Loading document...
1.1 There is planning history on the site, including two approvals in principle for residential development (02/0491 and 05/1701). Whilst both of these applications contained indicative drawings showing a layout of plots (15 and 16 respectively) there was no approval implied or otherwise to plot numbers, layout or access arrangements.
1.2 The Planning Officers report notes that The indicative drawing illustrates at least one acceptable layout of twenty one dwellings, and includes an appropriate number of affordable units in accordance with the Departments Policy.
1.3 The Planning Officer recommended that the application be approved, subject to a number of conditions, including one that stated This permission relates to the principle of the development of the site for twenty one dwellings including six affordable units on the site defined in drawings GR1 and GR4 both received on 8th March 2006.
1.4 Whilst there were a number of “views” submitted by parties to the application, none of which concerned the affordable dwellings.
1.5 This application was approved by the Planning Committee on the 22 June 2006 and in condition 2 the requirement for the six affordable houses as set out in para 1.3 above was restated.
1.6 This application was the subject of a request for an extension of time, submitted on 11 June 2006, as the applicant had an outstanding appeal against the refusal of his detailed planning application 07/01465/B
1.7 In the planning officer’s report to the Director of Planning in the matter of this request, dated 30 July 2006, it is reported that Since the approval of the application, the Strategic Plan has been adopted by Tynwald (at the sitting of the 11 July 2006) and brought into effect. The 2006 application was not considered in the light of the policies of the Strategic Plan although the application did propose affordable housing in accordance with the Tynwald resolution of July 2005 which required the provision of 25% of any development of 8 dwellings or more in a residential area to be affordable units, ahead of the provisions of the Strategic Plan which also required this to be provided.
1.8 The planning officer went on to explain that, during discussion on possible planning conditions to be attached to any approval of the detailed planning application 07/01465/B it became apparent that the applicant had not intended the six affordable units to be provided through the Department in the
usual fashion but had simply included smaller, cheaper houses which he considered were affordable. The applicant indicated that if a condition was attached to any approval requiring that the price of the housing was discounted in accordance with the House Purchase Assistance Scheme (HPAS) the scheme would not be viable and he would not pursue it. The applicant and his agent stressed that the AIP did not did not require the units to be available through the HPAS or any other similar mechanism so to require it now would be inequitable.
1.9 As the detailed application had been approved, there seemed no reason to agree to the extension of time and the request was refused.
07/01465/B Planning Application 06/00394/A
2.1 On 17 August Phil Halliwell advises Ian McCauley by memo that Having given due consideration to land availability and demand for both first time buyer and public sector housing in the Peel area... and therefore a provision of 6 units which on the basis of the plans submitted could be 3 bedroom properties... would be appropriate. Such properties should comply with the Department's Guide to Public Sector Standards Document.
I anticipate that within this development the affordable housing element will be utilised for first time buyer housing to be sold in accordance with the use within the HPAS and would recommend that the Developer discuss the provision with the Estates and Housing Directorate before proceeding further with the proposals beyond the nest stage.
2.2 In the planning officers report on the application dated 23 November 2007 it is stated The Estates and Housing Directorate recommend that the properties 1-6 are appropriate for affordable housing and should be made available under the HPAS 2004 (although there ahs been a later version – the 2007 Scheme which should be referred to in any condition).
And later on is recommended that if approved plots 1-6 can be conditioned to be made available as affordable units.
2.3 The updated planning officers report, dated 17 January 2008, contains the same statement as in para 2.2. The application was refused for reasons unrelated to the issue of affordable housing. The Refusal Notice is dated 1 February 2008.
2.4 The Appeal Inspectors report, in paragraph 3, notes that The houses on plots 1 to 6, which are three pairs of semi-detached houses to be provided as affordable housing,...
2.5 The Appeal Inspectors report, in paragraph 18, notes that in the event that the
appeal is allowed, the Planning Authority would seek amongst others, a condition about the provision of affordable housing.
2.6 In recommending that the appeal be allowed and planning permission granted, the Inspector recommended at condition 3 that No development may commence until such time as there is approved by tehPlannng Authority a scheme fro the provision of six of the dwellings as affordable units.
