Agenda item

The application was for the outline application for the erection of 15 affordable dwellings (six managed by the Windlesham Community Homes Trust and nine intermediate affordable dwellings) with access off Broadley Green. Access only with all other matters reserved. (Additional information rec'd 16/6/17, 27/09/17 & 06/10/17).

Members were advised of the following updates:

‘1) Report corrections

       I.          Owing to a formatting error, the second and third bullet points in Para 7.4.8 should read as follows:

·          Ensure that the provision of the affordable housing units is made in such a way that such housing shall be affordable for both initial and subsequent occupiers of the dwellings;

·          Timescales for the construction, completion, sale and eventual occupation of the affordable housing units

     II.          Paragraph 7.11.2 in the 17/0526 report in respect of flood risk and drainage is also applicable to 17/0533

    III.          The Policy DM5 criteria referenced in refusal reason 1 at the end of the report should also be amended as highlighted:

The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that there is a proven local need within the Parish of Windlesham for the proposed intermediate housing, for sale below market levels but above social rent costs, to people with a local connection to the area. As such the proposal represents inappropriate and harmful development in the Green Belt. By association, the proposal would cause significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes for including land within it. There are no very special circumstances which either alone, or in combination, outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies CPA, CP2 and DM5 (i) and (iii) of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012 and Chapter 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2) Additional consultations

In response to the re-consultation following the change in the application description (as outlined in Paras 4.4 - 4.5 of the report), a total of 39 representations of support 25 additional objections have been received, which do not raise any additional issues than the previous objections.

3) Additional information

The applicant has provided a report undertaken by Wessex Economics Ltd (whowas commissioned by the Council to undertake the joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment [SHMA] 2016) that seeks to demonstrate a need for Shared Ownership Housing within the Parish of Windlesham. The report refers to 2011 Census figures for the Parish and the Borough as a whole, along with the Subsidised Home Ownership need of 190 dwellings per annum for the Borough as a whole as identified in the SHMA. On this basis, the report concludes that there is a need for 35-37 shared ownership units per annum for the Parish. The report also refers to the fact that over the 5 year period 2011/12 to 2015/16 only 48 affordable intermediate homes have been delivered in Surrey Heath as a whole, whereas the SHMA target for Subsidised Home Ownership is for 190 dwellings per annum.

Whilst the report indicates a need across the Borough for Subsidised Home Ownershipand Officers accept that there has been an under-provision of affordable intermediate homes in the Borough, the applicant has not demonstrated that there is a specific existing need in Windlesham Parish. Rather, a pro-rata approach has been taken based on Census and SHMA data. Irrespective of this and as outlined in Para 7.4.9 of the officer’s report, no enabling argument has been put forward to justify the provision of intermediate homes for sale and there is doubt as to whether the proposed intermediate housing can be secured for local people in perpetuity as a Rural Exception Site, as required by Policy DM5 of the CSDMP and the NPPF.

As such, the officer recommendation remains to REFUSE for reasons as already outlined in the report.’

Some Members asked whether the Trust could use the units approved in the application 17/0526 as part of the social housing provision for this application and officers advised that the applicant would be at liberty to consider this.

Some Members felt that the benefit to the community did not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Members were also concerned whether the need for over 55s accommodation would be taken up and how the units could be allocated.

Officers provided clarification between the two applications (17/526 and 17/0533).Members were advised that 17/0526 provided evidence of local need in accordance with policy DM5 and 17/0533 was recommended for refusal on Green Belt grounds as there was no identifiable need as outlined in the report.

Resolved that application 17/0533 be refused as amended for the reasons as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

·        Councillor Edward Hawkins declared on behalf of the Committee that the applicant had emailed correspondence to Members.

·        Councillor Pat Tedder declared that she had met with the representative of the Windlesham Community Home Trust on several occasions and left the Chamber during the consideration of the application..

Note 2

As this application triggered the Council’s public speaking scheme, Mr Mike Goodman spoke in objection and Mr Douglas Bond, the agent and Ms Annie Wilson, Trustee of the Windlesham Community Homes Trust spoke in support.

Note 3

The recommendation to refuse the application as amended was proposed by Councillor Victoria Wheeler and seconded by Councillor Katia Malcaus Cooper.

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 refuse the application as amended:

Councillors Vivienne Chapman, Colin Dougan, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, Katia Malcaus Cooper, Max Nelson, Adrian Page, Robin Perry, Ian Sams, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.

Voting against the recommendation to remove the application as amended:

Councillors Jonathan Lytle and Conrad Sturt