To consider the following application:

18/503723/MOD106, 153 London Road, Sittingbourne.

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

Requests to speak on this item must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Wednesday 3 April 2019.

Tabled Papers added 9 April 2019.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

The Chairman gave Members a few minutes to read the tabled papers, if they had not already done so.

The Senior Planner reminded Members that this application had been considered at the Planning Committee meeting on 7 March 2019, and was called-in by the Head of Planning Services.  The Senior Planner referred to the tabled paper which provided further evidence for the viability appraisal, and included statistics which indicated that property prices in Swale had ‘flat-lined’, and building costs had increased.  He explained that as such, the viability assessment still carried weight.  The revised proposal sought to provide three affordable units in the first instance.  The Applicant would soon be meeting with a potential Registered Provider to discuss the delivery of the affordable housing units.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Cameron Beart.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions. 

A Ward Member asked whether there were any alternative methods of facilitating affordable housing, such as part rent/part buy?  The Senior Planner explained that this would be discussed at the forthcoming meeting with the Applicant and housing association to establish potential delivery of the scheme.  However, the usual tenure type was affordable rent/shared ownership.

A Member asked what had changed since the meeting on 7 March 2019?  The Senior Planner explained that the developer had approached officers to modify the Section 106 Agreement, as outlined in paragraph 2.01 of the report.  This would firstly seek to provide three affordable housing units on the site, but if this was not delivered, then a commuted sum of £40,000 be provided so that affordable homes could be built elsewhere in the Borough.

A Member asked that if no Registered Provider could be found, that the application came back to the Planning Committee for the final decision?  The Senior Planner explained that officers would need to discuss this further with the developer.

A Member asked whether there was a mechanism for reviewing the application at the end of the development to see if it remained unviable?  The Senior Planner explained that this would be a possibility, and there could be a review mechanism within the Section 106 Agreement.

A Member asked whether the modifications could be rejected and whether the Applicant and Registered Provider could carry on with their discussions.  The Senior Planner acknowledged that they could start discussions if the Section 106 was not modified but would need to provide eight units.

The Committee debated the proposal to approve the application and raised the following points:

At this point Councillor Nicholas Hampshire moved the following motion:  That the application be deferred until after the meeting with the Applicant and Registered Provider.  This was seconded by Councillor Roger Truelove.

·         We needed to have the facts first before a decision could be made;

·         the commuted sum was not enough for the Council to provide affordable housing;

·         the commuted sum could go to another Registered Provider;

·         did not consider that house prices in Swale had ‘flat-lined’;

·         original number of affordable housing was eight, a shame that it was now three, but this was acceptable as was in-line with the Local Plan requirements;

·         three affordable homes was achievable;

·         not happy with the three month period for the developer to demonstrate that there was not a Registered Provider willing to take the units;

·         needed to ensure that three affordable units were kept, no matter what;

·         agreed needed to defer for clarity;

·         the commuted sum needed to be audited to ensure it was a reasonable amount;

·         three affordable units was in-line with the Local Plan requirement of 10% on-site provision;

·         happy that the developer was meeting with a Registered Provider; and

·         £40,000 commuted sum was not enough.

Resolved:  That application 18/503723/MOD106 be deferred until after the meetings with the Applicant and Registered Providers had taken place.