To consider the attached report (Part 6).

The Major Projects Officer explained that contrary to the report, the application was for a total of 39 dwellings, of which 33 (not 34) would be new build.  Further to the viability of the development, as noted on page 69 of the report, he explained that the financial contributions that the developer had agreed to pay were £10,959 (£281 per dwelling).  He explained that officers considered the application to be a strong scheme, which would secure a long-term use of the listed building, and the removal of the poorly designed 1960s extension.  He further explained that officers were happy in the light of the two viability assessments that had been carried out, that the viability of the scheme had been properly assessed.  He stated that it was regrettable that the whole amount of contributions (£141,102.24) could not be secured, but stated that it was an acceptable, enabling development, and would bring the special building back into a productive long-term use.

The Conservation and Design Manager provided some background to the application and explained that the building continued to decay.  The applicant had provided a robust viability statement, outlining the minimum they could achieve and simultaneously have a scheme that did not harm the listed building or its setting.  If the scheme was not supported, the building would potentially sit on the Buildings at Risk Register for an additional number of years, with further deterioration, and a possible increase in restoration costs in the future.  He explained that it was in a poor condition, especially in relation to the roof and the interior, with lots of broken glass and removed fireplaces, and that these problems would likely exacerbate without some timely intervention.

The Conservation and Design Manager explained that the Council had powers that could be used to address some of the issues with the building.  These measures included an Urgent Works Notice or Repairs Notice being served.  There was clear guidance on enabling development to secure the future of a significant building such as this one.  He explained that there were no subsidies available from any other source to get the building back into use.  The Conservation and Design Manager concluded by stating that the number of units proposed had been reduced, trees on the site would be retained, as well as protecting what was there.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

A Ward Member welcomed bringing the building back into use.  He asked whether the owner was duty-bound to maintain the building, and questioned whether local residents had been consulted.  The Ward Member raised concern with the pressure on services/infrastructure in Halfway with the addition of 39 dwellings, particularly with the road infrastructure and healthcare provision.  In terms of the financial contributions, the Ward Member considered £141,102.24 was not unreasonable.  He welcomed the addition of 1,2,3 bed housing, but was not certain if this was worth reducing the financial contributions for.

A second Ward Member agreed that funds were required for improving the local roads.  He considered the profit figures of 20% were unrealistic, and that between 7 and 11% was more realistic.  He also considered that the loss of the Section 106 payments was to preserve profit for the developers.

A third Ward Member stated that the buildings had been bought and nothing done with them for ten years.  He supported the inclusion of a Section 106 Agreement.

Members raised points which included:  supported Stop Notice approach, to safeguard the condition of the building; welcomed the scheme; and needed contributions from the developer for the local community from Section 106 payments.

In response to questions, the Major Projects Officer explained that the condition in the report to ensure the listed building was repaired prior to the other housing being built, was fit for purpose.  He stated that that the role of CBRE was to assess the two viability reports, submitted by the applicant, on the Council’s behalf, and that they were a robust, well known national consultancy company.  The Major Projects Officer stated that in relation to the profit figure, this would be less than the figure quoted in the report, namely 20%, after the negative residual land value was taken into consideration.

On being put to the vote the motion to approve the application was lost.

Councillor Bryan Mulhern (Chairman) moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred to allow officers to go back to the developers to argue the Planning Committee’s case with regard to securing developer contributions, as set out at Paragraph 8.30 of the Committee report.  This was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.

On being put to the vote the motion to defer the application was won.

Resolved:  That application 16/506181/FULL be deferred to allow officers to go back to the developers to argue the Planning Committee’s case with regard to securing developer contributions, as set out at Paragraph 8.30 of the Committee report.

Resolved:  That application 16/506182/LBC be deferred to allow officers to go back to the developers to argue the Planning Committee’s case with regard to securing developer contributions, as set out at Paragraph 8.30 of the Committee report.