To consider a report by the Head of Planning.
Minutes:
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.
Supporting documents: