Agenda item

Report of the Director (Planning) - A.3 - 23/00993/VOC - Land East Side of Landermere Road, Thorpe-le-Soken, CO16 0NF

Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, to allow a variation of Condition 1 (Approved plans) of 17/01482/DETAIL to replace drawing numbers 102 and 2 Rev. E with drawing numbers 102 Rev. A and 2 Rev. F.

Minutes:

Committee members were told that the application was before Members at the request of the Head of Planning and Building Control, as he deemed it to be in the public interest.

 

Members were also told that the application sought a variation to the reserved matters regarding Bellway Homes’ Henderson Park development of 98 homes off Landermere Road, Thorpe-le-Soken. The application concerned only a very small portion of the site on the eastern boundary, at the end of Henderson Road being approximately 0.018 hectares of the overall site area of 5.6 hectares. That portion of the site formed part of the perimeter landscaping and open space as originally approved.

 

The Committee heard that the proposed variation sought to remove a small section of hedgerow and lawned area on the eastern perimeter to enable that to accord with the approved Henderson Road connection to the adjacent development for 28 bungalows currently under construction. While the approved road link already superseded, in part, the affected area, the variation updated the open space plan that the original reserved matters and Section 106 agreement for the 98 homes referred to.

 

Members were informed that, although the site technically formed part of the overall open space provision as originally approved, due to its small size, peripheral siting, and juxtaposition with the defined areas of amenity space and play area elsewhere on the site, the removal of that section, in the opinion of Officers, would not result in any material harm to the useability or the amenity value of the open space for residents and it was a significant material consideration that this judgement had already taken place when the 28 bungalows and associated road link had been decided.

 

Members also heard that the resultant open space would continue to provide ample, usable open space provision in excess of Local Plan Policy DI1 requirements for a development of that size.

 

Officers told Members that, the proposed variation would not alter the existing layout or situation to an extent that would result in any harm to residential amenity, including pedestrian or highway safety.

 

The Committee was made aware that the planning obligations associated with the development were secured via a Section 106 Legal Agreement attached to the outline consent. The application sought a variation to the reserved matters application and a variation to the original Section 106 Agreement was not therefore required.

 

Finally, Members heard that for the reasons set out above, in the absence of any material harm resulting from the development, the application was recommended by Officers for approval.

 

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representation received and a recommendation of approval.

 

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Senior Planning Officer (AL) in respect of the application.

 

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting, with details of the correction to a drawing number at Paragraph 10.2 (Conditions and Reasons) in the Officer report and the correction to the ownership status for adjacent land being developed by Scott Residential Ltd. Paragraphs 8.12 and 8.22 to be corrected in the Officer report in that case. This was as follows:-

 

“Correction to drawing number at Paragraph 10.2 Conditions and Reasons:

 

  • Condition 1, 23/00993/VOC Approved Plans and Documents (superseding previous versions) drawing number TLS:800 P14 Amended Site Layout should read as TLS:800 P17 Amended Site Layout Plan.

 

Correction to ownership status for adjacent land being developed by Scott Residential Ltd. Paragraphs 8.12 and 8.22 to be corrected as follows:

 

  • 8.12     Although land ownership is not normally a material planning consideration, Bellway Homes have confirmed via up-to-date Land Registry documents that they are the sole owners of the site. Parker Farms are the owners of the adjacent land being developed by Scott Properties. The land (entire site) was previously owned by Strutt & Parker Farms Ltd who were served notice as landowners at the time of the Bellway Homes’ application reference 16/01169/OUT and Scott Properties’ application reference 21/01397/FUL. Strutt & Parker Farms Ltd were also party to the S106 for both applications as landowners at the time of each application. Scott Residential Ltd are now the owners of the site being developed for 28 bungalows.

 

8.22 Objections have been received on the basis that the developer no longer owns, controls or has right of access to or across the site and that the site belongs of the residents of Henderson Park. As addressed above, Bellway Homes have confirmed via up-to-date Land Registry documents that they are the sole owners of the site. Parker Farms are the owners of the adjacent land being developed by Scott Properties and The S106 does not allow the residents to be owners of this part of the site. Scott Residential Ltd are the owners of the site being developed for 28 bungalows.”

 

Councillor Dan Land, the Ward member, made a statement in relation to the application.

 

Matters raised by Members of the Committee:-

Officer’s response thereto:-

Who does own this land, and can the development carry on?

Officers have had confirmation via Land Registry Registration that shows that Bellway are and continue to be the owners of the roads and open space areas around the properties themselves. There is a clause within the Legal Agreement attached to the outline planning permission for the development which hands over the management of the open space to a management company. The residents are required to pay to that management company for the maintenance of that open space which could cause the confusion for residents who could think they are paying for the ownership of that land which is not the case in this instance. The development can also go ahead.

By granting this application, would there be a loss to open space?

In short, no. The Scott properties (28 bungalows), that approval included the development, and this part of the road included the consideration of this open space. The material considerations for that development were considered appropriately and was dealt with delegated approval given the siting within the Settlement Development Boundary. This area was illustrated in the Open Space Plan as approved as the Bellway development – technically it would be a loss to the Open Spare area to that previous approval, however the site is in excess of the Policy requirements and found acceptable.  In summary, the loss of the Open Space has already been essentially approved and overall, the open space require remains in excess of the policy requirements.  Officers are content that ample space is retained.  The variation application before members seeks amendment to the reserved matters to align that position.  The S106 agreement that was tied to the original 98 houses made sure that the Open Space Provision was provided but it didn’t seek agreement of the Open Space area, it made it a reserved matter. To make the S106 make sense again, the applicant has submitted the variation have to adjust the reserved matters.

 

It was moved by Councillor McWilliams, seconded by Councillor M Cossens and unanimously:-

 

RESOLVED that:-

 

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to approve the variation application subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 10.2 of the Officer report (A.3) and as subsequently amended by the Planning Officer Update Sheet, or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the conditions as referenced is retained; and,

 

2)    the sending to the applicant of any informative notes as may be deemed necessary.

Supporting documents: