Agenda item

PLANNING APPLICATION NO. SL/2021/0161 Land at Viver Green, Viver Lane, Hincaster, Milnthorpe, LA7 7NA

To consider an application for the variation of a Section 106 agreement relating to a reserved matters approval (reference SL/2015/0497) and an outline approval (reference SL/2013/0594). This application was deferred from the February committee in order to seek an update from the Councils independent consultant.


Please note Part I/Part II appendices to follow.



NOTE – In the interests of transparency; Councillors Pete McSweeney and Rupert Audland declared that they were approached by Cllr Helen Chaffey in communications in respect of the possible options for this site, however, both confirmed they were not predetermined, biased, or predisposed to consider the following Application.


The Principal Specialist - Development Management provided a report on the Application. The historical background and review of the site was provided.


The Application was deferred from the February committee in order to seek an update from the Councils independent consultant from Lambert Smith Hampton.


The proposal, as stated within the report, was relayed. The location of the site and layout plan was described. An explanation of the site as it currently stands and the varying stages of completion was explained. Photographs of the properties already approved were illustrated. The Officer described how the first few units have been occupied. The rest of the site is currently left in a state of incomplete construction. Slides illustrating the properties boarded up and in a mixed state of construction were displayed. The viability report from Bailey Venning Associates was referenced as was the later Financial Viability Review Addendum report submitted from Lambert Smith Hampton.


Details of the late representation received from a resident who lives in one of the occupied dwellings on the development was noted. The uncompleted part of the site was described as an ‘eye sore’. The letter from the resident is set out in full within Item No. 6 Late Representations for Committee Page 3.


The questions raised previously by members were addressed. The LSH report comments in response followed.


The Officer discussed the revenues, costs, and value of the land. Extensive remedial action is needed for the remaining plots to be rectified or demolished depending on the state of the degradation of the plots. The issues with drainage were explained and how they plan to be undertaken.


An assessment of need for affordable housing in the area was relayed. The viability of affordable housing in the area was discussed. The data for Hincaster doesn’t indicate a significant demand for affordable housing.


Following an analysis of the reports the Officer concluded that the development is currently unviable using standard industry inputs, it is LSH’s view that a developer might proceed with the development at risk of an underperformance on profit, as the scheme is not likely to make a loss. The recommendation was to approve the application: the revocation and variation of the S106 agreements, resulting in the provision of no affordable housing on-site and no off-site financial contribution for affordable housing.


Paul Tunstall (Agent) spoke in support of the proposal.


The Planning Officer responded questions raised by Members.


Concerns were expressed by Members that a precedent would be set if the application was allowed.


The Officer confirmed that this was an unusual case. The Officer confirmed that each application needs to be weighed up on its own merits and comply with Policy.


The Officer confirmed that there was a S73 application that was yet to be determined. Members expressed a wish to consider this application as they were interested in what was being proposed. The Officer confirmed that this could be brought back to Committee.


Tretonia’s position was clarified as was the ownership of the land.


Members gave consideration to the application and raised concerns which were addressed by the Planning Officer.


Officers confirmed that Members should only consider the application as it appeared before them. Some concern was raised by Members as to future use for the site if the application was allowed. Upon Members request, Officers confirmed that any application put forward for this site would come before this Committee.


The Legal, Governance and Democracy Specialist responded to questions surrounding the application and confirmed that Members were being asked to consider the application to revoke and vary the 106 Agreements in place. They could not impose conditions upon the Applicant and any variation to the 106 Agreement before Committee would have to be with the Applicants agreement.


Members asked whether the Applicant could be asked to consider varying the 106 Agreement to include provision for them to provide a cost analysis, after the actual costs were known, and if profits were higher than envisaged, could a clause be in place requiring the Applicant to pay a proportion of the additional profit towards affordable housing in the District. The Legal, Governance and Democracy Specialist confirmed that Officers could have that discussion but the Applicant could refuse. Accordingly, if a motion to approve the application, based on Officers recommendation, is made, Members must note that this is on the basis of that recommendation without any requirement for such a clause to be inserted.


Members noted the response, and requested that if such a motion was made, to approve the application following the Officers recommendation that they would ask Officers to make such a request to the Applicant, as outlined above, to consider such a clause whilst noting that the motion was not dependent upon this. 


A motion to approve the application based on the Officers recommendation was made and seconded and a vote was taken on the application and it was:


RESOLVED – That the application be approved, the variation and revocation of the S106 agreements as required, resulting in the provision of no affordable housing on-site and no off-site financial contribution for affordable housing.


NOTE – The Committee adjourned for a break at 11:45.a.m. and reconvened at 11:55.a.m.

Supporting documents: