Agenda item

Section 73 planning application for the variation of Condition 2 (plans and specifications) and Condition 41 (occupancy) attached to planning permission HGY/2013/2379 and an application for a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 Legal Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to the variation of the terms of the original section 106 Legal Agreement

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the variation of Condition 2 (plans and specifications) and Condition 41 (occupancy) attached to planning permission HGY/2013/2379 and an application for a Deed of Variation to the s106 Legal Agreement. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions and subject to the variation of the terms of the original section 106 Legal Agreement.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The attention of the Committee was drawn to a tabled addendum setting out an amendment to condition 1.

An objector addressed the Committee and expressed concern over the proposal to remove the over 55 age restriction to four of the communal housing units, undermining one of the key features of the original scheme. It was considered that the applicant had not made sufficient justification for this change, leading to concern it related solely to the sale price achievable for these units.

A representative for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The application sought constituted only a minor variation when set against the scale and complexity of the scheme.

·         Proposed changes to Roseneath and Norton Lees buildings had arisen as the building design process progressed and aimed to improve their design and character.

·         The scheme would remain tenure blind despite proposals for the relocation of 4 affordable housing units to improve their management regime. Affordable housing would remain distributed across the site.

·         Changes were sought to current restrictions on the occupation of any market housing until such time as all the affordable housing units were ready for occupation. The application sought to relax this restriction in order to permit occupation linked to completion of the affordable housing units in blocks WB1-3 in order to improve management of the site and cash flow from sales receipts. No amendment would be made to the number of affordable units or delivery timescales.

·         Proposed removal of the over 55 age restriction was sought to only 4 units within one block, primarily from concerns about suitability due to location within a three storey terrace building. The units in questions would not be re-categorised as open sale housing units and as such, the applicant would make no financial gain from this change.

The legal officer outlined rewording required to the recommendation set out at point 2.1 within the report. The recommendation to the Committee should be to approve the application subject to a s106 including Heads of Terms as set out on pages 137-138 of the report, plus approval of the proposed changes to the terms of the original s106 agreement attached to the original permission and which would carry forward to the current consent. The Committee noted the amended recommendation.   

The Committee sought clarification on the objection made by the Council’s Housing Service during the consultation and whether this supported the concerns that the application would result in a reduction in the pepperpotting of affordable housing across the scheme. Officers explained that the objection from the Housing Service was to changes sought to restrictions on the occupation of the market units and not to the relocation of 4 affordable housing units. Planning officers considered proposed changes to the restrictions on occupation to be acceptable to permit the release of funds to allow the scheme to progress. The applicant also affirmed that although permission was being sought for a minor shift in location of a small number of affordable units, they would still remain spread across the site, with the scheme remaining tenure blind and mixed community. The Head of Development Management identified that the current compromise position reached on the 4 units arose from management issues raised by the applicant due to the pepperpotting of affordable housing under the approved scheme. The Committee sought further clarification from the applicant on why issues with the originally approved pepperpotting scheme had not been raised earlier. It was advised that the issue had arisen as the scheme developed and discussions progressed with two prospective housing providers around the logistics of managing the affordable units and the benefits of locating the units closer together to help management and reduce costs. 

Cllr Bevan put forward a motion, seconded by Cllr Weston, to reject the proposed changes under the application to the location of a number of the affordable housing units to allow implementation of the original scheme and thereby retain full pepperpotting as originally approved.

The legal officer advised that the grounds for the rejection of the application set out by Cllr Bevan by virtue of refusal to vary the terms of the original s106 agreement would need to be clearly set out for clarity before any vote on the motion.

The Chair invited Cllr Bevan to reword his motion in the interests of clarity. Cllr Bevan put forward a revised motion to reject the application on the grounds of social inclusion and community cohesion. Cllr Weston seconded the motion. At a vote, the motion was carried and it was

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2015/2344 be refused on the grounds of social inclusion and social cohesion.