that the District Valuer had not been consulted and was upset that he had not been involved as the Ward Member.

Councillor Nick Colbert, also Ward Member, agreed with the comments made by Councillor Winder. He explained that the application had been approved without roads that could be adopted by the county council and expressed his disappointment that the application was at committee for information only following an error.

The Lead Specialist explained how he thought the error may have occurred.

During the discussion, members discussed the site and the problems with the unadoptable roads, however the Lead Specialist advised that these issues had been dealt with in the unilateral undertaking agreement.

One member pointed out an error in the report. The Area Lead Planning Office agreed that Policy HG9 should read Policy HG3. For clarity, he tabled a copy of the full wording for HG3.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that members would note the report, but did not agree that the changes accorded with policy HG3 and supporting text of the South Somerset Local Plan.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 7 votes in support, 0 against with 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED:   that members noted the report but resolved not to agree that the changes accord with policy HG3 and supporting text of the South Somerset Local Plan.

(voting: 7 in support, 0 against and 2 abstentions)