Address:       Former Pig Testing Unit, Hitchin Road, Stotfold (nearest post code SG5 4JG)

Removal of Condition No. 16 of planning permission ref: CB/15/03182/FULL dated 18/12/15.

Applicant:     Crest Nicholson Chiltern

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/05966/VOC for the removal of condition no. 16 of planning permission ref: CB/15/03182/FULL dated 18/12/15 at the former Pig Testing Unit, Hitchin Road, Fairfield.

The Committee was aware that Condition 16 required the occupation of an apartment block of 19 residential units by those aged over 55 only.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses and additional comments as set out in the Late Sheet.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from the applicant under the public participation scheme.

A Member sought clarification from the applicant regarding where the apartment units had been marketed.  He also referred to the applicant’s brochure for the development as a whole which pointed out the benefits of living so closely to Letchworth and the facilities available in nearby Fairfield Park but which did not appear to refer to the over 55 accommodation.  In response the applicant stated that reference to the apartments was not necessarily in the brochure as its purpose was to show what they looked like.  She referred the Member online to Right Move and in advertisements where it was clear the apartments were for over 55s.  In response to a comment by the Member that the advertisements for over 55 accommodation had only been made on line and not within the brochure the applicant stated that the only persons receiving the brochure were those who had already expressed an interest in purchasing a property on the development.  The applicant referred to a log of the interest shown since May 2017 recorded by sales advisors of the interest shown in the apartments.  She stated that approximately 20 persons had made enquiries, many of whom had not been over 55.

Members had noted earlier that three reservations for apartments had been registered.

In response to a query by the Chairman the applicant stated that a couple of advertisements had also been placed in local newspapers.  She added that visitors to the site were advised of the over 55 accommodation.

A Member asked what the price would be for the apartments.  The applicant stated that she believed the prices ranged from £270k for a two bedroomed apartment and 350k for a three bedroomed apartment with terrace.

A Member asked what market research was carried out regarding over 55 accommodation before the original application had been submitted.  The applicant stated that the site had been purchased with planning permission which included the provision of over 55 accommodation.  The company had been fully aware of that aspect of the permission.  Some advice was taken from Connells, a local estate agent which had been heavily involved in selling the Fairfield development.  Connells had expressed concerns about being able to sell that many (19) apartments from the site and whether there would be sufficient demand as Connells believed the area was more attractive to young persons and families.  The marketing exercise which the applicant had undertaken performed the role of market research.   If there had been demand and the company had more than three reservations for the over 55 apartments then she would not be present at the meeting.

Arising from a Member’s question to the applicant the Chairman queried how the condition had come to be included in the planning permission.  In response another Member, who had been involved in preliminary negotiations with Campbell Buchanan, the original developer, provided background to this issue.  He drew Members’ attention to the absence of affordable housing on the development though there was an offsite contribution for affordable housing.  During subsequent negotiations, which he had not been involved in, it had been agreed to substitute an element of elderly accommodation.  It was not thought that this would be in the form of a care home or affordable elderly accommodation.  However, given that the Council was aware of the need for downsizing accommodation it was believed that Fairfield, as an attractive location, would fulfil a particular market need.  This had formed an integral part of the Committee’s deliberations.

The Member also referred to the presence of a lift in the apartment block and queried why this would be present if not for use by older residents.

A ward Member, who also spoke on behalf of Fairfield Parish Council which objected to the removal of the condition, raised the issue of viability and why the apartments were not selling.  He suggested that the reason was because it was too early in the build process and the site’s development given that the apartments would not be available for 4-6 months.  He also expressed concern with regard to the comparison, offered in the officer’s report, with a successful development in Hitchin.  He pointed out that the latter was located only five minutes’ walk from the railway station, and therefore appealed to a different type of buyer.

The ward Member stated that when the apartments were first permitted the Council was praised for the development mix of a care home, houses and the over 55 apartments, with the latter offering an alternative to the existing Fairfield Hall apartments. He expressed concern at the loss of the apartments for over 55s on the issue of viability when he did not believe supporting evidence existed.  He acknowledged that this matter would possibly need to be considered again but it was too early to make any decision.  The ward Member also stated he was confused by the officer report in that it was stated by the planning officer that over 55s remained active and used cars.  In comparison the MANOP team, which had supported the original application, appeared concerned that the apartments were some distance from shops, amenities and so on.  He stated that the apartments were no further from the shops and facilities than when permission had been originally been given; the furthest facility being a 12 minute walk.  The ward Member referred to the evolution of Fairfield and was providing the sort of facilities that were attractive to the over 55s.  He also referred to another such development in Langford, which was selling well and which was a similar distance to Biggleswade than the Fairfield development was to Stotfold.  The Council also planned its own developments in Biggleswade, Houghton Regis, Flitwick, Ampthill and elsewhere.  The Priory View development in Dunstable had also been a huge success.

The ward Member stated that there was no mention of the apartment block in the developer’s brochure.  He believed the market for the apartments would come from within Fairfield and from people who had originally moved to the area 10-12 years ago and who wanted to remain in the area.  This was the message he had received form talking to local people and Fairfield Parish Council.   The provision of dwellings for over 55’s allowed them to downsize.  He referred to the sale of a house in Fairfield to a cash buyer within 48 hours and that this speed of sale, coupled with the current state of the development, meant that existing local residents would defer taking action.   He also referred to the muddy conditions on the site which acted as a deterrent to visitors.

