Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

 

The Committee considered application SEC/2020/0001: to modify a Planning Obligation for planning permission 6/2018/0493 (Demolish temporary classrooms and outbuildings and convert existing remaining buildings to form 10 dwellings and erect 20 new dwellings with parking and landscaping, removal of existing raised water tank and to remove the requirement for affordable housing at the former St Marys School, Manor Road, Swanage.

 

Consideration of the application had been deferred by Committee at their meeting on 5 January 2022 to allow further negotiations on the viability of the scheme with the applicant, to include an assessment of land values and building costs. This was designed to give members a better understanding of the grounds for consideration of the application and so that some means could be achieved for the obligation to be maintained, at least to some extent, that was in the interests of and to the satisfaction of all. Modifications to the report presented to Committee on 5 January were highlighted in bold in the report.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, and taking account the detail in the report, officers provided context of what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the application were; how these were to be progressed; and what this entailed.

 

For context, plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location, orientation, dimensions and appearance of the development and of the individual properties; access and highway considerations; the characteristics and topography of the site and views into the site and around it; environmental designation considerations; what groundworks would be necessary in managing this “brownfield” site to an acceptable standard for development; drainage and water management considerations; the means of landscaping and screening; the development’s setting within that part of Swanage and that it was sited within the Swanage Conservation Area and the Dorset AONB.

 

Critically the reasons why the applicant now considered to be unable to fulfil the originally planning obligations in providing 11 affordable housing elements were emphasised, all of which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.

 

The basis for the application was explained by officers in that the applicant did not now consider able to fulfil the original planning obligations – in providing affordable housing on as part of the development - given their assessment of commitments required to deliver the development. Given this, they maintained that the scheme would not be viable should this obligation be retained. Based on the evidence provided by the applicant - which had been corroborated by the District Valuer in their independent assessment of the viability of the scheme – the application had been submitted.

 

For members understanding officers set out the particular reason for the application in that:-

 

“The applicant had applied to remove the S106 legal agreement that required the provision of 11 affordable housing units as part of the development. In this instance, Policy AH of the Purbeck Local Plan allowed for development of 100% open market housing where it could be satisfactorily demonstrated that a scheme with affordable housing was not viable. Therefore, if the viability argument was satisfied, the S106 agreement could be removed without resulting in the approved scheme being contrary to the Development Plan.”

 

The applicant contended that on the basis of the significant increase in CIL charges and the abnormal costs associated with developing the site, along with the high Existing and Alternative Land Use Values, the proposal was no longer viable if the requirement to provide affordable housing remained. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) definition of abnormal costs was considered by the District Valuer to apply in this case as a basis for the application.

 

Subsequent to the deferral of this application by Committee, the applicant had submitted an additional supporting statement that sought to clarify matters raised during that committee meeting, these being:

• site ownership – the applicant confirmed that since the application was submitted, they had purchased the site. Therefore there was no prospect for further negotiation on the price to be paid to purchase the land.

• the applicant confirmed that on other developments they had provided affordable housing where it was possible to do so.

• the applicant advised that banks would not finance a development with a profit of less than 15% Gross Development Value (GDV). While private lending could be attained when a lower profit margin was expected, it tended to attract higher interest rates which would render the development unviable.

• the applicant considered that the proposal was compliant with Policy AH of the Purbeck Local Plan Part 1 and paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

• the applicant submitted the requirement viability assessment for consideration by the District Valuation Service (DVS) on behalf of the Council.

• the applicant noted that the Dorset Council Constitution stated that a role of Members is “To receive appropriate professional advice from officers and to have that advice recorded, so that all Members are fully aware of the implications of their decisions and have the assurance that their decisions comply with the law”. (Paragraph 1.3 (c). Members and Officer Protocol).

• the applicant stated that members were asked to accept the professional recommendation provided by their own expert and independent consultant that the conclusion of the appraisal was sound.

 

Given all the evidence provided; in taking into consideration the assessment made by the District Valuer; and that further discussions had taken place with the applicant as to whether there were opportunities to improve the viability of the scheme, with none being identified, officers were satisfied that the reasons for the removal of this obligation had been met – in that it had been demonstrated that the proposed development was not viable if affordable housing was required -

and this formed the basis of their recommendation to Committee.

 

The Committee were notified of written submissions and officers read these direct to the Committee – being appended to these minutes. Having heard what was said, officers responded to some of the pertinent issues raised, being confident that each one could be addressed by the provisions of the application.

 

One of the two Local Ward members, Councillor Bill Trite, spoke as a local member only. He was concerned that the element of affordable housing was being asked to be removed as there was a critical need for this within Swanage. He remained sceptical as to the applicant’s intentions and could not see any good reason why the applicant was asking for this to be removed now, given what should have been known about the site previously and what might well have been anticipated. The other local Member, Councillor Gary Suttle, was of this view too.

 

Formal consultation had seen an objection from Swanage Town Council, and numerous public objections received expressed concern at the removal of the obligation, considering there to be a real need for affordable housing in Swanage - especially that young, local families would not now have the opportunity to access this provision.

 

The opportunity was then given for members to ask questions of the presentation and what they had heard, in seeking clarification of aspects so

as to have a better understanding in coming to a decision.

 

Some important points raised, some of which they considered still required clarification, were:-

•    what assessment had been made on how viable the scheme would be - both with and without the affordable housing element

•    concern that the applicant was not now being able to fulfil that obligation and why this was the case

·        what costs there were associated with affordability

·        how abnormal costs had been defined, determined and applied as the basis for this application

·        what profits would be made and how were profit margins assessed in determining what was and was not viable

·        what the practicalities of developing this brownfield site had been identified

·        what issues could have been reasonably known by the applicant at the time of the original application being submitted and what issues had been identified subsequently.

 

Officers addressed the questions raised – and what clarification was needed - providing what they considered to be satisfactory answers, reiterating that the investigations undertaken had come to this conclusion. Officers confirmed that, where appropriate, they had challenged the District Valuer’s assessment, with there being evidence that the District Valuer had modified his assessment as and where necessary. Moreover, the District Valuer had assessed various permutations of what level of affordable housing might be able to be achieved to make the development viable, but had be unable to identify any such circumstances in which this might be the case.

 

This clarification was generally accepted by the Committee, albeit with some scepticism remaining: on what was known, or should have been known or anticipated by the applicant when their original application was submitted.

 

From debate, the majority of the Committee still had serious misgivings about the removal of the obligation given that, in their opinion, all the reasons being used to apply for this would have been readily known at the time the application was approved. Despite the evidence provided by the applicant and corroborated by the District Valuer, members were sceptical at the assessment made that if the affordable housing element obligation was maintained, the development would no longer be viable. Members considered that every opportunity should be given to identifying some means that the affordable housing – or a proportion thereof – could be retained and hoped that there could be some means to still achieve this.

 

As at the previous meeting some members considered that the original obligation should be maintained, and that no flexibility should be given to this, insisting that the provision of this obligation should be upheld.

 

However the majority of members now understood more readily that, given the evidence provided, the District Valuer’s assessment and the efforts made by officers to find some satisfactory solution, there appeared to be little scope other than to approve the application for the reasons in the officer’s report and presentation. However, they asked that consideration be given to including a clause in any grant of permission, that at an appropriate stage in the development – to be determined - a reassessment of viability be made to determine whether an affordable housing contribution could, or indeed, should be made.

 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an

understanding of all this entailed; having taken into account the officer’s report and presentation; the written representations; and what they had heard at the meeting, in being proposed by Councillor Shane Bartlett and seconded by Councillor John Worth, on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed – by a majority of 7:2 - to be ‘minded to’ grant the application, subject to the inclusion of the relevant clause.

 

The Head of Planning, having considered the representations and the officer’s presentation and having taken into account the views of the committee, made the following decision under delegated authority.

 

Decision of the Head of Planning: That the application be granted in that the S106 Legal agreement be modified to remove the affordable housing requirement and subject to the inclusion of the clause: on condition that a further viability assessment be undertaken during the course of the development at a time to be determined by legal negotiation. If that viability review showed an improvement in the financial viability of the site, then a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing would be required.