Agenda item

The Commission has invited guests to address the meeting before considering the following question:

“Are our current planning practices robust enough to protect Bracknell Forest from developers manipulating viability study process?”

and deciding whether to make any recommendations to the Executive.

·       Andrew Hunter, Director: Place, Planning and Regeneration to speak to the Council’s current planning practices followed by questions (25 minutes)

·       Andrew Jones from BPS Chartered Surveyors to answer questions relating to viability assessments (15 minutes)

·       Jim Bailey, representative from Pegasus Planning to provide a developer’s perspective (15 minutes)

·       Councillor Turrell, Executive Member for Planning and Transport to answer questions on his portfolio in relation to planning practices (15 minutes)

·       Conclusions and recommendations

Evidence Pack to support this item

Please note the Evidence Pack should be read in advance of the meeting but for those short of time the essential reading is the Development Viability presentation.

·       BPS Chartered Surveyors presentation on Development Viability: what is Involved and what has changed

·       National position on Plan viability and planning application decision makingViability - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

·       Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (bracknell-forest.gov.uk) – this includes the Affordable housing policy and viability matters

The Commission invited guests to address the meeting before considering the following question: “Are our current planning practices robust enough to protect Bracknell Forest from developers manipulating viability study process?”

Andrew Hunter, Director: Place, Planning and Regeneration addressed the Commission on the Council’s current planning practices. Andrew Jones from BPS Chartered Surveyors explained the viability assessment process. Jim Bailey, representative from Pegasus Planning provided the Commission with a developer’s perspective. Councillor Turrell, Executive Member for Planning and Transport summed up what he had heard about members’ concerns about planning practices.

In response to questions the following points were made:

·       The package of planning policies would be updated following the adoption of the new Local Plan these would be published in advance of Executive in March and as such were not yet available to the Commission.

·       Planning decisions which moved away from the Council’s approved policy framework would be considered by the planning committee.

·       A viability assessment was being developed for the new local plan covered overall plan strategy.

·       Delivering all policy requirements on specific applications, was the aim but viability assessments were available for use where developers could identify genuine viability issues which should be considered as part of the planning approval process.  Larger allocated sites would be covered by the local plan viability assessment.

·       There was a delicate balance between being robust but pragmatic in order to attract housebuilders and work with them to deliver local housing and meet needs.

·       Viability studies had been published for applications during the previous few years.

·       Technical information to quantify how much potential affordable housing had been lost through the viability study process, would be provided to the Commission.

·       Reported that registered providers were becoming more proactive in the local housing market to build more affordable homes on the sites by using government grants. 

·       In response to the suggestion that affordable housing levels could be set per site rather than across the whole Local Plan it was explained that this would be very complex and was not considered achievable and would require multiple viability assessments.

·       Some developments were delivered in phases and when affordable housing was built during the construction timeframe depended on the site size and would be controlled through a S.106 agreement. 

·       Planning permission was granted on the information available at the determination date and therefore there would not be a reassessment process unless the developer did not undertake the construction before the permission lapsed had reapplication was required. Section 106 agreements could also see reassessment if a long period of time lapsed between decision and implementation.

·       Noted that the issue of affordable housing was high on the political agenda.

·       The Commission were welcome to make a submission to the consultation but at this stage in the process responses would go directly to the examiner.

·       Advised that some policies were nationally set but local authorities could produce guidance on how the policy was interpreted locally.

·       Following the implementation of the new Local Plan it was anticipated there would be fewer viability studies submitted as up to date policies would be in place.

The following points were concluded by Director: Place, Planning and Regeneration:

·       The Council’s approach was to use a District Valuer to assess viability assessments with knowledge from across the south east to ensure independence and relevant expertise. Further alternative assessors could be investigated to build elected members confidence in their technical advice.

·       Further training could be provided to the Planning Committee and comments regarding complexity of the reports would be taken onboard and reviewed. It was acknowledged that reports needed to be clearer on viability issues and an executive summary to viability reports could be introduced.

RESOLVED that the Commission required specific guidance on viability process to be prepared and the Commission to scrutinise it before it is published.