Agenda item

Outline Application - Erection of 6 No. Dwellings at 31 Welsh Road, Garden City (052887)

Decision:

            That planning permission be granted subject to:-

 

·         the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment)

·         the additional condition about widening the access

·      the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement/unilateral undertaking or earlier payment for the following contributions:

o   £1,100 per unit for recreation enhancements in lieu of on-site provision; and

o   A section 106 agreement/unilateral undertaking to secure resurfacing and future maintenance of the access road to the site

 

            If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

 

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the application had been deferred from the 22 April 2015 meeting in order for the applicant to explore a Section 106 Obligation to secure maintenance of the proposed access and for the applicant to confirm whether he held any access rights over the alternative access route to the site to the east of 37 Welsh Road and to the rear of 35-37 Welsh Road.  The officer referred Members to the late observations where a letter to the applicant from Spar had indicated that they were in full agreement for the applicant to maintain the roads to the side and rear currently within the title of the Spar premises.  A letter from the applicant’s Solicitor indicated that the applicant retained ownership of part of the access to the rear of 35-37 Welsh Road and retained a right of passage over it and that a license agreement had been drawn up between the applicant and the owners of Spar that required the applicant to maintain the access in perpetuity to a suitable standard.  This would therefore allow the applicant to enter into a Section 106 agreement to secure resurfacing and maintenance of the access road to the site. 

 

            Councillor Christine Jones said that the access road to the north, west and east of the site should always be in the ownership of 35 Welsh Road and added that she had a document as proof of this.  The land had been purchased in 1952 by the shop owners and the document also indicated that the access should be kept in good order and open at all times.  She said that part of the land to the left of the property was not in the ownership of the applicant and suggested that there was no legal agreement between the owners of Spar and the applicant and therefore she did not feel that a Section 106 agreement should be considered.  She added that the site had already appeared for sale on an estate agent’s website; the Housing & Planning Solicitor advised that this was not a material planning consideration.  Councillor Jones, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

 

            In referring to the work that was being undertaken on the transfer of land and for the applicant to maintain the access in perpetuity to a suitable standard, Councillor Chris Bithell queried whether the application was premature.  The Housing & Planning Solicitor advised the access was to be the subject of a Section 106 obligation and if an obligation was not forthcoming within six months of the Committee resolution then the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) would have delegated authority to refuse the application. 

 

            Councillor Richard Jones sought clarification on the Section 106 obligation for recreation enhancements in lieu of on-site provision and queried whether five or more requests had been made in the past.  In response, the Development Manager explained that £1,100 per dwelling had consistently been requested for recreation enhancements and that the applicant couldchallenge the request if the application was approved.  He added that all aspects of Section 106 Agreements would be considered following the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) requirements.  Councillor Neville Phillips asked about ownership of the land but was advised by the Housing & Planning Solicitor that this was not an issue that Members needed to consider.                

             

            Councillor Ian Dunbar proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He said that the applicant only owned half of the road and queried how the applicant could indicate that he could maintain all of it.  He added that the footway and rear of the shops was also not owned by the applicant.  Councillor Ray Hughes concurred and Councillor Marion Bateman asked whether ownership of the road was a material consideration; the Housing & Planning Solicitor confirmed that it was not. 

 

            In response to a comment from Councillor Derek Butler, the Housing & Planning Solicitor said that the Section 106 agreement had been requested because of the concerns raised by Members.  Information received since the previous meeting indicated that such an agreement could be made by the applicant and the owners of Spar.  He reminded Members that if the application was approved and the Section 106 agreement was not signed within six months of the date of the Committee resolution, then the application would be refused. 

 

            Councillor Bithell queried whether the Section 106 obligation would provide a safeguard and Councillor Richard Jones felt that to include a Section 106 obligation for recreation enhancements was unlawful as it was not known whether five or more had already been requested.  Councillor Richard Lloyd sought clarification on whether the road width would be 3.7 metres and Councillor Gareth Roberts commented on the Section 106 agreement.  In response to Councillor Lloyd’s question, the officer indicated that a condition could be included that the road width be 3.7 metres. 

           

            Councillor Dunbar felt that the application should be refused because the applicant did not own the land and because of the Section 106 agreement. 

The Planning Strategy Manager advised that the safeguards would be in the Section 106 obligation and if the obligation was not provided then the application would be refused.  He added that the reasons given were not valid reasons to refuse the application.  Councillor David Roney suggested that the application be refused due to the insufficient parking for the number of proposed properties.  Councillor Dunbar added that the insufficient width of the access could be a reason to refuse the application.  In response, the Senior Engineer – Highways Development Control said that Highways had not raised an objection to the proposal subject to conditions and the maintenance of the access in perpetuity. The developer was to improve the width of the access road and this use was less onerous than the previous use for garages and therefore there was no reason to refuse the application.  Councillor Lloyd queried how the applicant could improve the road if he did not own it and the Housing & Planning Solicitor advised that this would be achieved by entering into an agreement with the owner of Spar and by signing the Section 106 agreement. 

 

            The Housing & Planning Solicitor asked Members to clarify the reasons for refusal and reminded the Committee about the Costs Circular and reasons for awarding costs in an appeal. 

 

            Councillor Roney sought clarification on the footpath provisions if the access road was to be widened.  The Senior Engineer – Highways Development Control advised that the Residential Design Guidance indicated that developments of up to 25 properties only required a shared surface for road users and pedestrians and therefore the footpath width was not a material consideration. 

 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal for refusal because of an inadequate access, which was against officer recommendation, was LOST. 

 

            Councillor Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval with the additional condition from the officer about widening the access and this was duly seconded.  On being put to the vote, the proposal was CARRIED.    

         

            RESOLVED:

 

            That planning permission be granted subject to:-

 

·         the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment)

·         the additional condition about widening the access

·      the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement/unilateral undertaking or earlier payment for the following contributions:

o   £1,100 per unit for recreation enhancements in lieu of on-site provision; and

o   A section 106 agreement/unilateral undertaking to secure resurfacing and future maintenance of the access road to the site

 

            If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

 

After the vote had been taken, Councillor Jones returned to the meeting and the Chairman advised her of the decision. 

 

Supporting documents: