Agenda item

An Amendment Sheet was provided to the committee in advance of the meeting, detailing changes since the publication of the original report.

            The representative of the Service Director – Planning and Development made the following points by way of introduction:-

            1. There were two applications before members – one for planning permission for redevelopment of the hospital to provide predominantly residential development and for Listed Building Consent as a number of the buildings were Grade II listed;

            2. The key issue of affordable housing has been the subject of intense negotiations. The Council’s independent viability consultant has advised the site could deliver 37 units. After originally proposing zero affordable housing, the applicant maintained for some time they could only deliver 17, recently this has been increased to 20 units;

            3. Officers had liaised with Housing Delivery colleagues and the Homes and Communities             Agency (HCA) and have found that, with grant support, the development was likely to deliver 100 units. The Affordable Housing Development Manager was present to respond to questions;

            4. It was necessary to draw a distinction between the 20 guaranteed units which could be secured through the planning process and the 80 additional units which were outside the planning process and could not be secured by a s106 agreement:

            5. This scheme had been four years in development and officers now felt it was worthy of      support.

            The following points arose from discussion:-

            1. A Car Club Condition had been omitted from the report;

            2. Councillor Denyer understood that it was not possible to secure the 100 units through the planning process but asked whether the 41 units that could be secured through a Section 106 Agreement could be conditioned, thus leaving 59 to be secured outside of the planning process. She was informed that this was technically possible thus leaving the shortfall from             grant funded to a negotiated one. The key issue was whether agreement would ever be reached on that point as negotiations with the applicant had already been carried out over a long period. The Affordable Housing Development Manager added that grant funded affordable housing was a major step. The HCA and Council shared ownership but it was funded by the HCA;

            3. Some of the affordable units were flats but there was a mix of dwelling types and were spread throughout the development in order to ensure tenure blindness. Some of these would be first to be delivered on site too so affordable units were spread across the site and the build       programme;

            4. Councillor Breckels expressed concern that insisting on more units through S106 would jeopardise the current agreement and asked how secure the grant funding was. The Affordable Housing Development Manager replied that the HCA had already made available funding for Galliford Try to draw down. 12 units had been secured through the HCA as shared ownership for rental. Subject to planning permission today, Sovereign would apply to the Council for funding for a further 60 affordable units. The Strategic Director for Neighbourhoods in liaison with the Cabinet Member for housing could approve a decision by August. The representative of the Service Director – Planning and Development added that the correspondence with the HCA was detailed in the Amendment Sheet. He confirmed that 72 units were HCA funded, Galliford Try would apply for the extra 8. It was necessary for the Committee to determine what weight it gave to the grant funding and the likeliness of it coming forward. The 72 units were more probable than the 8;

            5. The Chair noted that the 12 month permission condition which had been negotiated and demonstrated the applicant’s commitment delivery utilising grant funding;

            6. It was noted that no final agreement had been reached with the Council and applicants regarding viability. The Planning Obligations Manager replied this was a failure to reach agreement on the sales values and build costs of houses on the Laundry Fields. The applicant believed these were BCIS medium quartile and the Council’s consultant believed they were at the lower quartile. This difference was £1.5m and could have provided 41 units at the lower cost. This was not resolved despite much negotiation. HCA funded schemes could not be the subject of a viability review;

            7. Councillor Eddy observed that this was an unusual affordable housing solution. He was reassured by the 1 year permission and sought confirmation that it was not possible to attach a higher planning condition to secure the affordable units and was informed that this was not possible. It was not easy to persuade developers to agree to sell units to housing associations so where there was an opportunity it should be taken;

            8. Councillor Mead asked if reference could be made to mitigation for Bee populations and was             informed that this could be added to Condition 21 – Landscape and Nature Conservation             Management Plan;

            9. Councillor Denyer was reassured that there would be 100 affordable units and that there was a strong chance of success of delivering these. She was minded to accept the recommendations but remained unsure of whether the 100 units would be provided through grant funding or whether to propose a condition to secure 41 units through a S106           agreement. The representative of the Service Director – Planning and Development replied that to seek to impose a number was unlikely to be successful. The viability had been in discussion for some time now without agreement. Galliford Try, the Council, Sovereign and the HCA would work in partnership to provide the grant funded 80 units;

            10. Councillor Breckels, having heard the discussion and noting that government policy was stacked against affordable housing, believed the grant funding should be supported. If successful it offered a new method of enabling affordable housing. He asked that the Committee be kept informed of progress;

            11. Councillor Eddy supported the officer recommendations, stating that it was a great scheme providing 350 homes and promising 100 of affordable units. It was a difficult site and had been imaginatively designed;

            12. Councillor Bradley endorsed the previous comments. She was pleased there was a one-year             permission so that quick progress could be made;

            13. Councillor Davies believed that the public purse should not have to fund the units and that the 41 units considered viable should be funded through a S106 agreement;

            14. Councillor Mead moved the officer recommendations along with the amendments as set out in the Amendment Sheet, a Car Club Condition and a reference to Bees to Condition 21. This was seconded by Councillor Eddy.

            15. The Chair asked that a progress report come to a Committee in one year along with a site visit.

            On being put to the vote it was:-

            Resolved – (8 for, 1 abstention) That Planning Permission be granted subject to a Planning             Agreement and subject to the following:-

            i) an additional Highway condition as set out in the Amendment Sheet;

            ii) a condition requiring the implementation of a Car Club;

            iii) an amendment to Condition 21 so that Bees are referenced.

            Resolved - (8 for, 1 abstention) That Listed Building consent be granted subject to conditions as set out in the report.