City of Edinburgh Council - Development Management Sub-Committee -

Subscribe to updates

You'll receive weekly summaries about City of Edinburgh Council every week.

If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.

Please note, emails for this council have been paused whilst we secure funding for it. We hope to begin delivering them again in the next couple of weeks. If you subscribe, you'll be notified when they resume. If you represent a council or business, or would be willing to donate a small amount to support this service, please get in touch at community@opencouncil.network.

Development Management Sub-Committee - Wednesday, 1st May, 2024 10.00 am

May 1, 2024 View on council website

Transcript

Thank you, everybody. Just wanna check, they've got everybody back online. Oh, we have got Casa Mascreya, excellent. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Development Management Subcommittee. This meeting is being held in the Dean of Guild courtroom in the city chambers on the High Street in Edinburgh and remotely by Microsoft Teams. It will be filmed for live and subsequent broadcast via the council's website. The council is a data controller under the General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018. We broadcast council meetings and fill our public task obligation to enable members of the public to observe the democratic process. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the council's published policy. Members are reminded that the cameras are activated with the sound system and that they must switch on microphones when speaking and off when finished speaking.
Hey, thanks, Convenor. Item one on the agenda is order of business. No changes to the order of business as circulated and usual reminders to members that you're required to be present from the beginning of consideration of each planning application to be able to participate in the decision making. Remember to join in remotely. Please keep your cameras on for the duration of the meeting in the interest of openness and transparency. And when not speaking, please mute your microphone to minimize interference from background noise. Please use the raise hand function to advise the convener that you'd like to ask a question or raise a point of order. All discussions should take place via the convener. Votes will be taken by a show of hands. Just on the order of business to note that item 4.4, 27 to 29, 31, Ratcliffe, Terrace Edinburgh has been withdrawn by the applicant. It takes you to item two, which is declarations of interest. The Council of Code of Conduct requires members to publicly declare interest in the items being considered at the meeting. These could be financial or non-financial. Are there any interest to declare? Item three is the minute of the previous meeting of 17th of April, 2024. That's submitted for approval as a credit record. So that takes you to section four, general applications, miscellaneous business and pre-application reports. Item 4.1 is a report for a forthcoming application by University of Edinburgh's state's department for proposal of application notice at University of Edinburgh, Darwin Building, Max Born Crescent and committee are asked to note the key issues at this stage and advise of any other issues.
Noted.
Noted.
Item 4.2 is an application for planning permission at three Johns Place, Southleath Edinburgh, and it's recommended this application be refused.
Agreed.
Item 4.3 is an application for list of building consent at three Johns Place, three Johns Place apologies as Southleath Edinburgh and it's recommended this application be refused.
Agreed.
And item 4.4 has been withdrawn. So that then takes you on to section seven, which is applications for detailed presentation. Item 7.1 is an application at seven and is in place lane Edinburgh, EH35 DJ and I will hand over to planning officers to present. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO]
Sorry for the delay that convener. A bit some pieces popping up on my computer and I wasn't able to press the right button. So sorry about that, right. So we have this application before you, which is submitted on behalf of the developer seeking to modify the legal agreement entered into with the council on the application reference 21, 4326 for the provision of housing development and the application is required because the development is of a cost that will prohibit the provision of onsite affordable housing. And so the developer is looking for the council's authorization to make the suitable amendments to the legal agreement to change from onsite provision of 10 residential units, eight, one bedroom and two, three bedroom units and is replacement with a clause for a payment of a financial contribution for the council to be able to use for affordable housing within the vicinity of the site. For information, this is the red edge line in the centre of the plan showing the location of the site off Henderson Road in the city. And this is an aerial shot taken by Google Street Maps in 2023 showing the development as commenced on the site showing the outline of the footprint of the building. I don't know how to describe it, probably a letter A with a very flattened top. You can see where the crane is in the centre there, the yellow crane is the outside area as opposed to the built area of the property. This is elevations taken from the original application showing the development of the site that's proposed five-story development of residential accommodation and the other two elevations from the east and west. Now to plan, now, this shows the affordable housing stair which is the top right-hand corner in a shape, I'm just trying to show starting here, moving down past the stair and down here. And that is repeated on the floors above to provide the 10 residential units in that corner. And again, Google Street Maps showing that the construction work had started on site. I think in the report I've said that we received on the 1st of April 2022 a notification of initiation of development on the site. It doesn't immediately mean that the development work will start, but the works for the development will have commenced from that date and looking from the opposite corner. So that's looking at the corner which would show the affordable housing and then just looking from the opposite side there. And the key issues in terms of the NPF4 policies for quality homes and infrastructure first and the local development plan policies of developer contributions and infrastructure delivery and policy in housing for affordable housing. The application has been through a viability test independently and the district value has considered the contribution amounts identified for education which was 41,000 pounds when that contribution was paid timelessly by the development prior to commencements of development and the district value has identified a cost, a value of 56,500 pounds per unit and because we're moving from on site where we round down the figure so there's 42 units on the site altogether so that's 10.5 affordable housing units. So 10 being provided on the site but when it comes to a financial contribution we go back to the detailed 10.5 affordable housing provision 10.5 times 56,500 is 593,250 pounds. And if the applications approved by members will be seeking to amend the legal agreement so that that contribution is paid within three months of that determination if that be the decision of the committee and it will be index linked back to the date that the district value made their report to ensure that the money's, the district value was dealing with or what we actually get in at value given the interest rate rises that are ongoing. Over time, as members will be aware. Thank you very much. That's the end of my presentation. If I can stop sharing, just two moments. Sorry.
Thank you very much indeed. Councilor Cameron, I noticed that you're present. Unfortunately, you're unable to take part in this application due to the fact of not being at the previous briefing.
All right.
Thanks.
I'll go.
Thank you. Questions from committee? I see Councillor Booth.
Excuse me a minute. So as far as I understand that the argument from the developer is that they have had significant inflation in terms of the build costs. But presumably that has affected, as a result of COVID and Brexit and so on. But presumably that impact has been across the construction sector. Is there anything specific to this site where the costs have been unforeseen or there's been significant increase in costs on this site that could not reasonably have been expected?
Yes.
Councillor Booth, is that a general question or is that an affordable, do you want to, do you want to answer from planners or from affordable housing on that particular point?
Whoever can answer. I suppose my question is, is there anything that is unusual about this specific site? You know, for example, in the past we've had arguments from developers that they have needed to do pile driving which they had not anticipated beforehand and that has added costs and that's part of the reason. As far as I understand it, the reason for this developer saying that they can't afford the affordable housing is inflation in terms of the significantly increased build costs. But I'm just wondering if they have identified anything that is site specific in this case.
Thank you. Yes, I'm not aware that there's anything specific to the development. There's no undercroft car parking or piling or anything like that. It's just the overall costs risen on the development which are then eaten into the potential profitability and therefore they're unable to provide because of those overall costs. The onsite affordable housing provision here and the costs of that work, I believe, has meant that the cost to a registered social landlord taking on those 10 units would be an amount of money that's well above anything that could be afforded by either them or indeed, as I understand it, by the council itself as the housing authority.
I have Councillor Burgess, followed by Councillor Nickin, followed by Councillor Maurott, followed by Councillor Jones.
