Agenda item
Walm Lane Public Inquiry - Affordable Housing
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday 15 October 2014 7.00 pm (Item 7.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 7.
Decision:
Refused the revised affordable housing offer for the following stated reasons;
The Planning Committee recognised the proposed change but noted that the suggested amendment made in July 2014 does not significantly alter the original overall affordable housing proposal made in February 2014. It considered that the change indicated that there could be scope to further improve the offer, noted the reports reference to the sensitivity of such appraisals as well as the lack of clarity on the scope to provide any further affordable housing on site following the recommended ‘open book’‘ review. In the absence of an opportunity to scrutinise the developers expectations and in the context of Brent’s housing needs and affordable housing policies, the level and nature of the shared ownership housing proposed was not considered to be the reasonable maximum affordable housing that the development could provide.
.
Minutes:
This application was deferred from the Planning Committee meeting of 17 September 2014 to allow Members more time to consider the associated background documentation. Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) informed the Committee that following the Council’s decision in March 2014 to refuse planning permission for the redevelopment of 110 Walm Lane (including the Queensbury Public House) the applicant had submitted an appeal which was due to be determined through the public inquiry procedure.
He continued that following the submission of the appeal, the applicant had issued a revised affordable housing offer of 2 additional units to the Council and for all affordable housing to be provided on-site. He clarified that the purpose of the report was to provide information on the revised affordable housing offer in order to enable members to decide whether the revised offer would adequately address the relevant reason for refusal.
Andy Bates informed members that the offer was reviewed by an independent consultant, BNP Paribas, instructed by the Council to assist with the negotiation of affordable housing on the site. BNP Paribas advised that in viability terms the proposed affordable housing offer of shared ownership units from 10 to 12 (22.6%), which would be delivered wholly on site would be acceptable. Members noted however that the offer meant that a cash-in-lieu contribution would no longer be available.
BNP Paribas highlighted the sensitivity of such appraisals to changes in assumed future sales values and recommended that, if the offer was accepted by the council, this should be subject to securing a suitable ‘open book’ review of the scheme viability and affordable housing offer, taking into account the costs and revenues achieved by the development.
Andy Bates submitted that having considered the revised affordable housing offer within the context of the previous decision, the appeal and the advice given by BNP Paribas, officers considered that the revised offer constituted an improved position on affordable housing and on balance, officers considered that the principle of the revised offer should be accepted, subject to the terms set out in paragraph 2.1 of the report.
Representatives of Save the Queensbury Group, NW2 Residents Association and Brent Housing Action addressed the Committee. They felt that the marginal increase on affordable housing on site fell quite short of, and was disproportionate to, the amount expected for such a development. They expressed doubts about the advice on viability as the report did not present information on full knowledge, methodology and analysis used in reaching the conclusion. They therefore urged members to reject the offer.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Miller (ward member) declared that he had been approached by Save the Queensbury Group. Councillor Miller echoed the sentiments expressed by the previous speakers adding that the affordable housing proportion proposed by the applicant fell short of the Mayor of London’s housing target of 50%. He also expressed concerns about the segregation between shared and private ownership units within the development. Councillor Miller continued that a rejection of the offer would send a clear message to the applicant of what the Council expected from the development without weakening the Council’s case at the appeal hearing.
Stephen Weeks (Head of Planning) informed members that the viability report together with the methodology for assessment was given to the Chair as part of wider discussions on the delivery of affordable housing. Horatio Chance, legal representative advised that it was possible for the independent report on viability studies to be made confidential as part of wider discussions on the delivery of affordable housing.
Members then had an extensive debate during which they expressed concerns about the proportion of affordable housing being offered by the applicants adding that the current offer was not significantly different from what the applicant had previously offered. They also discussed the ability to challenge the developers assumptions on the appraisal as well as the expectation and need for developments to make the maximum possible affordable housing contribution. The Chair proposed a motion in those terms.
Councillor Filson put forward an amended motion for members to be minded to refuse the application and defer it until they had received and considered the methodology and assumptions of the viability report. This was put to the vote and declared lost. Members then voted on the Chair’s motion as set out below which was declared carried by a majority.
Refused the revised affordable housing offer for the following stated reasons;
The Planning Committee recognised the proposed change but noted that the suggested amendment made in July 2014 does not significantly alter the original overall affordable housing proposal made in February 2014 and the level of affordable housing was still unacceptably low. It considered that the change indicated that there could be scope to further improve the offer, noted the reports reference to the sensitivity of such appraisals as well as the lack of clarity on the scope to provide any further affordable housing on site following the recommended ‘open book’‘ review. In the absence of an opportunity to scrutinise the developers expectations and in the context of Brent’s housing needs and affordable housing policies, the level and nature of the shared ownership housing proposed was not considered to be the reasonable maximum affordable housing that the development could provide.
Voting on the above motion was recorded as follows;
FOR: Councillors Marquis, Agha, Choudhary, Hylton and Mahmood (5)
AGAINST: None (0)
ABSTENTION: Kansagra and Filson (2)
Note: Councillor Colacicco having declared a pecuniary interest at the start of the meeting withdrew from the meeting room during consideration of the application and took no part in the discussion or voting on the application.
Supporting documents: