Agenda item

The application was for the erection of split-level 2/3 storey building comprising 12 apartments including rooms in roofspace following demolition of bungalow including additional residential and golf club parking, cycle store, bin store, entrance gates and associated landscaping. (Additional plan recv'd 5/6/17). (Additional Information recv'd 30/06/17 & 03/07/2017) (Additional plans recv'd 27/7/17).

Members received the following updates:

‘The Council’s Viability Consultant has confirmed that in order to ascertain whether the total sales value of £8,395,000 of the proposed apartments arrived at by the applicant within Section 10 the submitted viability appraisal (and c.21% higher than the valuation from Knight Frank LLP within the Appendix F of the appraisal) were reasonable value assumptions, a desktop research of property values using property search engines Rightmove, Zoopla and similar sources to review local market indications for properties (both re-sale and new build as available) was undertaken.

This considered current / recent asking prices and where available sold prices in the locality within a 1/2-mile radius of the site and included the four new-build properties on Heathlands Drive (formally ancillary buildings within the golf club grounds) approved under 13/0100, which sold in June 2015 for between £1,195,000 - £1,269,000. These properties are five bedroom detached dwellings of circa 320m², considerably larger than the subject scheme which proposes 2 & 3 bedroom apartments of between c. 102m² - 151m².

Notwithstanding this, the Council’s Viability Consultant has calculated the £/m² values of these properties which shows that the achieved sales values of the Heathland Drive properties equated to approximately £3,700/m², which is considerably lower than the assumed values for the proposed apartments at c.£5,650/m². Therefore, the assumed sales values are considered by the Council’s Viability Consultant to be well placed and representative of the unique site characteristics.’

The case officer confirmed that the required SAMM contribution had been paid by the applicant.

Some Members were concerned by the lack of affordable housing provision in the proposal but the viability study in the agenda report outlined the reasons for this. It was advised that the club provided facilities for non-members and therefore provided amenities for the community.

The Committee was advised that there would be no loss of parking spaces with regard to the development.

Some Members were concerned that the applicant would return to the committee in the future to develop the site further, if the financial situation of the club became poor again.  The Chairman of the Golf Club advised the Committee that the Club’s Constitution was being amended to ensure that any future owners would not develop the site any further.

There was some concern from the Golf Drive Residents’ Association regarding the increase in events at the Golf Club and increased traffic movements.

In addition some Members felt that the design of the apartments was not in keeping with the area and there were concerns that the gated area could cause queues at peak times.  Members were advised that the development only comprised 12 units and this would not cause any congestion.

Some Members supported the proposal as it allowed the club to continue to trade, providing community facilities and local employment opportunities, but there was concern that applications for this site be submitted in the future. Members were advised that the application was made in accordance with an ‘open book’ policy, which required the applicant to provide unrestricted information on the club and its finances.  An open book policy would be used for any future applications.

Resolved that application 17/0317 be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory.

Note 1

As this application triggered the Council’s Public Speaking Scheme, Mr B Heselwood, representing the Golf Drive Residents’ Association spoke in objection and Mr R Broderick and Mr J Knevett spoke in support.

Note 2

It was noted for the record that:

i)                 Councillor Edward Hawkins declared that he had, as Ward Councillor met with the Senior Management Team regarding the application but had made no comments;

ii)                Councillor Edward Hawkins declared that he had known one of the speakers, Mr Heselwood for many years;

iii)              Councillor Victoria Wheeler declared that she had known the applicant many years ago:

iv)              Cllr Robin Perry declared that his partner was a member of the club;

v)               Cllr John Winterton declared that he used the club;

vi)              Councillor Conrad Sturt declared that he had been contacted by the applicant;

vii)             Councillor Nick Chambers declared that the applicant had shown him the application plans.

Note 3

The recommendation to approve was proposed by Councillor Edward Hawkins and seconded by Councillor Jonathan Lytle.

Note 4

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

Voting in favour of the recommendation to approve the application:

Councillors Nick Chambers, Colin Dougan, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, Paul Ilnicki, Jonathan Lytle, Max Nelson, Robin Perry, Conrad Sturt, and John Winterton.

Voting against the recommendation to approve the application:

Councillors Katia Malcaus Cooper, David Mansfield, Pat Tedder, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.