URGENT BUSINESS
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
TUESDAY 25 FEBRUARY 2003
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES
TCP/10633R/P01057/02 - Demolition of existing building; two/four storey development comprising 14 flats and 4 houses, Springfield Court, Springvale Road, Seaview
Summary
To determine an appropriate level of financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing in connection with the abovementioned planning application.
This major application was considered by Members at the meeting held on 8 October 2002.
In accordance with the recommendation Members decided to grant conditional planning permission subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement to:
· Make provision for four affordable housing units, either by suitable off-site provision and/or payment of an agreed commuted financial contribution.
· To enter into a Landscape Management Plan.
This report has been prepared following a failure Planning Officers and the developer to agree on the amount of the commuted financial contribution.
Negotiations took place with the applicant and his agent in late November 2002 and this resulted in the submission of an offer by the agent of £105,000. The justification for this offer had the following points:
· There is an extant permission on this site for thirteen units which is not affected by the relevant policy.
· Concern about the financial viability of the overall scheme. Full application of the policy may mean that the project would have to be put on hold. Client feels that the “rounded up” figure based on the 20% objective is unreasonable.
· Market values should be based on the nearest town, where there is a need for affordable housing, as opposed to Seaview.
· Offer based on £35,000 per unit x 3.6.
It is important to establish that there is no fundamental objection to this particular case being dealt with by way of a financial contribution. What is in dispute is the amount that should be paid by the developer.
Prior to responding to this offer the Development Control Manager took advice from the Principal Policy Planner, who has carried out considerable research on the subject of the provision of affordable housing, and the recently appointed Head of Housing. The consensus view is that 50% of the new total cost indicator levels amount to £45,650 per unit, which multiplied by four units amounts to a total figure of £182,600. It is the opinion of the Officers involved in this case that, as an off-site contribution, this amount would be in line with current policy. The applicant’s agent was advised accordingly and informed that, in our opinion, the suggested figure was not negotiable.
The applicant replied to the effect that while he was prepared to accept the figure of £45,650 per unit, in his view, a strict interpretation of the 20% element in the policy means that the factor should be 3.6 units rather than four units and, on this basis, he was prepared to increase his offer to £164,340.
The Development Control Manager wrote back to the applicant’s agent just a few days ago and advised him that if his client persisted with an offer below that identified by Officers then it would be necessary to report the matter back to this Committee for a decision. The agent has asked for this to be done and I indicated to him that I was prepared to bring the matter forward as urgent business in an attempt to resolve the issue which would allow us to complete the Section 106 Agreement and issue the conditional planning permission.
The difference between Officers’ calculations and the offer made by the developer is just in excess of £18,000.
1. To advise the developer that his offer is unacceptable and that the Council expect the financial contribution to be the higher figure as specified by Officers.
2. To advise the developer that his offer is acceptable.
3. Authorise further negotiations between the developer and Officers.
It is the view of your Officers that this is a case where it would be difficult to justify affordable housing on site. This basic premise has been agreed and the cost per individual unit has also been agreed.
In my view, Members are required to make a relatively simple decision on the interpretation of the approved policy (H14) on whether the relevant factor should be four units, or 3.6 units as suggested by the developer. The relevant section of the policy quite clearly states:
“A financial contribution sufficient to enable a Housing Association to provide the agreed number of units, either by new building, or the purchase of existing stock”.
A simple assessment leads me to the conclusion that if there had been “on-site” provision the developer would have been required to construct four units, not part of a single unit, and if you combine this with the relatively consistent application of this policy over a period of time then it is only reasonable to conclude that the financial contribution should be based on four units and, as such, should be the figure specified by Officers (i.e. £182,600).
RECOMMENDATION To advise the developer that his offer is unacceptable and that the Council expect the financial contribution to be the higher figure as specified by Officers. |
Contact Point: C S Hougham, Development Control Manager
M J A FISHER
Strategic Director