Agenda item

Proposal: Outline application for residential development for 35 dwellings.

The Area Lead introduced the application, noting that it had been brought back to committee as there was a resolution several years previously to approve the application subject to Section 106 obligations. There had been slow progress regarding the legal agreement and the applicant had now come back saying the obligations along with increased build costs made the development unviable. The District Valuer had not initially agreed with the applicant and negotiations were commenced. The leisure obligations had been re-assessed due to a change in policy and the figure had subsequently reduced from that originally requested. The application was now returned for consideration with less financial obligations and less affordable housing which the Valuer considered to be viable.

He provided members with an update from the applicant, who highlighted that one of the increased costs was due to the requirement for an acoustic screen. He acknowledged that parish council had noted they had not been consulted regarding the changes, but this was normal in the circumstances where a Section 106 had not been signed and was then referred back to committee. He informed members that the application was back with members to be considered due to the revised obligations. It was noted that Martock Parish Council had submitted a letter referring to the reduction in affordable housing and it not being the council’s responsibility to provide for developer profits – and the comments were read to members. In response the Area Lead explained that an applicant was entitled to ask for reconsideration of obligations and the LPA could not ignore the viability of schemes.

The Area Lead then presented an overview of the application, and highlighted the key considerations. He noted the Committee had previously approved the application subject to the signing of a S.106 so now, in the absence of other changes in circumstance the committee were effectively only considering the viability.

Ms F Hook, spokesperson for Martock Parish Council, noted they were disappointed with the reduced level of affordable housing as it was needed locally. They felt the reduction was unacceptable and were worried it would set a precedent. She raised their concerns about the commercial viability of these developments, and noted as a parish council they firmly believed that their priority was to protect and provide for residents and not to increase the profits of other individuals.

Ms S Gardner, spoke on behalf of Unwin Safety Systems in objection to the application. She noted their location was the only place they could grow their business, and the current access to their site had already been the source of complaints with neighbouring residents. Security was paramount to the business and their cameras could have an impact on the privacy of new houses. The business was introducing new machinery on site, and at certain times of the year they were working more shifts.  She commented the acoustics report would have been done without some of the existing machinery in use, and she queried if it had been undertaken in a summer environment.

Ward member, Councillor Neil Bloomfield, commented that new housing next to an established use wouldn’t stop complaints by new residents. Referring to the viability of the application, he noted he had studied the figures in a confidential document and felt the predicted house sale prices indicated appeared to be very low. He noted when the application was first considered there were a number of objections. He felt if it was a new application we would not accept the provision of 4 affordable houses. He did not accept the viability case and did not support the application.

Ward member, Councillor Graham Middleton, noted building housing on the site ceased any opportunity to extend the business estate in the future, and Martock needed employment land. He objected to the proposal and felt the housing level was too dense for the site.

During a lengthy discussion varying comments were raised including:

·         How many members had seen the confidential calculations document referred to by the ward member?

·         A quite large buffer zone will be required next to industrial land, and don’t want to jeopardise an existing business.

·         Need more affordable homes for local people.

·         Approved back in 2013, it’s only the obligations that have changed.

·         As a point of principle - the make-up of the committee has changed since 2013, Parliament cannot bind its successors.

·         Need local employment and feel this development will be a barrier.

·         Unwins said last time that they wanted to expand.

·         Another major change since last considered is that Tesco has pulled out of coming to Martock.

·         If the site had permission, has it now lapsed?

·         There are too many anomalies with the application and it should be deferred.

·         Proposal should be refused due to changes in circumstances since last considered and the drop in contributions.

·         If Unwins are claiming they are making more noise now than previously, evidence of noise levels needs to be seen.

·         Need a confidential session with District Valuer.

·         Recent appeals have been dismissed, with one reason being cited as Martock is over the settlement figure in the Local Plan.

·         If new application we would accept 4 affordable homes and feel there are grounds to refuse the application.

The Area Lead and Senior Legal Executive responded to points raised during discussion and their advice included:

·         As members were considering the application for a second time, the first resolution was a material consideration of great weight.

·         Only the ward members had requested and been sent the confidential viability information.

·         The members on the committee may have changed but it is the same committee, Area North Committee, making the decision.

·         The fact obligations had reduced was not in itself a reason for refusal. However if it was felt that the applicant had unreasonable depressed obligations it could be looked at differently.

·         Leisure obligations have reduced as a result of a change in policy and not due to the applicant seeking a reduction in costs.

·         There is currently no planning permission on the site. Permission had not been issued as it was subject to the completion of a Section 106 which had not been completed.

·         Previous decision for approval in 2013 carried great weight.

·         If members were minded to refuse on the grounds of the reduction in obligations, there should be a reason why the reduction was considered to be unacceptable.

·         Grounds for refusal must be justified to avoid costs against the Council.

·         Improvements and pavements at the Coat Road junction had been a requirement of the Tesco application due to the potential number of users. The highway improvements had not been considered necessary for this application.

·         In terms of viability, if a new scheme had come forward with justification for only four affordable homes, it would probably still be recommended for approval.

·         The proposed development has been referred to as an acceptable scheme with a resolution to grant permission in a number of appeals.

During discussion two proposals were put forward, firstly for refusal and secondly for deferral of the application. The first proposal to refuse the application was seconded on the grounds that there had been changes in circumstances, number of dwellings being over the settlement figure in the Local Plan and the drop in obligations for affordable housing being unacceptable. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried 5 votes in favour of refusal, 4 against with 1 abstention.

(Voting: 5 in favour of refusal, 4 against, 1 abstention)