Agenda item

Proposal

Erection of 45 apartments in 2 blocks, including associated semi-basement parking, amenity space, landscaping and new access (as amended by plans received 03/11/17 and 25/04/2018 as amplified by additional information received 11/10/17 31/10/17, 03/11/17, 02/02/18, 12/02/18, 14/03/18).

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION A

That, subject to the applicant entering into appropriate legal agreement within 6 months of the date of the committee resolution to grant planning permission to secure contributions towards education, recycling provision, off-site play area and playing pitch improvements, mitigation for the impact on the SPA, off-site highways improvements and on-site SuDS and open space management/maintenance and subject to conditions and informatives, permission be GRANTED.

RECOMMEDATION B

That, in the event that the requirements of Recommendation A are not met, that permission be REFUSED.

Proposed development

Erection of 45 apartments in 2 blocks, including associated semi-basement parking, amenity space, landscaping and new access (as amended by plans received 03/11/17 and 25/04/2018 as amplified by additional information received 11/10/17 31/10/17, 03/11/17, 02/02/18, 12/02/18, 14/03/18). 

With reference to the report circulated with the agenda, Officers presented a summary of the planning context for making a decision on the application, and the proposed development including site plans and the layout. Officers outlined the determining issues and those matters of a more subjective nature.

Officers advised that since the publication of the report they had received a response from the Council’s Independent Viability Consultant on the exempt viability report and questions submitted before the meeting. In conclusion, the Council’s Viability Consultant had responded that the build costs had now been verified by independent Quality Surveyor and that they had concluded that they were fair and reasonable. The scheme would not be viable with any affordable housing on site. A scheme of 100% open market housing only showed a small residual land value and would only be viable for the developer and land owner if a reduced profit was applied.

Public speaking

In accordance with the Council’s arrangements for public participation at meetings, the following made representations in respect of the application, which were duly considered:

David Butcher - Applicant/Agent

Debate

The Committee considered the application and a number of comments were raised about the lack of provision of affordable housing. In light of the further responses from the Council’s Viability Consultant, Officers advised that they remained satisfied that the assumptions and inputs used in appraising the financial viability of the proposed development were fair and reasonable and that a scheme providing any affordable housing would not be viable.  An objection to the application in relation to the absence of any affordable housing provision on the site would therefore not be justifiable in this particular instance.

A question was asked about the provision of electric charge points. Officers advised that the policy guidance was to provide 20% but they would seek to ask for as many as possible. Further comments were raised regarding affordable housing but Members did feel that it was a good scheme and although they could of provided more car parking spaces, they were generally in support of what was proposed.  

Moving to the recommendation, Recommendation A there were 14 in favour, 5 against and 1 abstention. Recommendation B there were 20 Councillors in favour.

Decisions

Decision A

That subject to the applicant entering into appropriate legal agreement within 6 months of the date of the committee resolution to grant planning permission to secure contributions towards education, recycling provision, off-site play area and playing pitch improvements, mitigation for the impact on the SPA, off-site highways improvements and on-site SuDS and open space management/maintenance and subject to conditions and informatives, permission be GRANTED, subject to amended Condition 1 in the update sheet.

Decision B

That in the event that the requirements of Recommendation A are not met, that permission be refused.