The Chairman of the Council, the Chairmen of Committees and Sub-Committees and Portfolio Holders to answer any questions on any matters in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affect the District of which due notice has been given in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 12.
Minutes:
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 12, Councillor Alastair McCraw, Ward Member for Alton had given notice of his intention to ask a question at the meeting. As Councillor McCraw was unable to be present on the day, his question was read out by the Chairman:
“Planning Application B/15/01737, granted under delegated authority on the 4th April 2016, had a completed Section 106 Agreement with provision for FOUR units of affordable housing. This provision had received support from myself as local member, the Parish Council, and even the original objectors.
A Deed of Variation was signed on the 3rd May, 2017 which replaced Schedules 2 and 4 dealing with the affordable housing with a commuted sum of £250,000 in lieu.
What was the basis for this substantive change to the Permission and its associated agreements and why were the Ward members not kept actively informed?”
Councillor Lee Parker, Cabinet Member for Planning replied as follows:-
“Planning permission B/15/01737/FUL was granted for the “Erection of 13 No dwellings, including a new vehicular access. As amplified by the addendum to the supporting statement by LSR Solicitors, received 4 February 2016 and Drainage Strategy by Ken Rush Associates dated February 2017”. As an application for less than 15 dwellings the application was eligible to be decided under delegated authority and the application was not determined at Committee. The permission was subject to a Section 106 to secure affordable housing executed in April 2016.
In late 2016 the applicant sought a deed of variation to the Section 106 to vary the affordable content of the proposal and to lift the “staircasing” restriction in the Section 106 which was noted to be an obstacle to lenders. The applicant made reference to drainage and other infrastructure costs which had not been foreseen. Negotiations were undertaken including the Housing Enabling team and the Council’s viability adviser to explore viability issues and ensure the development did not stall. Negotiations explored offers received from registered providers materially below cost price and the option to alter the expected tenure. Agreement was reached between the senior planning case officer and Housing Enabling colleagues as to an acceptable compromise. The senior planning case officer issued instructions to the legal service authorising the change as a delegated decision having regard to the viability evidence. A deed of variation was executed in May 2017 which substituted a financial contribution for the affordable housing provisions in the original Section 106 and as this represented a pragmatic approach to prevent the site being stalled.
The National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 205 advises that where obligations are being sought or revised local planning authorities should take account of changes in market conditions over time and wherever appropriate be sufficiently flexible to prevent planning development being stalled.
Variations of Section 106 are not the subject of statutory requirements regarding consultation and publicity and this remains a matter of discretion on a case by case basis. The evaluation of viability matters is an issue which government has sought to expedite both through advice and between 2013 and 2016 through a change to the statutory provisions which expressly gave applicants the right to a fast-track appeal process. It is clear that the planning authority must give reasonable consideration to viability matters and that consideration includes a national policy expectation of flexibility. Whilst local considerations are material to the planning process the message to planning authorities is to work proactively with applicants to seek solutions rather than problems. In the present circumstance the professional recommendation to Planning Committee, had reference been made, would have been to accept the variation of the Section 106 in order to prevent the development stalling. Whilst the absence of consultation and publicity in this instance is acknowledged to appear unhelpful to the community’s expectations the planning permission has not substantively changed and the issue of development viability is a matter of national interest which is regularly noted to take priority in weighing up matters.
It is regrettable that the Ward Member was not better informed by the senior case officer at the time and the reasons for this are not immediately apparent as he is no longer with the Council.”
The following supplementary question was asked on behalf of Councillor McCraw:-
“Given the effect that these post permission changes have upon the Council’s reputation, and the ability of members to serve their wards and communities, what steps will the Council take to actively inform Ward members when later substantive changes are made to a planning decision?”
Councillor Lee Parker responded as follows:-
“The evaluation of viability is not a reputational matter and the technical considerations relating to the assessment of development economics are a specialist professional matter. To this extent the planning authority must balance the need for timely handling of matters with public engagement on a case by case basis.
“Notwithstanding the absence of regulation requiring consultation and publicity it is the expectation of the Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning that planning case officers will take appropriate steps, case by case, to keep Ward Members reasonably informed as to significant changes in controversial development schemes to support them in their Wards. The question of what changes are significant and when to liaise with Members is in part of a matter of professional and common sense judgement and it would not be appropriate to prescribe detailed circumstances.
The planning pages of the website also now provide greater opportunity for email alerts to Members and the planning team continues to support Members in their training and use of that facility.
The Corporate Manager – Growth and Sustainable Planning will be taking steps to support the planning team to better inform and lead planning considerations around such viability matters and improved dialogue to support and make Ward Members better aware.”