Agenda item

19/00217/FUL

Land West of Bowling Green, Leicester Road, Melton Mowbray

Minutes:

 19/00217/FUL

Applicant:     Countryside Properties (UK) Limited

Location:      Land west of Bowling Green, Leicester Road, , Melton Mowbray

Proposal:      14 residential dwellings comprising 10 x 2 bed units and 4 x 3 bed units.

 

The Assistant Director for Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services addressed the committee and provided a brief summary of the application and the update as contained within the report.

 

Cllr Higgins highlighted that the update provided a good compromise between securing developer contributions, whilst still achieving affordable housing and an improved housing mix.  There had been every attempt to secure as much s.106 for partners as possible, but he was concerned that imposing higher contributions at this point could result in a different scheme altogether being put forward which could result in no s.106 contribution.  An application for 10 houses or less on the same site would result in no developer contribution or affordable housing.  He expressed that his preference would be for Rent-to-buy on Plots 108 & 109.

The Chairman proposed to suspend the procedure rules contained within Chapter 2, Part 9, Para 2.8-2.28 of the Council’s Constitution in relation to public speaking at Planning Committee, in order to allow the Agent on behalf of the applicant to give a 4 minute presentation.  Members agreed to suspend the procedures rules.  Notice had not been provided due issues with emails.

 

The Agent  confirmed the revised tenure mix as contained within the report.  He also confirmed that they had a registered provider and would be able to provide 14 affordable homes within 12 months.  The landscaping scheme had also been improved.

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

  1. Members requested clarification as to whether the amount of the developer contribution could be less than the £50,000 detailed in the report. It was confirmed that this figure was subject to the viability report and therefore could be less than £50,000, but may also come back as more.
  2. The solicitor to the Council confirmed that the amount was subject to the outcome of the viability report, members could choose to defer until that report was received, or may delegate the final decision to an officer.
  3. Members compared the application for the Catherine Dalley House site, where the contributions secured for affordable housing were significantly reduced  on a much bigger site.
  4. Members agreed that the profit margins for this site would make it unlikely that the report would come back with a figure much higher than £50,000 and that to defer any further could have a negative impact on the viability.

 

Councillor Illingworth proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the recommendations, subject to any significant variation in the amount offered coming back to the committee and that the tenure of plots 108 and 109 be allocated as Rent to buy.  This was seconded by Councillor Cumbers.

 

RESOLVED

 

19/00217/FUL in accordance with the recommendation set out in Item 4.3 of the Agenda for the Planning Committee of 25 July 2019 and the additional recommendations set out in Item 4.1 of the Agenda for the Planning Committee Meeting of 29 August 2019 that the application be PERMITTED subject to:

 

  1. The results of an independent viability review of the scope available for developer contributions confirming that the sum offered (£50,000) are the maximum achievable by the development ;
  2. That should the viability review vary significantly from the sum offered, a report would be brought back to the Committee;
  3. The tenure for Plots 108 and 109 being allocated as Rent to Buy;
  4. The completion of a S.106 agreement to secure the revised housing mix now being offered, as well as the offered developer contributions in respect of education capacity and play equipment;
  5. Conditions, as amended, set out in Appendix C of the Planning Committee report of 25th July 2019 and further clarified in Section 3.11 of this report.

 

(9 in favour, 1 abstention)

 

Supporting documents: