Agenda item

The Development Management and Land Charges Manager presented the report to update the Committee on events that had taken place since the resolution to approve planning application code ref. 17/00640/OUT on 17^th September 2024.

Attention was brought to the supplementary document containing a response from the Bolsover Governance & Planning Association which sought reassurances regarding the application.

The report and supplementary document sought to detail the progress made on residual matters relating to the S.106 agreement and provide an update on the materiality of the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) made in December 2024 on the decision that was taken, the validity of the viability appraisal work that was undertaken in August 2024, and the duty under Regulation 30 of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 to inform the public and the secretary of state of the final decision.

The intention of the report was to inform the Committee of the progress made – it was not to propose changes or deviation from the 17^th September 2024 resolution.

The S.106 legal agreement contained planning obligations including:

Significant progress had been made on drafting the obligations within a S.106 agreement in favour of both the Council and DCC to secure contributions as listed above.  The latest draft of the agreement was attached at Appendix 1.

The triggers within the agreement had been drafted to reflect the assumptions that fed into the viability review modelling work undertaken on behalf of the Council, including:

• Treble Bob Improvement: £5,293,907 – trigger point was prior to occupation of any phase of development;
• M1 Jct. 30: £535,764 – trigger point was prior to occupation of any phase of development;
• Healthcare Contribution: £1,800,000 – trigger point proposed was the occupation of the 600^th unit for the entire contribution;
• Travel Plan: £50,000 – divided into the ten instalments triggered on year 6 of the development;
• Primary School: £9,500,000 – divided into 3 instalments on occupation of the 375^th, 600^th and 800^th dwelling; and,
• Secondary School: £8,258,679 divided into 3 instalments on occupation

of the 375^th, 600^th and 800^th dwelling instead of 10 equal payments from the occupation of 1,030 dwellings.

As there was a possibility that external funding could be secured to deliver the Treble Bob and M1 junction improvement works, it was important that this was appropriately captured in the eighth schedule (Basis of Viability Review).

The applicant had advised that the development would come forward in phases and could include some on site provision in the earlier phases.  Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT) had expressed that such provision would need to be controlled by condition / legal agreement.

It was envisaged that an agreement would have been reached between parties on a final draft towards the end of May 2025.  Following agreement to the content, there would be a short delay distributing the final agreement to all signatories for engrossment.  Following resolution of the above matters, and engrossment of the agreement, it was recommended that the Council, as the Local Planning Authority, would proceed to issue the decision.

Despite the changes to the NPPF in December 2024, in the case of application 17/00640/OUT the development plan was not considered to be out of date.  The site and proposed development were allocated in the Local Plan (dated 2020), and it remained that the development was considered acceptable when considered against the policies contained within the report and all other material considerations.

The assessment of project viability had concluded in August 2024, with the Council’s viability expert’s latest report dated 2^nd August 2024.

The findings / conclusions within viability reports usually remained valid for 6 months.  It was therefore considered appropriate to consider whether economic conditions had changed since February 2025 in a manner that would be favourable to the Council to justify a further review of project viability.  Worsening viability had not been raised by the applicant since the resolution.

The Council had sought advice from its viability expert and they had advised there was some flexibility on the 6 month ‘shelf-life’ which had been aided by recent (November 2024 and February 2025) cuts in the Bank of England’s base rate.  Build cost inflation also remained.

However, as the global economic picture remained currently uncertain, this undermined any positive gains that could favour the Council – the maintenance of the status quo was appropriate.

Taking the above into consideration, if an agreed position was reached on the S.106 obligations by the end of May 2025 or soon after and ahead of circulation to the landowners for engrossment, the Council’s viability expert had advised that the findings in the 2^nd August 2024 assessment could be safely relied upon.

However, it would still be some time before development commenced on site and the S.106 agreement contained provisions for viability to be reviewed at five year intervals or prior to the occupation of the 800^th dwelling, which would enable the Council to establish whether the project had been profitable enough at that stage for the deferred contributions to be made.

Under regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, there was a duty to inform the public and the Secretary of State of final decisions.

Given the time that had passed since the resolution to approve application 17/00640/OUT in September 2024, the recommendation was to enable Members to review the latest draft of the S.106 agreement, note the progress  made and residual concerns to be addressed, to be satisfied that any final decision taken would remain within the scope of the original resolution, and to consider and comment on the changes to the NPPF and the validity of the viability appraisal work in terms of whether this had any bearing on the resolution.

The recommendation also enabled the Committee to consider / review the statement of decision on the environmental effects and the publicity arrangements for notifying the Secretary of State, the public, and the developer and consultation bodies on the final decision prior to being issued by the Council.

To a question on SEND contributions in comparison with other education contributions for application 17/00640/OUT, the Monitoring Officer informed S.149 of the Equality Act 2010 stated that parties needed to consider equality to eliminate discrimination.

SEND contributions would provide education provision to persons with protected characteristics and had been given due regard – an assessment had been completed and the Council had considered all options.

Therefore, the application presented in September 2024 did take into consideration SEND and it had satisfied the Council’s corporate responsibilities.

To a question on viability, as well as responding to the representations received from an interested party, the Development Management and Land Charges Manager reiterated the Council’s viability expert had advised that the findings in the 2^nd August 2024 assessment could be safely relied upon.

It would be a number of years before development on the proposed site would take place and economic conditions would inevitably change.  The viability review mechanism in the draft agreement would allow project viability to be reviewed at five year intervals.

To a question on the viability assessment period concluding at the end of May 2025, the Development Management and Land Charges Manager reiterated that through the viability consultation, if negotiations concluded in the next few months the August 2024 assessment would remain reliable and safe for all parties to proceed to complete the agreement.

A Member sought clarification on the viability assessment and the intervals of future review.  The Development Management and Land Charges Manager informed viability reassessment would take place at five year intervals.

In favour of the recommendation:

Councillor Tom Munro

Councillor John Ritchie

Councillor Phil Smith

Against the recommendation:

Councillor Rob Hiney-Saunders

Moved by Councillor Tom Munro and seconded by Councillor John Ritchie

RESOLVED that: 1) approval is given to the general provisions contained within the draft         S.106 agreement provided at Appendix 1, with delegated authority being given to           the Assistant Director of Planning or the Development Management and Land      Charges Manager to make any minor amendments to address the residual matters         set out in this report and agree any management provisions in relation to farmland birds and proceed to complete the agreement;

2. Members note the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and validity of the viability appraisal work that was undertaken and endorse that this does not materially impact on the resolution to grant planning permission at Planning Committee on the 17^th September 2024; and,
3. Members approve the statement of decision at Appendix 3 on the environmental effects and the publicity arrangements to be followed as set out at Section 5 of this report.