Four affordable homes at Watery Lane, Ulverston

What was proposed

The application sought to reduce affordable housing from 25% to 14.8%, securing four units within a scheme of 27 proposed dwellings.

“SUMMARY 1.1 This is a request to vary the terms of an agreement made under section 106 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the Act”) dated 09 February 2022. The request is to reduce the percentage of affordable housing within the scheme from the 25% originally approved down to approximately 15%. An independent viability assessment supports the request.”

“The current request is to reduce this percentage on viability grounds. The 25% provision is itself a reduction from the 35% established as the policy baseline, that having been agreed following an earlier viability assessment undertaken at the time the outline planning permission was granted. The affordable units are to be provide as 50% affordable rent and 50% intermediate dwellings.”

Officer report

Planning history and timing

The original permission was approved in February 2022, and a formal variation application could not be made until February 2027.

“A formal application to vary a section 106 agreement is not possible until five years have elapsed from the agreement having been concluded. In this case that would be February 2027. However, section 106A(1) (a) of the Act does allow for an agreement to be varied earlier “by agreement between the authority by whom the obligation is enforceable... and the person or persons against whom the obligation is enforceable”.”

“SITE PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 SL/2018/0311, Residential development of up to 28 dwellings. APPROVED 11 February 2022 4.2 2025/0222/RMA, Approval of Reserved Matters for 27 residential dwellings including details of Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout & Scale following Outline Approval SL/2018/0311 (Residential development of up to 28 dwellings) Unresolved.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke in favour of the application and answered no questions from members.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed rising costs, possible future appeal, economic uncertainty, the location of the units and whether delaying development would help.

“Members noted the dramatic change to costs since the initial decision was made and queried the potential for appeal in 2027. The Senior Specialist – Development Management explained that there was no right to appeal through the planning inspectorate, but if members were minded to refuse the application for invalid reasons, the applicant would be able to use Judicial Review to challenge the reasons for refusal.”

“Following discussion on the proposed siting of the affordable units on the site, members were informed by the Agent that consulted with Housing Associations and that the two bedroom houses were the most appropriate units for affordable housing. The Senior Specialist – Development Management added that clusters of affordable housing were normally more than six units and confirmed that four units was acceptable.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to approve was moved and seconded, followed by a vote.

“A motion to approve the application was moved and seconded.”

“Members noted that the proposals were positive and felt that delaying the development further would not be beneficial to the developer or those seeking affordable housing in the area.”

Minutes

The final decision

The agreement was modified to secure four two-storey, two-bedroom townhouses, with two for rent and two as intermediate homes.

“RESOLVED, that the developer’s request is accepted and that the section 106 agreement, dated 09 February 2022, be modified by deed of variation to secure four affordable housing units on the basis of the details in the associated application for approval of reserved matters, registered under reference 2025/0222/RMA. Each of the four units will be a two-storey, two bedroom (3 person) townhouse. Two of the units will be provided for social and/ or affordable rent.”

Minutes