Last month the District Council refused planning permission for housing on the E-On site. A new application comes to committee next week on June 26th. You can download the report from this webpage.
The previous scheme was refused for the following reasons:
1) The proposal would fail to provide sufficient affordable housing for the size of development proposed. The submitted affordable housing financial viability report does not demonstrate conclusively that the development cannot achieve the provision of 35% of the dwellings proposed to be affordable and as required by Policy H4 to the Rochford Core Strategy (adopted December 2011). Furthermore, it is not clear from the more recent submissions made in the application by the applicant as to what the final percentage contribution of affordable housing would be, given the applicant?s reliance upon further viability testing. If allowed, the development would lose the opportunity of providing sufficient affordable housing on the site as per policy H4, and be at variance with one of the District Council?s key priorities to maximise the provision of affordable housing through the planning system.
_
2) The proposal would result in the loss of community facilities in the form of the existing nursery school to be demolished and removed with no proposal for replacement. As such the proposal would conflict with Policy CLT 6 to the Rochford Core Strategy (adopted December 2011), which seeks to safeguard community facilities from development that will undermine their important role within the community.
_
3) No provision has been made for recreational play equipment in the central open space area shown on the application layout. If allowed in this form, the application would fail to enhance and improve the quality of the proposed open space to the detriment of the amenity and to the well being future users of the open space ought reasonably expect to enjoy.
In the new scheme, the proposed housing is very similar to before, but there are some changes to what is being offered.
Affordable housing – the developer is now offering 35% affordable, instead of the uncertain figure of 25-35% offered previously:
4.4
The applicant has revised the application details to now provide 35 affordable dwellings representing 35% (to the nearest dwelling) of the total number of dwellings proposed and in accordance with policy H4 to the Council?s adopted Core Strategy.
4.5
The provision of the affordable housing now overcomes the reason for refusal to the previous application 11/00689/FUL on this matter. The provision of the tenure split and dedication of the affordable housing will need to be the subject of a legal agreement with the applicants.
Education – Last time the County Council didn’t want any money. They said:
Advise that on this occasion a request for a financial contribution for education will not be made. At early years and county primary level it is clear that there will be sufficient places but at secondary level the position is not so clear. The forecasts show that it is likely that by 2016 there will be 20 surplus places at the Sweyne Park School, which is just enough to serve the development, but it will leave the school full and a deficit of places across Rayleigh. There is therefore an argument that a contribution should be made. However, the applicants were informed last July, on the basis of the data then available, that a contribution would not be required. In view of this and the borderline position, have decided not to request a contribution.
But now they do want ?100,596 , and say:
3.7.1
Advise that according to forecasts and information published in the latest commissioning school places in Essex Plan there should be sufficient primary school places at a local school serving this development.
3.7.2
The plan indicates a deficit in secondary school provision that will be increased should the application be approved. The school serving this development would be Sweyne Park, which has a permanent net capacity of 1,256 pupils on roll giving a deficit of 16 places even before new housing is taken into consideration.
3.7.3
With regard to early years and child care provision, the local ward for this development is Sweyne Park. According to the Essex Childcare Sufficiency Assessment, the ward has no full day care available and no nursery at the moment. It is clear that at both early years and secondary school level action will be needed to provide additional places and that this development will add to that need.
3.7.4
Based upon the information provided, it is estimated that this development will result in 8.64 additional early years and childcare and 19.2 additional secondary school places being required. However, whilst the schools service maintains that contributions for both early years and secondary places are in principle required, given their response to the previous application and that the greater of the needs lies with the EY&CC contribution, a contribution of ?100,596 is requested for EY&CC through a section 106 agreement.
Community Facilities: last time the developers offered nothing.Now they offer ?20,000:
The applicant notes that policy H2 to the Council?s adopted Core Strategy identifies the release of 550 dwellings to land north of London Road between 2015?2021. Appendix H1 to the Council?s adopted Core Strategy identifies, amongst other things, that that release shall provide youth and community facilities as part of the infrastructure to accompany that residential development. The applicant therefore considers that a contribution of ?20,000 can be made towards this provision. Officers consider that the contribution can be justified as part of that provision but bearing in mind the site has yet to be allocated in the longer term and the provision of facilities yet to be established, that the offer be held for a period of ten years. The contribution would need to form part of the necessary legal agreement and overcomes the reason for refusal to the previous application 11/00689/FUL on this matter.
Play equipment: Now the developers are willing to offer play equipment:
The applicant has considered concerns about the lack of play equipment to the area of public open space to the central part of the site, and it is now proposed to provide play equipment within the proposed public open space. No details have been submitted for consideration of the type of play equipment to be provided, but this can be the subject of a condition to the grant of permission. This approach now overcomes the reason for refusal to the previous application 11/00689/FUL on this matter.