To consider the following applications:

SW/08/1124 and SW/13/0568 153 London Road, Sittingbourne, Kent.

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that the applications will be considered at this meeting.

Requests to speak on these items must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 13 September 2017.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the reports under Part 6 were confidential as they contained commercially sensitive information.

The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to an error in the summary on page one and also paragraph 3.01 on page five of the Committee report which referred to a 20% profit.  She explained that this should have read 18.5% profit, in-line with CBRE’s recommendation.  The argument for this was set out at paragraph 2.10 on page five of the Committee report.

In response to queries from a Member, the Senior Planning Officer explained that the Section 106 figures listed in paragraph 2.05 on page eight of the Committee report were the originally agreed figures, these had since been updated and the total developer contribution was £40,000.

The Ward Members spoke against the application and raised points which included: £31,000 would not contribute anything; had to deliver affordable housing within this scheme; and developer should provide a scheme that was viable as the site was in a desirable location.

Members considered the application and raised points which included: the Councils policy was to provide 10% affordable housing in Sittingbourne and we should not allow any less than that; did not accept that it was no longer viable for the developer to provide affordable housing; we should stay firm that if no affordable housing provided the application should be refused; if the site was not viable why had they already started work on it?; need to make a stand that if we say 10% affordable housing, we mean it; utter disgrace that the developers say they can not afford to provide affordable housing; we would not be able to support refusal at appeal as evidence has been provided that the development was not viable; terrible that affordable housing could not be provided but two assessments, one of which was independent had stated that it would not be viable and we had to accept that; the clause within Policy DM8 gave weight to the applicants case; and it was not the Councils problem that the applicant had made a loss on the land.

The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to a clause within Policy DM8, criteria C, which allowed the level of affordable housing to be reduced if justified under a viability assessment.  This was outlined on page three, paragraph 2.02 of the Committee report.  The Senior Planning Officer stated that Policy DM8 could not therefore be used as a reason to refuse the modification.

The Senior Planning Solicitor (Locum) stated that as the Section 106 Agreement had been signed off, the Council was under no obligation to set out reasons for refusing the modification.

On being put to the vote the motion to agree the modification was lost.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following motion: That the modification be rejected and officers discuss alternative options with the applicant.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.  On being put to the vote the motion to reject the modification was won.

Resolved:  That the modification to the Section 106 Agreement for SW/08/1124 & SW/13/0568 be rejected and officers discuss alternative options with the applicant.