Meeting documents

Proposal: Application to modify a Section 106 Agreement dated 20 May 2014 relating to housing development.

The Area Lead Planning officer reminded Members that they had deferred the application the previous month for further financial information from the District Valuer, which had since been circulated.  There were no changes to the design or layout of the scheme but the applicants had been asked to provide a 4 bed house to meet an identified local need and in order to do this, they proposed to provide 10 affordable units rather than the previously agreed 12.  He said the key issue was viability which the District Valuer had addressed and agreed to the variation. 

Mr N Bloomfield, representing Martock Parish Council, said they had no objection to the proposed 4 bed house but the reduction in affordable units was not supported.  He said it would mean the difference between the developer achieving a 15% profit or a 14.5% profit at the site and he asked that they keep to the original 12 affordable housing units. 

Mr M Harding, agent for the applicant, stated that they were a Housing Association as well as a charity and a developer and all profits were used to build affordable homes.  He said the variation had occurred in working closely with housing officers and the site would still provide 10 affordable housing units.  He hoped they had demonstrated they were not making a huge profit but were making the scheme viable. 

One of the Ward Members, Councillor Graham Middleton said he appreciated that they were a charity but he did not feel the reduction in affordable units was justified.

The other Ward Member, Councillor Patrick Palmer said he agreed with the Parish Council comments.

In response to questions from Members, the Area Lead Planning officer confirmed that:-

·         larger developers operated on a 20 to 25% profit per site whereas Housing Associations worked on lower profit margins.   

·         The District Valuer figures confirmed the site was significantly short of being viable and the developer’s request was not excessive in the circumstances.

Following a brief discussion the majority of Members were content to accept the District Valuers recommendation and agree to the variation.  It was proposed and seconded to accept the officers recommendation and, on being put to the vote the proposal to approve the application was carried (voting: 8 in favour, 3 against, 0 abstentions).

(Voting: 8 in favour, 3 against, 0 abstentions)