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.

 

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; drainage and water management considerations, the means of landscaping, screening the development’s setting within that part of Swanage. 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, this had been corroborated by the District Valuer in their independent assessment of the viability of the scheme.

 

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.”

 

Given all the evidence provided ad in taking into consideration the assessment made by the District Valuer, officers were satisfied that the reasons for the removal of this obligation had been met and this formed that 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. 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.

 

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

 

Officers addressed the questions raised – and what clarification was needed - providing what they considered to be satisfactory answers, which the Committee understood to be, and saw, as generally acceptable.

 

From debate, the majority of the Committee 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 unconvinced at the assessment made that if the affordable housing element obligation was maintained the development would no longer be viable. Memebers 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. Some members considered that the original obligation should be maintained, and that not flexibility should be given to this, insisting that the provision of this obligation should be upheld, in so far that Councillor David Tooke proposed and Councillor Alex Brenton seconded that the application being made should be refused. A vote was taken to refuse the application on that basis, but this vote was lost.

 

A proposal was then made by the Chairman that consideration of the application be deferred to allow further negotiations on the viability of the scheme with the applicant, to include an assessment of land values and building costs. This would give members a better understanding of the grounds for consideration of the application and could well achieve some means for the obligation to be maintained, at least to some extent, that was in the interests of and to the satisfaction of all. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Robin Cook.

 

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

understanding - as best they were able - 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 Toni Coombs and seconded by Councillor Robin Cook, on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed – by a majority of 5:4, with one abstention - to be ‘minded to’ defer further consideration of the application to allow further negotiations on the viability of the scheme with the applicant, to include an assessment of land values and building costs.

 

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 deferred to allow further negotiations on the viability of the scheme with the applicant, to include an assessment of land values and building costs.