TUESDAY 14 OCTOBER 2003
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING
SERVICES
TCP/10633S Three storey block of fourteen flats and two storey terrace of six houses, Springfield Court, Springvale Road, Seaview
Officer: Mr Paul Stack Tel: (01983) 823566
Summary
To consider a request by the applicants that Members clarify the additional financial contribution required for affordable housing in connection with the latest planning application seeking consent for an additional two houses on this site.
The most recent relevant consent relates to planning permission granted for construction of two/four storey development comprising fourteen flats and four houses. This decision was subject to applicants entering into a planning obligation requiring a contribution towards affordable housing and Landscape Management Plan. This obligation has been entered into and the decision notice issued July 2003. This financial contribution was agreed following further reconsideration by Members at their meeting held on 25 February 2003. This report which was accepted by Members justified the affordable housing contribution of £182,600 based on the calculation of 50% of the new total cost indicator level amounting to £45,650 per unit. Given the number of units proposed the applicants suggested that a 20% contribution should equate to 3.6 units rather than four units, however, as Members were advised if these units were to be provided on site then the developer would have been required to construct four units and thus the commuted payment was based on the rounded-up figure.
The most recent revised application was considered by Members on 2 September 2003. At this meeting Members considered an application seeking consent for a slightly larger development involving addition of a further two terraced houses.
Following a decision to refuse permission at this meeting the applicants request that Members reconsider this application was accepted and the matter was returned to Committee and reported at a meeting held on 23 September 2003.
At this meeting the application was approved contrary to Officer’s recommendation subject to legal agreement to enhance affordable housing contribution by approximately £40,000 with the exact figure coming from a pro-rata increase on the previously agreed figure, together with an additional condition removing permitted development rights.
Following the meeting a letter was sent to applicants advising that in view of previous discussions revolving round the unit price of £46,650 it was considered reasonable to request a further such sum in order to meet Members’ requirements in respect of affordable housing.
This request has resulted in further correspondence from applicants who point out that they have already contributed £182,600 towards affordable housing which was based on a consent for eighteen units of which a 20% contribution would have justified a contribution of £164,340 on the basis of 3.6 residential units not four. As such they consider that given that the previous scheme was subject to “rounding up” their previous contribution is sufficient to meet affordable housing provision for development of twenty units on this site.
None.
1. To require an additional contribution of £45,650 based on previous unit calculations on this site.
2. To require a contribution of an additional £40,000 to accord with the general terms of Members’ requirements from the previous Committee meeting.
3. To require no additional contribution to affordable housing on the basis of the previous sum paid for the earlier consented scheme.
Members should note that policy in respect of affordable housing is a basis for negotiation and on the basis of the previous scheme requiring contribution to affordable housing it is reasonable to require more intensive development to increase this financial contribution. Whilst it is appreciated that July 2003 approval resulted in rounding up of units which is consistent and logical approach of the Planning Authority when such situation arises. Principal question before Members is given their acceptance of further contribution what level should this take.
Given Members commitment to provision of affordable housing in connection with more intensive development, if such provisions were to be provided on site this would involve the completion of an additional single residential unit and incur a whole unit cost, and whilst in this instance provision is being made off site I consider it reasonable for such an approach to be applied to commuted payments and as a result request a further £45,650 which was the agreed figure representing 50% of the new total cost indicator level for off-site residential provision. This view remains unchanged notwithstanding that the previous commuted sum was subject to “rounding up”.
To require an additional contribution of £45,650 based on previous unit calculations on this site.
ANDREW ASHCROFT
Head of Planning
Services