Agenda item

To consider an application seeking the modification of Schedule 2 Clause 2.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7, Schedule Clause 3.2, Schedule 5 Part 1 Clause 1.2, 1.5, and 2.1.1 and Schedule Clause 2.1 and 2.4 to Section 106 Agreement (dated 01.09.2022) approved under planning permission reference number 17/00862/OPM.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00529/S106 be GRANTED a variation to the S106 Planning Obligation as set out in the table in the report and subject to final drafting and to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning and Regulation in conjunction with the Council’s appointed Solicitor to agree the precise wording of the variation to the agreement.

The Committee considered a report in respect of application 23/00529/S106 seeking the modification of Schedule 2 Clause 2.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7, Schedule 3 Clause 3.2, Schedule 5 Part 1 Clause 1.2, 1.5 and 2.1.1 and Schedule 7 Clause 2.1 and 2.4 to Section 106 Agreement (dated 01.09.2022) approved under planning permission reference number 17/00862/OPM.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that there were clauses within the Section 106 (S106) agreement that stated developers had to meet certain deadlines and requirements. It was unrealistic for developers to meet the targets previously set due to the delays in applications. There was a prior to commencement delay due to the Country Park application being deferred earlier in the year. The application proposed to increase and move the date triggers to take into account the delays going through the planning process.

Some Members raised concerns on the movement of the trigger dates. The Assistant Director (Planning & Regulatory) advised that the new trigger dates aimed to follow the same ratio of timings as if it hadn’t been pushed back. For example one had been pushed back by 6 months as the Country Park application was delayed by 8 months. Many still had end dates and others were based on residential development.

Jo Unsworth also added that there was a limit on the number of dwellings that could be built. There were also long stop dates within the S106 agreements and dates when both phases of the Country Park and the school land had to be transferred to SBC.

Another Member asked whether the housing market impacted the demand. The Planning Manager for Bellway advised that work had commenced on the residential phases and there was no intention from Bellway to stop the sales so there would be no impact on their behalf.

A Member asked when the commencement date was. The Assistant Director (Planning & Regulatory) advised that the commencement date was when the developers started work on the residential site. There was a guaranteed date when SBC received the Country Park and school site. There was currently a lot of archaeological work happening on the site.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that several reserved matters had been approved and the developers were at liberty to start building. There was a lot of infrastructure underway and some of the site was still an active archaeological site. The report enabled works to carry on without the Country Park, which they could not start, but would have deadlines.

Another Member asked what would happen if the recommendation was turned down. The Assistant Director (Planning & Regulatory) advised that the reasoning for the amendments were to enable the Country Park to come in its own time but would guarantee a transfer.

It was RESOLVED: That the application 23/00529/S106 be GRANTED a variation to the S106 Planning Obligation as set out in the table in the report and subject to final drafting and to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning and Regulation in conjunction with the Council’s appointed Solicitor to agree the precise wording of the variation to the agreement.