Thanks, convener. I was wondering if you could just explain why the removal of the affordable housing onsite would make the development financially viable rights. Maybe answer that question. So, Councillor Burgess said the main reason that it would make the development viable is that the full market values of the units would be able to be attained which is not a value which a registered social landlord would be able to pay. In fact, the difference between what a registered social landlord could pay and the full market values is about 1.3 million pounds.
Thank you.
Yeah, thank you, so the units would be just sold on the market instead of past a registered social landlord.
That's correct, Chair.
Thank you.
Councillor Miese-Miese-Miese-Miese-Miese-Mies.
Thank you. It's kind of a follow-on to Councillor Booth's question, but if there isn't anything site specific about this development and it's related to larger, issues like Brexit and the Russian invasion and various other things, we might anticipate confronting this situation quite a few times across the city and my question is possibly less planning, but more, I know planning doesn't usually do this type of thing, but given that a lot of our residents, a lot of our community councils religiously tuned in to watch planning committee, is there a bigger piece of communication that could be done with residents so that they're aware of these underlying factors? Because I'm afraid the word profitability was used completely to understand what Alex was pointing out there and what social landlords can afford to pay, but that bigger factor, these external factors that we don't have control of here in the city, it's causing, I think, a lot of frustration and I would say particularly to our community council to put in a lot of time.
I'm really sorry to interrupt you. I just would like to ask this question if we can have specific questions about the applications put in front of us. I appreciate your comments. I think we can probably deal with those in a separate environment, but if we try to just be quite specific towards the application, that would be very, very gratefully received. Do you have a specific question for this application?
It's been made clear that this is not a specific application issue, so thank you.
So I have Councillor Mayart, Councillor Jones, Councillor Douglas and then Councillor Beall and Councillor Gunner, please remember the order you're in.
Yeah, thank you, thank you, Kavina. Right, we heard in your presentation, Mr. McKeever, Mr. McKeever, that there has been a viability assessment done on this application. So was the viability assessment done taking into account and was the non-viability with valuing these properties at a market valuation or as the 10 properties as affordable housing? I mean, we've heard that there's a £1.3 million difference in that, does that make the site viable or does it remain unviable when their value does market units?
I'm sorry, Kavina, that's taken matters outside of my expertise, I know that there was a full submission, detailed submission with the application, which is sensitive because it has company sensitive information in it and that it was independently verified and then the report was put or the matters were put to the district valuer, for the district valuer to consider. So people with a full detailed and professional knowledge in that area have looked at this, it's not just the developer says, it is the developers has submitted those details, they have been assessed and then the district valuer has looked at those matters to bring to a conclusion the application here today. So I'm afraid I can't say specifically what those matters were, I'm trusting to colleagues who know these things to have looked at that properly and have made come to a proper and reasonable conclusion.
I couldn't be able to follow on from the answer if that's helpful coming. So when the district valuer looks at the calculation of the committee, somebody does look at market values over the property. So they're taking the full market values of the property and subtracting the development costs and the developer profit at an appropriate level to leave a residual land value. So what the DV has said in essence is that the residual land value is the value of the committee itself. So that committee, some being 600,000, that we know that the difference between being able to deliver these units on site and what an ISL could afford is at least 1.3 million pounds. So hopefully that helps clarify that a bit.
So if I can just try and clarify this 'cause there's a number of things, we've got that the commuted sum is not 1.3 million pounds, the commuted sum is 593,000 pounds. So what you're saying is that that is arrived at by saying that is what the developer can afford to pay on these sites, you know, out of what is left, it can't afford to pay 1.3 million pounds to deliver this as affordable housing, but it can afford to pay 56,000, whatever it is, per unit, to deliver that additional, you know, if it sells at all at market housing, that's what would be the over the accepted profit rate of 17.5% and that is what they can therefore afford to pay. Is that how we do this calculation? I appreciate Mr. McKeever's response, but I do think we are trying to do this in an as open as way possible with quite a lot of restricted information, which is why I'm trying to tease the sex. I think it's really important that the public understand the decision that we're taking, that we are being asked to take.
So you're correct, okay, sorry about it. So the difference there is that the valuation calculation that the district value has done and the fact that the cost-serving check goes prove that the developer could not afford to reduce the price of the units to a level that would be affordable for NSL. And if they've done that, they wouldn't make the required level of profit for the scheme to be considered to be valuable through national planning games.
Following on just from CouncilMawit's question, Alex, could you just confirm why it goes that way round? Why it has to be reduced for an RSL to be able to afford something rather than, i.e., is there a fixed amount of monies that an RSL can actually look at for a property to be affordable for them?
There is a convener. So the provision of affordable housing is charitable. It only works where there's grant funding that matches the amount of private finance that registers social landlord can borrow on those properties. And so a registered social landlord can only ever pay around twice as much as they get in grant funding. So that private finance needs to match the amount of grant funding that's put in. If the price is higher than that, then it's unlikely that an RSL would be able to afford it without there being additional finance being brought in either through additional means. And we have our own committed sums fund pop, which we have used to support affordable housing in other areas of the same. But we need to do our value for money check on that as well and make sure that we're investing that in the right way and that it's legitimate to the means and to the outcome that we get. The amount of difference per unit about 130,000 per unit between what an RSL could afford to pay and what they would be required to pay for these units is far, far greater than any community, some support that we've provided in the past. And that support has been presented to committee and new minister reports. I am saying how communities sums are used. The highest that we've committed per affordable housing unit today is about 20,000. So you can see the vast difference between 20 and 100 and steady that we've required here.
Thank you, Alex. Apologies, Councillor James.
Thank you, Convener. I just want, as a point of clarification, I mean, should this application to modify affordable housing obligations go through today or be accepted, is by understanding correct that this commuted sum is then put into a separate fund for affordable housing in the vicinity. Can you clarify exactly what you mean by that? And are we looking, I mean, what actually happens is it just sit there, I mean, how viable is it?
So, as I mentioned in the previous answer, we do report on committed sums to planning committee on an annual basis. There's an HP update report that sets out how committed sums are used from what development they've been paid for and how much is used per unit and what development they're being used to support. So what happens with committed sums once they're paid, they're held by the Council and the housing team looped to use those to support affordable housing development in the same area. So usually we looped to same or adjacent board and if there's any variance from that, that's something that's reported to committee and that HP update report.
Okay, I think my memory is Councilor Duggish next and then it we go, Councilor Beall, Councilor Gorna.
Thanks, convener. My question's been answered, so I'm fine, thank you.
Councilor Beall.
Okay, thanks for being here. So I just want to establish what the actual market value these properties is. According to what we've got, 230 plus the cost of land plus profit, so that's gonna take you up to at least 300,000. So that's what we're saying the market value of a one bedroom flat in this development is gonna be, wherever that might be. My question is, has shared equity been explored as an option for these properties and it's good obviously that's a fundamental problem. The OSLs can't afford the full capital value. So it's shared equity been explored as an option, thanks.
Shared equity is considered as an option. However, if you look at the market values of the properties which was in the district value report which was circulated to committee, you'll see that the level of market value would not be in language what we could do in terms of shared equity. It's too great.
So just what would be a viable sort of shared equity value that the OSL would pay? Do we think what sort of level we're talking about for that? Thanks.
So OSLs generally look to if they're taking forward shared equity, it works on a basis of grant funding being used to make up about 60% of the cost and the then both purchase about 40% all that can vary. And with the mortgage market being difficult at the moment, the types of mortgage use which lenders consider to be most risky are those that are most complicated. So things like shared equity and golden share as well. I believe that the mortgage market for that is fairly limited.
