Agenda item

Cancellation of S106 requirements.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding the cancellation of S106 requirements in relation to the former Ushaw Moor County Infants School, Temperance Terrace, Ushaw Moor, Durham DH7 7PQ (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application.

Mr C Dodds, representing the applicant, addressed the Committee. Mr Dodds explained that the original costs of the development which had been anticipated prior to the purchase of the site had been underestimated. Additional works had been necessary on the site which had not been predicted and movement of sales on the site had also been slow.

The Committee were advised that notwithstanding the S106 contribution, the development did bring wider community benefits in that the developer employed local apprentices on the site and that the development was regenerating the area.

Councillor J Chaplow, local Member, addressed the Committee. She was extremely disappointed that the developer was applying for the removal of S106 requirements. The monies had been earmarked for artwork and a play area. The 3 local schools were to be involved in the development of the artwork and another play area was desperately needed within the village.

The Committee were advised that the developer had already been aware of 3 red brick and steel retainer walls, prior to purchase. Furthermore Councillor Chaplow disputed the applicant’s claims that sales were slow on the site. She advised that the houses were good quality and were selling, she therefore did not accept that the developer was failing to make a profit.

In relation to the apprentices employed on the site, Councillor Chaplow suggested that none were from the village.

Councillor A Bell felt that the application be refused. If the developer was failing to make a suitable profit, then it was up to the developer to increase the market value of the properties. The original permission had been granted subject to the S106 contribution and at that time the applicant was happy to accept those conditions.

Councillor C Kay supported the refusal of the application, stating that any commercial enterprise should have in place a robust business plan with a contingency plan built in. He suggested that if the applicant felt that the site was fraught with difficulties, then that was an issue between the developer and who they bought the site from. It was unfair to deprive a local community of monies which had previously been pledged.

Councillor Freeman echoed those comments and did not doubt that in time all plots would be completed and occupied.

In response to a query from Councillor Conway, Mr C Dodds clarified that sales revenues had been reduced during the course of the development. Of those properties which had been completed, only 8 had been sold. Of those 8, some had been sold with the assistance of the help to buy scheme, without which, sales would have been a lot less.

Mr Dodds further clarified that although none of the apprentices on the site were directly from Ushaw Moor, they were from the surrounding area. Indeed many of those employed on the site, including the site manager, were from the local area.

In relation to the abnormal costs which had been incurred by the developer, Mr Dodds advised that the application had been accompanied by a viability assessment which the Planning Authority had since confirmed to be correct.

Councillor Davinson could not support the application. He argued that some developments would be capable of exceeding a 20% profit whereas some would be unfortunate not to. Ultimately it was the decision of the developer alone as to what the profit margins would be set to. Furthermore he objected to the argument that developments outside of the A1/A19 corridor would often be subject to poor sales and to suggest that could be expected to be the case, would result in setting a precedent to developers in similar outlying areas.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the points raised as follows:-

• Officers had full empathy regarding contributions to the community and always endeavoured to maximise S106 allocations. In Ushaw Moor there were significant quantifiable benefits to the scheme of development, which was the only scheme of its kind in that area.
• Guidance stated that viability of a development must be taken into consideration and Members were advised that the Planning Authority regularly challenged developers on the issue of viability. Such applications to remove S106 requirements were not brought before Planning Committee lightly, and attempts would have been made to maximise contributions to the community in all cases.

Councillor C Kay suggested that the viability of a scheme should be taken into consideration at the time of seeking the original planning permission and not at a later point when a commitment to contribute to the community had already been made. Further to a query from Councillor Kay the Principal Planning Officer clarified that for planning permissions less than 5 years old, there was no right of appeal for an applicant should the Planning Authority decide to refuse to cancel the S106 requirements in this instance.

Resolved:

That the application to cancel the S106 requirements via a legal deed, be refused.