Agenda item

Chatham Central

Construction of residential development comprising six 3 x bedroom houses and six 1 x bedroom and twelve 2 x bedroom apartments - resubmission of MC/17/4420. 

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and reminded the Committee that planning permission had previously been granted for residential development comprising 8 houses and 16 apartments at this site.

He advised that the Redvers Centre had now been demolished and the site had been sold. The new owners of the site had submitted a revised planning application for the construction of 6 x three bedroomed houses and 6 x one bedroomed and 12 x two bedroomed apartments.

He advised that the Planning Agent had written to all Members of the Planning Committee to address issues raised on the committee report and a copy of the letter had been appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Head of Planning informed the Committee that officers were recommending that the current planning application be refused and he referred to the two grounds for refusal and suggested that the Committee consider each separately. He then outlined the basis for refusing the application on the ground that the proposed layout provided a street scene which would be dominated by car parking for the flats and would not result in an improvement to the local environment.

Martin Aust, Viability Consultant, then advised upon the proposed ground for refusing the planning application relating to financial viability. He outlined the background to the financial discussions that had taken place with the applicant’s Viability Adviser and advised upon the areas of disagreement between the two parties. He informed the Committee that the difference between the applicant’s contention that the scheme was not viable and the Council’s independent assessment was based solely upon the development period and subsequent calculation of development interest as advised by the applicant’s Viability Adviser. The difference of approach in the calculation of this assumption alone still rendered the project viable with policy compliant Section 106 contributions being made. The applicant’s adviser had confirmed acceptance of the Benchmark Land Value whilst noting it departed from the reality of an acquisition price necessary in the market.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Shaw addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and outlined the concerns of Ward Councillors and residents as follows:

·         The impact on parking.

·         The closeness of the development to neighbours and Glencoe Junior School.

·         The lack of agreed Section 106 contributions having regard to the impact this development would have upon the local community.

Councillor Shaw requested that the Committee either defer the planning application to enable further discussions to take place with the applicant on the Section 106 contributions or refuse the application.

The Committee discussed the application and whilst there was a general consensus that the revised application did not have a detrimental effect upon the street scene and therefore proposed refusal ground 1 was not supported, Members felt strongly that the applicant’s argument against paying the requested Section 106 contributions was not acceptable.

The Committee debated whether to refuse the planning application on proposed refusal ground 2 as set out within the report or whether to defer determination of the planning application to enable further discussions to take place with the applicant.

Martin Aust, Viability Consultant informed the Committee that to date, his discussions had only involved the applicant’s viability consultant and therefore he was unable to advise as to whether the applicant would be prepared to reconsider the issue of Section 106 contributions.

Decision: 

Whilst the Committee is minded to support the design of the revised planning application, the Committee is strongly of the view that the full policy compliant Section 106 contributions should be payable for the scheme to proceed. Therefore, it was agreed that determination of the planning application be deferred for further negotiation with the applicant on the Section 106 contributions with a view to the application being resubmitted to the Committee at its next meeting on 13 February 2019.