A failure of a local authority to ask for education contributions on a Dunstable planning application has been branded “shameful” by a local councillor.
“Although it wouldn’t amount to much,” Central Bedfordshire Council’s development management committee has a right to know whether such a sum should be required, according to Conservative Dunstable Watling councillor Nigel Young.
Limon Homes Limited submitted outline plans for 51 flats on the former Jewson builders merchant yard in Beale Street.
The proposals involve converting an office building, with a new three-storey extension at the back, and providing two other three-storey apartment blocks and a four-storey block, after demolishing some storage units.
Planning officer Tom Mead described the site as “currently vacant and cleared”, having previously stored building materials.
“We’ve a serious need for a contribution to a new play area in this part of the town,” explained Conservative Dunstable Northfields councillor Johnson Tamara.
Councillor Young told the committee: “The developer warned that, to provide the contributions suggested would make the development unviable, and there’ll only be 22 per cent affordable housing.”
Conservative Cranfield and Marston Moretaine councillor Ken Matthews said: “The viability has been checked by an independent person. It’s a trade off.”
Dunstable Town Council objected to the proposals saying the number of flats amounts to overdevelopment of the site, and the proposed access is too narrow.
Agent for the applicant Robbie Lock described the proposals as part converting and part demolishing buildings on site, and refined during the planning process.
“The site is entirely socially and economically sustainable,” he said. “There are 81 parking spaces for 51 units.
“Future occupants are likely to favour walking and cycling instead of private vehicle trips.
“The applicant can provide 11 flats as affordable rent for which there’s a significant need in Dunstable.”
Councillor Young labelled it an “easy to develop, not contaminated, brownfield site”, asking whether land value made the project unviable.
The agent replied: “It was a combination of factors, land value being the key area of concern, given its previous use and location.”
Conservative Ampthill councillor Mike Blair accepted the viability study, which he linked to a reduction from 70 to 51 flats.
“Why is there nothing in the report regarding a contribution to education?” he asked. “Is that unusual?”
The planning officer answered: “The education officer was consulted, but didn’t respond with any contributions to seek, so we couldn’t ask the applicant for them.
“I did follow it up with the education officers, but I didn’t get a response.”
Councillor Young appeared surprised that “the education spending officer” had been contacted twice.
“There may not need to be any, or it may end up in a viability argument,” he suggested.
“But this committee has a right to know whether an education contribution would have been required.
“Maybe chairman, or councillor Kevin Collins, you could take that up with the deputy council leader, who’s responsible for education, who might like to look into it and let us know.”
Councillor Matthews, who chairs the committee, responded: “I think that’s down to (the executive member for planning and regeneration) councillor Collins.”
Councillor Young said: “This authority is building a roughly mid-20s million pound development a mile-and-a-half away in Houghton Regis.
“For us not to be seeking any contributions, although it wouldn’t be much from a 51-unit development, is shameful.”
Councillors approved the plans with 11 votes in favour and one against.
