Plans to remove affordable housing from a Kent development, described as an “opportunistic developers bluff,” have been defeated.
Developers Silverleaf Group insist the Tunbridge Wells project “would not be financially viable” if it included affordable homes, despite their own admission it would still be profitable.
The developers put in plans for two four-storey blocks of apartments on Upper Grosvenor Road, Tunbridge Wells, in February 2021.
Then hosting a two-storey home and several outbuildings, Silverleaf got outline permission to build the two blocks of 44 apartments in March 2022.
The firm described the plans as “an important opportunity to provide an appropriately designed residential scheme within a sustainable location, contributing towards the local housing need.”
Initially proposing no affordable homes, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (TWBC) approved the plans subject to a “section 106” agreement, making sure the developers provided 14 affordable homes on the site.
The exact pricing varies, but legally affordable housing must usually be sold or rented for at least 20% below the market rate, or part of schemes such as starter homes.
In July 2022, Silverleaf got permission on the detail of the scheme - the layout and designs of the two blocks.
However, in March 2023 they applied to TWBC for permission to instead offer no affordable homes at all.
In a letter to TWBC’s planning department, Emily Hall wrote on behalf of the developers that their plan for the affordable homes was for “a Housing Association to acquire” them.
“This has not proceeded so the site has had to be re-evaluated.”
She continued: “Taking the above into account it has already been demonstrated that the development scheme is not financially viable should affordable housing be provided.
“As a result of increased build and labour costs, and the uncertainty given the current economic and political climate, the development scheme is unable to viably support an affordable housing contribution.”
However, the financial viability assessment documents submitted to accompany the request to provide no affordable homes says the scheme would still be profitable even with 14 affordable apartments.
It explains that if providing the affordable homes, the firm would make 17.5% profit on gross development value for the 30 market rate homes, and 6% for the affordable ones.
However this would be a “substantial deficit against the site’s existing use value-based benchmark land value,” it adds.
The application to instead provide no affordable homes received six letters of objection.
Alastair Tod, planning secretary of Royal Tunbridge Wells Civic Society, wrote: “The consented basis of 14 affordable dwellings out of 44 total is the minimum that should be accepted.
“We believe the development should be redesigned to make it viable with the affordable contribution.”
The plans for no affordable homes were unanimously voted down at a meeting of the planning committee on May 15.
Björn Simpole, a local Labour activist, spoke against the application at the meeting at the Southborough Hub.
Speaking after the meeting, he told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS): “I was outraged that yet again a developer was trying to wiggle out of commitment to provide much needed affordable housing in Tunbridge Wells.”
He continued: “It is plain wrong that a planning permission secured under the condition that 30% affordable housing can be varied at a later stage.
“If a site is not financially viable without affordable housing then it is not a viable development. It was great to see the cross-party planning committee standing up for residents and calling this opportunistic developers bluff.
“It is critical that we deliver the much needed homes for social rent and the council itself should be putting itself forward as a Registered Social Landlord to manage homes themselves.”
Cllr Peter Lidstone (Lib Dem) has represented the area on TWBC for eight years, and attended to oppose the plans.
“We’re in the middle of a housing crisis and there’s a massive need for affordable houses in Tunbridge Wells, particularly in this sort of area,” he said after the meeting.
A report by TWBC’s affordable housing officer points out that in April 2023 there were 827 applicants looking for council or social homes in the Borough.
Cllr Lidstone continued: “I just didn’t think it was morally right for a developer to come in and remove the affordable housing element.
“I think the problem is that they’re not necessarily interested in benefiting the local community, I would say.
“A key consideration when the application was approved was that there would be affordable housing.
“It’s completely morally wrong for a developer to be able to protect up to 20% profit – and that often runs into millions of pounds, at the expense of the poorest in society.
Justin Owens, managing director of Silverleaf told the LDRS they will look to appeal the refusal or find another way forward with the council, describing the decision as “disappointing.”
To see more planning applications and other public notices for your area, click here.
“The application fully accords with planning policy and guidance at both local and national level which recognises that development has to be viable for it to be carried out.
“These delays will only result in the viability of the scheme being more challenging, as costs continue to rise whilst also delaying the delivery of vital homes.
“Whilst I understand the contentious nature of this application, we have always maintained the site could not visibly provide affordable housing due to the site specific constraints as can be seen from the original scheme submission.
“The Registered Provider who had previously committed to the scheme subsequently withdrew and it is for this reason this application has been made.
“This position has worsened since the economic downturn resulting in a significant rise in construction costs and reduction in values resulting in the development being financially unviable.”
