Agenda item

14/02872/REM / W19499/36 - Berewood Phase 1 Hambledon Road Denmead Hampshire

Proposal Description:       This application is for 104 units of private rented accommodation and includes the following: Approval of Reserved Matters 6 (i) a), b), c) and d) of planning consent 10/02862/OUT and conditions 3, 6(ii) a), b), d), f), h), i), j), k), l), m), n), 11 and 18 (An Environmental Impact Statement was submitted and approved with the outline planning consent).

 

Parish or Ward:                 Southwick And Widley

Minutes:

Proposal:           This application is for 104 units of private rented accommodation and includes the following: approval of Reserved matters 6(i)(a),(b), (c) and (d) of planning consent 10/02862/OUT and conditions 3, 6(ii)(a), (b), (d), (f), (h), (i), (j), (l), 9N0, 11 and 18 (an Environmental Impact Statement was submitted and approved with the outline planning consent)

 

The Committee considered the written report and recommendation of the Executive Head of Planning and Built Environment and Head of Development Management together with updates issued prior to the meeting.

 

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the update sheets, which included a revised recommendation and reasons for the change in stance. During the meeting, the Committee was advised that a standard time condition was not required for this application.

 

Arising from Members’ questions, it was clarified that:

 

(1)             based on the information submitted, It was not financially viable for the applicant to allocate 40% of the development as affordable housing immediately: the applicant would still make a slight loss by allocating 40% of development as affordable housing after 12 years;

 

(2)             the Private Rented Sector (PRS) loan scheme did not require a recipient of the loan to retain the houses as private rented accommodation for a specified period;

 

(3)             the proposal would not impact on the housing density on other phases;

 

(4)             it should be understood that the developer could not be forced to develop all of the phases of Major Development Area (MDA) and whilst the applicant was now indicating that it was planned that the development would provide 74 additional units overall the outline planning permission would not require the developer to build 2624 (2550 originally consented plus 74) in total across the Grainger part of the MDA;

 

(5)             the parking courts had been made more attractive and visible to encourage occupiers to use the parking courts;

 

(6)             the applicant had agreed to impose a condition in the tenancy agreement requiring tenants to park in the parking courts. This provision would be incorporated within the proposed Section 106 Agreement;

 

(7)             all of the properties would be accessed from rear parking courts;

 

(8)             the position of the taller buildings would be in accordance with the Design Code;

 

(9)             it was never intended that the major access to the waste recycling centre would be via the Hambledon Road; and

 

(10)          a collection area had had been designated for refuse bins.

 

The Committee received the following deputations:

 

(A)            Mr Stanford, the Head of the Private Rented Sector Taskforce, circulated a presentation and outlined the  aims and benefits of the Government’s Private Rented Sector initiatives

In response to questions raised by members of the Committee, Mr Standford advised that:

 

(i)            the Government’s Private Rented Sector Initiatives aimed to encourage more investment into the private rented sector through schemes such as the loans for Build to Rent schemes and in doing aimed to improve the quantity and quality of the private rented sector; and

 

(ii)          there were no plans for future Build for Rent Loans schemes in the MDA.

 

 

(B)            The Committee was addressed by Councillor Tait who advised that as a former Portfolio Holder for Housing for Winchester City Council he had been involved in discussions on Government’s private rented initiatives. He supported this scheme for the following reasons:

 

(1)             Grainger was a well established and respected private sector landlord with a proven record of providing quality homes for private rent;

 

(2)             in the long term, 40% of the houses to be built under this scheme would be made available for affordable housing: the financial viability assessment submitted suggested that the applicant had good grounds to argue against the provision of any affordable housing for this scheme;

 

(3)             the scheme had attracted government funding; and

 

(4)             there was a need for private rented housing

 

In response to questions raised by members of the Committee, Councillor Tait advised that although the scheme would not in planning terms provide affordable housing, the schemes would provide a form of housing which was affordable to many.

 

(C)         The Committee was also addressed by Mr Rees and Mr Beresford, on behalf of the applicant, who supported the application for the following reasons:

 

(1)             Grainger was not a developer but a residential landlord and property manager, which aimed to provide return for investors. As a landlord Grainger sought to maximise occupancy with longer tenancies so as to  encourage a community spirit within its housing schemes; and

 

(2)             Evidence demonstrated that there was a need for private rented housing in the area: in a ten year period between 2001 and 2011, Havant Borough had witnessed an increase in more than 100% in private sector rented tenancies compared with Winchester which ad seen an increase of approximately 50%.