Councilor Gondor?
Yeah, thank you, Convenor. I just want to consider the policy area we have to consider here. As Councilor Booth was talking about exceptional circumstances, I don't know if you have a slide with that or if you can just verbally take us through, I mean, essentially is increasing construction costs across the city exceptional circumstances or is the policy more written about hidden well or Councilor Booth mentioned piling and things like that? So it's just really considering what this committee has to consider this morning, please.
Thank you, Convenor. So I've just had a look through the planning statements just to see if there are any exceptional circumstances. There doesn't seem to be any, but I think what the planning statements set out in relation to planning policy, et cetera, is a bit more of a context about why this has happened. So it talks about how there were discussions between the applicant and the RSLs in September 2020. In the intervening period, obviously that's a while ago now, it talks about the gross development value which was predicted in September 2020 of between 19 and 20 percent. And then that was based on a benchmark district value of profitability threshold. And that appraisal included the 10 affordable housing units constructed on site in accordance with the approved plans. And the contribution from the RSL was insufficient to cover the bill costs. And so 100,000 pounds investors top up was agreed with the RSLs prior to the submission of the planning application. There was then the associated cost plan that was done by the applicants in September 2020. This is all before the submission of the application. But then what they're saying is what happened in that intervening period was that the gross development value plummeted from what they're talking about 17 and a half percent down to between eight and 12 percent. And that was largely attributed to the construction costs and that increased by 34 percent from 7.9 million in September 2020 to 10.62 million in May 2023. And that meant that the overall cost increased by 21 percent. And then it goes on to talk about the associated up to date or the updated May 2023 cost plan, which therefore indicates that actually the affordable housing on site didn't prove viable. So in terms of exceptional circumstances, not particularly, there's no additional piling or anything required in terms of the site preparation works. But I think it's just the overall cost of things had increased so substantially that it meant that the development was not proving to be viable for them. So we've obviously gone through the tests in the report of what we consider, you know, the required tests in terms of the circular and in terms of our planning policy and the conclusions are all in the report in front of you. But I hope that kind of partly answers the question.
It gives a lot of detail. I was really wanting to just hone in on the circular and the wording in the circular so NMDU is watching, understands what the decision we have to make because it talks about, well, I won't quote what it talks but I'm asking you if you could confirm in this meeting lastly, please, what the circular says because and whether we should be considering an increase inflationate, true to Brexit and the war in Ukraine and other circumstances to do with COVID and things that have been documented. Or if it's really, should we be considering this locus, this particular site and its circumstances? So if you can read the circular, then committee can maybe help us decide.
I think John has a copy of the report so I'm just gonna slide his laptop over so I can just run through. So in terms of the planning tests, I'm right and saying there's six tests, John, five. And so there's the necessity test, there is the planning purpose test, there is the relationship to the proposed development test, scale and kind test and the reasonableness test and taking it in turn, the assessment in the report does go through each of those tests. I don't know if you want me to run through them individually as they are all set out in the report but the report is quite thorough in going through, so this is taking the tests from the Circular 3 2012 which is planning obligations and good neighbour agreements and it says that the obligations are, it means being strict compliance with those five policy tests otherwise if they fail, they have to be, we have to review the purpose of the section 75. So yeah, I don't know if you want me to run through them but I think in terms of this particular application, it is quite a thorough assessment of each of those five policy areas.
Okay, do we have any further questions and committee? First, somebody who hasn't asked a question yet? No, moving on to second questions, Councillor Beeth.
That's a good minute. Apologies if this is a stupid question but what are the implications if we don't grant the application? Presumably the applicant has a right of appeal, would that be to the DPEA? And if so, do we have any sort of assessment, I think, last time we had an OBL application, I asked, or somebody asked a similar question, is there any sort of precedent that we can point to of the view that the DPEA might take an appeal such as this?
Yep, thank you, Convenor. Members will be aware that we've had two similar applications to this over recent months, going back to December 23 for St. John's Road. That was lodged at appeal the morning. We discussed Lannock Road in here on the 13th of March. Lannock Road was duly refused and last week that application was lodged as an appeal with the DPEA. We've not had before any of these types of, well, an appeal under section 75B of the Planning Act before, and as far as I can see, in terms of the 130 such appeals to the DPEA, since the legislation changed in 2011, I'm not aware of any other similar forms of appeal. So I think relatively new ground, the DPEA reporters will be allocated according to their skills, knowledge and understanding, and will assess all the matters thoroughly as well. So we'll wait and see the outcome of those two, but that is the appeal. The legal agreement stays as it is, onsite affordable housing. I know that Lannock Road, the development has now stopped because they can't do any more until they know what the outcome of that is. They can't sell any of those properties until they've got the outcome of the appeal. So I would imagine that this one will go to appeal if the application is refused by committee today, and then the reporter will look at that, the council will get an opportunity to place its case as well as the developer, and the reporter will make an assessment based on that.
Any further questions from committee? Councillor Buc.
Sorry, I can be, this is a separate one. I understand from a previous question that construction onsite has started. Do we know whether it is concluded, or if not, how close it is to conclusion?
So from what I can recall, the buildings currently onsite have been demolished. There are some site works currently ongoing. I don't know to what level now the actual construction is.
Okay, have we exhausted questions to officers? Again, this is not something we'd like to see coming for us. We do seem to have a bit of a perfect storm. I know there's been a much mention about the increasing costs of construction, which is an absolutely, yes, a lot of that is down to Brexit, but please can we remember the elephant to the room, which is the affordable housing element? We not only have an issue with the increasing costs, we have an issue with actually what we have available to us in terms of affordable housing. So this isn't an easy option in terms of the fact of, you know, if we could just deal with the increasing costs, because we don't necessarily have the monies on the other side either. So that's why I'm saying this is a bit of a perfect storm. We seem to have applications coming in front of us where they are small scale, and so the cost builds are more expensive for small build, in particular areas, which are expensive to build in. And, you know, each application is looked at in its own merits and own right. Yes, this is the third one we've had, but for quite similar reasons. I think when the circular was done about particular exceptional circumstances, I would pretty much say a perfect storm of having three things in front of you is quite exceptional. We will hope that the situation does change, but who knows, going forward to the future. But personally speaking, in this particular case, having gone through all the options, I would, with a heavy heart, obviously go with what the planners have recommended. I don't believe the planners would have recommended this if they didn't feel there was a different option. I would rather we actually had the monies, and we don't risk anything. I appreciate the fact that committee might make a different decision, and it might go to appeal. But again, my concern about that is a delay in considering in terms of cost of the construction, if the construction is further delayed, there's an increased cost. So we're going round and round in circles. So personally speaking, with a very heavy heart, I will be moving the officer's recommendations on this one. So opening up to other committee members. CHAIR YELLEN. Councillor BOOF. Thanks, committee. I mean, I certainly agree that this is not an easy one. And I think planners have set out, from their perspective, in terms of the strict letter of our policy, why they feel that their recommendation is that this is granted. And I think that would be the case, from my perspective, if there was something there that, for example, they had started construction, they found there were serious issues with subsidence, and they needed to add additional piling. If they added additional items to this specific application, which were not the case for the construction industry more generally. But their argument for asking for this to be changed from on-site to a curated sum is around construction price inflation. That is not unique to this specific site. And while I have a lot of sympathy for them, and completely understand