Agenda item

Proposed new access road and the erection of up to 72 dwellings and associated works.

It was reported that outline planning permission for up to 70 dwellings with a new access road off Stourview Avenue, Mistley had beengranted in November 2015 under ref. 15/01810/OUT and was subject to a Section 106 Agreement which required the provision of affordable housing, education and healthcare contributions together with the provision of open space and a habitat contribution.

It was further reported that the current application was for the same site and for the same development but proposed a modest increase in numbers from 70 to 72 dwellings and also to vary the terms of the previous Section 106 Agreement in order to remove the requirement for affordable housing and the infrastructure contributions. The applicants had submitted that, after following the grant of outline permission they had worked up the detailed drawings and the scale of the technical costs of the site then became apparent. Those costs had been found to be significant and had threatened the commercial viability of the project.

The Committee was informed that the applicants had therefore submitted a viability study in support of the application which had set out the costs. This has been the subject of detailed and lengthy consideration and testing by the Council’s own independent consultants PNB Paribas. Further detailed information had also requested and had been provided by the applicants in respect of build costs and abnormal costs which had been accepted by the Council’s consultants. They had therefore concluded that the proposed scheme could support a payment in lieu of some £0.26m and could not therefore fund the contributions or provide the affordable housing as required in the 2015 planning permission. The applicants had confirmed their agreement to a contribution of £0.26m.

The Committee was further informed that Officers were content that, subject to the carrying forward of the planning conditions from the earlier planning permission and a revised Section 106 planning obligation that made provision for the in lieu payment of £0.26m which would need to include the RAMs payment, together with the provision of on-site public open space and its maintenance, the principle of development on the site remained acceptable. However, it was acknowledged that the development would not be able to fully mitigate the impacts it was likely to have on the local infrastructure. The scale of development was in keeping with both the site’s location on the edge of Mistley and with the need to facilitate on-site strategic landscaping, open space and the retention of existing landscape features. Furthermore, the proposal would ensure that the living conditions of existing and future residents would be protected from any materially detrimental impacts whilst significantly boosting housing supply within the District in line with the Council’s own emerging Local Plan.

The Committee was made aware that the recommendation was therefore to approve outline planning permission subject to the completion of a legal obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the imposition of the previous conditions.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s TemporaryPlanning Team Leader (TF) in respect of the application.

An update sheet was circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of representations that had been received from:

(1) Mistley Parish Council;

(2) Essex Police; and

(3) Three local residents.

Will Vote, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

It was moved by Councillor Harris and seconded by Councillor Placey that the Head of Planning be authorised to refuse planning for this development, which motion on being put to the vote was declared LOST on the Chairman’s casting vote.

Following discussion by the Committee and advice provided by Officers, it was thenmoved by Councillor Fowler, seconded by Councillor Alexander and RESOLVED that consideration of this application be deferred in order for Officers to gather furtherinformation relating to the viability assessment.