Objections are now being filed at Suffolk Coastal District Council against the the developer Active Urban’s latest 2nd Planning Application for SCDC Melton Hill Woodbridge.
Active Urban only recently withdrew their original application after two years of wrangling only to reapply ‘tweaking’ their application in an attempt to try and take advantage of a questionable ‘credit’, whilst at the same time reducing the number of Affordable homes even further by over 50%.
The local Woodbridge Community are now calling for an Independent Review – their case is supported with some very significant facts… it is hard to see how this development can now proceed, only time will tell.
Active Urban have given the reason that the reduction in affordable homes in the new planning application was necessary i.e. the previous application was withdrawn due to Social Housing investors pulling out of the original development to supply the 32 Affordable homes and that only 15 Affordable Homes would be supported – challenging the viability of the scheme. Objections have been pouring in highlighting that the new application is now trying to apply the ‘Vacant Building Credit’ (VBC) – a credit that according to SCDC cannot be applied in this case?
What is ‘VBC’ Vacant Building Credit? Is the Developer entitled to this credit?
Vacant Building Credit was introduced to promote development on brownfield sites. It allows the floorspace of existing buildings that are to be redeveloped to be offset against the calculations for section 106 affordable housing requirements (whether financial contribution or provision).
VBC policy
VBC will not normally apply if the building has been made vacant for the sole purpose of the re-development (and claiming VBC), nor if the building is covered by an extant or recently expired planning permission for the same, or substantially the same development. For a building to be considered vacant, it has to have been vacant for a continuous period of at least five years before an application is submitted (According to the SCDC Website 3 years?). The applicant is also required to provide evidence that the site has been actively marketed for at least two of those five years at realistic prices.
Is the developer Active Urban entitled to this credit?
According to Suffolk Coastal website draft guidelines no they are not… this is already published by Suffolk Coastal, who have prepared matter on the subject. It is available on the SCDC website – part of the guidance is summerised below at (a), (b) and (c) and states:
- a) VBC (Vacant Building Credit) will not be applied to buildings that have been made vacant for the sole purpose of development.
Mr Ray Herring on 15th June 2017 said “staff moved into East Suffolk House in December 2016 and….the Council’s offices have been sold, subject to contract, and the site will be used to create much needed homes…” The site had been offered for sale for development by Savills well before this statement, so there is no doubt that the SCDC Offices at Melton Hill were vacated for development, having been prepared for that purpose. The applicant’s claim for VBC therefore is unentitled and void.
- b) If buildings have been occupied within the 3 years prior to an application, VBC will not apply.
Only about 1 year 8 months have elapsed since the building was vacated and the new building application applied for. Again, this would make Active Urban’s claim for VBC and unentitled and void, the requirements for the credit again do not apply to this planning application. This key fact is reflected by other councils and is outlined Government policy for this credit.
- c) VBC will not apply….”where a site has had an application considered since the reintroduction of the (VBC) guidance in the NPPF and VBC was not sought” (in that application)
…again Active Urban’s claim for this credit is made void as there was no request for the credit in the original building application – clear fact.
Woodbridge Society chairman Alan Vaughan has pointed to a file note lodged on the previous application by SCDC’s head of planning Philip Ridley, which claimed “VBC would not be applicable on this site…”
It is important to note that Suffolk Coastal have yet to clarify final details in regards to the VBC (Vacant Building Credit) but it remains fact the above guidelines have already been posted and it would be hard to believe how these could be reversed in favour of this application. It also remains fact that other District Councils who have published matter on this subject, reflect that of SCDC own guildlines. It is very clear that these guidelines are put in place to stop developers making unjustified claims for such developments.
Why does the Developer want the Vacant Building Credit?
…the Vacant Building Credit will allow Active Urban to make huge savings i.e. millions, they will be able to push for and reduce the number of Affordable Homes down to x 11 flats as outlined in the Carter Jonas covering letter (which accompanied the new application). You will need to ask Active Urban how they base their claims for this credit… if it is based on the ‘viability for the scheme’ then you must also ask why they have chosen to ignore Suffolk Coastal’s own viability report for the site which confirms the viability of the site and why after more than two years they have not managed to secure finance for the Affordable Homes commitment?
Simply put the credit will allow additional profits at the expense of the local Woodbridge community – in terms of much need Affordable Homes. When you consider the original proposal made by Suffolk Coastal in 2016 was for 69 units of which 1/3rd would be Affordable Homes, 33 homes to meet a huge local demand… has now been twisted into a new development of x 100 units, of which over 83% are only 1-2 bedrooms flats. High density blocks of flats which may now only include 11 units for Affordable Homes. You may have to look hard to find any good reason why this development should go ahead. It remains grossly out of character and does not comply or reflect the SCDC Local Plan for the needs of the local population. The reason why the developer and SCDC have ignored almost all of the normal requirements needed for such a development is based on the interpretation that the proposed scheme is such a ground breaking design it will somehow generate and benefit the local community.
…there remains further big questions to be asked (a) will the developer actually complete the project on time and on budget – there are no guidelines set out, there are no conditions made by Suffolk Coastal… (b) considering how long the process has taken so far including the question of finance regarding this proposal, you could ask will the site stall and perhaps end up like the many failed developments in the centre of the Ipswich Water front? HAVE YOUR SAY, ASK THE QUESTIONS, make sure the right development is approved, that Affordable Homes that were promised are delivered, demand more should be done to make this site a real success for Woodbridge. If on the other hand you are happy for the developer to reduce the number of Affordable Homes to 11 or even 0 and build high density blocks of 1-2 bedroom blocks of flats then sure have your say too… but please understand no one in Woodbridge is objecting to having a development, far from it. The local community of Woodbridge are now under threat of over development of exclusive homes that do not include anywhere near the number of Affordable Homes that the community needs for young families or professionals such as nurses to buy or even rent… Woodbridge faces major challenges just like any other large town, much like Ipswich, Saxmundham or Leiston it too requires the needs of the local community to be meet and not favour property developers who do not include the local community – after all it is the local community who live and make Woodbridge what it is today.
Have your say:
CONTACT THE PLANNING OFFICE DIRECT: Quoting Application Ref DC/18/3424/FUL
Case Officer: Liz Beighton
Telephone: 01394 383789
Email: Liz.Beighton@eastsuffolk.gov.uk
THE PLANNING APPLICATION DOCUMENTS: Application Ref: DC/18/3424/FUL
- This can be viewed online: Planning Portal
- Visit Suffolk Coastal District Council in Melton and ask to view all documents including drawings (You can ask for copies, there will be a small charge)
- There might be copies at your local library
Planning Application Reference:
DC/18/3424/FUL | Residential development (100 units) including affordable housing (Class C3) plus a community building (364.1sq.m) (Class D1) and a retail unit (102.3sq.m) (A1/A2/A3), car parking, means of access and landscaping, all following demolition of the buildings on site | Former Council Offices Melton Hill Melton Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 1AU
Direct Contacts for Questions and Answers and to present your objects or approval:
– Website: www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk
– Planning Department: www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/planning
Telephone: 01394 383789
Email: customerservices@eastsuffolk.gov.uk