Agenda item

Prior to consideration of the application, an objector addressed the Members. He was concerned that the modification to the section 106 agreement would result in a reduction in financial contribution of £1.2 million.  The developers concern as to its rising viability costs was not a sufficient reason to modify the agreement.  Developers had a responsibility to ensure they supported their local communities.  There was no support from any of the signatories to the modification. 

A second objector shared his concerns as to the rationale for the additional financial survey.  The developer had a duty to ensure it invested in the local community, not look for ways to reduce its financial contribution.  Were the modification agreed, council taxpayers would have to share the burden of the cost of the development, which was wrong.  In addition, the development was designed with no mains sewerage. 

The applicant’s agent spoke at the meeting and confirmed that the financial survey was commissioned by an independent company.  The recommendations contained with the survey only re-enforced previous survey findings.  The cost of the development had increased dramatically.  In addition, the land had reduced in value.  However, the section 106 agreement was still workable.  If the modification was agreed, then development would start early in 2024.  The development would generate additional employment and monies for supply industries.  The traffic regulation order would see the costs borne by the developer and not the council, which had to be positive.

Councillor L Foster confirmed that he had opposed the development since it was first submitted as it was not an attractive proposition for this particular piece of land.  Over three years had now passed before the developer had applied to modify the section 106 agreement, stating that it was not viable.  The profits of the developer were not a matter for the Committee.

Councillor C Ross stated that the matter needed to be resolved to allow the development to commence.  After considering the application, she was minded to support the modification, subject to the clawback mechanism being utilised.

Councillor M Grant stated that he was against the modification as the financial burden would be passed on to local council taxpayers.  The financial affairs of the developer were not a matter for the committee.  Any loss of affordable housing was a major concern.

Councillor M Bell was deeply concerned that £1.5 million would be removed from the section 106 agreement.  Council taxpayers would ultimately be required to contribute to the development, which was wrong.

Councillor Southern was concerned that the modification would allow the developer to increase its profit, whilst council taxpayers would be required to fund the shortfall.

Resolved – (a) That the Section 106 be modified, including a clause to allow North Lincolnshire Council to re-evaluate every twelve months the viability if market conditions improve prior to the completion of the development, and (b) that a highways contribution of £2,000 be included in the Section 106.

At the request of members, the names of members voting for, against and abstaining from the motion/resolution are as follows:–

FOR: N.Sherwood, Patterson, Ross and K Vickers

AGAINST: Bell, Grant, C.Sherwood and Southern

ABSTAIN: Nil.

The votes having being equal the Chairman used his second and casting vote in favour of the motion.