Agenda item

Modification of planning obligations contained in a Section 106 Agreement dated 27 October 2016 pursuant to outline planning permission S/2365/14/OL

Appendix 2 to follow

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application, subject to the conditions laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Principal Planner presented the report and, during the presentation, displayed the following text on screen:

“Deed of Variation – Key Extract

Paragraph 31 of the Committee Report sets out a summary of the contribution towards the provision of a Community Facilities.

Barrington Parish Council has requested that there be provision for reasonable transfer of funds between elements of the Community Facilities. This has been provided within paragraph 2.36 of the Deed of Variation which states:

Paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 of the Section 106 Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 as follows:

2. Recreational Facilities Area and Village Facilities

 Transfer of Land

 2.1 The Owner shall on the date of this Deed complete the transfer of the freehold interest of the Recreational Facilities Area with the Parish Council.

Allocation of Community Facilities Contribution, Public Recreation Contributions and Community Fee

2.2 The Parish Council may in their reasonable discretion reallocate part of the monies from the Community Facilities Contributions and the Public Recreation Contributions for the construction and equipment of the Village Hall Sports Pavilion Football Pitch, Two Single Layer Tarmac Tennis Courts and Associated Car Park provided always that the Village Hall, Sports Pavilion, Football Pitch, Two Single Layer Tarmac Tennis Courts and Associated Car Park are each constructed and delivered in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.”

The Principal Planner also stated that paragraph 30 of the report had been amended to require payment prior to the occupation of the 50th dwelling, rather than the 101st. The agent of the applicant, Alice Kirkland, addressed the Committee. Councillors Henry Batchelor and Dr Claire Daunton declared an interest on the application as they were both members of the County Council who would have been recipients of some of the funding from the application. The Principal Planner, in response to a question, clarified the numbers cited in paragraph 22 and highlighted paragraph 23. The agent suggested that part of the sum total in paragraph 22 may have included the cost of the works on site- in particular the footpath. A question was raised on the use of occupation of the 100th or 101st dwelling; the Senior Planning Lawyer offered explanation and stated that reference to the 100th dwelling used the phrase “following” and informed the Committee that “prior to the occupation of the 101st dwelling” had been introduced to reduce ambiguity and ensure that the payments were received at the appropriate time. Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer addressed the Committee as local Member in support of the application. The local Member clarified that, as per his recollection, the funding discrepancy was due to works on the footpath (in-line with the comments made by the agent of the applicant) and the Senior Planning Lawyer informed the Committee that indexation of figures would run from the original application rather than the application being heard at the time.

In the debate, Members noted the overwhelming support for the application and expressed satisfaction that it would bring the development forward, not reduce any funding and that the application was pragmatic. A question was raised on the healthcare contributions and the Principal Planner confirmed that payments were being made to improve the Harston surgery and referenced paragraph 41 for clarity.

By affirmation, the Committee approved the application, subject to the conditions laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.