Agenda item

Description of application - Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to remove condition 3 (scheme to be submitted for the provision of affordable housing) of permission ref. 19/01543/FULL1 for residential development comprising erection of 6 x four storey buildings consisting of 10 four bedroom houses and 133 x one, two and three bedroom apartments together with concierges office. Construction of basement car park with 204 spaces. Central landscaped area with 10 visitor spaces cycle parking for 286 and refuse stores.

Oral representations from the applicant’s agent in support of the application included the following points:-

·  The assessment of financial viability was a complex process and the Council’s officers had confirmed in the report that the development was currently unviable.

·  A late stage viability review may still result in no payment to the Council.  As a solution, the applicant was willing to make an immediate payment of £345k to the Council in lieu of the provision of affordable housing.

·  This offer had come about due to a lower Mayoral CIL figure being required than was initially anticipated, which had resulted in the release of some additional funds.

In response to Member questions, the  agent reported that:-

·  The payment of £345k was being made to avoid the uncertainty that would result from a late stage review and uncertainty was something that funding institutions were wary of.

·  Monies received from the Funding Institute would enable construction to take place.

·  While the scheme was making a profit, it was at a significantly reduced level and one which proved unviable for the provision of affordable housing.

·  If permitted, the developer was ready to begin work in the New Year which would take approximately 24-30 months to complete.

·  No details of professional fees were currently to hand but these were the industry norms which included lawyers, estate agents, consultants’ fees, etc. as set by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and agreed as part of the viability guidance.

·  In regard to a late stage review, advice had been sought from David Elvin QC who suggested that it might not be possible to produce a satisfactory and lawful review mechanism in relation to affordable housing. The Draft London Plan policy could not be imposed as it conflicted with the current London Plan and there was no policy or legal basis for it to be required at the moment.

The Principal Planner confirmed the scheme was currently unviable and reported that the development would generate a deficit of £1,117,953 as shown in Table 1 on pages 342-343.

Furthermore, there had been no discussion during the application process as to how the figure of £345k in lieu of affordable housing had been arrived at (as set out in paragraph 6.64 of the report). The scheme was still unviable even when taking into account the Mayoral CIL figure which both parties had agreed on and as shown in Table 1.

Councillor Dean moved that Condition 3 be removed without the need for a late review as it was likely the Planning Inspector would find in favour of the applicant at appeal, leaving the Council liable to pay compensation. The scheme would deliver much-needed housing and the offer of £345k from the applicant was better than nothing. Councillor Harris seconded the motion, stating that the development would be ideal for the local older generation who wished to downsize and remain in the area.

Councillor Fawthrop moved that the application be approved as recommended, stating that the Draft London Plan must carry more weight now than it did in 2018.  While the non-viability status was currently accepted, a late review should be undertaken when 75% of the development had been built.  The Chairman seconded the motion.

Councillors Allen and Brooks supported the motion.  Affordable housing was needed and there was every chance that a late review could have a positive outcome.

Councillor Bear considered the £345k offered by the applicant would build nowhere near the 40+ affordable housing originally proposed in the application.

Having considered the report, objections and representations, Members RESOLVED that APPROVAL BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Assistant Director, Planning to include the undertaking of a late stage review.