S106 obligations modification at Land At Greenfields Road, Dereham

The site and earlier permissions

The site is open scrub grassland beside housing, the A47 and an industrial estate, with permission for 48 homes and later reserved matters approval.

“The application site is located to the eastern side of Dereham and to the south of Greenfields Road. The site lies between existing residential development to the north and east and the A47 to the south. The Greens Road industrial estate lies beyond the western boundary of the site. The site extends to around 2.47 hectares in total, is broadly rectangular in shape and comprises mainly open scrub grassland.”

“Planning Reference: 3PL/2021/0862/D Description: Approval of Reserved Matters to 3PL/2016/0952/O - appearance, layout, scale and landscaping (48 dwellings) Application Status: Approved 12-01-2022”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because independent viability work concluded that affordable housing and full contributions could not be supported, subject to safeguards.

“The Council has reviewed the applicants FVA and accompanying evidence through the use of external viability expert CP Viability. A number of matters of disagreement in relation to the assumptions, costs and fees used by the applicants were highlighted by CP Viability who initially concluded that a scheme of 10% affordable homes and the financial contributions of £305,531 would be viable for the developer.”

“Policy HOU07 of the Breckland Local Plan does allow for such instances where following analysis and review, it is demonstrated that proposed developments are not able to provide the required affordable housing provision which is 25%.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The town council strongly objected to the viability case, while council officers considered education and library needs remained justified and sought revised priorities.

“Development Costs and Sustainable Business The Town Council is aware the applicant has sought reductions in affordable housing elsewhere in the region. While the CPV valuation has used their own development costs well below those suggested by the developer for the viability assessment, it should be noted that the developer estimates its construction costs as more than 10% (£1m) above those standardised costs suggested by CPV the independent viability experts.”

“Other Matters - This development should be contributing to offsite sports provision in lieu of onsite provision, and should be engaging with the Town Council with regards to this. At the Breckland Planning meeting on the 20 th December 2021, the Planning Committee stated (and minuted) that a note be included in the consent in relation to a Member’s desire for the “agent to speak to Dereham Town Council in respect of open space/S106 Agreement and sports provision”.”

Officer report

Comments from residents

No letters of representation had been received for the application when the report was prepared.

“This is a revised scheme strictly in relation to the planning obligations to be secured as part of the development, all other previous comments made on the reserved matters application and originally the outline application are available to view on the Council’s website.”

“No letters of representation have been received for this application at the time of writing report.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward representative and the Dereham Town Council clerk spoke against the application.

Members’ concerns

Members considered the application alongside another agenda item and explored its details against relevant policies and guidance.

“This application was considered in conjunction with Agenda item 8(b).”

“Members considered the matter and fully explored the details of the application in light of prevailing policies and guidance.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted six to four against the officer recommendation of approval.

“DECISION: Members voted 6 x 4 against the Officer’s recommendation of approval.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because members considered it failed to provide sufficient affordable housing and off-site open-space contributions.

“REASON: Members felt that the proposal failed to provide sufficient affordable housing and off-site contributions to open space.”

Minutes