Agenda item

Further to minute 17 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 8^th July 2010 where Panel considered a report requesting revisions to the Section 106 Agreement in respect of education contributions arising out of planning permission for a residential development, to consider a further report of the Chief Planning Officer seeking approval for the scheme, subject to alterations to the affordable housing contribution

(report attached)

  Further to minute 17 of the Plans Panel East meeting held on 8^th July 2010 where Panel considered a report requesting revisions to the Section 106 Agreement in respect of education contributions arising out of planning permission for a residential development, Members considered a further report of the Chief Planning Officer seeking approval for the scheme, subject to alterations to the affordable housing contribution

Plans of the site were displayed at the meeting

  Officers presented the report and stated that prior to the completion of the S106 Agreement, Executive Board at its meeting on 18^th May 2011, had approved an interim policy on affordable housing in response to the economic downturn, which would reduce the affordable requirement from 25% to 15%.  The applicant had subsequently asked for the new target to be applied to this scheme.  Although the rest of the application was unchanged, it was felt that as this was different to what Panel originally considered, it was appropriate for Members to determine the application

  Officers were recommending approval of the revised application although the reduced level of affordable housing applied only for a two year time limit, ie up to June 2013 and if the developer did not commence work on the site, Members were informed that the affordable housing requirement would revert to 25% or whatever was considered appropriate at that time

  The Head of Planning Services stated that the relocation clause in the S106 Agreement referred to ‘reasonable endeavours’ to relocate Optare within the Leeds boundary.  Premises had been found just beyond this boundary, in Sherburn-in-Elmet and this would lead to the workforce being retained.  Consultation with Ward Members would be carried out on this matter

  A further representation was reported to Panel requesting the revised level of affordable housing be refused, with references being made to the recent appeal decision at Grimes Dyke.  Members were informed that the interim policy had been consulted upon; it was based on robust evidence; it was considered to be the most up to date relevant evidence and had been endorsed by Executive Board.  Additionally the interim policy accorded with national planning advice contained within ‘Planning for Growth’

  Members commented on the following matters:

·  that the Council had acted fairly and in good faith; that planning permission had originally been sought in 2008 but that the applicant had delayed signing the S106 Agreement and had requested amendments to education contributions and was now seeking to further reduce its commitments through the amount of affordable housing to be provided

·  that affordable housing was paramount to the Council and residents

·  whether continuing with the planning permission had been the most appropriate course of action, in view of the delays and obstructions which had occurred

·  viability issues; whether the applicant had demonstrated these and that the information being provided at a working group of the Regeneration Scrutiny Board by house builders suggested the picture was not as bleak as being portrayed

·  the position of and consequences for the Council if the application was refused and was subsequently appealed

·  the need for a condition requiring local employment and contractors to be included

·  whether other S106 contributions needed to be or had been re-evaluated in light of up-to-date planning policies

The Head of Planning Services briefly outlined the interim policy on

affordable housing for new applications and stated that it was less clear where consent had already been given, with this application being the first one to come back for a lower level of affordable housing than had been agreed.  In view of Members’ comments it was felt appropriate to defer determination of the application to enable further discussions with the applicant on viability

  Concerns were raised that an applicant with planning consent for a site had requested a reduction in the level of affordable housing to be provided on the basis of the interim policy, with the Executive Member for Neighbourhoods, Housing and Regeneration stating that consideration had to be given to the policy in these circumstances, and that Executive Board should consider this also

  RESOLVED -  

i)  To note the comments now made

ii)  That determination of the application be deferred to enable further discussions to take place with the applicant on the issue of viability and that a further report setting out the issues raised be presented to Panel for determination