Agenda item

Decision:

To defer the application

As the application was part-heard and Councillors Baxter, Dilks, Judy Smith, Trollope-Bellew and Wood had not been present when it had been considered previously, they did not participate in discussion or vote on the application.

Noting:

·         Comments from Billingborough Parish Council together with a further letter submitted regarding a further contribution of £15,400 for sports facilities in the village

·         No objection from Lincolnshire County Council Highways and SUDS Support subject to conditions

·         No contribution required from Lincolnshire County Council Education and Cultural Services

·         No objection from the Environment Agency subject to conditions

·         Comments from the Council’s Environmental Protection Services

·         Comments from the SKDC Affordable Housing Officer

·         No contribution required from NHS England

·         Comments from Anglian Water Services

·         Comments from the Black Sluice Internal Drainage Board

·         Comments from Heritage Lincolnshire

·         The applicant’s viability appraisal and assessment of the Valuation Office Agency together with further expert advice

·         Further information submitted by the applicant together with an updated viability appraisal and comments from the Council’s Environmental Protection Team

·         5 representations received as a result of public consultation

·         Provisions within the National Planning Policy Framework and the South Kesteven Core Strategy and supplementary planning documents

·         Comments made by members at the meeting

·         Comments made during the public speaking session on 25 July 2017

·         Comments made by members on 25 July 2017 when the application was first considered

Members discussed the viability assessment and the band within which the developer’s profit was considered reasonable. Committee was advised that 17.5% to 20% is normally considered an acceptable range of developer profit and a number of members commented that the 20% profit that the developer would achieve if they did not provide any affordable housing was at the top of that band. Reference was also made to emerging Government guidance that indicated that 20% was a suitable return to developers to establish viability. While there was acknowledgement that providing the full 35% quotient of affordable housing may render the development unviable, it was suggested that the developer could make a smaller contribution and still achieve a profit that was within the acceptable range.

A proposition was made that the application be approved for the reasons set out in the case officer’s report and subject to conditions. This was not seconded.

A new proposition was put forward: to approve the application subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement comprising £15,400 for sports equipment and a contribution of £111,000 for affordable housing, which would leave the developer’s profit at approximately 17%. When combined with the current decision regarding phase 1 of the scheme this would generate 2 affordable houses. This was seconded. Members expressed a wish that these be delivered on site as part of phase 2 of the development.

The Committee was advised that the most appropriate way to proceed was to put the proposition to the applicant before making a decision.

14:40 to 14:58 – the meeting adjourned to enable officers to speak to the applicant

Following the adjournment Members were advised that the applicant had requested a deferral to re-assess whether they could agree to the Committee’s proposal. Consequently the proposition was withdrawn and a new proposition made to defer the application until the next meeting of the Committee (24 July 2018). This was seconded and, on being put to the vote, carried.