Agenda item

To receive the Head of Planning’s Report No. PLN1716 (copy attached).

The Committee considered the Head of Planning’s Report No. PLN1716, which sought authority for the Solicitor to the Council to complete a legal agreement to address the impacts of the development as identified in Reason for Refusal Nos. 2, 3 and 4.  Authority was also sought to include in the legal agreement an appropriate financial viability re-assessment clause.

The Committee was advised that, further to the decision by the Committee in March 2017 to refuse planning permission (16/00905/FULPP) for a “proposed residential development involving erection of extensions above both the existing Boots shop and the Wellington Centre multi-storey car park comprising of a total of 43 dwelling units (15 one-bedroom, 25 two-bedroom and 3 three-bedroom units), to include construction of new building access cores, elevational alterations to the multi-storey car park and alterations to the entrance of Victoria House”, the applicant had indicated that they intended to lodge an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.  In this respect, the applicant had advised that they wished to submit a draft Section 106 Agreement to the Inspector in order to address those reasons for refusal that related to Section 106 contributions.

The Committee was further advised that there was a general duty imposed on all involved in the appeal process to act reasonably and to seek to resolve matters of dispute where possible.  Undertaking the work in connection with Section 106 contributions would not affect the Council’s position in relation to Reason for Refusal No. 1, the details of which were set out in the Report, but would remove the need for the Council to defend Reason for Refusal Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with the appeal proceedings.

The Report advised that, as had been set out in the Report presented to the Committee on 29th March, 2017, as any planning permission that might be granted on this site could take some time to build-out once implemented, there was also a need (as had been recommended by the District Valuer in assessing the applicant’s Financial Viability Assessment which had been submitted with the application) for the Section 106 Agreement to be subject to a financial re-assessment clause.  This would ensure that the applicant/developer did not benefit from any improvement in the market value of the scheme that could justify provision of affordable housing or an equivalent financial contribution in the event that completion of the proposed development were to be protracted.  This had been subject to discussion with the applicants and their solicitors prior to the refusal of the application and it was considered essential that this clause would remain to ensure compliance with the requirements of Rushmoor’s Core Strategy Policy CP6 (Affordable Housing).

RESOLVED: That