Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application seeking to vary Condition 28 pertaining to Affordable Housing provision attached to Application 25/407/05/OT for residential development on land to the rear of Mid Point Office Park, Pudsey

(Report attached)

The Panel considered consecutive reports on two applications requesting variations to Affordable Housing conditions in relation to a proposed residential development on land to the rear of Mid Point, Office Park, Dick Lane, Pudsey. The report on 10/00613/FU appeared as agenda item 11 and 10/00614/FU was included as agenda item 12 and both matters were considered together.

Officers reported the original permission secured 25% Affordable Housing (AH), with a 50:50 split between on-site/off-site provision. A financial viability assessment undertaken in July 2009 showed the development would not be viable if those obligations were met. The developers now sought flexibility in the approach to AH provision and had undertaken discussions with local ward Councillors who supported the developers approach but sought 100% off-site provision immediately.

In response the developers offered to commit 10% now, then 10% later with the remaining 80% being forthcoming following satisfactory viability assessments. Officers reported this approach to the S106 Agreement would enable development to start on-site but noted the LPA may not receive the remaining 80% if the economy did not improve.

The Area Planning Manager read the contents of an e-mail received from local ward Councillor A Carter expressing his support for the proposed approach due to the proximity of the development site to existing affordable housing.

The Panel then heard from local ward Councillor Marjoram who further explained the stance of ward councillors and acknowledged that although offsite provision monies may not be spent within the Calverley & Farsley wards the scheme would benefit the whole locality. Members also heard from Mr Rawlinson, the agent for the developer, who reiterated the scheme was not viable in its current form and estimated the AH requirement as £2m. He outlined the guaranteed 20% (offer totalling £400k now), in the hope that further financial viability assessments would provide the solution for the remaining 80%.

Members went onto discuss:

• The principle of changing the condition which required AH on-site and accepting the provision of a commuted sum instead
• The view of local ward councillors who could accept that monies may not be spent in the ward IF this would enable the developer to be onsite straight away
• The possibility the money could be spent within the “Leeds Bradford corridor” rather than the ward itself
• The developers offer to provide 20% of the AH commitment soon, with the remaining 80% when it was possible
• Proximity of this site to existing AH in Bradford and Leeds

Members were advised that amending the Section 106 would offer flexibility but that the S106 itself would ensure that profit from house sales would be designated to the AH contribution.

The Panel adjourned for a short comfort break at this point

(Councillor Nash withdrew from the meeting)

Members considered and broadly agreed with each of the recommendations pertaining to each of the applications but remained concerned about the framework for how AH would be delivered on the site.  The Chair directed Panel to consider whether 100% of the AH requirement should be a commuted sum. If that was accepted, the Panel would need to consider at what point the commuted sum was paid.

Members discussed the possibility that the commuted sum could be spent in the Leeds Bradford corridor as previously mentioned and considered this to be too broad an area. They expected the monies to be spent within the ward of the development. The Panel was also keen to ensure the LPA received the 100% of the commuted sum. Members were advised that “greenspace 106” monies were spent within wards with the developers input, however LCC decided how and where S106 AH monies were spent. In any event the terms of the 106 would have to be presented to the Panel for final agreement.

Noting the agreements reached to amend the conditions, and the acceptance of a commuted sum rather than provision on site, the Chair suggested a different approach to the payment of the AH monies:

On sale of 25% of the housing – LCC receive 25% AH monies

On sale of 50% of the housing – LCC receive 25% AH monies and so on until 100% was provided. This approach was supported by the Panel.

The Panel discussed the current 25% AH Policy, but took the view this policy should be adhered to bearing in mind the existing regional Spatial Strategy suggested 30-40% and the overall demand for housing in the city

RESOLVED –

a)  Application 10/00613/FU – That the application to vary Condition 28 attached to Application 25/407/05/OT be amended to read “ Prior to commencement of  development arrangements for the provision of affordable housing shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority”

b)  Application 10/00614/FU – That the application to vary Condition 5 attached to Application 07/05428/RM be varied to read “ Prior to commencement of development, arrangements for the provision of affordable housing in accordance with Condition 28 of Outline permission reference 25/407/05/OT shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority”.

c)  That the comments made by Panel regarding the framework for delivery of the AH commuted sum be noted by officers and the developer in the drawing up of the Section 106 Agreement and

d)  To note the Section 106 Agreement will be presented to Panel at the appropriate time