Agenda item
Removal of condition 3 of planning permission C19/0323/11/LL which restricts 2 units out of 8 to affordable units
LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor Steve Collings
Link
to relevant background documents
Minutes:
Revoke condition 3
of planning application C19/0323/11/LL which restricted two out of the eight
units as affordable units.
a)
The Planning Manager elaborated on the background
of the application, noting that it had been deferred at the January 2020
Committee in order to receive additional information regarding the rent prices
of the residential units to be provided as part of the proposal. The condition
was originally imposed as clear and definitive information had not been
submitted (specifically the open market price), as part of the previous
application for the affordable provision. Following the deferral of the
application, information had been submitted by the developer regarding the rent
prices and open market valuations of the residential units. Also, an assessment of the value of the units
had been submitted by a company of Chartered Surveyors, based on the
requirements of the Red Book (2017). The
open market value of the units would vary from £45,000 to £60,000 and the
monthly rent of the units would vary between £425.00 and £475.00, with units 4
and 8 within the development offered at a rent of £425 per month. According to
Appendix 4 of SPG: Affordable Housing,
in relation to the prices anticipated for intermediate housing for sale in the
Deiniol ward in Bangor (2018), the value of an intermediate house was £67,876,
which meant that the proposed units could feasibly be purchased by occupiers on
a moderate salary. The Council’s Strategic Housing Unit had confirmed that the
valuation of the proposed residential units was lower than the affordable price
level (intermediate) for the Deiniol ward in Bangor.
It was noted in
the report that consultation had taken place with the Joint Planning Policy
Unit in order to receive more information on the rent situation. It confirmed
that paragraph 3.3.2 of Supplementary Planning Guidance 'Affordable Housing'
(April 2019) stated that householders were expected to pay 25% or less of their
gross income on rent for units described as affordable. Although the median
income varied between wards, it was explained that the proposal needed to be
considered in relation to the median income of Bangor in its entirety. It was
explained that a development in one location could meet the demand for housing
within a whole city due to the easy and natural movement between wards, and the
proximity of wards to each other (it was noted that Pentir ward had been
excluded from the figures on the grounds that it included areas outside
Bangor). It was reported that the rent of the two affordable units noted at
£425 each was affordable in the context of the median Bangor income and the
requirements of the SPG and relevant TAN.
It was noted that the open market prices of the units were naturally
restricted to being affordable due to the nature and scale of the site and the
size of the units themselves. It was
stated that if this information had been submitted with the original
application, such a condition would not have been imposed as it would not have
been necessary to do so to ensure a provision of affordable units, i.e. based
on their open market price, they would be affordable in any case. Reducing the rent would further reduce the
value and this would have the potential to make the scheme inviable.
Intervention in a low value market development could affect interest and
investment from developers which would affect the regeneration of the High
Street in Bangor and other centres.
b)
A proposal to approve the application in accordance
with the recommendation was put forward and seconded.
c)
An amendment was proposed and seconded to include a
new planning condition that restricted the rent of two of the units to an
affordable level for the following reasons:
·
The median income for
Deiniol ward was the appropriate figure in order to assess income, rather than
the median income of Bangor in its entirety, as the salaries in Deiniol ward
were lower.
d) During the ensuing
discussion, the following main observations were made by members:
·
The median income for Deiniol ward was the appropriate
figure in order to assess income, rather than the median income of Bangor in
its entirety, as the salaries in Deiniol ward were lower. The rent of £425 was
not affordable based on the median income of Deiniol ward. It was noted that the
rent needed to be £404 to be affordable in Deiniol ward. Attention was drawn to
the fact that the selling price of the units was solely based on the Deiniol
ward figure, but the figure for Bangor in its entirety was used for the rent,
and it was noted that these were the figures which were convenient for the
developer.
·
Although the officials were
thanked for their explanation, there was disagreement in principle with
revoking the condition, as it was believed that it went contrary to the
affordable housing policy. It was noted that accepting the developer's argument
about the viability of affordable housing set an unacceptable precedent and
therefore the developer should have to follow the policy. A question was asked
about the use of officers’ discretion not to adhere to the affordable housing
policy, and concern was expressed that revoking the condition would be too
favourable towards the developer's economic arguments. It was added that this
problem arose on both extremes, whether it was an expensive or inexpensive
development. Reference was made to past planning applications that had been
granted in favour of the developer due to viability arguments, to the detriment
of affordable housing. It was felt that members needed to support the
affordable housing policy, and to retain the condition, as this was what was
important to local people.
·
It was noted that the units were
already affordable, and that the developer would win the case on appeal.
·
Disagreement was voiced with the
fact that the units could be referred to as being affordable in perpetuity, as
it was impossible to predict future economic and social changes.
e) In
response to the members’ observations, it was explained that arguments about
the viability of expensive and inexpensive developments were two separate
arguments, and that the affordable housing contribution was always made, but
that it was sometimes in the form of a financial sum. It was noted that the
affordable housing policy also acknowledged specific circumstances where it was
not possible, or not required, to secure a percentage of affordable units, and
that this application was such an example. It was emphasised that the clear and
robust evidence in the report demonstrated that the market ensured that the
units and rent would be affordable in any case, without any further control or
intervention by means of a planning condition, and therefore no affordable
units would be lost by abolishing the condition. Reducing the rent would further
reduce the value and this would have the potential to make the scheme unviable.
It was explained that if members were not convinced that the rent would be
affordable, clear evidence would have to be submitted to support this.
Following a thorough assessment in the report, it was explained that it was not
likely that placing a condition to restrict the rent would meet the validity
criteria for planning conditions as it was not necessary or reasonable.
RESOLVED
in favour of the amendment to impose a new condition to restrict the rent of
two of the units to ensure that it was an affordable rent level.
1.
Need
to comply with the remaining conditions of planning permission number
C19/0323/11/LL.
Supporting documents: