Agenda item

Luton and Wayfield

Construction of 131 residential dwellings with associated parking and landscaping works. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and suggested that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, proposed condition 23 be deleted as it replicated proposed condition 11. He also suggested that proposed condition 26 be amended to read as follows:

26.       Within 3 months from the date of the commencement of the development hereby permitted details of an external lighting scheme for the site comprising street lighting, lighting arrangement for the car park courts areas, including its height, position, external appearance, any shielding, light intensity and spillage (such as light contour or lux level plans showing the existing and proposed levels), together with a report to demonstrate its effect on nearby residential properties and how this effect has been minimised shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved lighting shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the dwelling houses associated with each car parking court area and shall thereafter be retained.

Proposed conditions 24, 25 and 26 would then be re-numbered 23, 24 and 25 to reflect the deleted condition.

The Head of Planning drew attention to the proposed Section 106 agreement and explained that although there was not originally an intention for there to be a Section 106 agreement for this proposed development, following negotiations with all parties, the developer had agreed to a reduction in profit and both the landowner and the Council had agreed to a reduction in the sale price of the land. As a result it had been possible to reach agreement on a number of Section 106 contributions. Due to viability issues on this site, the development would not provide affordable housing numbers in compliance with Policy H3 of the Local Plan but would provide up to 10% which equated to 13 dwelling units. In compliance with a request from the Council’s housing section, all 13 units would be rented accommodation.

With the agreement of the Committee Councillor Osborne addressed this Committee as Ward Councillor and informed the Committee that he was supportive of the application for the following reasons:

·         The site was a brownfield site and had ceased to operate as a commercial golf course.

·         There is a need for housing to be provided in Medway and there was demand for housing in the local community.

·         Discussions on this planning application had taken place at 2 PACT meetings and he had canvassed views of local residents on the proposed application.

·         He was pleased to see the proposed Section 106 contributions and in particular contributions for local schools.

·         The level of affordable housing was considered low but was acceptable if this meant that the site could be developed.

·         The retention of the shrubbery and tree line was supported.

·         Parking concerns appeared to have been addressed.

The Committee discussed the application and a view was expressed that as this site had previously been a golf course, it was a greenfield site as opposed to a brownfield site.

Concern was expressed as to the level of proposed affordable housing and the precedent that could be set should the Council permit a developer to provide a level of affordable housing lower than 25%. This was the required level to comply with Policy H3 of the Local Plan. It was considered that unless there was significant evidence that the developer was required to meet extraordinary costs e.g. to remove contamination, there was no justification for a development of this nature proceeding with less than 25% affordable housing provision.

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that as part of their application, the applicant had supplied a viability statement which had been scrutinised by an external Consultant appointed by the Local Planning Authority. The Council’s Consultant had advised that a scheme delivering affordable housing at 10% (13 affordable rented flats for rent) and reduced contributions of £575,000 generated a residual land value equivalent to 100% of the Benchmark Land Value. This was the minimum level of land value that could be considered to be economically viable as required by the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Head of Planning explained the consequences should the Committee decide to refuse the planning application and if the applicant decided to go to appeal.

Decision: 

Consideration of the application be deferred to enable Officers to obtain further advice upon the viability of the land on the basis that the Committee wished to see an increased level of affordable housing provision.