that as a developer, they are potentially going to significant risk. Nonetheless, I think it was reasonable for them to take into account some sort of expectation that inflation might increase. I think we also need to look at the timetable. The application was granted permission in 2022, and the notification of initiation of development came in in April. And then very soon after that, just a matter of months later, we had this request to change the obligation. I think it was not unreasonable for them, at that point, when we were really sort of through the pandemic, it was not unreasonable for them to have it anticipated that the pandemic may have some impact on construction inflation. And I also have concerns that if we grant this one, we're effectively sending a message to the wider construction industry that actually on-site affordable housing is an optional extra. On-site affordable housing is really, really important, and we should be holding quite a firm line to developers, I believe, so I would prefer that we refuse this application on the grants that's contrary to LDP Policy House 6, on affordable housing, and contrary to NPF 4, Policy 16 on Quality Homes Paragraph E. I think I saw Councillor JONES followed by Councillor MART. Thank you, convener. This is very difficult, and I completely sympathise with Councillor BOO's statement that we don't want to send the wrong message here, but we've explored this concept of exceptional circumstance but told it's not exceptional circumstances. However, you could argue, COVID, you could argue that the, thank you very much, and you could argue that the War in Ukraine, these are exceptional circumstances, and I think these have really pushed to the limit the ability for certain developers to be able to deliver on target, so again, on balance, I'm in agreement with yourself, convener, I think we should accept the officer's recommendations here. Thank you. Councillor MACK. An embarrassment of microphone. Thank you, convener. Yes, I've listened very carefully, and I've read the papers very carefully, and I am highly concerned about what is being brought forward, because we are painting exceptional circumstances, which I would say pertain to individual sites and applications, would be the more normal interpretation of that in planning, rather than what is happening in the rest of the world. However, exceptional circumstances are, because those are the things that every developer and every developer has to deal with, so I don't see how they can be exceptional on a site-by-site basis. The exceptionality, if there is any here, which gives me grave concern, is your comment that these are smaller sites with on-site affordable housing being delivered? And I think that is what is being tested here, and I think it is for us to say whether we accept that test, or whether we say, or whether we ask, because there is very little case law, as we explored in the previous application here, in what is, I think... This is a technical term that I'm going to use, as I understand it, bastard legislation. And it's not just me being rude, but it is because it is so poorly drawn that there is this possibility for any developer to come back at any point and say, I'm not making enough money. Now, whilst there has been an establishment of what, an established methodology of working out viability, which has been put in front of us before, I think it is important for us to test that, because viability comes... It's also a risk and reward scale, which I said previously, that we allow what looks like quite a high level of profit to determine this viability. But for me, as in other areas, we don't have risks and rewards. Development is a risky business. It comes, we have determined that as a higher level. But essentially what we're now saying is that smaller, more difficult sites. I think this is actually going to become a test for our policy, because we're going to say that in poor market conditions, you can't deliver on-site affordable housing. And given what is coming forward in City Plan 2030, and the way that we have been asked to amend our proposed City Plan, by the reporter in the report of examination, where we've put in a higher level of affordable housing at 35%, this is going to be really, really important. So that is why I think we should refuse this today. And it is on a point of principle, because I do not accept that there are exceptional circumstances. I think this is purely a question of testing viability. And I think at the moment it meets the test that is there, that has been put out and has been established. But I think given there are exceptional circumstances in the rest of the world, which apply to every single site being developed, unless we want a rash of these to come in and lose all the affordable housing that this committee has fought very hard for over the years, we need to test this. And the person who tests this is the reporter. So I will be moving to refuse this, because I am highly concerned about what this is going to do if we accept these. Now, we may lose them and it may add a small amount, but actually it may work in the developer's benefit, because costs are moving all over the place at the moment. This week it's wheat, which has gone up. Coco last week. So there are lots of movements that is volatile. That means the industry may have to adjust. But I also don't think we should be accepting, because when I look at what's happening in the housing market and to housing prices, I think my would also be concerned that this is a way of increasing profitability beyond 17.5%, which is the upside for the developer in bringing this. So I think, my view is that I'm not convinced that we can accept this, because there are no exceptional circumstances. So I would support Councillor Booth's position.
Councillor Gartner.
Yeah, thank you, convener. I agree with the sentiments that are being expressed about this particular site, so we need to consider each application on its own merits. And I don't, haven't heard anything exceptional about this site. We did go through it several times with officers and they weren't able to express any exceptionality about this site. And I understand that is the way the circular is written. It's not about the world market, as Council Mount has said, or anything like that. There's nothing particular and exceptional about this particular site. And in terms of marketing and affordability, and so when I'm aware there is a report, but there's opportunities for the developers to sell 10 units with guaranteed sale value, with no need to market them to an affordable housing developer here. So we've heard of the profit margins and so on, but I think that also could be taken into account when this assessment is made. In perspective of that, the main point here is it does not comply with NPF4 policy 16 about affordable housing, as Councillor Booth has said. And therefore, I can't see that the committee can accept this here today. We are looking to own its own merits, and there isn't merits in this particular application to remove the affordable housing on this site. Can you hear? Thank you.
Councillor Bion.
Yeah, actually Vignami, I kind of agree with these sentiments as well. I mean, from what should be 10 affordable housing, we're going to be looking to get to somewhere, possibly three if you're taken to the RSL contribution, and when I've seen this before, it's the same sort of thing. I think it's just the developers trying to wriggle out of the obligations for this, which I'm, you know, not have to give out. So, again, reason to refuse it would be lack of affordable housing. I just, I think they've got a responsibility to meet this obligation. And I can see some of the figures coming into this, but again, I think it's, so I'd be against this application. I'm happy to refuse it. Thank you.
Okay, I think we're looking like we're finishing up. I think some very good points to be raised, and I do take into consideration all floor accounts, I'm out of the said. I do have a concern there on the other side there. If we can't get an affordable housing provider to actually sort of have, we've got that imbalance between the costs and so on, which is what we're looking at. And this particular instance, I totally understand and appreciate there's a much wider element. I do not accept the fact that this is sending a message that we can't actually provide. I think that what this is sending a message is we have a problem that we need to resolve, and we need assistance to resolve this and a wider issue. So, I will still be moving personally that we accept the officer's recommendations. So, that we're moving, so looking for a seconder. Councillor Jones.
I'm very happy to second you, Councillor Osler. What we have in front of us, as Councillor Mater has rightly pointed out, I won't use the whole terminology used, poor legislation, that is what we have. We cannot do anything about that, what we can, but we can't at this present moment, we can't. So, that's why, like you, I am happy to second that we accept the officer's recommendation.
Councillor Beak.
That's going to be, I think I've made all of the arguments that I've previously made, but just to clarify, I'm moving a refusal of the application on the grounds that's contrary to LDP policy, House 6 on affordable housing, and NPF4 policy 16E on quality homes.
Councillor Mater.
Councillor Mater.
Yeah, I'm happy to second that. Thank you.
Okay, in that case, we have two positions. Emotion moved by Councillor Osler, seconded by Councillor Jones, which is to accept the section 75 application. To modify the terms of the application, subject to the informative assessment, and section C of the report by the Chief Planning Officer, and the amendment moved by Councillor Booth, seconded by Councillor Moved, which is to refuse the application on the grounds that it's contrary to LDP policy, House 6, and NPF4 policy 16E. Could I say the votes firstly for the amendment by Councillor Booth to refuse? That's eight, and for the motion by Councillor Osler, please. That's two, the amendment is carried, and the application is refused.
Thank you very much, and did you committee? I believe that is it for the day.
Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]

