47 homes and open space at Land Rear Of 30 To 40 Garden Close, Sutton

What was proposed

The application sought to change the legal agreement by reducing or removing the affordable housing requirement for a scheme of up to 53 houses.

“The current application is for the modification of the Section 106 legal agreement attached to permission 17/01445/OUM. It seeks to modify the obligation contained therein (Second Schedule, Part 1), which requires the provision of an affordable housing scheme prior to the first occupation of any market housing within the development, along with subsequent triggers in relation to the build out and occupation of the approved affordable housing scheme.”

“An affordable housing scheme was included within the reserved matters application (reference 22/00057/RMM), providing a policy-compliant scheme of fourteen affordable units in a scheme of forty-seven total dwellings, equating to 30% affordable homes.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 3.17-hectare site is within Sutton’s development envelope, adjoining housing, the conservation area, listed buildings, open land, hedgerows and woodland.

“The site extends to approximately 3.17 hectares (7.8 acres) and is situated within the development envelope of Sutton following the allocation of the site in the Sutton Neighbourhood Plan as a housing allocation. The site adjoins the built form of the village along the north and west boundary, which marks the current edge of the built form of the village with modern residential development in Garden Close and a more historic pattern of development along Station Road.”

“A number of ponds and water features are located in the south-eastern corner of the site inhabited by Great Crested Newts (GCNs). In terms of land levels there is a gradual slope down from north to south, representing approximately 7m (23ft) across the length of the site.”

Officer report

Planning history

The outline permission was allowed on appeal, and reserved matters for 47 homes were later allowed on appeal in 2024.

“Reserved Matters for appearance, landscaping, scale and layout for the erection of 47 homes including public open space of previously approved Outline planning application 17/01445/OUM for erection of up to 53 houses to include public open space and details relating to access…”

“To Vary Condition 1 (Approved Plans) of previously 22/00057/RMM approved at appeal APP/V0510/W/23/3328203, dated 08 July 2024 for Reserved Matters for appearance, landscaping, scale and layout for the erection of 47 homes including public open space of previously approved Outline planning application 17/01445/OUM for erection of up to 53 houses to include public open space and details relating to access…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the approved scheme was financially unviable, but the affordable housing alternatives did not meet local needs and the site could remain available.

“The submitted viability assessments are accepted and it is recognised that the approved, policy-compliant, development would not return a profit that aligns with the guidance set out in the PPG, making delivery of the scheme financially unviable.”

“As set out above, the considerations of the assessment are complex, inter-linked, and finely balanced. The current unviability of the approved scheme is recognised and weighs in favour of the proposal to modify the S106 agreement to reduce the required level of affordable housing, as this would allow the scheme to come forward and contribute to the housing stock for the District.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Housing officers considered four First Homes acceptable in light of viability, while the ward councillors objected to removing affordable housing and preferred First Homes over a commuted sum.

“Housing Section – 7 May 2026 23. Offer of four First Homes considered acceptable in light of viability appraisal.”

“May 2026 25. Further response following proposal for the provision of a commuted sum or four ‘First Homes’ noted the viability appraisals but Cllrs Dupre and Inskip “believe that neither offer is sufficient.”

Officer report

What people said

The applicant said building costs and stagnant house prices made the agreed affordable housing unviable and proposed a £310,000 payment for off-site provision.

“Conor Gallagher stated that he was the Director of Abbey Investors and he asked the Committee to give permission to build on the site without delay. He explained that there had been a market shift, which made it unviable to deliver the agreed number of affordable homes. The application proposed a commuted sum of £310,000 towards off-site affordable homes provision. He reported that the site could deliver 26 bungalows and 21 further homes.”

“In reply to Cllr Keith Horgan, Conor Gallagher explained that larger sites, such as the development in Littleport, could deliver more affordable homes than this proposed development in Sutton. He reiterated that an increase in the cost of building supplies, combined with the stagnation of house prices, had made 30% affordable homes unviable.”

Minutes

Who spoke

The applicant’s representative spoke in support, and the local ward member spoke against the change with support from the other Sutton ward member.

Members’ debate

Members recognised financial pressures but considered affordable housing essential and did not want to create a precedent by reducing its provision.

“Cllr Keith Horgan understood the financial pressures faced by the applicant, however the whole country needed more affordable homes and he did not want to set a precedent by agreeing such a reduction in affordable housing. He therefore agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse the application.”

“Cllr Lucius Vellacott said that to deliver virtually no affordable housing was contrary to the Local Plan and so he was going to vote to refuse the application. Cllr John Trapp agreed, stating that the building of affordable housing was the main issue.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillors voted unanimously to refuse the application, following a proposal by Cllr Christine Whelan and a second by Cllr Christine Colbert.

“Cllr Christine Whelan proposed that the Committee refuse the application, in line with the officer recommendation. Cllr Christine Colbert seconded this proposal.”

“Cllr Christine Whelan proposed and Cllr Christine Colbert seconded that the application be refused, as recommended by the officer. A vote was taken and the Committee unanimously…”

Minutes