Minutes:
ML reported that when a scheme is submitted and is unable to meet the Section 106 contribution requirements the Council requires a Viability Appraisal to be submitted. He advised that historically the Council has taken on the financial burden of the Independent Viability Consultant reviewing the appraisal and any further cost for negotiations and this is now being reviewed, with consideration being given to passing the cost of the independent review to the applicant.
ML stated that how this will be done is not finalised and it is envisaged that a number of options will be presented to applicants/agents.
DR made the point that for the last 3-4 years the Council has taken the view, following the Local Plan Viability report in 2020, that to the South of the A47 the baseline position is 20% affordable housing delivery and approximately £2,000 per plot financial contribution and to the North of the A47 not a great deal. He stated that due to the time that has moved on and the fact that there have been viability assessments that have indicated greater than that Local Plan Viability assessment plan position can be delivered it is a possibility that the 20% and £2,000 per plot will need to be reviewed and this will be communicated along with the independent review.
MC asked if it would not be possible to give the name of the Council’s approved reviewer to applicants/agents so that when they undertake a viability assessment they can use that reviewer and then the Council’s review has already been paid for and it would not need reviewing? ML expressed the view if only it was that simple as it is not actually the Council’s review it is an independent person that validates the submission. MC expressed the opinion that if the Council trusts that person to review it then they should trust them to write it in the first place. ML responded that the Council would have a selection as the point is it should not be the same person, somebody separate would need to be reviewing and validating the assessment and the Council could be in dangerous territory by promoting a company instead of allowing flexibility. MC stated he is not convinced but every time the Council dips into the pocket of the developer it reduces the profitability and some of the areas in Fenland the profitability is marginal.
LR stated that he has several large developments in planning and more recently he has been in discussion with planning officers regarding viability and the North of the A47 situation. He asked if the Local Plan Viability Assessment still holds any weight or is the Council starting afresh? ML responded that they are not starting afresh but a review of the Local Plan gave some direction in the ability to deliver housing and potential viability and a similar period has passed since this was undertaken so the content and information is considered to be significantly out of date and it is likely to be updated as part of the Local Plan work. He made the point that it does carry some weight but there are serious concerns about the validity of the information that formed the basis of this and the Council has received a number of applications recently which clearly indicate that viability is significantly different to the current baseline being used.
LR asked does this mean if a developer submits a viability assessment the Council diverts to the baseline? ML responded that the starting point would be looking for a policy compliant scheme and there would need to be a conversation on the applications that are in at present. It will be picked up as part of the review but if agents were going to challenge the policy point the Council would expect a full viability assessment as there are a number of applications in presently that show the information as being out of date.
GS asked that if he had an application heading to committee and it is not meeting its full Section 106 contributions but is working on the £2,000 per plot and there is not a viability appraisal could that affect the application getting to Planning Committee? ML responded that he would not have thought so in the near future.