Transcript

Hey everybody, just want to check, they've got everybody back online. Oh, we have got Council Member Scrae? Excellent. Good morning everybody, welcome to the Development Management Subcommittee. This meeting is being held in the Dean of Guild courtroom in the city chambers on the High Street in Edinburgh and remotely by Microsoft Teams. It will be filmed for live and subsequent broadcast via the Council's website. The Council is a data controller under the General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018. We broadcast Council meetings and fill our public task obligation to enable members of the public to observe the democratic process. Data collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council's published policy. Members are reminded that the cameras are activated with the sound system and that they must switch on microphones when speaking and off when finished speaking.
Hey, thanks, Convenor. Item one on the agenda is order of business. No changes to the order of business as circulated and usual reminders to members that you're required to be present from the beginning of consideration of each planning application to be able to participate in the decision making. Remember to join in remotely. Please keep your cameras on for the duration of the meeting in the interest of openness and transparency. And when not speaking, please mute your microphone to minimize interference from background noise. Please use the raise hand function to advise the convenience that you'd like to ask a question or raise the point of order. All discussions should take place via the convenience. Votes will be taken by a show of hands. Just on the order of business to note that item 4.4, 27 to 29, 31, Ratcliffe, Terrace Edinburgh has been withdrawn by the applicant. It takes you to item two, which is declarations of interest. The Council of Code of Conduct requires members to publicly declare interest in the items being considered at the meeting. These could be financial or non-financial. Are there any interest to declare? Item three is the minute of the previous meeting of 17th of April, 2024. That's submitted for approval as a credit record. So that takes you to section four. General applications, miscellaneous business, and pre-application reports. Item 4.1 is a report for a forthcoming application by University of Edinburgh's state's department for proposal application notice at University of Edinburgh, Darwin Building, Max Born Crescent, and committee are asked to note the key issues at this stage and advise of any other issues. Noted. Item 3.2 is an application for planning permission at Three John's Place, South Leith Edinburgh, and it's recommended this application be refused. Agreed. Item 4.3 is an application for list of building consent at Three John's Place, Three John's Place apologies as South Leith Edinburgh and it's recommended this application be refused. Agreed. And item 4.4 has been withdrawn. So that then takes you on to section seven, which is applications for detailed presentation. Item 7.1 is an application at Seven Henderson Place, Leith Edinburgh, EH35 DJ, and I will hand over to Planning Officers to present. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application for the city council. Item 7.1 is an application. It's been made clear that this is not a specific application issue. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Right, we heard in your presentation, Mr. McKeever, Mr. McKeever, that there has been a viability assessment done on this application. So was the viability assessment done taking into account and was the non-viability with valuing these properties at a market valuation or as the ten properties as affordable housing? I mean, we've heard that there's a £1.3 million difference in that. Does that make the site viable or does it remain unviable when their value does market units? I'm sorry, say convenience. That's taken matters outside of my expertise. I know that there was a full submission, detailed submission with the application, which is sensitive because it has company sensitive information in it and that it was independently verified and then the report was put or the matters were put to the district valuer for the district valuer to consider. So people with a full detailed and professional knowledge in that area have looked at this. It's not just the developer says it is that the developers has submitted those details. They have been assessed and then the district valuer has looked at those matters to bring to a conclusion the application here today. So I'm afraid I can't say specifically what those matters were. I'm trusting to colleagues who know these things to have looked at that properly and have made come to a proper and reasonable conclusion. I couldn't be able to follow on from the answer if that's helpful coming. So when the district valuer looks at the calculation of the committee, some of the look at market values of the property. So they're taking the full market values of the property and subtracting the development costs and the developer profit at an appropriate level to leave a residual land value. So what the DV has said in essence is that the residual land value is the value of the community. So that committee some being 600,000 that we know that the difference between being able to deliver these units on site and what an NSL could afford is at least 1.3 million pounds. So hopefully that helps clarify that a bit. So if I can just try and clarify this because there's a number of things we've got. The community sum is not 1.3 million pounds. The community sum is 593,000 pounds. So what you're saying is that that is arrived at by saying that is what the developer can afford to pay on these sites. You know, out of what is left, it can't afford to pay 1.3 million pounds to deliver this as affordable housing, but it can afford to pay 56,000, whatever it is, per unit, to deliver that additional, you know, if it sells at all at market housing, that's what would be the over the accepted profit rate of 17.5%. And that is what they can therefore afford to pay. Is that how we do this calculation? I appreciate Mr. McBermekiever's response, but I do think we are trying to do this as open as way possible with quite a lot of restricted information, which is why I'm trying to tease this out because I think it's really important that the public understand the decision that we're taking, that we are being asked to take. So you're correct. Okay. So the difference there is that the evaluation calculation that the district value has done and the fact that the course of the check was proved that the developer could not afford to reduce the price of the units to a level that would be affordable for an ASL. And if they've done that, they wouldn't make the required level of profit for the scheme to be considered to be valuable through national planning games. Following on just from Council, now it's a question, Alex, could you just confirm why it goes that way round, why it has to be reduced for an RSL, to be able to afford something rather than, i.e., is there a fixed amount of monies that an RSL can actually look at for a property to be affordable for them? There is a convener. So the provision of affordable housing is charitable. It only works. Where there's grant funding that matches the amount of private finance that registers social landlord can borrow on those properties. And so a registered social landlord can only ever pay around twice as much as they get in grant funding. So that private finance needs to match the amount of grant funding that's put in. If the price is higher than that, then it's unlikely that an RSL would be able to afford it without there being additional finance being brought in either through additional means. And we have our own committed sums fund pop, which we have used to support affordable housing in other areas of the same. But we need to do our value for money check on that as well and make sure that we're investing that in the right way and that it's legitimate to the means to the outcome that we get. The amount of difference per unit, about 130,000 per unit between what an RSL could afford to pay and what they would be required to pay for these units is far, far greater than any community, some support that we've provided in the past. And that support has been presented to committee and numerous reports. I am saying how community sums are used, the highest that we've committed per affordable housing unit today is about 20,000. So you can see the vast difference between 20 and 100 Zenny that we've required here. Thank you, Alex. Apologies, Councillor James. Thank you, Convener. I just want, as a point of clarification, I mean, should this application to modify affordable housing obligations go through today or be accepted? Is my understanding correct that this commuted sum is then put into a separate fund for affordable housing in the vicinity? Can you clarify exactly what you mean by that? And are we looking, I mean, what actually happens is it just sit there? I mean, how viable is it? So, as I mentioned in the previous answer, we do report on committed sums to planning committee on an annual basis. There's an HP update report that sets out how committed sums are used, from what development they've been paid for, and how much is used per unit, and what development they're being used to support. So what happens with community sums, once they're paid, they're held by the council, and the housing team looked to use those to support affordable housing development in the same area. So usually we look to same or adjacent board. If there's any variance from that, that's something that's reported to committee and that HP update report. Okay, I think for my memory is Council Doug Gish next, and then we go, Councilor Beall, Councilor Gardner. Thanks, Kevin. My question's been answered. So I'm fine. Thank you. Councilor Beall. Okay. Thanks. So I just want to establish what the actual market value these properties is. According to what he got, 230 plus the cost of land plus profit. So that's going to take you to at least 300,000. So that's what we're saying. The market value of a one bedroom flat in this development is going to be. Wherever that might be. My question is, has shared equity been explored as an option for these properties? And it's good. That's a fundamental problem. The OSLs can't afford the full capital value. So it's shared equity been explored as an option. Thanks. Shared equity is considered as an option. However, if