Agenda item

(Director of Communities) To consider the attached report (CHB-014-2014/15).

(1)        That, having considered the option for the future use to be adopted for the development site at Burton Road, Loughton, following the decision of the Area Planning Sub-Committee (South) to refuse planning permission for Phase 2 of the Council’s house-building Programme.

 

A revised planning application be submitted for a scheme similar to that previously submitted, consisting of 52 new affordable homes and 50% unallocated parking (shown as Option 2 at Appendix 2 of the report to the Cabinet Committee) but addressing the reasons for refusal by reducing its  bulk, altering its design and overall height so as to reduce any impact on the neighbouring land and any detriment of the visual amenities of the locality, all as set out in the feasibility report at an estimated cost of £9,255,439 which will require an increased subsidy of around £2,184,000 (£42k per unit) based on a 30-year pay-back period.

 

(2)        That a detailed planning application for the scheme be submitted.

 

(3)        That a report be submitted to the Cabinet recommending that priority be given to the provision of an off-street parking scheme in Torrington Drive, Loughton being undertaken, subject to a resident consultation.

 

(4)        That the Director of Neighbourhoods be asked to give consideration to including any new off-street parking spaces being provided as a Residents Parking Scheme.

The Assistant Director of Housing (Property) presented a report to the Cabinet Committee, he advised that on 7 January 2015, the Area Planning Sub-Committee (South) considered and refused planning permission for Phase 2 of the Council’s Housebuilding Programme at Burton Road, Loughton consisting of 52 new affordable homes for applicants on the Council’s housing register. The decision for refusal was recorded as:

 

‘By reason of its bulk, design and density in terms of numbers of dwellings, the proposal would have an overbearing relationship with neighbouring land to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality’.

 

In line with the Policy on the Future Use of Development Sites Unsuitable for Development agreed in April 2014, the Cabinet Committee considered the future use of the development site at Burton Road, Loughton. Set out below were a number of options:.

 

(1)        Appeal Against the Planning Decision

 

Any applicant was entitled to submit an appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision relating to a planning application. The Council had never before appealed against its own decision. However, in this instance, the application for Phase 2 of the Council’s Housebuilding Programme was submitted in the name of East Thames Group (ETG), who were the Council’s appointed Development Agent and they could be requested to submit an appeal, funded in full by the Council (since it was the Council that funded the Housebuilding Programme).

 

When submitting an appeal, applicants could ask for the case to be dealt with as a Written Representation, a Hearing or an Enquiry. If the Council were to take any of these appeal options it was important to note that the Council would have to pay for not only the Consultants fees and disbursements to prepare and present the appeal but also the fees associated with defending the appeal. There were a number of differences for each of the appeal processes, which are set out below:

 

a.            Written Representation – Where both the applicant (ETG) and the Council submit a written statement of case including all supporting documentations. The appointed Planning Inspector will then consider the documents, often visiting the site before reaching a decision. This could take between 3 and 6 months from submission before a decision was reached. ETG have estimated the cost of submitting a Written Representation to be around £5,000, and the cost of defending the appeal was estimated to be in the region of £2,500.

 

b.            Hearing – A simple examination of the matters arising under the appeal, normally where evidence did not need to be tested under cross examination. A hearing was normally heard over one day, and was led by the Planning Inspector. This could take between 6 and 9 months from submission before a decision was reached. ETG have estimated the cost of submitting an appeal and attending the hearing to be around £27,500 (excluding VAT and disbursements), and the cost of defending the appeal was estimated to be in the region of £4,500.

 

c.            Public Inquiry – This was similar to a hearing. However, this required the appointment of legal representation in the form of a Barrister on each side for the purpose of cross examination of evidence. This could take between 9 and 12 months from submission before a decision was reached. ETG have estimated the cost of submitting an appeal and attending the Public Inquiry to be around £34,375 plus £15,000 for Legal Representation (excluding VAT and disbursements) and the cost of defending the appeal was estimated to be in the region of £4,500 plus £15,000 for its own legal representation.

 

The Cabinet Committee did not have delegated authority to submit an appeal, therefore, if the decision of the Cabinet Committee was to appeal, then on a point of procedure, it must seek the approval of Council. Any appeal must be submitted by 7 July 2015, being 6 months of the decision being reached.

