To consider the following application:

18/503723/MOD106 – 153 London Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 1PA

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 29 May 2019. .

Ward Members welcomed the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member asked whether there was a signed agreement with the registered provider for the three units?  The Major Projects Officer advised that there was no signed agreement but that was not unusual at this stage of the application. 

A Member asked where on the development the affordable houses would be?  The viability of the proposal needed to be looked at again and would these properties meet the Homes England Criteria?  She raised concern that the developer had already sold some properties, and asked whether smaller housing providers been approached? 

The Major Projects Officer explained that that level of detail would be considered through the Section 106 Agreement.  The Major Projects Officer explained that there was nothing to stop the developer from pre-selling the units as they already had planning permission, and as long as they did not go beyond the trigger which was the 22 occupation before the affordable housing provision was confirmed, he did not consider it unreasonable.  With regard to prices he considered that these would have gone up in-line with inflation and that build costs would also have risen.  He explained that officers had looked at prices and done some broad calculations and the profit margin was unlikely to be much beyond approximately 10%, the Government bench mark for reasonable profit was 20% so he did not consider the applicant was going to make an unacceptable level of profit.  He stated that officers were of the opinion that the 10% affordable housing was in-line with the Local Plan and appropriate.  The Major Projects Officer concluded by saying that the registered provider had been involved with discussions and would be unlikely to enter into a deal if they did not think the properties were being built to an appropriate standard.

Members debated the application and raised the following points: a regrettable application which would open the flood gates for other developments with affordable housing allocations; no commentary from the registered housing provider within the Committee report; as the scheme has already been built, the Committee had no assurance that it had been built to the correct standard as no detail had been provided in the Committee report; the Committee report referred to 0.65% profit and now we are being told it was 10% profit, Members were not able to interrogate that information and did not feel comfortable agreeing the application without seeing that information; viability had been an issue at the site since 2017; the application was a fait accompli; the developer had under-priced the units; lots of inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements; not confident that the three units would be provided; without the service agreement no assurance the properties would be built to the correct standard and a risk the provider would pull-out from the scheme; the Committee had looked at this in depth and officers had done well to get this scheme on the table; if in the Section 106 Agreement the developer would have to provide; Ward Members support; shame that the properties were not social rent; concern that the viability study had been provided after the development had been built; appeared that the application was transferring risk from the developer to the tax-payer; officers referred to gross profit not net profit; and the Council would not be able to support refusal on appeal.

The Head of Planning Services stated that officers did not know that there was a 10% profit that was an approximate calculation, however officers were of the opinion that the developer would not receive anything near the 20% benchmark level.

In response to a concern about no registered provider agreement being signed, the Lawyer (Planning) stated that the Section 106 if modified would have a Clause built-in and a trigger prior to the occupation of the 22^nd unit.  She explained that the legal definition of ‘occupation’ was ‘by sale’ so the developer would be in breach of the Section 106 Agreement if they did not provide the affordable units and went on to sell further units.  The Council would then be able to take the developer to court and serve an injunction on them.

Resolved:  That application 18/503723/MOD106 be approved subject to delegation to agree the precise wording of the modified planning obligation under the instruction of the Head of Legal Services.