you look at the market values, all the properties, which was in the district value report, which was circulated to committee. You'll see that the level of market value would not be in line with what we could do in terms of shared equity. It's too great. So just what would be a viable sort of shared equity value that the RSL would pay? Do we think what sort of level we're talking about for that? Thanks. So, ASLs generally look to, if they're taking forward shared equity, it works on a basis of grant funding being used to make up about 60% of the cost. And the then purchaser of the unit will purchase about 40%, all that can vary. And with the mortgage market being difficult at the moment, the types of mortgage use, lenders considered to be most risky are those that are most complicated. So things like shared equity and golden share as well. And believe that the mortgage market for that is fairly limited. Councilor Gorna. Yeah. Thank you, convener. I just want to consider the policy area we have to consider here. Councillor Booth was talking about exceptional circumstances. I don't know if you have a slide with that or if you can just verbally take us through. I mean, essentially, is increasing construction costs across the city, exceptional circumstances? Or is the policy more written about, say, hidden well? Or he mentioned Councillor Booth mentioned debt piling and things like that. So it's just really considering what this committee has to consider this morning. Please. Thank you, convener. So I've just had a look through the planning statements just to see if there are any exceptional circumstances. There doesn't seem to be any, but I think what the planning statements sets out in relation to planning policy, et cetera, is a bit more of a context about why this has happened. So it talks about how there were discussions between the applicant and the RSLs in September 2020. And the intervening period, obviously, that's a while ago now, it talks about the gross development value, which was predicted in September 2020 of between 19 and 20 percent. And then that was based on a benchmark district value of profitability threshold. And that appraisal included the 10 affordable housing units constructed on site. In accordance with the approved plans. And the contribution from the RSL was insufficient to cover the bill costs. And so 100,000 pounds investors top up was agreed with the RSLs prior to the submission of the planning application. There was then the associated cost plan that was done by the applicants in September 2020. This is all before the submission of the application. But then what they're saying is what happened in that intervening period was that the gross development value plummeted from what they're talking about 17.5 percent down to between 18 and 12 percent. And that was largely attributed to the construction costs and that increased by 34 percent from 7.9 million in September 2020 to 10.62 million in May 2023. And that meant that the overall cost increased by 21 percent. And then it goes on to talk about the associated up to date or the updated May 2023 cost plan which therefore indicates that actually the affordable housing on site didn't prove viable. So in terms of exceptional circumstances, not particularly, there's no additional piling or anything required in terms of the site preparation works. But I think it's just the overall cost of things had increased so substantially that it meant that the development was not proving to be viable for them. So we've obviously gone through the tests in the report of what we consider, you know, the required tests in terms of the circular and in terms of our planning policy and the conclusions are all in the report in front of you. But I hope that can partly answer the question. It gives a lot of detail. I was really wanting to just home in on the circular and the wording in the circular so NMDU is watching, understands what the decision we have to make because it talks about well, I won't quote what it talks about. I'm asking you if you could confirm in this meeting lastly please what the circular says because and whether we should be considering an increase inflation through to Brexit and the war in Ukraine and other circumstances to do with COVID and things that have been documented or if it's really, should we be considering this locus, this particular site and its circumstances. So if you can read the circular, then Kimmity can maybe help us decide. I think John has a copy of the report so I'm just going to slide his laptop over so I can just run through. So in terms of the planning tests, I'm not saying there's six tests John, five. So there's the necessity test, there is the planning purpose test, there is the relationship to the proposed development test, scale and kind test and the reasonableness test and taking it in turn. The assessment in the report does go through each of those tests. I don't know if you want me to run through them individually as they are all set out in the report but the report is quite thorough in going through, so this is taking the tests from the circular 3 2012, which is planning obligations and good neighbour agreements, and it says that the obligations are being to be in strict compliance with those five policy tests, otherwise if they fail, they have to be, we have to review the purpose of the section 75. So yeah, I don't know if you want me to run through them, but I think in terms of this particular application, it is quite a thorough assessment of each of those five policy areas. Okay, do we have any further questions and committee? First, somebody who hasn't asked a question yet? No? Moving on to second questions, Councillor Beeth. That's a good minute. Apologies if this is a stupid question, but what are the implications if we don't grant the application? Presumably the applicant has a right of appeal, would that be to the DPEA? And if so, do we have any sort of assessment, I think last time we had an OBL application, somebody asked a similar question, is there any sort of precedent that we can point to of the view that the DPEA might take an appeal such as this? Yep, thank you, Convena. Members will be aware that we've had two similar applications to this over recent months, going back to December 23 for St John's Road, that was lodged at appeal the morning. We discussed Lannick Road in here on the 13th of March. Lannick Road was duly refused, and last week that application was lodged as an appeal with the DPEA. We've not had before any of these types of an appeal under Section 75B of the Planning Act before, and as far as I can see in terms of the 130 such appeals to the DPEA, since the legislation changed in 2011, I'm not aware of any other similar forms of appeal. So I think relatively new ground, the DPEA reporters will be allocated according to their skills, knowledge and understanding, and will assess all the matters thoroughly as well. So we'll wait and see the outcome of those two, but that is the appeal, the legal agreement stays as it is on site affordable housing. I know that Lannick Road, the development has now stopped because they can't do any more until they know what the outcome of that is. They can't sell any of those properties until they've got the outcome of the appeal. So I would imagine that this one will go to appeal if the application is refused by committee today, and then the reporter will look at that. The Councillor will get an opportunity to place its case as will the developer and the reporter will make an assessment based on that. Any further questions from committee? Councillor BOO. Sorry, I can make this as a separate one. I understand from a previous question that construction on site has started. Do we know whether it is concluded or if not how close it is to conclusion? So from what I can recall, the buildings currently on site have been demolished. There are some site works currently ongoing. I don't know to what level now the actual construction is. Okay, have we exhausted questions to officers? Again, this is not something we like to see coming for us. We do seem to have a bit of a perfect storm. I know there's been a much mention about the increasing costs of construction. It is an absolutely event. Yes, a lot of that is down to Brexit. But please, can we remember the elephant to the room, which is the affordable housing element? We not only have an issue with the increasing costs, we have an issue with actually what we have available to us in terms of affordable housing. So this isn't an easy option in terms of the fact of if we could just deal with the increasing costs because we don't necessarily have the monies on the other side either. So that's why I'm saying this is a bit of a perfect storm. We seem to have applications coming in front of us where they are small scale. And so the cost builds are more expensive for small build. In particular areas, which are expensive to build in. And, you know, each application is looked at in its own merits and own right. Yes, this is the third one we've had, but for quite similar reasons. I think when the circular was done about particular exceptional circumstances, I would pretty much say a perfect storm of having three things in front of you is quite exceptional. We will hope that the situation does change, but who knows, going forward to the future. But personally speaking, in this particular case, having gone through all the options, I would, with a heavy heart, obviously, go with what the planners have recommended. I don't believe the planners would have recommended this if they didn't feel there was a different option. I would rather we actually had the monies and we don't risk anything. I appreciate the fact that Committee might make a different decision and it might go to appeal. But again, my concern about that is a delay in considering in terms of cost of the construction. If the construction is further delayed, there's an increased cost. So we're going round and round in circles. So personally speaking, with a very heavy heart, I will be moving the officers' recommendations on this one. So opening up to other Committee members. Councilor Biff? Thanks, Committee. I mean, I certainly agree that this is not an easy one. And I think planners have set out, from their perspective, in terms of the strict letter of our policy, why they feel that their recommendation is that this is granted. And I think that would be the case, from my perspective, if there was something there that, for example, they had started construction, they found there were