2.7 This condition is duly provided as condition 3 on the Approval Notice, on Appeal.
2.8 By letter dated 11 August 2008, MP Associates, on behalf of the applicant, seeks to satisfy various conditions of the approval and, in respect of condition 3, states We propose to have plots 1 to 6 registered under the HPAS under the Register of second time buyers for properties of a larger space in excess of 63 square meters, as stated under condition 4, section 10 of the document HPAS 2007.
2.9 By letter dated 28 August 2008, Phil Halliwell advised MP Associates that he had yet to receive any response to his request of 10 July 2008 regarding the provision of affordable housing units. Mr Halliwell goes on to detail the Departments requirements, which had not changed since his original memo to the Director of Planning and Building Control (para 2.1 above). He alludes to the requirement for a Legal Agreement to be drawn up with the Department for the provision of 6 no. 3-bedroom first time buyers houses designed in accordance with the Departments Guide to Public Sector Housing Standards and requesting the submission of drawings and specification to facilitate verification thereof. Advice is given that the properties require to be sold to nominees of the Department at a price not exceeding £150,000 and subject to 3rd party warranty. It is pointed out that no development may commence until these matters have been dealt with.
2.10 This concludes the correspondence on the Planning files.
Isle of Man Strategic Plan
3.1 At the July 2007 sitting of Tynwald, the Strategic Plan was approved. The Plan contains the following policy:
Housing Policy 5: In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more.
3.2 It can be clearly be seen that the Policy was approved before the submission of the detailed planning application 07/01465/B, that the planning officer had recommended that in the event of an approval, the appropriate condition be imposed to require the implementation of this policy and that following the
issue of the approval notice, on appeal, the Departments officers had anticipated the satisfaction of this policy by the drawing up of a legal agreement to provide for these properties prior to the commencement of any work on site.
4.1 The summary of Section 13 Agreements from 2007 to date is attached as Appendix A.
4.2 Of the 12 Agreements detailed, 4 are concerned with the provision of housing and the remaining 8 have been progressed on the basis of commuted sums.
5.1 The applicant clearly has a different interpretation to the phrase affordable housing and being unable to persuade the Department to accept the designation of the houses as second time buyers property, has sought the agreement to the acceptance of the commuted sum instead. An offer for the Department to buy the land and develop it for housing is under consideration, with a valuation of the land obtained but no offer has been made to date.
5.2 It is unlikely that the developer would accept any of our alternative schemes as they are not likely to realise the profits that he might be anticipating.
6.1 The Department from the very beginning and predating the introduction of the affordable housing policy in July 2007 has anticipated the approval to the development of this site to include affordable housing in accordance with the HPAS for first time buyers.
6.2 The Inspector who considered and approved the application on appeal considered it appropriate to attach the relevant condition to the approval.
6.3 The Department is satisfied that there is demand for this property in the area and that the policy would not be well served by accepting alternate property in Douglas (this does not meet the local need) or a commuted sum in lieu of providing the properties (ditto).
6.4 The applicant, if he was concerned as to the Departments requirements in this regard, should have sought clarification prior to the determination of the appeal in respect of the detailed planning application.
6.5 The applicant has not advanced good reason why the Department should defer from its requirement to the provision of first time buyers housing.
7 Recommendation
7.1 That Carter Jones McDonald, on behalf of the applicant, should be advised that the Department does not agree to accept a commuted sum in lieu of the provision of the first time buyers affordable houses required by planning condition. A draft letter to CJM is set out below:
Dear Mr McDonald
Further to your letter of 15 June I have reviewed the case history and have to inform you that the Department can find no good reason to depart from the requirement for 6 first time buyers' properties as part of this development.
The Department is more than satisfied that demand for such properties exists in the Peel area and would not be satisfied by the provision of these six properties alone.
The receipt of a commuted sum would offer no immediate satisfaction of this demand and is therefore rejected.
There can be no doubt that the properties would be quite suitable for purpose.
You should consult your client and advise him how best to proceed. You may be assured that the Department would welcome the opportunity to work with your client towards meeting a very real need in the community and Phil Halliwell would be more than willing to progress the paperwork to this end if that is agreeable to your client.
Your Sincerely
KK
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown