Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Residential development of 281 dwellings and associated roads, parking, realignment of Back Lane, drainage, landscaping, open space, servicing facilities and associated works (as amended).

RESOLVED: That application 24/02889/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:

A) The completion of a satisfactory legal agreement, providing delegated powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to resolve any outstanding matters and the Applicant agreeing the extend the statutory period in order to complete the agreement if required;

B) Providing delegated powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to update conditions and informatives with minor amendments as required;

C) Providing delegated powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to decide on the projects for NHS contributions; and

D) The conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 05 minutes 36 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 24/02889/FP and advised that:

· A written update on the application had been published with the supplementary documents, including an update on the decrease of the five-year housing land supply of the Council, which strengthened the recommendation to grant permission.

· The NHS had been reconsulted but had not yet provided a response, and it would be worth checking with them whether they wished to amend their back up projects to allow flexibility, given the passage of time on this application.

· Due to the above, recommendation C) should be amended to provide delegated powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to decide on projects for NHS contributions rather than outdoor sports contributions.

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of Application 24/02889/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

· Councillor Ruth Brown

· Councillor Dave Winstanley

· Councillor Clare Billing

· Councillor Martin Prescott

· Councillor Emma Fernandes

· Councillor Louise Peace

· Councillor Nigel Mason

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

· Although the affordable housing had been halved since the last application, the mix would be kept the same with 65% being allocated for rent.

· Following the independent review of the viability report from Dixon Searle, professionally, it would not have been appropriate to ask the Applicant to increase affordable housing at the expense of financial contributions that would address the impact of the development on infrastructure.

· Despite disagreeing with Dixon Searle on the viability position, the Applicant had agreed to increase financial contributions to create a reasonable compromise.

· A viability review mechanism would form part of the legal agreement and would mean that the Council could clawback any uplift if the viability of the development improved, and this would be split between affordable housing provision offsite and developer contributions.

· Onsite affordable housing could not be increased at a later stage as the contract with the affordable housing provider would be on the commencement of development or earlier.

· Any increase or decrease in viability would be measured against the viability report completed in April 2026, but a decrease would not affect financial contributions or affordable housing provision.

· There had been no change to the number of dwellings in this application since it had been considered by the Committee last July. The change in economic circumstances had been set out in the report of the Applicant, and they were satisfied that this complied with Policy DM5 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

· Triggers for the bus service and other provisions had not yet been agreed, but they would seek advice from the NHS and Hertfordshire County Council (HCC), who were keen for infrastructure to be put in before it was needed such as sustainable transport.

· Strand 2 contributions would go towards cycle and pedestrian links, although this had been reduced on the basis that the monitor and manage mechanism and Public Rights of Way improvements would have a wider benefit beyond the residents.

· It had not been considered reasonable to ask the Applicant to revise their Transport Assessment at this stage to account for the GA2 site as this had been accounted for by officers when the application was originally considered, and the Transport Assessment for GA2 had also accounted for this development. Furthermore, HCC had not raised an objection.

· Officers wanted to include the viability review mechanism in the application so that benefits could be captured from any uplift, but the proposed, compromised position had been considered and, assessing that in the balance, if provided, approval was recommended.

· Dixon Searle had provided their informal advice rather than recommendations on how decisions should be taken, and this had been used to determine the best solution for the district.

· Future applications with viability issues would have to submit a viability assessment and could not rely on this application to justify a reduction in affordable housing.

· If the viability position of the application had been misjudged, any uplift would be captured by the viability review mechanism, and any downturn would not affect it.

· The Local Plan set 40% affordable housing as a target subject to viability. Therefore, the application was policy compliant.

· The decrease in the five-year housing land supply of the Council had not impacted the percentage of affordable housing.

N.B. Councillor Tom Tyson entered the Council Chamber at 19:47 and did not participate in the discussion or vote on the item.

In response to questions, the Locum Planning Lawyer advised that:

· Some financial contributions had been reduced, and some had been maintained since the application had last been considered to prioritise the infrastructure required.

· While the application should be determined in accordance with the Local Plan, it should also be determined considering other material planning considerations such as the new NPPF, and the change in five-year housing land supply since the publication of the report.

The Chair invited the first Public Objector, Weston Parish Councillor Tim Moody to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Moody thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· The Parish Council welcomed new housing, but they were appalled that affordable housing would be halved as this was desperately needed in the area, and they were more shocked to learn that the drop had been unchallenged.

· The new NPPF stated that land being taken from the Green Belt would retain 40% affordable housing, and it was disingenuous to say the land had already been taken away from the Green Belt when the Local Plan had been adopted.

· If the Council accepted 20% affordable housing on this application, developers proceeding with other major sites would see this as an opportunity to build with the same or a lower level of affordable housing.

