Agenda item

To consider an application for Deed of Variation to remove Plot 5 from Section 106 Obligation relating to affordable housing provision in connection with planning permission 45/2006/0816/PF at land at Brookdale Road, Rhyl (copy attached).

An application was submitted for Deed of Variation to remove Plot 5 from Section 196 Obligation relating to affordable housing provision in connection with planning permission 45/2006/0816/PF at land at Brookdale Road, Rhyl.

As a point of order Councillor Mark Young queried why a previous application had been considered under part 2 of the agenda and officers advised that commercially sensitive information had been considered as part of that particular application which did not apply in this case.

General Debate – Whilst acknowledging the reasoning behind the application Councillor Pete Prendergast (Local Member) expressed his disappointment over the potential loss of an affordable dwelling in this case, particularly given the length of time taken to complete the development for which it was now argued was no longer financially viable.  He felt that the affordable housing element of developments should be kept under close review to ensure planning obligations were met, particularly given the desperate need for low cost housing in the area.

During the ensuing debate members expressed their concern over the potential loss of affordable housing, particular given that a previous viability case had been accepted for the development which had already reduced the amount of affordable housing provision.  Despite the financial viability appraisal there was still a need for affordable housing and there was some debate as to whether there would be merit in further testing of the financial information.  Members were keen to ensure affordable housing provision was protected and that developers kept to their obligations in that regard.  Officers confirmed it was a regrettable case, highlighting the long development process and extenuating circumstances, but given the change in financial circumstances and assessment of the financial viability appraisal by the Council’s Valuation and Estates Manager, it was considered unreasonable to insist on compliance with the planning obligation in this instance.  In reaching their recommendation officers had also considered the prospects of the planning obligation being met and any legal process which would need to be applied to pursue it and/or in responding in the event of an appeal.  Officers had considered the financial assessment to be sufficient given the level of expertise required in this case and it was noted that any further independent scrutiny of the financial information would likely incur further cost to the Planning Department.

At the close of the debate Councillor Pete Prendergast advised that the developer in this case was considered to be a long established and successful builder, whether or not a loss was made on this particular development.  Planning permission had been granted on the basis of affordable housing provision and given that the planning obligation was for one affordable dwelling, he did not consider it unreasonable to seek that provision.

Proposal – Councillor Merfyn Parry proposed, seconded by Councillor Emrys Wynne, that the application be refused on the basis that the planning obligation still served a useful purpose notwithstanding the financial appraisal submitted.

VOTE:

GRANT – 3

REFUSE – 13

ABSTAIN – 0

RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED, contrary to officer recommendation, on the basis that the planning obligation still serviced a useful purpose in the provision of affordable housing notwithstanding the financial appraisal submitted by the applicant.

The meeting concluded at 11.50 a.m.