Agenda item

            That the decision of the Inspector to allow this appeal be noted.

The Chief Officer (Planning & Environment) detailed the background to the report and explained that the application had been refused contrary to officer recommendation and paragraph 6.01 set out the concerns raised which included lack of provision of 30% affordable housing.  The applicant’s had spoken of significant costs associated with the site and the unviability if affordable housing provision needed to be included.  The appeal Inspector felt significant weight should be applied and this resulted in affordable housing being limited as a result.  Consideration had also been given to ecology and flooding issues and because the Joint Housing Land Availability Study showed a shortfall in the five year supply of housing land required, the Inspector attached considerable weight to the consideration.  He granted planning permission subject to a significant number of conditions. 

                        Councillor Mike Peers queried why highway safety had been considered by the Inspector when the Council had already dropped this as a reason for refusal.  The Chief Officer advised that the issue had been raised by a third party.  Councillor Peers asked whether the 28% return figure was correct and queried the amount of affordable housing that would be achieved on site.  The Chief Officer confirmed that he would clarify both of these issues following the meeting.  Councillor Peers referred to the concerns by the applicant over viability issues which the Committee had argued against and also commented on the sum of £0.5m which had been spent by the developer on marketing.  He felt that this was a significant amount, along with the 28% profit, particularly as the applicant had stated that they were unable to provide affordable housing on the site due to it being unviable.  The Planning Strategy Manager drew Members’ attention to paragraph 6.07 where the decision of the Inspector relating to affordable housing and the provision of a commuted sum were reported. 

                        Councillor Richard Jones raised significant concern that the consideration of viability of a site would need to be undertaken by the Committee and suggested that the decision of the Inspector should be challenged. 

                        The Planning Strategy Manager advised that since 2013, a Developer Guidance Note had been produced for all developments which provided details to developers of issues to consider and one of the criteria was to ensure that the site was viable and sustainable.  He added that the developer had raised viability issues on another application which had also been appealed and had won both appeals.  He spoke of the lessons that had been learned since the production of the guidance note.  Councillor Peers expressed his significant disappointment in the outcome of the appeal in relation to the viability aspect.

                        In response to a query from Councillor Owen Thomas about the ownership of the land, the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment) said that an applicant could apply to develop land they did not own if they served the appropriate notices to the land owner. 

                        Councillor Gareth Roberts shared the concerns on the issue of viability and suggested that had the applicant been aware of the restrictions on the site and therefore effect on costs, they could have adapted their proposal accordingly.  Councillor Richard Jones said that applicants should ensure viability before purchasing a site and in expressing his concern about the Inspector’s decision, suggested that a letter be sent to the Inspector on their interpretation of the policies in place. 

                        The Chief Officer (Planning & Environment) said that the developer guidance note required developers to prove the site was deliverable and viable.  He suggested that this appeal could be considered in further detail by the Planning Strategy Group.                   

            RESOLVED:

            That the decision of the Inspector to allow this appeal be noted.