South Holland District Council’s decision to refuse Emerald Homes bid to remove housing, education and health from Gosberton application is welcomed

Planners’ decision to ‘put their foot down’ and block a developer’s bid to wriggle out of paying more than £115,000 for education and health services has been welcomed.

Emerald Homes applied to reduce the requirements to provide five affordable units — along with education and health contributions — that were part of planning permission granted in 2023 to build 20 homes on land off Boston Road, Gosberton.

The firm wanted to reduce those section 106 payments — saying it is set to make a £1,427,290 deficit on the project — but this has been rejected by South Holland District Council’s planning department.

Planners said the original agreement was made less than five years ago and independent assessors say that the scheme is deliverable with the conditions.

This news has been welcomed by ward member Coun Jane King.

She said: “I am pleased that they have put their foot down and said no. It’s about time.

“I think this is a step in the right direction.

“It is a big bugbear of mine that a builder comes along and says they are going to give contributions, the scheme gets passed and then they come back and say it is not viable.

“Planning was approved with certain conditions and then to come back and say ‘we want to take it off’ - I’m sorry that should not be accepted.”

Permission was granted in May 2023 to build the 20 homes on a site in Gosberton with the requirements of providing the affordable units along with £102,012 for education and £13,200 for health.

Lincolnshire County Council made representations about the changes stating that it needed the full £102,012 for further phases at Donington’s Cowley Academy as four secondary school places are forecast to be needed as a result of this development.

Comments within the planning officer’s decision notice state: “The secondary phase has been and is also predicted to be way over the 95% full threshold with the nearest school predicted to even be over its maximum capacity and that is without the additional four children from this development therefore we shall require the full £102,012 ask from the developer to mitigate the impact of the additional children otherwise children will have to attend school further away.”

The developer had submitted a viability assessment which showed that it would make a £1,427,290 deficit on the project.

But this has been examined by the council’s independent assessor who advised the application be refused as the agreement is under five years old and ‘realisation of risk for a commenced scheme is not justification of a viability argument.’

The report states: “The assessor concludes that if the scheme generates a return which is below the initial expectations (realisation of risk) then it is not the local authorities role to mitigate that risk.

“Therefore in considering the independent assessors advice the viability request is refused.”

It goes onto say: “The applicant has not justified that conditions are such that the planning obligations should be removed, It is considered that the development is deliverable subject to the terms outlined within the S106, following on advice from the independent assessor.”

Do you welcome this decision? Post a comment below…