 

The main risks associated with submitting an appeal was that the Planning Inspector may decide to uphold the decision of the Area Planning Sub-Committee (South), in which case there would not only be a substantial delay in the house-building programme, but there would also be a significant amount of abortive fees. The risk to the Council’s reputation over appealing against its own decision should also not be overlooked.

 

(2)        To submit a revised planning application for a scheme consisting of 43 new affordable homes with 100% unallocated parking (Option 1)

 

Attached to the Agenda at Appendix 1 was a feasibility study, which considered an alternative design for the site based on a 43-home scheme with 100% unallocated parking. Whilst this did address the reasons for refusal, and also addressed objections raised by local residents, in response to the planning application, it was less favourable to the Council’s Planning Officers due to the large banks of open parking and its impact on the environment.

 

The main differences between this design and the original that was refused planning permission was the loss of 3 flats to one end of Block C to create one bank of parking spaces, the removal of the four top-floor flats reducing the overall height to 3-stories and the loss of 2x3 bedroom houses to create a second bank of parking spaces so as to achieve 100% parking across the whole scheme. There was a loss of amenity space as a result of this design change in order to accommodate the additional parking.

 

The schedule of materials, fenestration and overall elevational treatment would need to be considered in more detail to take account of the design changes.

 

From the financial Investment Report at Appendix 3 of the Agenda, the Total Scheme Costs for a 43 home scheme was £8.06m, which was made up of £7.2m works costs and £0.86m fees.

 

The financial target of loan repayment in Year 30 could be achieved providing it received subsidy of £2.24m. The subsidy per unit equates to £52,000.

 

The additional design fees payable to ETG and their Architects for preparing a revised set of drawings and details and re-submitting the planning application would be £21,550 plus VAT. There were no additional planning application fees if resubmitted before 7 January 2016.

 

Should this option be agreed by the Cabinet Committee, there would be a resultant loss of HCA Affordable Housing Grant. For estimating purposes, a reduced rate of £12,500 per flat could be assumed. However, this would require negotiating with the HCA.

 

The Cabinet Committee had already agreed to make a contribution to the NHS for healthcare provision within the District, albeit based on a 52-unit scheme. Should that be reduced to 43 homes as a result of this option then the Council would need to negotiate with the NHS over an alternative amount of financial contribution and enter into a new Unilateral Undertaking.

 

The main risks associated with this option were that the revised scheme may not be seen as going far enough to overcome the concerns of the Area Planning Sub-Committee (South) and was once again refused planning permission by the Sub-Committee, resulting in further abortive fees.

 

(3)        To submit a revised planning application, for a scheme consisting of 52 affordable homes and 50% unallocated parking, but reduced in height, scale and massing (Option 2)

 

Attached at Appendix 2 of the Agenda was a feasibility study, which considered an alternative design for the site based on a reduction in height, scale and massing, yet still achieved 52 new affordable homes and 50% unallocated parking. Whilst this did address the majority of the reasons for refusal, it did not address concerns over density. The scheme does not increase the parking allocation either, although it should be noted that this was not a reason for refusal.

 

From the Financial Investment Report at Appendix 3 of the Agenda, the Total Scheme Costs for this revised scheme consisting of 52 new affordable homes was £9.26m,which was made up of £8.25m works costs and £1.01m fees.

 

The financial target of loan repayment in Year 30 could be achieved providing it received subsidy of £2.18m. The subsidy per unit equates to £42,000.

 

The additional design fees payable to ETG and their Architects for preparing a revised set of drawings and details and re-submitting the planning application would be £21,550 plus VAT. There were no additional planning application fees if re-submitted before 7 January 2016.

 

Should this option be agreed by the Cabinet Committee, it would mean the existing HCA affordable Housing Grant would remain the same as would the financial contribution to the NHS towards healthcare in the district.

 

The main risks associated with this option were, again that the revised scheme did not go far enough to overcome the concerns of the Area Planning Sub-Committee (South) and was once again refused planning permission, resulting in abortive fees.

