Agenda item

Ward

Staines

Proposal

Variation of Condition 2 (plan numbers) relating to planning permission 20/01199/FUL for the demolition of the former Masonic Hall and the redevelopment of site to provide 206 dwellings together with car and cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works. To update the approved plans to remove reference to Affordable Housing.

Recommendation

The application is recommended for approval subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 agreement

Description: Variation of Condition 2 (plan numbers) relating to planning permission 20/01199/FUL for the demolition of the former Masonic Hall and redevelopment of site to provide 206 dwellings together with car and cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works. to update the approved plans to remove reference to Affordable Housing.

Additional Information:

There was none.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Jon Millership spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:

-Fairview had initially agreed with a Registered Provider to deliver on-site affordable housing as per the s106 agreement.

-Multiple Registered Providers withdrew from negotiations.

-Fairview and officers explored alternative solutions, including seeking other providers, without success.

-It was concluded that a commuted sum of £3.85 million in lieu of on-site delivery was the best alternative.

-The sum has been independently assessed by the Council’s Viability Assessor and is in line with planning policy.

-The Council considered the Rent Plus model but determined it was not appropriate for this site as it cannot be incorporated into the current s73 application. (s73 refers to a variation or relaxation of a condition. In this case it was to vary the plan number condition to substitute the approved conditions to conditions that had no reference to Affordable Housing).

-Fairview is committed to continued investment in Spelthorne borough.

-The delivery of 206 homes at Elmsleigh Road is stalled due to the inability to find a suitable Registered Provider.

-The proposed payment will enable the Council to deliver alternative affordable housing for those in greatest need.

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

-The Council had missed an opportunity by not challenging the breach to the Section 106 agreement at the time

-If we accepted the commuted sum, Fairview Homes would either likely sell the units as buy to let, sell privately or could engage further with registered providers

-The progression of this application could set a potential precedent to other developers in the area. The legal representative clarified that a precedent was unlikely and the circumstances were due to national issues with affordable homes.

-The Council could consider the revision of our Affordable Housing policy to allow for different registered provider models

-The Committee raised concerns regarding the building’s existing building safety regulations. The Planning Development Manager clarified that the building would need to be compliant with building regulations relevant at the time but this was not a matter for the Planning Committee

-It was suggested that provision be made for a second staircase in the building. The Planning Development manager clarified that this was not a requirement under Building Regulations.

-The viability assessment was outdated as it was based on the original planning application

-All alternative proposals had been explored and it was now prudent to accept the money contribution to put towards off-site affordable housing

-Frustration was expressed regarding the current system in place for social housing

-The applicant should consider a voluntary increase in their contribution towards off-site affordable housing

-The launch of a section 106 clearing service by the Government may help to tackle demand for affordable housing delivery

-Lessons learnt in relation to this application should be applied in future to avoid being in a similar situation

-Decisions regarding larger developments and Section 106 enforcement should come to Committee for decision in future

-The Committee reflected on the requirement in the Section 106 agreement, completed at appeal which imposed that Fairview Homes would not be allowed to occupy more than 50% of units unless a Registered Provider were found for the agreed allocation of 70 affordable homes.

In light of the above consideration, Councillor Geraci proposed an amended motion as follows: “To permit the applicant to occupy 50% of the premises, after which they will need to have a registered provider in place. We invite the applicants to liaise with the Council as to whether our Affordable Homes Policy requires any amendments and therefore the commuted sum will be rejected”.

Following further consideration, Councillor Geraci withdrew his amendment to the original motion.

The meeting adjourned at 20:33

 The meeting reconvened at 20:43

A recorded vote was requested by Councillor Clarke

The Committee voted on the motion as follows:

For: Councillors Beecher, Burrell, Button, Clarke, Gibson, Lee, Nichols and Woodward (8)

Against: Councillors Bateson, Beatty,Geraci and Rutherford (4)

Abstain: Councillors Howkins (1)

Decision: The application was approved subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 agreement.