Agenda item

The representative of the Service Manager – Development Manager made the following comments:

·        The Officer outlined the development to committee drawing attention to its location on the unusual site of a former reservoir.

·        The proposed self-build development would provide 33 units/12 flats; community garden; 33 parking spaces; 27 trees would replace the 8 being removed;

·        The consultation resulted in 62 comments in support and the 6 objections were concerned about the impact of the development to the local highway.

·        The scheme was fairly unique in that it was a self-build scheme delivering no affordable housing and the requirement to do so would only be attached if the scheme was then sold on.

·        Officers recommended approval of the application.

Councillors question of clarification

·        Jim Cliffe , the Planning Obligations Manager, fielded the questions arising around the Affordable element of a  self-build development.

·        He commented as follows;

o   Self-build schemes operate very differently from mainstream housing schemes built by a commercial housebuilder. The build costs could vary significantly from plot to plot and the end value of the properties could also vary significantly depending on the individuality of each self-builders requirements. This makes viability testing very difficult as there are a large number of unknowns. For the purposes of the viability testing it is assumed that the construction of the properties will be undertaken by builders commissioned by the self-builder, and the end values are reflective of current new build values achieved by commercial housebuilders in the area.

o   The scheme also contains elements (such as a communal building) that a commercial housebuilder would not include within a development, which further increases costs.

o   What makes self-build property more affordable to the self-builder is that they are not having to pay a developers profit.

·        An individual purchases a plot to build a house; the construction of the building can happen over a prolonged period of time; the plot could be a shell that the purchaser completes within their own timeframe.

·        The design plan incorporated underground parking including 3 spaces for guest at the entrance to the site.

·          Following a question from Cllr Denyer, it was clarified that if the scheme was sold to a housing developer and it ceased to be a self-build development; 30% affordable housing would be required, and this would be secured via a planning condition or obligation. The right of way on the plans were reviewed and a further explanation provided that Park services had requested an improvement to the footpath and this would be finalised during the planning  process

·        A question was posed on whether self-build building cost were above the normal cost to build a house.    Members were informed that it would very much depend on the approach that the self-builder took. If the self-builder literally built the property themselves, then their only costs would be for materials, and in this case the costs would be likely to be lower than the costs that a housing developer would incur. However, if the self-builder commissioned someone to build the property for them, then the costs would be likely to be higher than the costs that a housing developer would incur. For the purposes of the viability assessment, it was assumed that the self-builders commissioned the construction of their property.

Councillor’s debate:

·        Members of committee were supportive of a self-build scheme of this size; had positive comments on the design and the innovative underground car park.

·        The Chair moved to approve and Cllr F Breckels seconded

Resolved (10 for approval, unanimous) that the application be approved subject to conditions.