To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 7 December 2017.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 7 December 2017 were approved as a correct record.

To receive additional items that the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There were no items of urgent business.

The Chair declared receipt, on behalf of the entire Committee, of an email in support of application 17/01270/DVOB: Aveley Football Club, Mill Road, Aveley, RM15 4SR, which was item 8 on the agenda.

The Chair informed the Committee that no appeal decisions had been received since the previous meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee noted the report.

The Principal Planner provided Committee Members with some background to the application, which sought to vary the s106 legal agreement attached to planning permission ref. 13/01021/OUT, regarding the ‘Mitigation Contribution’.  Members were advised that at the time that planning permission was granted the Committee showed flexibility in the consideration of planning obligations following an independent review of a financial viability assessment and waived the usual requirement to provide affordable housing and also agreed to a discounted financial mitigation contribution from the developer.

The Principal Planner continued to highlight that a letter had been submitted by the applicant’s legal team, which had been seen by both planning and legal officers.  This letter highlighted 5 salient points, to each of which he provided a response:

1.    The Mill Road application (for housing) (13/01021/OUT) and the Belhus Park application (for an enhanced football club and community facility at Parkside) (13/01022/FUL) are intrinsically linked.  If the viability of one site is in question so too is its linked site.

The reports presented to the Planning Committee in 2014 noted how the applications were linked; the same applicant, the applications were simultaneous and there was a specification for the continuity of sports pitch provision.  The applicant’s financial model also linked both sites as the sale of the Mill Road site would generate income, this income minus the construction costs would generate a figure – the mitigation contribution.  The s106 recommendations from 2014 referred to viability and build costs, but only in terms of potential additional contributions, to make up the shortfall not further reductions.  Although the applicant was entitled to seek a reduction in the mitigation payment, for the reasons set out in the report Officers considered that a reduction was not justified.

2.    Whilst the s106 obligation itself does not include provisions to reduce the mitigation payment, on review of the decisions made by the Council in 2014 it is clear that its intention was for this to be taken into account.

The Committee reports from March 2014 referred to some ‘unknown factors’ such as the final land acquisition and remediation costs for the Belhus Park site, which were not known at that time.  Members of the Committee at the time were however flexible in allowing an exemption from the standard affordable housing provision and the reduced planning obligation strategy payment.  Both the recommendations presented previously to Planning Committee and the s106 agreement only referred to additional payments.

3.    It is incorrect to say that the fundamental planning purpose and aim of the s106 agreement is to ensure that the impact of the residential development on education provision etc. are mitigated because, put simply, no aims or purposes are included in the drafting of the s106.  (The s106 latterly becomes a nonsense when at Schedule 2 the Council covenant to only use the monies for the purposes for which they were paid, whilst at no time reciting those purposes anywhere in the s106 agreement).

The s106 agreement imposed obligations upon the owner of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.