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 recommendation to approve the application that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions and informatives listed in the report and the amendment regarding the clawback as moved by Councillor Johnson. 

There followed a thorough discussion around the issue of clawback and the potential for this to damage the whole scheme, as any appeal might be on far broader grounds than just the clawback.  A number of members expressed their concern about adopting a clawback. 

Councillor Johnson moved that the proposal should include a clause seeking an upwards only clawback review in six months’ time, should the sale of the properties realise more funds than the viability report had suggested.

In accordance with Standing Committee Procedure Rules, paragraph 4.2, Councillor Jeffree requested that it be recorded in the minutes how members cast their votes.

Those members voting for the motion:

                   Councillors Bell, Collett, Johnson, Mills, Pattinson and Smith.

                   Those members voting against the motion:

                   Councillors Jeffree, Sharpe and Watkin.

                   Those members abstaining:

                   None.

The motion was CARRIED 6 votes to 3 with no abstentions.

The Chair then moved that the committee should vote on the original officer’s recommendation that pursuant to a planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 having been completed to secure the Heads of Terms, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in Section 8 of the officer’s report and the addition of the motion just agreed, the inclusion of an upwards clawback review.  The exact wording of the clawback review clause to be agreed by the planning officers and the applicant. 

In accordance with Standing Committee Procedure Rules, paragraph 4.2, Councillor Jeffree requested that it be recorded in the minutes how members cast their votes.

Those members voting for the motion:

Councillors Bell, Collett, Johnson, Mills, Pattinson and Smith.

Those members voting against the motion:

None.

Those members abstaining:

Councillors Jeffree, Sharpe and Watkin.

RESOLVED -

That, pursuant to a planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 having been completed to secure the Heads of Terms, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed below:

Section 106 Heads of Terms

i)   To secure 5 units on the first floor of the development to be affordable housing units for affordable rent comprising 4 x 1 bedroom and 1 x 2 bedroom units;

ii)  No more than 9 units of open market housing units to be occupied before the owner has entered into a legally binding agreement with a Registered Provider in respect of the affordable housing units or paid the commuted sum referred to below;

iii) In the event the affordable housing units are not acquired by a Registered Provider within a period of 6 months, a commuted sum of £406,980 to be paid to the Council;

iv)That the commuted sum be subject to an upwards only clawback review after a period of 6 months;

v)  On payment of the commuted sum to the Council, the affordable housing units to be sold as open market units.

Conditions

1.  No dwelling shall be occupied until the internal works to the flats on the first, second and third floors have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved drawings.

2.  The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings:-                   

594-CDA-A-00-DR-A-05-0100 Revision 04

594-CDA-A-01-DR-A-05-0101 Revision 07

594-CDA-A-02-DR-A-05-0102 Revision 07

594-CDA-A-03-DR-A-05-0103 Revision 07

594-CDA-A-04-DR-A-05-0104 Revision 01

3.  No dwelling or commercial unit shall be occupied until the cycle and bin stores have been provided in accordance with the approved drawings.