Agenda item

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Mr Ian Symes (Effingham Parish Council) (to object);

·         Mr Roland McKinney (speaking on behalf of Crossroads Resident’s Association) (to object) and;

·         Ms Kay Collins (Agent) (In Support)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for demolition of existing property and erection of 6 dwellings with a new access provided onto Beech Close’ (amended description with amended plans received 18 November 2000).

The Committee was informed by the planning officer that the site was allocated for up to six new homes in the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan which allowed for the replacement of the existing house.  The site was also located adjacent to Effingham Conservation Area.  The brick walls along the site boundary were locally listed and formed part of the kitchen garden for the Effingham House Estate.  The scheme had been amended and reduced the number of originally proposed properties from 8 to 6 resulting in a density of 16.2 dwellings per hectare.  The proposal would have three four-bedroom houses and three, three-bedroom houses.  The plots that shared a boundary with the road would follow the building line of the adjoining buildings along Beech Close and Beech Avenue.  Changes in the built form were proposed with the width of the homes narrowed and the roof form was less bulky with the removal of flat roofed areas and increased gaps introduced between the buildings to reflect the local vernacular of the area.  The beech hedge which was a feature of the site would be retained and the locally listed wall protected.  A 1.2 metre gap was also proposed between the main building and the wall. 

The Committee noted that Policy ENP-H2 of the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan required that at least 50% of market homes should have one or two bedrooms.  This scheme did not meet that criteria and the applicant had therefore submitted a Viability Assessment Report on the grounds of financial viability.  The applicant had concluded that not only was the site unable to viably support a smaller policy compliant scheme, but neither the proposed 6 no. detached house scheme nor the smaller 6 unit policy compliant scheme could afford to provide any element of affordable housing contribution, with the larger proposed scheme only remaining viable if the development was sold on the basis of 100% private sales.  The Viability Assessment Report had also been independently reviewed by consultants appointed by the Council who also concluded that a smaller policy compliant scheme would not be viable.  A financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing in the local area had also been secured via S.106 contributions as detailed in the supplementary late sheets. 

The Committee was concerned regarding the financial viability assessment, particularly the last-minute inclusion of the affordable housing contribution, which was included on the supplementary late sheets, published prior to the meeting.  The Committee agreed that more time was needed to consider the implications of the affordable housing contribution as well as requesting comment by the Council’s external consultant’s, Dixon and Searle, on this extra component and how it would affect the overall profit obtained from this development. 

A motion was moved and seconded to defer the application, which was carried.

In conclusion having taken account of the representations received in relation to this application, the Committee

RESOLVED to defer application 20/P/00737 to give the Committee more time to consider the implications of the financial contribution secured towards the provision of affordable housing in the local area.