Agenda item

(Councillors Matthew Barber, Roger Cox, Terry Cox, Tony de Vere, Richard Farrell, Richard Gibson, Jenny Hannaby, Jerry Patterson, Terry Quinlan, Margaret Turner and John Woodford had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration).

Further to the report the Officers commented that the proposed scheme met concerns regarding density and impact and distances were acceptable.  In terms of affordable housing the Committee was reminded that the applicants had demonstrated that it was not possible to provide 40% and that this was supported by independent advice agreed with this.  It was noted that the provision of 6 units in this case was considered acceptable in view of the District Valuer’s comments as set out in the report.

Ken Dijksman, speaking on behalf of the applicant made a statement in support of the application.  He explained that there had been considerable discussions regarding this proposal and that there had been a number of proposals which had not been acceptable to officers. He commented that it had been difficult to agree the level of affordable housing and how it would fit into the development. He commented that there had been an exhaustive process of discussions and negotiations which had included the Housing Officer who had dictated the amount of housing. He explained that if grant funding was received six affordable housing units would be provided.  He reported that sale values had been discussed and a 50% claw back clause had been included in the S106 Agreement. 

Some Members spoke in support of the application but expressed disappointment at the level of affordable housing proposed, but they accepted the reasons for this as set out in the report.

One Member raised concern regarding the presentation of the information to the Committee commenting that whilst he was pleased to have the District Valuer’s comment the detailed financial information should be available to Members on a confidential basis. He commented that in many cases although priority was given to affordable housing, financial contributions were sought for other things such as library facilities.

The Officers sympathised with the sentiment expressed but commented that Government advice was that a development needed to mitigate its own impact on public services and that this should be a priority before the provision of affordable housing. 

One Member commented that this was an area where affordable housing was most needed. He explained than this was an urban site and there were often higher costs associated with sites like this and he was concerned that 40% affordable housing would never be achieved.  He suggested that the Officers need to consider how to address this issue in the future.

The Officers reported that 40% affordable housing had been achieved on many allocated sites of a larger scale. 

Another Member thanked the Officers for their continued efforts to secure the 40% level of affordable housing but commented that the Council should take a firm stand and be more resolute in this regard.

The Officers commented that the current application was the fourth application put forward on this site and whilst the proposal was not compliant with policy, it went as far as was possible to secure the most affordable housing.  It was commented that there had been considerable negotiations regarding this application.

One Member supported the application.  He commented for information that the Executive of the South East Regional Assembly had announced that the additional funding for the South East was only enough to build another 23 houses and he expressed concern about achieving affordable housing if the funding was not available. Finally, he commented that the materials should be presented to the Committee for approval with a sample panel being erected on site.

One Member sought details of the Section 106 Agreement and questioned whether a financial contribution towards leisure had been secured.  The Officers responded that payments could not be required as part of this development although contributions could be negotiated separately on larger developments.  However, it was explained that as of April 2008 it might be possible to secure contributions per dwelling.

By 14 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

(a)       that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application ABG/20033/3 subject to the conditions set out in the report; and

(b)       that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to refuse application ABG/20033/3 should the Section 106 Agreement not be completed to enable a decision to be made within the 13 week period (by 20 December 2007) with the reason for refusal being based on the lack of necessary financial contributions towards improving local services and facilities and lack of affordable housing.