· The Council were asked to refuse planning permission for this application and renegotiate the affordable housing provision.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Moody for their presentation and invited the second Public Objector, Great Ashby Community Councillor Beryl Brown, to speak against the application. Community Councillor Brown thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· GA1 was part of the Local Plan Review consultation, and determining this application would not account for community views expressed in this.

· The Committee report contradicted the Local Plan as the land had countryside status and was outside the built-up area, rather than being a settlement adjoining Great Ashby.

· Having countryside status meant that Policy S5 in the NPPF would apply rather than Policy S4, and a Green Belt reassessment would be required for this site.

· The transport modelling had not reflected the environment in Great Ashby as the cumulative impact of other developments had not been robustly assessed and this conflicted with Policies TR3, TR6 or SP3 in the NPPF and the Local Plan.

· Alternative parking locations resulting from displacement had not been appropriately considered as private courtyard spaces had been suggested, which residents were not permitted to park in.

The Chair thanked Community Councillor Brown for their presentation and invited the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Vijaiya Poopalasingham to speak against the application. Councillor Poopalasingham thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· The Committee were being asked to give up 56 affordable homes, which were homes and opportunities that local people would lose.

· The independent review of the viability report did not agree that 20% affordable housing was the maximum that this development could support as it was believed that the negative viability position had been overstated, and the adjusted appraisal put the residual land value £1.65M higher than the benchmark land value.

· Evidence had not clearly and overwhelmingly establish the viability ceiling for 20% affordable housing, and paragraph 4.61 of the Committee report confirmed this.

· If an enforceable viability review mechanism was not agreed with the Applicant, this application could be reconsidered by the Committee in the future as it could potentially breach multiple policies, and even if one was agreed, it would not restore the affordable housing that they had surrendered in this application.

· Fear of an appeal should not influence judgement on this application.

· Accessing a home was harder than ever before, and the risks that commercial development brought were not for this Committee to bare.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Emma Fernandes, Councillor Vijaiya Poopalasingham advised that:

· Paragraphs 4.1.5 – 4.1.8 of the independent viability review described the key findings, including their difficulty to understand why 40% affordable housing was no longer viable, and their belief that the negative swing had been overstated in supportable outcomes.

· The Applicant had only agreed to the principal of a viability review mechanism, rather than the conditions and terms of one itself.

The Chair thanked Councillor Poopalasingham for their presentation and invited the Representatives for the Applicant, Mr Richard Kelly and Mr Julian Clarke to speak against the application. They thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· This site was allocated for residential development as GA1 in the Local Plan and was expected to be developed accordingly to meeting housing needs.

· Deteriorating market conditions meant that they were no longer able to commit to the S106 contributions and affordable housing that the application previously had.

· Policy HS2 in the Local Plan acknowledged that lower levels of affordable housing were possible when viability issues arose, and Policy SP7 in the Local Plan allowed S106 contributions to be reviewed where viability issues had been identified.

· The independent review had deemed the previous scheme to be unviable.

· 20% affordable housing and over £8.6M in S106 contributions struck the right balance while allowing the application to proceed despite viability issues.

· Top up payments would be made towards affordable housing and infrastructure if market conditions improved while the development was being built.

· An appropriate affordable housing mix would be secured, some of which would be wheelchair adaptable to meet the need identified by Housing Officers.

· There had been no changes to the landscaping, proposed number of dwellings or associated works since the application had been considered in July 2025.

· The development included well designed open space, which would enhance and preserve ecology, and protect the adjoining ancient woodland.

· Infrastructure delivered by the development was deemed to be acceptable.

· There were no outstanding objections from any of the statutory consultees.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

· Councillor Nigel Mason

· Councillor Martin Prescott

· Councillor Claire Winchester

· Councillor Val Bryant

· Councillor Clare Billing

In response to points of clarification, Mr Richard Kelly advised that:

· Withdrawn offers from affordable housing providers, wider market conditions, plateauing sale prices and significant bill cost inflation had all contributed to the worsened viability position.

· They had agreed to increase S106 contributions by the £2.989M surplus detailed in the independent review by Dixon Searle.

· While Dixon Searle had not agreed that build costs had substantially increased, they acknowledged that the previous S106 contributions and 40% affordable housing would not be viable.

· Another developer would not want to purchase the land to deliver 40% affordable housing as the residual land value for that option would be -£2.85M, as detailed by Dixon Searle.

· The viability review mechanism would be based upon mechanisms used elsewhere in the district, where actual build costs and revenues would be compared to those set out in the viability assessment.

· There was no incentive to sell properties at a lower price to avoid uplift in the viability review mechanism as they would receive a split of the extra revenue if conditions improved.

· The appetite and ability of the affordable housing sector to pay for the housing they built had changed, and the amounts that they had been offered meant that they would lose significant amounts on each affordable house built.

