To consider the following application:

SW/14/0399 – Old Sittingbourne Mill and Wharf (Morrisons)

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 19 November 2014.

Tabled Paper added 28 November 2014.

SW/14/0399 – Old Sittingbourne Mill and Wharf (Morrisons)

The Senior Planner reported that the Applicant had submitted a phasing plan which showed the phasing for the construction of the housing development.  She explained that the linear park could not be implemented as one operation as there needed to be access to that area for drainage work throughout the construction phases.  A base for the linear park could be started, but would not be able to be completed until the housing was completed.  The Senior Planner drew Members’ attention to the tabled paper which set out the recommendations, with Option A in each case being the officer recommendation.

Mr Bellinger, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman moved the recommendations in turn and these were seconded.  Members were invited to comment on each recommendation.

9.01- that the phasing should be altered in line with the applicant’s request:

Phase A – residential units

Phase B – Mill site public realm

Phase C – Leisure building and Waterside Park

Phase D - Museum and Heritage Building

A Ward Member acknowledged the reasons for the linear park’s delay in completion, but considered that most of the linear park could be put in place before the last house was constructed and that work on the linear park should start before the final house was completed.  He considered that as it had been stated that available funding for the museum and heritage building was highly unlikely, that this was a ‘non-starter’ and he considered the leisure building should be an assured part of the process, not ‘quite possible’ as noted in the report.

Members stressed the need to complete the development as soon as possible.

On being put to the vote the recommendation was agreed.

9.02 - that the Council accepts a phased payment of the education contributions; 50% prior to occupation of 25% of the dwellings and the remaining 50% prior to occupation of 75% of the dwellings.

In response to a question, the Senior Planner confirmed that the recommendation was within the Planning Committee’s remit.

On being put to the vote the recommendation was agreed.

9.03 – Either:

Option A: that there should be a review of the Viability Appraisal  prior to the occupation of the final dwelling to be occupied on site and any additional profit should be used to fund a commuted payment for additional affordable housing to be provided off-site.

OR

Option B: that there should be a review of the Viability Appraisal  prior to the occupation of the final dwelling to be occupied on site and any additional profit should be used to fund all or part of the Heritage Initiatives Contribution (up to a maximum of £215,000.00).

A Ward Member spoke in support of Option B; he was in favour of any additional profit being used on-site rather than fund housing off-site.

Members made the following comments:  additional affordable housing was needed; the rate of affordable housing on the development was appalling; and affordable housing was more important than heritage initiatives.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved an addendum to Option A: that ‘…..additional affordable housing to be provided within the Sittingbourne area’.  This was seconded by Councillor Barnicott.  A Member considered lack of affordable housing was a Borough-wide issue.  On being put to the vote the addendum was lost.

On being put to the vote the recommendation (Option A) was agreed.

9.04 - either

Option A: that Members accept the 3.3% affordable housing proposed and maintain the contribution to education in full.

OR

Option B: that Members require 10% affordable housing with acknowledgement that this will result in the reduction of the education contribution.

In response to a question, the Senior Planner confirmed that Option B was within the Planning Committee’s remit.

Members made the following comments:  a difficult choice to make, with a balance between affordable housing and education contributions; and Option A was slightly preferable.

In response to a question, the Senior Planner advised that for the developer to provide one affordable house, this would cost around £50,000 and that this would be drawn from the education contribution, resulting in a significant reduction therefore.  The Senior Planner did not consider this to be preferable.

The Head of Planning explained that Option B would result in a loss of educational contributions, with a shortfall that would have an impact on Kent County Council.

On being put to the vote the recommendation (Option A) was agreed.

9.05 - either

Option A: that Members agree that the percentage of social rented accommodation within the agreed affordable housing provision shall be 70%.

OR

Option B: that Members agree that no social rented accommodation shall be required as part of the agreed affordable housing provision (i.e. only shared equity affordable housing provided) and the overall proportion of affordable housing shall be increased to 10%.

On being put to the vote the recommendation (Option A) was agreed.

9.06 - the acceptance of all other elements of the offer set out on pages 18 & 19 of the report and delegation to Head of Planning to finalise the wording of the modified Section 106 agreement. 

On being put to the vote the recommendation was agreed.

Resolved:  That the recommendations noted below be agreed for application SW/14/0399.

(1)  That the phasing should be altered in line with the applicant’s request:

Phase A – residential units

Phase B – Mill site public realm

Phase C – Leisure building and Waterside Park

Phase D - Museum and Heritage Building.

(2)  That the Council accepts a phased payment of the education contributions; 50% prior to occupation of 25% of the dwellings and the remaining 50% prior to occupation of 75% of the dwellings.

(3)  Option A: that there should be a review of the Viability Appraisal  prior to the occupation of the final dwelling to be occupied on site and any additional profit should be used to fund a commuted payment for additional affordable housing to be provided off-site.

(4)  Option A: that Members accept the 3.3% affordable housing proposed and maintain the contribution to education in full.

(5)  Option A: that Members agree that the percentage of social rented accommodation within the agreed affordable housing provision shall be 70%.

(6)  The acceptance of all other elements of the offer set out on pages 18 & 19 of the report and delegation to Head of Planning to finalise the wording of the modified Section 106 agreement.