Agenda item

Note:              The Chairman explained Councillor Cotton had offered his apologies for leaving Committee earlier and indicated he was feeling unwell.

The Chairman introduced planning application 137532 for the proposed replacement of the communal building approved under 134583 with the erection of two single storey bungalows and associated works. The Principal Development Management Officer notified Committee that there was an amendment to the report in that the recommendation stated it was subject to Section 106 arrangements however this should have read Section 1 which is also a legal agreement under the Localism Act 2011. The section 1 agreement would ensure affordable housing on the site. S106 agreements will remain the principle type of agreement for planning applications to secure affordable housing but in certain circumstances an s1 allows an applicant to gain funding for such accommodation as in this case.

The Chairman notified Committee there were two registered speakers and reiterated the order of appearance. He then invited the first speaker to the microphone.

Committee was addressed by Councillor Liz Hillman of Saxilby Parish Council who was speaking in opposition to the application. Councillor Hillman explained the impact the removal of the community hub would have on the proposed development and that it would drastically alter the original plans for the site. Councillor Hillman highlighted the risk of social isolation amongst older residents and informed Committee of the higher than average population of older people within the Saxilby area. She explained the percentage of older residents would only increase with time and it was necessary to provide suitable residential areas for this section of the community. She noted that the original plan would have provided not only suitable housing but also the necessary community support to ensure an integrated and prosperous retirement village which would have helped tackle the social issues faced by older generations. She considered that not all the alternative management methods for the facility had been considered which may have allowed the original hub to be retained. Councillor Hillman strongly recommended that the application be refused.

The second speaker, Andrea Brough, introduced herself to the Committee and explained she was representing Acis Group Ltd in support of the application. She explained that Acis had been brought into the scheme following the withdrawal of the original housing provider allowing the scheme to continue to provide the over 55’s accommodation. With the involvement of Acis Group Ltd, the specification for the site had been amended due to their business model and that the homes would be provided not only for older people but with a greater affordable housing emphasis as well as open market properties. Ms Brough explained that the costs involved with running the community building, such as staff, utilities, entertainment licences and maintenance, would need to be absorbed by the residents by way of a service charge. On breaking down the average costs involved, and in consideration that the service charge would not be included in any financial assistance provided to those in identified affordable housing options, it was explained that Acis did not consider it was sustainable to build and run the community hub building as residents would not be in a position to afford a significantly increased service charge. In addition to that, Ms Brough explained that the original plan for the building included two flats above the community hall however there was no lift in the building meaning occupants of the flats had to have certain levels of mobility. By contrast, the proposal was to replace the community building with two bungalows which meant there was no change to the number of homes provided but an increase in the number of accessible properties. Ms Brough concluded by highlighting that it was important for the development to be accessible to all and that people should not be excluded from living there because of associated costs.

The Chairman thanked both speakers and invited the Principal Development Management Officer to offer any further comments. He acknowledged that it was a difficult application for Members to consider. He explained that the original scheme was indicative of a development with facilities however that provider had parted company with the landowner. He highlighted that Acis Group Ltd had stepped in to provide the accommodation but was not in a position to provide the facilities and that without the involvement of Acis, the scheme could have stalled altogether and the over 55’s accommodation lost.

Members of Committee engaged in significant discussion regarding the importance of a community hub in such a development. Some Members felt it was imperative to keep the community building within the plans however others felt there were sufficient community facilities within the village to provide the social element to the development. The Principal Development Management Officer highlighted that any determination had to be based on the planning merits of the case. It was significant that the Planning Inspector’s Decision Notice made no specific reference to the community hub and neither did the conditions imposed by him. This was a significant consideration particularly as in contrast his conditions did require the provision of 60 over 55’s units. There was no option to enforce the provision of the community building and that the recommendation was based on the planning facts of the case. He acknowledged again that it was not an easy situation.

Councillor G. McNeill stated for the record his thanks to Acis for taking on the development project. He further highlighted the importance of a community hub and felt it was important to try all options to manage the building rather than agree to replace it. There was further discussion regarding the importance of a community building to prevent social isolation amongst older residents and the impact the loss of this building would have.

The Legal Advisor reminded Committee that the reasons for objecting to a planning application were required to be based on planning policy and that, based on their discussions, they had not found a contradiction to any policy that would support the refusal of the application.

The Principal Development Management Officer requested that Di Krochmal, Housing Strategy and Supply Manager, be allowed to address Committee to provide context to the housing provision within the proposed development. She explained that under the previous company, the development would have been for 60 retirement dwellings with the community hub. Under the new tenure of Acis, the development would consist of a greater mix of properties either for sale on the open market, allocated as affordable housing or for shared ownership options. It would no longer be a market led scheme but one with greater tenure mix for the over 55 community which would meet a specific need within Central Lincolnshire. She reiterated the options for running a community building would include a service charge for all residents which would not be realistic for those in affordable housing. It was acknowledged within the Committee that this was a difficult decision.

Councillor G. McNeill proposed and moved an alternative proposal that the application be refused on the basis that the development was contrary to policies: LP10, meeting accommodation needs, highlighting the final paragraph was particularly relevant; LP12, the infrastructure to support growth, which he felt had not been touched on in the officer’s report but he felt was material; finally the Saxilby with Ingleby NP policies 1 and 3, with 3 being the specific policy related to the development site and specifying the need for ancillary and additional construction.

There was further discussion between Members as to alternative options for the community building to be constructed The Principal Development Management Officer confirmed that the overall number of dwellings (individual residential units) on this phase nor overall development would not change, simply that two flats would instead be two bungalows. The overall level of development would still be up to 230 dwellings.

The Vice Chairman declared an interest as the WLDC representative for Age UK West Lindsey and stated that they did all they could to provide support for older citizens. He noted that several Members had focussed on the need for a social building in order to enable older residents to socialise together and commented that the greater benefit to a community is for inter-generational activity. He highlighted that there had to be sufficient scale for such a facility to be viable, regardless of who was to run it, and noted that several authorities had been caused by financial restraints to withdraw registered wardens from sheltered accommodation complexes. He acknowledged that although difficult, that was the current economic environment. He commented that the proposition by Acis appeared to bring many benefits to the local people and community, although it was not an easy option to go for.

At the conclusion of Committee discussions, the Chairman reiterated the moved proposal from Councillor G. McNeill to refuse the application. On being seconded, Committee voted against this proposal but was not agreed.

Having had the original recommendation moved and seconded, the Committee voted for a second time and it was subsequently AGREED that the decision to grant planning permission, subject to conditions, be delegated to the Chief Operating Officer, to enable the completion and signing of an agreement under section 1 of the Localism Act 2011) pertaining to:

·         The delivery of two affordable rented bungalows.

In addition to the s1 agreement the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), is in force and a contribution will be required in accordance with WLDC's regulation 123 list. The exact detail of the contribution will be determined at the reserved matters stage, when floor space can be accurately calculated.

In the event of the s106 not being completed and signed by all parties within 6 months from the date of this Committee, then the application be reported back to the next available Committee meeting following the expiration of the 6 months.