Agenda item

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 18/00833/FULD. David Pearson reported that the item was on the agenda as an item for decision only, in respect of a proposed change to the affordable housing provision agreed by Members when resolving to approve the application subject to the completion of a s106 agreement at the Committee on the 25^th July 2018.

Members had received further information on viability on the 6^th November 2018 and it was for Members to decide whether they had received adequate time to consider the information.

Information had been re-submitted to the consultant and the conclusion reached was that there was only a case for two affordable units. Therefore if Members were minded to approve the item, two units of affordable housing would be provided.

This proposal had been given to the Housing Department for consideration and they were satisfied with the changes. The adjustment was compliant with advice and a viability assessment. Therefore it was recommended that the revised offer in respect of Affordable Housing was accepted and the requirements of the s106 amended to reflect the change.

Ward Member Representation

·         Councillor Quentin Webb felt that the first questions to ask was whether Members should proceed and he was minded that they should. Councillor Webb advised that Hermitage Parish Council had queried why they had not been notified of the item and he confirmed that the reason for this was because the item was not a planning application

·         Hermitage Parish Council had put forward an initial acceptance that two units of Affordable Housing would be beneficial to the village.

·         There were no material changes proposed to the application and therefore in planning terms, Councillor Webb could not see why Members should not accept the adjustment.

·         The Chairman, also as Ward Member, stated that there would be no physical changes to the application and Members needed to consider how any changes adhered to policy.

Member Questions to Officers

Councillor Alan Law stated that Members had three choices, they could defer, approve or reject the item. Councillor Law asked if the item could be appealed if it was rejected. David Pearson stated that if Members were minded to refuse the item this would be based on the second resolution to refuse the application because the application failed to provide the Section 106 Planning Obligation on Affordable Housing. This could be appealed and David Pearson felt that it would difficult to defend at appeal.

Councillor Alan Macro raised a query regarding the non-residential part of the application as he had noted a discrepancy between the figures. Sian Cutts confirmed that all the figures, facts and calculations on the development had been forwarded to the consultant (Dickson and Searle) and they had assessed all calculations. The consultants had concluded that there had been some discrepancies in the way the viability information was originally assessed. The difference in viability was however, not large enough to provide a second unit and therefore alter the overall picture.

Councillor Graham Bridgman stated that he had been concerned regarding how late the information had been provided to Members however, on reflection did not feel it would serve Council Tax payers well to defer the application. There was also version two of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidance on such issues. Nothing about the application was changing apart from the number of affordable units and therefore Councillor Bridgman was happy to accept the Officer recommendation.

Councillor Emma Webster was also concerned regarding the lateness of information and whether members of the public would have had time to register concerns and appeal. Councillor Webster was also disappointed that planning training for Members that had taken place at the beginning of the week had not given greater attention to viability issues. However, Councillor Webb concurred with Councillor Bridgman regarding the costs that could be incurred if the item was deferred. The Chairman reiterated the point to Officers regarding late information to Members.

Councillor Bale asked if consideration had been given to what better suited the village of Hermitage. David Pearson stated that the Housing Department were satisfied regarding the adjusted number of units and their view was taken into account when assessing an area.

Debate

The Chairman asked Members if they were happy to proceed with making a decision and the general consensus was that they were. Councillor Bridgman proposed that Members accept the Officer recommendation to approve planning permission and this was seconded by Councillor Webb. The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Bridgman and seconded by Councillor Webb and at the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission following the completion of a S106 agreement by 7th January 2019 to secure affordable housing, subject to the conditions outlined in the committee report and update sheet, attached as Appendix 1.

OR

If a S106 legal agreement to secure affordable housing is not completed within the above specified time, to delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the reason listed below;

Refusal Reason

The application fails to provide a Section 106 Planning Obligation to deliver affordable housing, without which the proposal would be contrary to the NPPF, Policy CS6 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and the Planning Obligations SPD