Discharge of affordable housing 106 Agreement.
Local Member: Councillor Gweno Glyn
Minutes:
Application to discharge an Affordable Housing 106 Agreement.
(a)
The Development Control Manager expanded on the
background of the application noting that the proposal related to discharging a
106 Agreement in order for Grŵp Cynefin to be able to borrow money to fund new social
housing / affordable housing developments.
The Committee’s attention was drawn to the fact that there was no
intention to sell the houses of the Congl Meinciau estate and it was emphasised that the Grŵp Cynefin local
allocation policies would remain in force to control the future tenancy of the
estate for those in community need for affordable housing.
The relevant legislation noted that an authority which
received an application to amend or discharge a planning obligation should
consider whether that obligation served a useful purpose in planning terms. The
legislation did not state that the useful purpose had to be the same as the
original. It was therefore important to consider whether or not the planning
circumstances had changed since granting the original planning consent.
It was further noted that the local planning policy background had not
changed since the application was approved in 2009 and the Gwynedd Unitary
Development Plan remained in force. The house sizes were within the size
guidelines noted in the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing
(November, 2009) and to all intents and purposes their size controlled their
future affordability. Their future size would be restricted through planning
conditions, which had been imposed in order to withdraw some features of
permitted development rights.
Several applications had recently been approved by the
Planning Committee for new houses by housing associations in several places in
Gwynedd such as two applications in Maesgeirchen,
Bangor; Abererch Road, Pwllheli;
Pendre Gardens, Tywyn and Y
Wern, Felinheli. It was
important to note that no request had been made for Affordable Housing 106
Agreements on these because it was considered that the statutory regulations of
the housing associations and their allocation policies were adequate to control
the tenancy/occupancy for those in local/community affordable need (as the 106
Agreements would also have ensured).
In this case, it was noted that Grŵp Cynefin prepared rented social housing for local residents
under its statutory responsibility and this was reflected in its Allocation
Policy. The allocation policy in Congl Meinciau would not change as a result of the discharge of
the agreement, and the housing association would continue to assess tenants
based on their needs, namely that they had links with the local community for
ten years and against its points system. Given that an allocation policy was in
force, it could be argued therefore that the affordable housing 106 Agreement
was unnecessary because appropriate and satisfactory arrangements were in place
to restrict occupancy, in accordance with criterion 4 of policy CH7 of the
GUDP.
Based on the information to hand, including the Grŵp
Cynefin Local Allocation Policy and the explanation
provided, along with the planning history and the fact that new housing
association applications did not include 106 agreements, it was not considered
that the obligation which was the subject of this application no longer served
any useful planning purpose with regard to current policies and that it was
possible to achieve this through the Grŵp Cynefin policy itself.
The planning officers’ recommendation was to approve the application
without conditions.
(b)
Taking advantage of the right to speak, the
applicant noted the following main points:
·
It was assured that there was no risk of losing
the Congl Meinciau houses
for local people
·
The reason for making the application was to
enable the Housing Association to raise the money to provide additional homes
for local people
·
Housing Associations financed additional homes
through a combination of a grant from the Welsh Government and private loans
against the current housing stock
·
The tenants had not been consulted because there
was no change in the relationship between the tenants and the Housing
Association, nor was there any change to their rights
·
Should there be any change they would have
ensured that they had consulted with them as was legally required
·
When the dwellings were first built, a local
policy had been agreed and it was assured that this would continue together
with the Council's nomination arrangements and grant conditions and regulatory
requirements which referred to meeting the local need
·
Objectives in the Cynefin
Group’s constitution supported communities and the Welsh language, and it was
assured that lifting the condition would not change this position
·
Housing Associations’ financial situations were
closely supervised by the Welsh Government
·
It was assured that the lenders would have no
influence on the future of the houses, the price, rent or ownership nor that it
would be possible for them to reclaim finance to fund their own business or any
other business
(c) The Local Member (not a Member of this
Planning Committee) objected to the application and he made the following main
points:
·
It was understood that the Cynefin
Group was in debt and that this was not a healthy business model to put up Congl Meinciau estate against a
loan in order to borrow more money
·
There was genuine concern that something could
go wrong with the loan and it could not be guaranteed that the houses would not
be repossessed
·
The member knew of other such matters that had
gone wrong in whole villages / towns in Ireland where the money had dried up
·
Concern should the Congl
Meinciau houses be repossessed that the lenders would
surely insist on a higher price should the 106 Agreement condition be lifted,
which would consequently affect the market price
·
Whilst accepting that the allocation policy was
in place, concern that the allocation policy could easily be revised
·
The houses in question were to be let for the
wards of Botwnnog, Tudweiliog
and Aberdaron and if no-one had shown an interest
they could be extended for Pen Llŷn – there had
been no difficulties in letting them
·
Emphasised that the houses were homes for
individuals
·
The school had benefitted and was full
·
Considering the current economic climate, cases
could change and the member appealed to the Committee to seriously consider
what the implications of lifting the 106 Agreement could be in order for the Cynefin Group to go into greater financial debt
(ch) In response the Senior Solicitor explained in
legal terms that Housing Associations were different to general developers and
had to adhere to strict regulations. There were also very strict clauses in the
Housing Act and should there be any insecurity the Government could step in
which ultimately meant that assets could be transferred to the Government.
(d) It
was proposed and seconded to approve the application.
(dd)
The following concerns were noted by individual
Members:
·
Concern about omitting the 106 condition, would
it not be possible to approve the application but ensuring that the condition
was reinstated on the houses should they have to be sold?
·
This was an important decision and if an error
was made, there would be monumental implications
·
Responses from all the public consultations
would have been beneficial
·
It was understood that the money had to be
invested – they had to venture to accumulate, and the return on the investment
would not be seen immediately
·
The need for housing was greater than what the
waiting lists indicated
·
Whilst accepting the risk, regulations existed
and there was certainly a need for affordable rented housing which was so
important for local people, and the only way of providing them was through the
housing associations
(a)
In response to the above observations, the
Senior Planning Service Manager noted the following:
·
There were only two options for the Committee,
namely to approve in accordance with the recommendation or to refuse, but it
was not possible to approve the application and then reinstate the condition
should the houses have to be sold. He
further noted that there were risks attached to changing policy with any
development, but a decision must be made based on the evidence to hand and not
on what could possibly happen in the future.
The Committee had in the past established the principle of not imposing
section 106 conditions on applications from Housing Associations. The Senior Solicitor noted further that
individuals could submit an application to delete a Section 106 condition
provided the application was for a specific purpose.
·
Approving an application to remove the condition
did not weaken the principle of a Section 106 and it would not set a precedent
in relation to developments by developers who were not housing
associations.
Resolved: To approve the application unconditionally.
Supporting documents: