Removal of affordable housing at Land At Greenfields Road, Dereham

What was proposed

The application sought to remove the affordable homes from an approved 48-home scheme and change condition 2 and related obligations.

“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.”

“The application seeks the variation of condition 2 (approved plans condition) on planning permission 3PL/2021/0862/D to allow for the removal of the affordable housing units as this part of the development no longer viable. The application is being considered alongside application PL/2025/0414/DPO to vary the s.106 Agreement to allow for changes to the affordable housing provisions and the education and library planning obligations.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because independent viability work found the scheme could not support affordable housing or most financial contributions.

“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, while the county obligations team said education and library needs remained and a housing officer sought clawback protection.

“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

Residents' comments

A resident asked about the external viability assessment and when the application would be decided.

“This is a revised scheme strictly in relation to the affordable housing provision on site, all other previous comments made on the reserved matters application and originally the outline application is available to view on the Council’s website.”

“- Whether an external viability assessment has been undertaken and what is the outcome, - When will the application be determined given the EOT has passed.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward representative and the town council’s clerk spoke against the application.

Members' discussion

Members examined the application in detail against prevailing policies and guidance after the earlier deferral for further viability consideration.

“This planning application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting in April 2026 to allow further consideration of the Viability Appraisal.”

“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 against and four for the officer recommendation of approval.

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

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because members considered that it provided insufficient 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