 

(Mr Rees and Mr Beresford did not complete their deputation within the allotted time)

 

In response to questions raised by members of the Committee, Mr Rees and Mr Beresford advised that:

 

(i)              Grainger would seek to prohibit on street parking by tenants by including a clause within their tenancy agreements for this scheme requiring tenants to park in the parking courts: a failure to comply with this clause would be considered a breach of the tenancy agreement. Granger had a policy whereby tenants lost their tenancies if they breached the tenancy agreement three times within one year;

 

(ii)             Grainger would provide tenants with a tablet to enable them to report problems. Any problems reported would be dealt with by a property manager or the assistant property manager: Grainger had a Saturday call out scheme. An estate office would be provided as soon as 300 rented properties were provided in the development;

 

(iii)            there were no plans to us provide another government funded private rented only scheme within the MDA;

 

(iv)            the location of the houses to be switched to affordable housing would be in accordance with the provisions set out in the Section 106 agreement: Grainger sought to ensure it was difficult to identify a private rented home from home allocated for affordable housing;

 

(v)             Grainger’s policy was not to have the roads within its estates adopted as highways maintainable at the public expense; experience had shown that roads could be better maintained and repaired if they retained responsibility for maintenance of the roads; and

 

(vi)            the majority of the tenants would be residents who were unable to secure a mortgage and did not qualify or had a low priority for an affordable housing waiting list. Such tenants could receive housing benefits.

 

(D)            Mr Maggs, Head of New Homes Delivery, gave an overview of the proposal to transfer 40% of the development to affordable housing.

 

In response to questions raised by members of the Committee, Mr Maggs advised that

 

(i)              the houses to be transferred to affordable housing would need to meet the Council’s design quality;

 

(ii)             the location of the affordable dwellings would meet the criteria set out in the Section 106 Agreement and be grouped in each of the three distinctive sections of the proposed scheme;

 

(iii)            although the affordable housing units may be clustered together, they would not form distinct groups

 

The Committee discussed this application in details together with the views raised by the deputees. Although concern was expressed about the use of the residential roads by freighters to and from the waste recycling centre, the Committee supported the application subject to the proposed Section 106 Agreement including the following requirements:

 

(a)             that the development is retained as Private Rented Sector housing for a period of at least 12 years but allowing for the transfer of units as affordable housing within 12 years;

 

(b)             to ensure that 40% of the dwellings permitted were made available as Affordable Housing units no later than 12 years or upon the completion of 2200 dwellings or when the dwellings ceases to be Private Rented Sector housing (whichever is the sooner); and

 

(c)             that a clause be added to the tenancy agreement requiring tenants to use their car parking spaces.

 

It was therefore Agreed that provided the applicant entered into a S106 agreement, on terms to be determined by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in consultation with the Head of Development Management to ensure

 

(a)             that the development is retained as private Rented Sector housing for a period of at least 12 years but allowing for the transfer of units as affordable housing within 12 years;

 

(b)             to ensure that 40% of the dwellings hereby permitted were made available as Affordable Housing Units by no later than 12 years or completion of 2200 dwellings or when the dwellings cease to be Private Rented Sector Housing Tenure (whichever was the sooner); and

 

(c)             that a clause was included in the tenancy agreements for this scheme requiring tenants to park in their designated parking spaces

 

reserved matters 6(i) a), b), c) and d) of planning consent 10/02862/OUT and conditions 3, 6(ii) a), b), d), f), h), i), j), k), l), m), n), 11 and 18 be approved subject to conditions to be imposed by the Head of Development Management including conditions to cover the following:

 

1                numbering of car parking spaces and retention thereafter.

 

2                1:20 details of proposals, typical part of elevations, window reveals, window frames, formers, sills, arches, eaves and verges, balconies and dormers, chimneys, doors and surrounds, oriel windows etc.

 

3.           Standard landscaping maintenance and clarification of species.

 

4.           Provision of a hard surfaced link from the car parking space to the back door of the dwelling.

Supporting documents: