The race is on to try and save seven affordable homes from being scrapped in a stalled housing development on the edge of the Lake District.
The developer of a site near Tirril appeared before a planning committee in Penrith this week, asking to sell all 24 properties on the open market once built.
Neil Le Sage, of Stoneswood Developments Ltd, Flusco, is seeking a departure from the legal 106 agreement signed between the former landowner and the council in 2017, before he took the project on.
Property experts have warned him that the build costs for the site at Thorpe Field, Sockbridge, now make it financially “unviable” unless the 30 per cent affordable housing pledge is dropped, he said.
The suggestion led to more than 30 letters of objection to the council from residents arguing that affordable housing was a deciding factor when the controversial development narrowly won planning permission on a single casting vote back in August, 2017.
Yet independent chartered surveyors — appointed by the council to run the rule over the sums — agree that the project as it was planned is no longer viable, not least because the cost of building materials and labour has rocketed in the years which have followed.
Mr Le Sage told the planning committee in Penrith Town Hall on Wednesday: “I’m not here as a greedy developer trying to squeeze the last buck out of it. I’m here because I need to get started on this and, as it is, the affordable contribution is going to mean it’s never going to get built.”
And he warned councillors and planners that unless work starts in March, 60 jobs lined up for the project could be at risk.
Local housebuilders have told the Herald that new housing schemes in the area are already grinding to a halt due to strict nutrient neutrality obligations and costly delays in the council planning process.
Planning officer Shawn Fleet told councillors on Wednesday that Mr Le Sage’s request was “sound” and recommended that councillors drop the affordable housing.
“It causes me concern as well because I try and get affordable houses,” Mr Fleet said.
He also warned that if the council refused to amend the 106 agreement, Mr Le Sage, who also faces paying £72,500 to the council towards education, would win at appeal.
But councillors bristled at losing the affordable housing, with one saying it would mean “24 posh houses” instead of the original 17, with seven of social housing.
Mr Le Sage said he was “born in a council house” and fully supported affordable housing. After much debate, councillors deferred a decision until its next planning committee in February.
In that time, council officers have been instructed to explore whether pots of public funding could rescue the affordable housing element of the scheme.
Councillor Mike Eyles, deputy chair of the committee, said: “I am not at all happy with losing the affordable housing element in this development and would not be able to support that.”
Councillor Mary Robinson said if the responsibility of providing affordable housing fell entirely on developers, the area would “never build enough,” and they needed to be supported by the authority.
Councillor Michael Hanley asked: “Will this not set a precedent for future developments? Developers will say they can’t factor in affordable housing?”
Councillor Colin Atkinson questioned why a housing scheme near Tirril was not viable, with it being a “lovely village next to the Lake District where loads of people want to live”.
Yet Tony Wolfe, a long-standing opponent, said the development had always been “problematic” and claimed the data used to determine the project’s viability was out of date.
Mr Wolfe said without affordable homes, the community was heading towards a “geriatric enclave”.
Of the public funding idea, Mr Wolfe told councillors: “Effectively, you are using public money to subsidise private development.”
Wednesday was the latest hitch in the long running housing development delayed by COVID-19.
Outline planning permission was agreed in 2017 and finer details in 2020 — amid opposition from residents.
Mr Le Sage then bought the land and permission from the original applicants. He said costs had increased due to its high-spec design of Northumberland sandstone and natural slate roofs to help ease local concerns.
The request to amend the 106 was tabled to the former Eden Council by Mr Le Sage in March, 2021.
It has taken two years and 10 months to come before a committee, the meeting heard.
“The big concern to me is this application is more than two years old and only now it comes to committee,” said councillor Michael Eyles.
“By delaying it to now — five years after the 106 was signed — we’re left in the position that if the developer goes to appeal he will possibly win.”
The application was inherited by Westmorland and Furness, with objectors noting it had been across the desks of at least four different council officers, with a “lack of continuity”.
Mark Lynch, development manager, told the meeting: “In 2021, Shawn, I and others weren’t here, so we can’t vouch for what was happening at the time but certainly there were resource and backlog issues affecting performance at the former Eden Council. Shawn was brought in to try and resolve that and has done the best he could to try and get this to members for a decision, and we are slowly working our way through those legacy cases.”
