By Joe Locker, Local Democracy Reporter
A decision on a new housing development in Sneinton has been delayed by frustrated and concerned councillors after its developer said it was unable to provide a financial contribution to the local area.
Blueprint is applying for permission to build 22 townhouses and four duplex apartments off Bath Street.
At a planning committee meeting on November 22, councillors said they were becoming increasingly concerned with developers failing to provide what is known as a Section 106 contribution.
Under council policy, developers typically agree to provide a contribution in the form of a financial payment to help with affordable housing targets, creating more open space, increasing biodiversity and education, employment and training opportunities.
Nottingham City Council part-owns Blueprint, holding a 50 per cent stake. The other half is owned by PfP Capital.
Blueprint said a financial contribution of £432,765, including £282,497 for affordable housing and £66,072 for education, was “unviable” due to the marginal profits as a result.
An assessment determined the waiving of the Section 106 was justified in the circumstances.
During the meeting Cllr Kevin Clarke, leader of the Nottingham Independents and Independent Group, said: “Members of the committee are getting quite concerned about the number of 106s [not being viable].
“I would like some assurances, really, that as it goes through the system, especially as it is a company owned by the council, are we doing enough to challenge and make sure the decisions are the right decisions?
“It feels as though every other application now is looking to avoid the 106 benefits.”
Planning officer Martin Hall replied: “Obviously we are acutely aware of councillors’ concerns in relation to getting value for money and getting the best deal possible for the council.
“That has to be always set within the context that there is clear guidance from Government around how viabilities sit in the planning process.
“Where developers are saying we cannot afford, for whatever reason, the council’s ask for Section 106 obligations, we ask them to submit appraisals setting out their case.
“We require the developers to pay for us to engage consultants, we engage them to act on our behalf, to assess the appraisals they submit.
“We do go through a proper process to present to you the conclusions about viabilities.
“We do challenge it robustly. We do go back a number of times challenging assumptions.”
Blueprint purchased the land next to the Victoria Leisure Centre and Sneinton Market in 2018 and the first phase of the ‘Fruit Market’ scheme, for 13 homes, is expected to be finished next year.
The name of the scheme pays homage to the area’s history as a once-thriving fruit market.
A number of other recent planning applications have involved a Section 106 contribution which has been deemed unviable.
In the same meeting the developer of a scheme at Clinton Terrace, Derby Road, said it too could not provide the financial contributions requested.
Cllr Graham Chapman said while he understands some of the reasons include “building costs outstripping inflation”, he questioned whether there could be a solution.
“I wonder whether, when it is less marginal than this, we could come to an agreement that, if those houses sell beyond the assumption within the assessment, that we could benefit?,” he said.
“It is frustrating seeing all these 106s go down the pan and we are desperate for investment for services.”
During the meeting director of planning, Paul Seddon, added: “The housing crisis plays out across the country, and plays out in Nottingham.
“I appreciate the frustrations of 106, but we are in the hands of Governmental rules.
“Fundamentally, your role as planning committee is you take in applications against the policies in your Local Plan and the Government give us the national strategy and that’s what you get from officers when they look to recommendations.”
Five councillors voted to defer the scheme due to concerns with the viability assessment, the submission of late meeting papers and sustainability, including whether the scheme should feature solar panels.
Four councillors voted against deferring the application, and one abstained.
It will now return at a future planning meeting.
The Government’s Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has been contacted for comment.