In response to points made during the verbal presentations, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that the viability review mechanism would form part of the S106 agreement and would have to be signed by the Applicant, otherwise planning permission would not be issued, and the application might be reconsidered by the Committee with a different recommendation.

In response to points made during the verbal presentations, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

· Policy S4 in the NPPF had been applied as the site had been allocated in the Local Plan and was now within a settlement.

· Increasing affordable housing had not been explored as, professionally, it would not be appropriate to increase the amount of affordable housing at the expense of developer contributions to address the impact of the development on infrastructure.

· If the application was deferred to revisit the viability, there was a risk that affordable housing and financial contributions would be decreased further as the Applicant did not agree with the position of the independent review but had agreed to proceed with a compromised position.

· Policies HS2 and S7 in the Local Plan allowed the Council to consider viability, so this application was compliant as this had been considered.

· Future applications with viability issues would have to undertake the same rigorous approach that this one had, including a viability assessment and independent review.

In response to an additional question from Councillor Martin Prescott, the Senior Planning Officer advised that Policy HS2 sets a target of 40% affordable housing for major sites, and while it had been achievable on other sites, it had not been achievable here.

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed the recommendations in the report, including the amendment to recommendation C) as mentioned in the verbal update of the Senior Planning Officer, and this was seconded by Councillor Emma Fernandes.

The following Members took part in the debate:

· Councillor Martin Prescott

· Councillor Ruth Brown

· Councillor Val Bryant

· Councillor Emma Fernandes

· Councillor Nigel Mason

· Councillor Claire Winchester

· Councillor Ian Mantle

· Councillor Louise Peace

The following points were made as part of the debate:

· It was not believable that the viability had changed so much in 14 months.

· The independent review did not agree with the viability position of the Applicant.

· It was worrying that granting permission for 20% affordable housing would set a precedent for future applications.

· 56 affordable homes were better than none, but it was far fewer than the last time the application was considered.

· Frustrations about the affordable housing percentage were acknowledged.

· The housing land supply of the Council would continue to worsen if they deferred or refused applications.

· Officers had worked hard to come up with this compromised position, and they were inclined to support the proposal to grant permission.

· 20% affordable housing was very low, and they should work with developers who were looking to improve the nation rather than benefit from profit.

· If this application was not viable in an area where house prices were relatively high, it would not be viable in many other places.

· There was concern that they had not explored all the possible options for this application, and going from 40% from 20% was almost unexplainable.

· If the application was deferred, they should seek affordable housing partners willing to work with them, which would be a positive step towards getting the best out of the situation.

· The viability position had not worsened enough to justify a 50% reduction in affordable housing.

· This application had put the Committee in an impossible position, making them decide whether sub-standard development was better than no development.

· Granting permission for the application was not wanted, but the situation would only get worse if they did not do so.

· 281 homes would be put towards their housing land supply if granted.

In response to points made during the debate, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that:

· The Applicant had agreed to the 20% affordable housing and financial contributions despite disagreeing with the figures in the independent review.

· Another application at Rhee Spring had been overturned after an appeal and been granted planning permission with 4.7% affordable housing.

In response to points made during the debate, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

· Any future application with viability concerns would need to submit a viability assessment and would not be determined by the decision on this application.

· The Applicant could appeal a decision to refuse or defer the application on non-determination, and the professional opinion of officers was that the prospects for the Council at an appeal would be poor as it was a policy compliant scheme.

· If the application went to an appeal, the Applicant could also revert to their original position, and affordable housing and contributions could be decreased further.

· The prospect of an appeal was not a material planning consideration weighed in the planning balance. However, it is the environment in which the decision was being made.

In response to points made during the debate, the Locum Planning Lawyer advised that:

· The independent viability review confirmed that the original scheme was not deliverable, but to a different degree than was stated by the Applicant.

· If the application was deferred, they did not know when it would be reconsidered by the Committee and the viability position could get worse in that time.

· The viability could also worsen if the application was called in by the Government as it was an application for more than 150 dwellings.

· Members should consider whether the adverse effects of accepting 20% affordable housing and reduced financial contributions outweighed the benefits delivered by 281 dwellings.

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 24/02889/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:

A) The completion of a satisfactory legal agreement, providing delegated powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to resolve any outstanding matters and the Applicant agreeing the extend the statutory period in order to complete the agreement if required;

B) Providing delegated powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to update conditions and informatives with minor amendments as required;

C) Providing delegated powers to the Development and Conservation Manager to decide on the projects for NHS contributions; and

D) The conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

N.B. Following the conclusion of the item there was a break in proceedings at 21:15 and the meeting reconvened at 21:27.

24/02889/FP LAND AT ROUNDWOOD, BACK LANE, GRAVELEY, HERTFORDSHIRE

Help improve this site by giving feedback

Give your feedback