Agenda item

The Committee considered the Chief Planner’s reports on the following planning applications:

At a Plans Sub-Committee meeting held on 17 March 2011, the above application was deferred on the grounds of layout and design and to seek further information regarding financial viability.  Following negotiations, the applicant had offered a payment in lieu of £175,000 for affordable housing.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the agent acting on behalf of the applicant.

The site had stood vacant for many years and had been marketed for some time.  The applicants had sought to acquire the site in 2010.

In response to a question as to why affordable housing could not be provided, Members were informed that issues of contamination had been identified during the viability assessment.  The assessors had therefore concluded that on-site provision of affordable housing was less beneficial than payment in lieu.  The site did have an alternative use value should the current application be refused. 

Education and PCT payments had been modelled into a separate viability appraisal.

Members requested that the Section 106 agreement be formulated to reflect changes in the economy, and for the applicant to undertake an 'open book' approach throughout the development process to enable the Council to monitor viability during 'peaks and troughs' in the economy. 

A late letter of objection had been received from the residents of 25 Chalk Pit Avenue who were frustrated at not being notified of the application. The Chief Planner responded that residents in Andrew’s Close and those in accommodation leading up to Main Road had been informed and that a press notice and site notice had been also issued.  The application had therefore been properly advertised.  Unfortunately it was not possible to notify all residents in the surrounding areas.

The late objections also referred to issues which had previously been considered at the Plans Sub-Committee meeting held on 17 March 2011.

Comments from Ward Members, Councillors McBride and Fortune, in support of the application had been received.  Councillor McBride referred to the site's history of nuisance and commented that the site was often used as a dumping ground, causing problems for nearby residents.  He considered that the proposed development would improve and secure the site.  Councillor McBride was in favour of accepting the payment in lieu of affordable housing.

Councillor Fortune fully endorsed Councillor McBride's statement.

Councillor Ince accepted in principle that affordable housing was not appropriate for the site, but commented that there were sufficient affordable housing sites within the vicinity of the proposed development.

Councillor Ince moved that permission be granted.  Councillor Fawthrop seconded the motion subject to cascading arrangements on viability being incorporated into the Section 106 Agreement, and that the applicant comply with an 'open book' approach throughout the development process.

The Chief Planner circulated a layout of the proposed development and confirmed that the vast majority of gardens would be in excess of 10 metres except those situated on a curve which would be slightly less than 10 metres.

Councillor Fawthrop requested that staged payments be made a condition of the Section 106 Agreement.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO A SECTION 106 LEGAL AGREEMENT TO SECURE PAYMENT IN LIEU FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING as recommended, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner with the following to be incorporated into the Section 106 Agreement:-

1)  payments to be made in stages;

2)  payment linked to economic climate.

At a Plans Sub-Committee meeting held on 31 March 2011, the above application was deferred to be considered at Development Control Committee in conjunction with the previous application outlined above.  A street scene elevational drawing had also been requested and had since been received.

Comments from Ward Members, Councillors McBride and Fortune, in support of the application had been received.  Councillor McBride referred to the site's history of nuisance and commented that the site was often used as a dumping ground, causing problems for nearby residents.  He considered that the proposed development would improve and secure the site. 

Councillor Fortune fully endorsed Councillor McBride's statement.

Councillor Buttinger requested that a further condition be included to require the applicants to provide details of the type of surfacing material to be used for the hardstanding situated at the front of the houses.

The Chief Planner informed Members that several gardens would be less than 10 metres in depth due to access arrangements being gained via the rear of two properties and to the side of one property.

Councillor Fawthrop considered the off-street parking provision to be insufficient, particularly as the site was situated in an area with low public transport accessibility levels. 

Councillor Fawthrop moved that the application be deferred to negotiate a reduction in the number of units in order to incorporate additional off-street parking facilities.

Councillor Mrs Manning noted that landscaping had not been mentioned within the report and requested that the provision of landscaping be negotiated with the applicant.

Councillor Jackson seconded the motion for deferral.

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED without prejudice to any future consideration to address issues concerning off-street parking, landscaping and density and for the application to be submitted to a future meeting of either Plans Sub-Committee 2 or 4.