serious issues with subsidence and they needed to add additional piling. If they added additional items to this specific application, which were not the case for the construction industry more generally. But their argument for asking for this to be changed from on-site to a committed sum is around construction price inflation. That is not unique to this specific site. And while I have a lot of sympathy for them, and you know, completely understand that as a developer they are potentially going to significant risk. Nonetheless, I think it was reasonable for them to take into account some sort of expectation that inflation might increase. I think we also need to look at the timetable. The application was granted permission in 2022, and the notification of initiation of development came in April. And then very soon after that, just a matter of months later, we had this request to change the obligation. I think it was not unreasonable for them at that point when we were really sort of through the pandemic. It was not unreasonable for them to have it anticipated that the pandemic may have some impact on construction inflation. And I also have concerns that if we grant this one, we're effectively sending a message to the wider construction industry that actually on-site affordable housing is an optional extra. On-site affordable housing is really, really important, and we should be holding quite a firm line to developers, I believe. So I would prefer that we refuse this application on the grants that's contrary to LDP policy, House 6, on affordable housing, and contrary to NPF4, policy 16 on quality homes paragraph E. I think I saw Councillor JONES followed by Councillor MAT. Thank you, Convena. This is very difficult, and I completely sympathise with Councillor who's statement that we don't want to send the wrong message here. But we've explored this concept of exceptional circumstance, but told it's not exceptional circumstances. However, you could argue that the, thank you very much, and you could argue that the war in Ukraine, these are exceptional circumstances. And I think these have really pushed to the limit the ability for certain developers to be able to deliver on target. So again, on balance, I'm in agreement with yourself, Convena. I think we should accept the officer's recommendations here. Thank you. Councillor MAT. An embarrassment of microphones. Thank you, Convena. Yes, I've listened very carefully, and I've read the papers very carefully, and I am highly concerned about what is being brought forward. Because we are painting exceptional circumstances, which I would say pertain to individual sites and applications, would be the more normal interpretation of that in planning, rather than what is happening in the rest of the world. However, exceptional circumstances are, because those are the things that every developer and every app, every developer has to deal with. So I don't see how they can be exceptional on a site-by-site basis. The exceptionality, if there is any here, which gives me grave concern, is your comment, these are smaller sites with on-site affordable housing being delivered. And I think that is what is being tested here. And I think it is for us to say whether we accept that test, or whether we say, or whether we ask, because there is very little case law as we explored in the previous application here. In what is, I think, and this is a technical term that I'm going to use as I understand it, bastard legislation, and it's not just me being rude, but it is because it is so poorly drawn that there is this possibility for any developer to come back at any point and say, I'm not making enough money. Now, whilst there has been an establishment of an established methodology of working out viability, which has been put in front of us before, I think it is important for us to test that. Because viability, it's also a risk and reward scale, which I said previously, that we allow what looks like quite a high level of profit to determine this viability. But for me, as in other areas, we don't have risks and rewards. Development is a risky business. It comes, we have determined that as a higher level. But essentially what we're now saying is that smaller, more difficult sites. I think this is actually going to become a test for our policy, because we're going to say that in poor market conditions, you can't deliver on site affordable housing. And given what is coming forward in City Plan 2030, and the way that we have been asked to amend our proposed City Plan, by the reporter in the report of examination where we've put in a higher level of affordable housing at 35%, this is going to be really, really important. So that is why I think we should refuse this today. And it is on a point of principle, because I do not accept that there are exceptional circumstances. I think this is purely a question of testing viability. And I think at the moment it meets the test that is there, that has been put out and has been established. But I think given there are exceptional circumstances in the rest of the world, which apply to every single site being developed, unless we want a rash of these to come in and lose all the affordable housing that this committee has fought very hard for. Over the years, we need to test this. And the person who tests this is the reporter. So I will be moving to refuse this, because I am highly concerned about what this is going to do if we accept these. Now, we may lose them, and it may add a small amount, but actually costs, it may work in the developers benefit, because costs are moving all over the place at the moment. You know, this week it's wheat, which has gone up, cocoa last week. So there are lots of movements, that is volatile. That means the industry may have to adjust. But I also don't think we should be accepting, because when I look at what's happening in the housing market and to housing prices, I think there's also, my would also be concerned that this is a way of increasing profitability beyond 17.5%, which is the upside for the developer in bringing this. So I think my view is that I'm not convinced that we can accept this, because there are no exceptional circumstances. So I would support Councillor Booth's position. Councillor Goughlin. Yeah, thank you, convener. I agree with the sentiments that are being expressed about this particular site, because we need to consider each application on its own merits. And I don't haven't heard anything exceptional about this site. We did go through it several times with officers, and they weren't able to express any exceptionality about this site. And I understand that is the way the circular is written. It's not about the world market, as Council Mount has said, or anything like that. There's nothing particular and exceptional about this particular site. And in terms of marketing and affordability, and so when I'm out where there is a report, but there's opportunity for the developer to sell 10 units, the guaranteed sale value with no need to market them to an affordable housing developer here. So we've heard of the profit margins and so on, but I think that also could be taken into account when this assessment is made. In respect of that, the main point here is it does not comply with NPF4 policy 16 about affordable housing, as Councillor Booth has said, and therefore I can't see the committee can accept this here today. We are looking to on its own merits, and there isn't merits in this particular application to remove the affordable housing on this site convener. Thank you. Councillor Bion? Yeah, actually, I mean, I kind of agree with these sentiments as well. I mean, from what should be 10 affordable housing, we're going to be looking to get to somewhere, possibly three, if you take in to the RSL contribution. When I've seen this before, it's the same sort of thing. I think it's just the developers trying to wriggle out of the obligations for this, which I'm not happy about. So, again, reason to refuse it would be lack of affordable housing. I think they've got responsibility to meet this obligation, and I can see some of the figures coming into this, but again, I think it's -- I'd be against this application. I'm happy to refuse it. Thank you. Okay, I think we're looking like we're finishing up. I think some very good points to be raised, and I do take into consideration all floor accounts, as I've said. I do have a concern there on the other side there. If we can't get an affordable housing provider to actually sort of have -- we've got that imbalance between the costs and so on, which is what we're looking at. In this particular instance, I totally understand and appreciate there's a much wider element. I do not accept the fact that this is sending a message that we can't actually provide. I think that what this is sending a message is we have a problem that we need to resolve, and we need assistance to resolve this and a wider issue. So, I will still be moving personally that we accept the officer's recommendations, so that we're moving so looking for a seconder. I'm very happy to second you, Councillor Osler. And what we have in front of us, as Councillor Mater has rightly pointed out, I won't use the word terminology used, poor legislation. That is what we have. We cannot do anything about that, what we can, but we can't at this present moment, we can't. So, that's why, like you, I'm happy to second that we accept the officer's recommendation. Councillor interjecting. I think I've made all of the arguments that I've previously made, but just to clarify, I'm moving a refusal of the application on the grounds that's contrary to LDP policy, House 6 on affordable housing and NPF4 policy 16E on quality homes. Councillor Mater? Yeah, I'm happy to second that. Thank you. Okay, in that case, we have two positions. Emotion moved by Councillor Osler, seconded by Councillor Jones, which is to accept the section 75 application. To modify the terms of the application, subject to the informative, assessed out in section C of the report by the Chief Planning Officer, and the amendment moved by Councillor Booth, seconded by Councillor Moved, which is to refuse the application on the grounds that it's contrary to LDP policy, House 6 and NPF4 policy 16E. Could I take the votes firstly for the amendment by Councillor Booth to refuse? That's it, and for the motion by Councillor Osler, please. That's two, the amendment is carried, and the application is refused. Thank you very much indeed, Committee. I believe that is it for the day. Thank you.

