Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report for the complete refurbishment of Chigwell Primary Academy and enabling residential development comprising 59 no. residential properties together with associated off-street parking, a dedicated parking court for existing residents, garden space, new vehicular accesses from High Road (A113) and Vicarage Lane, external landscaping and associated development.

The Principal Planning Officer presented a report for the complete refurbishment of Chigwell Primary Academy and enabling residential development comprising 59 residential properties together with associated off-street parking, a dedicated parking court for existing residents, garden space, new vehicular accesses from High Road (A113) and Vicarage Lane, external landscaping and associated development. The application was before the Committee as it was classed as a ‘large scale major’ application as defined within the guidance issued by the Department of Communities & Local Government.

The Principal Planning Officer stated that the application site comprised the Chigwell County Primary School and the former BI Sports Ground fronting High Road and extending along Vicarage Lane and the full length of the access road serving the School. The School comprised a mixture of single storey buildings, dating from between the 1930’s and 1960’s, and a number of temporary classrooms; there were three principal School buildings. All buildings on the former Sports Ground had been removed above ground level and the land was given over to mainly scrubland, other than an access on Vicarage Lane and the mature tree screens that laid around and within the land. The surrounding area comprised a mixture of residential and non-residential uses, and there were three listed buildings opposite the site on High Road. All of the land within the site boundaries was inside the Green Belt, but the site laid outside the Chigwell Conservation Area which abutted it. Much of the site was covered by group Tree Preservation Orders and a number of trees were subject to individual orders; there were also two public rights of way crossing the site.

The Principal Planning Officer reminded the Committee that the current application was based upon previous submissions. The original planning permission sought to refurbish the School within the existing buildings with an enabling development of 32 houses (submitted in outline only). Revised proposals for the School were approved in March 2017 as a minor amendment to the original permission. The current application had been submitted on the basis that the revised proposal for the School was not viable without additional enabling development. The associated development now comprised 59 residential units, submitted as a full application, and consisted of 7 x 2-bedroom flats, 15 x 3-bedroom houses, 13 x 4-bedroom houses, 23 x 5-bedroom houses and 1 x 7-bedroom house. All of the houses were detached and provided with a minimum of 2 parking spaces and private gardens.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that one of the key issues was the proposals generated an affordable housing requirement for 40% of the houses across all types of dwelling. The application had been accompanied by the required viability report and the Applicant was again advocating a financial contribution towards off-site provision. The Council’s Viability Consultant, Kift Consulting Limited (Kift), had reviewed the submission and had highlighted a number of discrepancies. Kift were of the opinion that the scheme would generate a surplus of £10.064million, which was significantly higher than the surplus of £2.545million identified by the Applicant. This additional surplus could be used to contribute towards the provision of affordable housing without compromising either the development as a whole or the refurbishment of the School in particular. The Applicant had responded that, in the present market conditions, it was extremely difficult to raise funding for the scheme given the increase in Stamp Duty, pending interest rate rises, Brexit and other market uncertainties which would worsen with further delays. The School works had been extended and the occupation of the enabling houses were linked with the completion of the School works.

The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that Council Policy clearly stipulated affordable housing should be provided on-site for a development of this scale, although the Applicant felt the principle that this provision could be provided off-site had been established by the previous application. This was not the case as it was the particular circumstances of that application which permitted the off-site provision of affordable housing. However, Kift had advised that an appropriate level of subsidy for affordable housing to be provided off-site would be £4.936million, and this contribution could be provided in full to the Council without adversely affecting the viability of the Scheme. The Applicant’s current offer of £2.8million for affordable housing was felt to be inadequate for the level of development now being proposed.

The Principal Planning Officer reported Planning Officers had concluded that the School development proposals were the same as previously approved, and this aspect was no less acceptable than before. The case that a residential development in this location was being used to cross fund the School improvements still constituted very special circumstances for development in the Green Belt. The increased residential development had been re-assessed, and it was felt that any potential harm was not so substantive as to outweigh the wider benefits of the scheme. In design terms, most aspects of the development appeared to be acceptable and the architectural approach provided interest and variety. It was apparent that the tree retention and the level of new landscaping to provide a screen had diminished, and Officers felt that this could have been better managed. It was clear that the application should be providing affordable housing, and the argument that on-site provision was not viable was not accepted by Officers or supported by the Council’s consultants, Kift. When the offer of £2.8million from the Applicant for an off-site contribution was assessed, Kift had advised the Council that their assessment of the financial contribution in lieu of onsite affordable housing in the sum of £4.936million would be more appropriate given the likely surplus which would be generated by this development.

