PlanningBlog – Brodies LLP

Having grown up in Milngavie, I have been following with interest the proposals by Cala and Stewart Milne for the Lower Kilmardinny/ Westpark site, which includes approximately 550 houses. The appeal reporter’s “minded to grant” decision was issued in April 2009, indicating that a section 75 agreement should be completed within 3 months, otherwise she would have to consider whether to refuse permission or grant it without an agreement.

The planning authority voted 10-9 to enter into the section 75 agreement with the developers to secure financial contributions. The Council leader was quoted in the press as saying that this decision was based on getting the best community gain deal possible rather than the Council having  a decision forced on it by the reporter, or the developers securing planning permission for several smaller schemes with much reduced planning gain. The close vote shows how the councillors struggled with this dilemma.

There has been some adverse local reaction to the impact on the future of the Allander Sports Centre. The appeal proposal includes a rail halt and park-and-ride facilities on part of the existing ASC site, and a replacement sports centre on the former bus garage site. In the Press the Council made it clear that negotiations are to be had on this land transfer and it is not a foregone conclusion.

The reporter concluded that the “significantly improved prospect” of a new sports centre would be a significant local benefit, especially since the new site identified in the masterplan is considerably more accessible. However, the developers’ contribution of £10 million will not cover the cost of a new centre, and there is concern about how the shortfall will be funded.

The dilemma is all too apparent: is something, but not everything, better than nothing? It is a stark reminder of the hard decisions facing planning authorities now that development values have plummeted. In the coming years, East Dunbartonshire Council will have to decide whether it can plug the funding gap for a new ASC.

Interestingly, the reporter also concluded that the likely high development costs, a high proportion of which are likely to be incurred in the early stages of the project, and the planning gain offered, justified just a 10% affordable housing provision. This is the kind of realism that developers are hoping for – we would be interested to hear of other examples of this sort of approach.