PLANS to remove the requirement for a developer to build affordable homes on a site in Dalton have been turned down – with one councillor saying: ‘We want that contract fulfilling’.

Members of Barrow in Furness local area planning committee for Westmorland and Furness Council voted against officers’ recommendations and refused to modify a legal agreement made with the applicant Harry Barker Properties Ltd.

The proposal involved the removal of the requirement to provide four affordable housing units on the site opposite Greenhill Ponds off Greystones Lane.

Instead, according to council documents, it was proposed the developer contributed £63,000 to the council for the provision of offsite affordable housing provision.

Councillor Tony Callister (Dalton South, Labour) said: “I think if we waiver away from that obligation by agreement, are we setting a precedent for any building development in this area.

“If you put yourself in an agreement to provide affordable housing which is what we are wishing for, you’ve got to stand by that agreement.”

He called on the developer to stand by the contract ‘to the letter’.

Councillor Frank Cassidy (Walney Island, Labour) labelled the proposal to remove the requirement to build affordable homes as ‘disappointing’.

“I would also guess that if you took a poll of the main street in Dalton or in Barrow on a Saturday afternoon they would all say that we need more affordable homes,” he added.

In October 2019 a planning application to construct up to 36 homes on the site was approved by the then Barrow Borough Council and construction is a ‘little over half complete’.

A supporting statement submitted on behalf of the developer said: “Since work commenced on site, it has become apparent that abnormal costs (particularly with regard to the adverse ground conditions including the need for retaining walls and removal of surplus material) and associated increase in construction costs, have significantly increased to the extent that the scheme is not providing sufficient incentive for the applicant to continue to carry out the development especially with the delivery of the affordable units.”

Council documents said the submitted appraisal showed the forecasted profit being 4.64 per cent with the delivery of the four affordable units, rising to 8.45 per cent if the obligation was removed.

This profit is still ‘less than half’ of what would typically be expected in a viable development (15-20 per cent profit), according to council documents.

The report prepared for the committee said the applicant had demonstrated through their appraisal that it was ‘not financially viable’ to deliver the agreed affordable housing units, and this has been peer reviewed and verified by a specialist consultancy.

It adds: “Should it be minded to retain the requirement, it has to be considered that the implications of this are likely much more harmful than omitting the provision.

“An unfinished site would be problematic for existing residents and would reduce the overall housing delivery if never completed.

“Had the appraisal been provided prior to granting planning permission, it is likely the development would still have been in accordance with the Local Plan, as it does make allowances for such viability issues, which are strong material planning considerations.”

Solicitor Ian Blinkho told the committee there is ‘scope in the legislation’ to make an application to vary a section 106 obligation.

Mr Blinkho said: “Whilst there is no right of appeal against this decision, were the committee to turn this down today, the applicant would be able to apply to the high court to review that decision on the basis that it’s unreasonable.

“If the committee doesn’t like this proposal and wants to turn it down, it doesn’t mean that’s the end of the matter, it doesn’t mean those four affordable units will be provided.”

Council documents say members may have concerns that this proposal sets a ‘precedent’ that could result in similar applications, leading to the supply of affordable housing being compromised.

However, each application, as in this case, would be carefully scrutinised by a specialist and each determined on its merits, the report from planning officers adds.

The supporting statement from the developer adds: “The proposal will benefit the local economy during the construction phase and because of increased spending from new residents; provide housing fulfilling the social role; and is of an approved design in compliance with the environmental role.

“On balance, it is considered that the adverse effects of allowing this application do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.”

Members of Barrow in Furness local area planning committee refused the modification to the section 106 agreement on April 9 at Barrow Town Hall.