Agenda item

Variation of S106 agreement pursuant to planning application N/99/B/0848 dated 19.02.2002. 

Land at Mitchell Avenue, Seahouses. 

Variation of S106 agreement pursuant to planning application/99/B0848 dated 19.02.2002

Land at Mitchell Avenue, Seahouses

For the benefit of new members, Development Manager, Vivienne Cartmell explained that the report contained the history of the relevant site, the constraints the site was subject to, consultee responses and the tests for varying the 106  Application.

Members were informed that section 6 – Consultee Responses should refer to 

North Sunderland Parish Council and not Berwick upon Tweed.

Ms Cartmell continued to introduce the application with the aid of a slide presentation and informed members that the application sought permission to modify the requirements of the S106 to allow for changes to the open space.

21 letters of objection had been received and the reasons summarised in the report.

Members then asked questions of which the key responses from officers were:

·            The application submitted in 1999 approved the open space and the play area being used, however, that was not currently being maintained.  In addition there had been some ambiguity over the ownership of the access path and it was now proposed to re-orientate the open space and provide an extra £5,000 contribution for the maintenance of the open space. 

·            Officers first became involved in 2017 and could not see any reason why permission should not be granted.  There had been enforcement discussion since ambiguities had been discovered on the content of some of the agreements. 

·            There were provisions within legislation (paragraph 7.4) which allowed applications to be modified and assessed in accordance. 

·            The reason given for the modification was set out in paragraph 2.6 of the report. 

·            Anyone who submitted a letter of representation would be invited to speak at the committee.   

·            The main change was that the area would be better separated from the Coastal Strip and the County Ecologist had not provided any comment. 

·            Legal discussions could not be shared with members. 

·            Officers had worked with the applicant and were of the view that the variation of the S106 agreement met the tests. 

·            The County Ecologist had been consulted but had not made any comment. 

·            Currently the open space was unusable and not maintained but that would be tied into the S106 agreement which would improve the open space 

Councillor Thorne then moved approval of the application, but stated that there had been little information, however, the application had been rigorously assessed by the planning officer.  This was seconded by Councillor Pattison.

Councillor Renner-Thompson as Ward Councillor stated that there had been issues from a legal point of view and long before the current existing planning officers.  The residents of Kingsfield were unhappy with the developer and stated that the application be refused. 

Liz Sinnamon, Development Service Manager, informed members if the application went to appeal, given that open space is the same size as that offered within the original 106 agreement and it equally serves the same purpose in the re-orientated position and in addition additional sums of money have been secured in respect of maintenance, an Inspector is likely to agree to permit the application as it meets the tests of section 106A. 

Councillor Hill agreed with Councillor Renner-Thompson and would be voting against the application and would move deferment for further information. 

Councillor Castle agreed that the application was not straight forward but the Parish Council were not in attendance to articulate their concerns. 

Ms Sinnamon advised that it was an option to come back with further information but  their recommendation would remain to approve the application as the obligation continues to serve a useful purpose and would serve that purpose equally well with the modification contained within the application of re-siting the open space. 

Councillor Thorne stated that the 106 was being assessed on planning grounds put before members, although there was some history and purely on planning grounds he was of the opinion that they were sound and would keep his recommendation as before, and therefore the application be granted in respect of the open space being re-sited and varied as stated in the report. 

This was supported by Councillor Castle and agreed by Councillor Pattison. 

The motion was then put to the vote and agreed by six votes in favour to three against with two abstentions. 

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED, subject to the provisions and requirements of the Section 106 Planning Obligation relating to application N/99/B/0848 (as varied by N/02/B/0356) in respect of re-siting of open space and  varied in the manner set out above. 

(Councillor Mather left the meeting).