 

(4)        To sell the site for affordable rented housing to a Housing Association in return for a capital receipt

 

Should the Cabinet Committee opt to sell the site, then one option would be to sell it to one of the Council’s Preferred Housing Association Partners, for them to develop the site for affordable housing, from which the Council could obtain nomination rights. This would benefit the Council by way of a capital receipt for the land value, which could be used to fund other Council House-building developments.

 

The value of the land had not been assessed; therefore, should this option be agreed by the Cabinet Committee, it would mean a separate financial viability study would need to be undertaken to establish a land value and consideration of the most appropriate way to appoint the housing association.

 

The main drawback was the fact the Council would not retain the affordable rent for the homes that were built, and that a similar number of homes would have to be put into the Council Housebuilding Programme to replace these ones taken out. There was also the consideration that a housing association could submit plans for more homes to be delivered on the site.

 

Since the Council had secured HCA Affordable Housing Grant for the delivery of affordable housing on this site based on a firm scheme, Officers were also of the view that this would cause reputational difficulties with the HCA, bearing in mind that this was only the first scheme where grant had been secured, and could result in the not agreeing any future affordable housing grant applications from the Council.

 

(5)        To sell the site for private development in return for a capital receipt

 

The benefits, drawbacks and risks associated with this option were similar to those above. However, the land value would be higher; no more than 40% affordable homes are likely to be provided; and the potential for a private developer submitting plans for more units on the site was greater.

 

(6)        To divide up the site and sell the land to local residents to extend their private gardens in return for a capital receipt

 

Whilst this option appears in the policy for the Future Use of Development Sites Unsuitable for Development, in this instance this option was not ideally suited since the site backed on to a row of flat blocks where the gardens were back to back.

 

Since the land would be sold for private gardens, the value would be very low and reaching agreements with all of the individual occupiers of the flats would be near impossible. The cost of drawing up legal agreements would almost offset any value in the land.

 

(7)        To demolish the garages, re-surface and mark out the land and to leave the site as open car parking for local residents

 

With Debden Station so close, and with the adjacent shopping parade at Debden Broadway, the land could be utilised as an extension of the “Pay and Display” car park. This would create a revenue income for the Council, but it would require the land to be transferred from the HRA to the General Fund, for an appropriate fee.

 

Such an option would not provide any much needed affordable housing in the district, and as with selling the site, there was a risk that the HCA would frown upon any future affordable housing grant applications from the Council, as the allocation had been based on a firm bid.

 

(8)        To sell the site to a Town or Parish Council for their own purposes (eg. public amenity space) in return for a capital receipt

 

Whilst this could be viable option, this was likely to generate a significant capital receipt on the scale of selling to a private developer or an ongoing revenue income similar to what could be realised from car parking charges, and as such was not recommended.

 

Decision:

 

(1)        That, having considered the options for the future use to be adopted for the development site at Burton Road, Loughton, following the decision of the Area Planning Sub-Committee (South) to refuse planning permission for Phase 2 of the Council’s house-building Programme, a revised planning application be submitted for a scheme similar to that previously submitted, consisting of 52 new affordable homes and 50% unallocated parking (shown as Option 2 at Appendix 2 of the report to the Cabinet Committee) but addressing the reasons for refusal by reducing its bulk, altering its design and overall height so as to reduce any impact on the neighbouring land and any detriment of the visual amenities of the locality, all as set out in the feasibility report at an estimated cost of £9,255,439, which will require an increased subsidy of around £2,184,000 (£42k per unit) based on a 30-year pay-back period.

 

(2)        That a detailed planning application for the scheme be submitted.

 

(3)        That a report be submitted to the Cabinet recommending that priority be given to the provision of an off-street parking scheme in Torrington Drive, Loughton being undertaken, subject to a resident consultation.

 

(4)        That the Director of Neighbourhoods be asked to give consideration to including any new off-street parking spaces being provided as a Residents Parking Scheme.

 

Reasons for Decision:

 

The Cabinet Committee had to decide on the future use of the development site at Burton Road since the planning application for Phase 2 of the Council House-building Programme was refused permission at the Area Planning Sub-Committee (South) on 7 January 2015.  

 

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

 

The report set out all of the options that were available, including the advantages, disadvantages and costs for each option.