AI Generated

Summary

The Development Management Subcommittee discussed several planning applications, focusing particularly on a contentious application to modify affordable housing obligations due to increased construction costs. The committee ultimately refused the application, emphasizing the importance of adhering to existing affordable housing policies despite the developer's financial concerns.

Modification of Affordable Housing Obligations: The developer requested to replace on-site affordable housing with a financial contribution, citing increased construction costs as a barrier to viability. Proponents argued that accepting the modification would allow the project to proceed despite financial setbacks. Opponents, however, stressed the importance of maintaining on-site affordable housing commitments and expressed concerns about setting a precedent that might encourage other developers to seek similar concessions. The committee refused the application, reinforcing the city's commitment to on-site affordable housing and its policies under LDP House 6 and NPF4 Policy 16E.

Interesting Occurrence: The discussion revealed a broader issue with the current legislation's flexibility, allowing developers to renegotiate commitments based on profitability. This sparked a debate on the potential need for legislative review to prevent such situations from becoming commonplace, highlighting the tension between development viability and housing policy objectives. The council meeting focused on various development management issues, including a contentious decision regarding a modification to affordable housing obligations for a development project. The committee ultimately refused the application to modify the obligations, citing policy conflicts.

Modification of Affordable Housing Obligations: The developer requested to modify affordable housing obligations due to increased construction costs. Arguments for approval cited financial unviability due to these costs, while opposition stressed the importance of maintaining on-site affordable housing and policy adherence. The decision to refuse the modification was based on its contradiction with local and national housing policies. This refusal underscores the council's commitment to affordable housing but raises concerns about future development viability under current economic pressures.

The meeting highlighted the council's rigorous approach to upholding housing policies despite economic challenges, reflecting a strong stance on affordable housing commitments.

Subscribe to updates

Development Management Sub-Committee - Wednesday, 1st May, 2024 10.00 am

Summary

Attendees

Documents