Planning – Application Comments

Consultation Date: Mon 01 Sep 2025

Consultation Date: Mon 01 Sep 2025

Comment Date: Fri 12 Sep 2025

Dear Claire

Thank you for consulting Strategic Housing on this application to modify the planning obligation in relation to planning application 15/01782/OM. 20% affordable housing was secured on this site through a S106 agreement, the subsequent reserved matters application permitted in 2021 included the policy compliant affordable housing contribution of 11 affordable units, 8 for affordable rent and 3 for shared ownership.

In the context of national planning guidance, Paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPG) provides the following advice:
¿Where up-to-date policies have set out the contributions expected from development, planning applications that comply with them should be assumed to be viable. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate whether particular circumstances justify the need for a viability assessment at the application stage. The weight to be given to a viability assessment is a matter for the decision maker, having regard to all the circumstances in the case, including whether the plan and the viability evidence underpinning it is up to date, and any change in site circumstances since the plan was brought into force. All viability assessments, including any undertaken at the plan-making stage, should reflect the recommended approach in national planning guidance, including standardised inputs, and should be made publicly available.¿

The applicant has submitted a Viability Appraisal and report along with the planning application to modify the planning obligation.

The applicant states a significant amount of abnormal costs have been identified totalling over £2.3 million, which have a significant impact on the deliverability of the scheme and render a policy compliant scheme economically unviable. I have reviewed the abnormal costs included in the appraisal and note the vast majority of the costs are not deemed as abnormal costs instead they are standard costs associated with development. For example the Local Area Play is a policy requirement and isn¿t an abnormal cost.

The applicant has stated the justification for the submission of a viability appraisal is the significant abnormal costs, however we do not accept this. The vast majority of the abnormal costs included within the report are not abnormal and the applicant hasn¿t demonstrated circumstances to justify the need for a viability assessment, it is my recommendation the application is refused.

Kind regards
Clare

Comment Date: Fri 12 Sep 2025

The applicant seeks to vary the Affordable Housing and S106 Infrastructure Contributions based on viability.

Part 3 of the S106 is the only contribution that I can see that is directly related to Ecology. Part 3 states

1. `The Owners covenant with he Council not to cause or permit Occupation of more than:
1.1 - 505 of dwellings until 50% of the SPA/SAC Contribution has been paid to the Council
1.2 - 80% of the Dwellings until 100% of the SPA/SAC Contribution has been paid to the Council`.

The GIRAMS fee to which this relates is a Green Infrastructure contribution. This tariff is necessary for the consented development to comply with the Habitats Regulations and cannot be considered an abnormal cost. If the applicant does not pay this tariff the development is unlawful and cannot go ahead.

I therefore object to any variation to this part of the S106.

Comment Date: Tue 02 Sep 2025

Thank you for consulting S106 Monitoring & Compliance on this application to vary the S106 Agreement covering 15/01782/OM.
However we will defer to comments from Strategic Housing and the Ecologist on this occasion.