The committee received the report of the Development Management Team Leader.

                   The Chair commented that this was an unusual case in that the committee was considering a viability report after the event and not before. 

                   In response to question from Councillor Bell, the officer clarified that the proposed reduction in commuted sum would only occur after the six month period.  He added that the developers were still keen for the five units to be taken up by a Registered Provider (RP), but thus far no RP had shown sufficient interest. 

Watford Borough Council had put the developers in touch with possible RPs but had not yet received any positive responses.  However, there were two possible options with a meeting due to take place next week. 

There was a discussion about extending the six month period, but the officer pointed out that the units had already been completed for some considerable time, costs had escalated and there was a drive to conclude the matter as soon as possible. 

Councillor Johnson explained that one possible reason the RPs were not especially interested in the scheme, was that there was only one access point and this needed a specialist provider.  He stated that due to the substantial decrease in the commuted sum, from approximately £1 million to £407,000, he would like to see a clawback option.

The Chair asked the Development Management Team Leader to comment on the possibility of a clawback. The officer stated that this would not normally be used where there has been a robust viability appraisal and a commuted sum had been agreed.  The officer noted that there wa nothing in council policy that specifically referred to this and clawback would normally only be granted when there was a significant period between the granting of planning permission and the sale of the units. 

The officer advised that the applicant had originally proposed no commuted sum, but the independent assessment had given the figure of £407,000.  The larger sum was never subject of a viability report. 

There followed a discussion where members expressed their disappointment at the large reduction in the commuted sum and some voiced their support for a clawback.  It was suggested that a review of the clawback mechanism might be appropriate.  However, concern was also expressed that the introduction of a clawback might prompt an appeal that could place the whole scheme in jeopardy.   

In response to a request for clarification, the Development Management Team Leader explained that the costs were exceptionally high because the first builder went bankrupt, the second builder did not build according to the plans and the third builder had to carry out remedial works.  Despite this the developer used the typical build costs for this type of development within the submitted viability appraisal.

The initial commuted sum of £1 million had not been subjected to a viability study, making it doubtful that £1 million was ever a viable figure. 

The Chair then put the vote to the committee to approve the officer’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65