The ward Member stated that he believed the marketing period should start from the present and asked that the Committee support the retention of Condition 16.  He believed it added to the mix and fluidity of dwellings in the area.

In response to the ward Member’s representation the Chairman commented that the officers had required a minimum marketing period of six months and it had actually lasted ten months.  With regard to the claim that there was significant demand within Fairfield the Chairman referred to the low level of interest.  The ward Member stated that his point was that the period in which the marketing would be effective would be from the present because the building would not be complete for six months.  Given that properties were selling so quickly in Fairfield a seller would time their sale accordingly if they wished to downsize.  Discussions with many local residents had revealed that they were pleased with the provision of over 55 apartments and the option it provided if they downsized.   There were very few small properties in Fairfield and those that were present were not of the type of apartment that was sought.

The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:

·         The Housing Development Officer had advised that a marketing period of six months was appropriate.  A consultation on the application had been carried out and the evidence submitted had led to the recommendation before the Committee.  The planning officer stated that he was not aware of the brochure’s contents but he did have other pamphlet material for the development which did state that the apartments were for over 55s.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         A Member’s comment that if he was one of those who had already purchased an apartment and then found that the over 55s only restriction had been removed he would be upset having expected a peaceful environment without the presence of families.  To remove the condition would be to let the three purchasers down and impact on any contract they had.  The Chairman commented that it would depend on the precise wording of the contract which the Committee did not have before it.

·         Another Member referred to the applicant’s comments on the type of purchaser that was being sought including first time buyers.  He stated that he was not aware of many first time buyers who could afford the prices asked.  He also stated that he passed the development site every day and it was not possible to access the development site because of the developer’s long standing, poor quality highway works at the entrance, a situation that was likely to continue for some time.  He also referred to complaints by local residents to him in his role as Portfolio Holder for Highways on this issue.  Possible purchasers who drove around looking at likely developments would also be deterred.  The Member commented that the developer had failed to encourage sales though the marketing or the maintenance of the site and area and expressed support for the ward Member’s comments.

·         Another Member drew a comparison with a current development in Dunstable which involved the conversion of a listed building.  The Council had requested that ground floor apartments be made available to the over 55s.  The Member explained the building process which had been followed and how access to those apartments had been provided before marketing had started.  This had encouraged the purchasing of the units.  With regard to the development before the Committee he referred to its origins, the high quality of the marketing brochure and was of the opinion that, if marketed in the right places, 55 year olds would be attracted to live on what was a prestigious development.  The Member turned to the lack of amenity provided for the apartment block and how condition 16 made the application acceptable in planning terms.  He commented that the lack of such amenity, in the form of an absence of private gardens, could prove attractive to some older people.  The applicant’s argument that the condition was unreasonable at a time of a national housing shortage ignored that owners who downsized left an empty house behind.

·         A Member referred to the sale of only three apartments in comparison to a huge uptake of similar elsewhere.  Whilst acknowledging that it was difficult to enter the site there should have been a corresponding impact on the sales of the other properties on the development and this had not apparently happened.  He referred to the applicant being unable to sell the units and queried how long this situation could be allowed to continue.  He stated that if the developer was unable to sell the units then the Council should be revising its arrangements in recognition of this.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds of prematurity due to the lack of marketing for a sufficient period and would make the development unacceptable in terms of the lack of amenity associated with the apartment block.

The proposer commented that, whilst seeing a brochure he saw no evidence of marketing.  Whilst he accepted the planning officer’s position he would have wished to have seen that evidence set before the Committee to have been more convinced that the apartments had been thoroughly marketed in depth in the right places.  The planning officer stated that he understood the papers referred to were from the developer’s (Crest Nicholson) website and not the brochure.  The Member reiterated that there were no alternative brochures, there were some advertisements in newspapers which he had not seen and the information was only on the developer’s website.  Further the development had not been built out.

A second planning officer advised that any reason for refusal should focus on the original reason for the condition being imposed.  This would include the need for elderly accommodation in the area.  He therefore suggested a reason for refusal based on the limited amenity space for the apartments, the need for elderly accommodation in the area and the Committee not being satisfied that there was no demand for the apartments would be appropriate given the concerns expressed.  In response the Member who had moved the recommendation welcomed the suggestion.  The Chairman stated the precise form of words would become clearer once the officers had the opportunity to deliberate further.

A Member commented that there was no mechanism available to the developer if they were unable to sell the apartments.  He asked that a mechanism be embedded to allow the applicant to come back to the Committee without having go to appeal.  In response a Member, whilst acknowledging this point and that made by the applicant that the condition was in perpetuity, referred to the disturbance which would be caused to those over 55s which would be caused by a young, large family moving into the building.  Referring back to his previous comments he emphasised that the prematurity was the point he was trying to make and there was nothing to prevent the developer returning to the Committee in a year or so with another application and advising how their attempt to sell the apartments had been unsuccessful.

A Member stated that he was examining the developer’s website for the development and there was no reference to over 55s.

The Chairman stated that the recommended reason for refusal was based on prematurity which could relate to insufficient advertising having taken place and the lack of amenity space for the apartments. 

On being put to the vote 9 members voted for refusal, 1 voted against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/05966/VOC relating to the former Pig Testing Unit, Hitchin Road, Fairfield be refused as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.