This Government’s dedication to Affordable Housing is a bad joke.. planningresource.co.uk/article/1311340/new-appeal-mechanism-used-slash-affordable-homes-requirement?DCMP=EMC-CONDevelopmentManagementBulletin&bulletin=development-management-bulletin New appeal mechanism used to slash affordable homes requirement 9 September 2014 by Jamie Carpenter , Be the First to Comment A planning inspector has agreed to slash the affordable housing obligation on a major scheme of 1,100 homes in Gloucestershire after the projects developer sought to use a new appeal mechanism to remove the obligation in its entirety. Planning Inspectorate: appeal was lodged under new mechanism Appellant Robert Hitchins Ltd sought to have planning obligations for two sites between Lydney Bypass and Highfield Road in Lydney modified by the removal of the requirements relating to affordable housing provision. The requirement for the Lydney A planning obligation, for a development of up to 332 homes, was that 20 per cent of the total number of residential units should be affordable. The requirement for the Lydney B planning obligation, for a development of up to 750 dwellings, was that 30 per cent of the housing should be affordable. Robert Hitchins Ltd appealed the two obligations using a new mechanism introduced through the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, which allows developers to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate if they believe that the affordable housing requirement made as part of a section 106 agreement renders a scheme unviable. In her decision note, issued earlier this month, inspector Christina Downes said that the requirements for 20 per cent affordable housing on Lydney A and 30 per cent on Lydney B would not be viable and on this basis I am satisfied that the development will not proceed. However, the inspector added: There is no justification to remove the affordable housing requirement altogether. The available evidence shows that the development would become viable with a modified affordable housing requirement of 14.1 per cent across the two sites. On this basis the planning obligations should be modified and the appeal should be allowed.
Posted on: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 17:05:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015