Overall, Planning Officers did not dispute the merits of the scheme as a vehicle to fund the refurbishment of the School; however, the application was not considered acceptable without appropriately meeting the other important objectives of providing an affordable housing contribution and safeguarding the character of the landscape. Consequently, it had been recommended that the application be refused planning permission.

The Committee noted that the summary of representations received in respect of this application, including support from Chigwell Parish Council and Chigwell Residents Association, and objections from 19 local residents and the West Essex Ramblers Group. The Committee heard from an Objector, the Applicant’s Agent and the Headteacher of Chigwell Primary School before proceeding to debate the application.

Cllr J Knapman emphasised that this application had the same footprint as the previous one and that therefore the financial contribution for affordable housing should be similar to before. Kift had made a similar analysis for the last application and the Committee had overrode their recommendation when granting planning permission. The current application gave a better mixture of housing, which was much needed in Chigwell, and would refurbish the School which was also badly needed; the funding for which was not available elsewhere. The wider problem was the Banks were not lending money to fund large housing developments, and the housing market was in a state of flux currently and not as buoyant as in recent years. There were no issues with the listed building at the School from this application, so the Committee was requested to support this application and grant planning permission. Cllr G Chambers also highlighted that the application had support from the local Residents Association and the Parish Council.

Cllr Stallan expressed a number of concerns with this application. He accepted the need for the enabling development to refurbish the School and that there might not be any on-site provision of affordable housing, but was disappointed with the financial contribution being offered by the Applicant as it was clearly a lot less than the Council’s consultants thought it should be. The Councillor supported the application in principle but disliked the considerable difference in opinions from the Council’s and the Applicant’s consultants over the contribution for affordable housing. The Council’s Senior Housing Development Officer stated that the evidence on open market values provided by Kift was based on comparable sales evidence, whereas the applicant had not provided evidence based on actual comparable sales in support of their opinion of open market values.

Cllr J M Whitehouse commented that the housing element of the application was the issue rather than the refurbishment of the School, which was agreed as part of the last application. It was unusual for a Kift assessment to be challenged in this way by members of the Committee, but the report had requested further evidence from the Applicant to support their assertions and the Councillor felt that it would not be a serious problem if the application was deferred to the next meeting of the Committee as the refurbishment of the School was unlikely to happen before the Summer holiday. The lack of landscaping would have some impact on neighbouring properties, and the purpose of the application was to fund the refurbishment of the School, not to make a large profit for the Developer. Cllr Stallan added that the Committee should have all of the necessary evidence before it before making a decision, and it was his preference for the application to be deferred to the next meeting so that all of the evidence could be provided.

The Council’s Senior Housing Development Officer stated that Kift had responded to the Applicant on 30 October 2017 and requested further evidence in support of their rebuttal report including a full build cost plan. When preparing their assessment, Kift had also taken into account the contribution to the School for the refurbishment, and the projected surplus of £10million for the project would be generated after the refurbishment. Consequently, it was felt that a contribution of £4.9million for affordable housing was not unreasonable.

Cllr Kauffman felt that the appraisal a year ago for a contribution of £2.8million for affordable housing from a development of 32 houses was correct, but the new application was proposing to build 59 houses which was almost twice as many. The site was entirely within the Metropolitan Green Belt and also situated at a busy corner of the High Road. The recommendation of Planning Officers was to refuse permission on the basis of the financial assessment not being correct, and the Councillor felt that he could not go against the advice of the Council’s technical experts.

Cllr J Knapman believed that the correct contribution for affordable housing could be agreed at the meeting; the Committee had previously requested £2million for the previous application but the County Council requested a contribution and hence this application required a bigger contribution, which the Applicant had offered. The Committee should consider and grant the application before it.

However, Cllr S Jones, whilst accepting that the School required refurbishment and the number of the houses within the enabling development had to increase, felt that the Committee required further evidence in relation to the differing financial viability assessments before it. Therefore, the Councillor proposed that this application should be deferred until the next meeting of the Committee on 31 January 2018; this proposal was seconded by Cllr C C Pond.

Cllr Chambers opined that there was a danger of the School refurbishment being postponed again and he would rather agree the matter at the meeting tonight. The Chairman highlighted the current poor state of the School and that the County Council never seemed to have the funds available to repair it. The Committee granted a similar application at Luxborough Lane in Chigwell, which did not require affordable housing to be provided. The Chairman strongly supported the application as a better mixture of dwellings were now proposed, and the application would benefit both the School through its refurbishment and the Council through a substantial contribution to the provision of affordable housing.

Decision:

(1)        That planning application EPF/1849/17 at Chigwell Primary School in High Road, Chigwell be deferred for consideration until the next meeting of the Committee, scheduled for 31 January 2018, to enable the Applicant to provide full information on the financial aspects of the application.