Agenda item

Report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services

The Head of Development Management – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for a non-material amendment in relation to application 19/01248/OL to allow alterations to the wording to condition 18 in relation to the timeframe for delivery of the footpath and cycle route over Scalby Beck, on land at High Mill, Scalby, Scarborough, on behalf of Lovell Partnerships LLP and Cetacea Investments Ltd.

Updating their report, the planning officer advised that Newby and Scalby Town Council had submitted comments in the last 24 hours to the effect that they strongly opposed the application on the grounds that the bridge was a significant and fundamental element of the master plan for the High Mill development as a whole and was included in the original planning application and had long been promised to the buyers of properties in phases 1 and 2.  Connectivity was essential.  The applicant's explanation of reasons for the requested put back of delivery were, in the main, commercial, and were not justified by the failure to deliver what was required in the existing consent.  The town council added that if there was an 18 month time frame for the actual delivery of the bridge from grant of consent, then the developers should be getting on at pace with the legal aspects and the tendering so that construction could start in a timely manner.  There was no guarantee there would not be another request to defer somewhere down the line, citing commercial reasons. 

Local Division and committee member, Councillor Derek Bastiman addressed the committee objecting to the application.

Councillor Bastiman withdrew from the meeting after making his representations against the application as the Division member.

The applicant’s agent, Rachael Martin, then spoke in support of the application.

During consideration of the above application, the Committee discussed the following issues:

·       The likelihood that the issues identified as delaying the construction of the bridge by the developer would be resolved in the estimated 18 month timeframe (officer response: parallel discussions e.g. regarding the ransom strip were ongoing which were not material to the planning application)

·       The estimated cost of the bridge (£219,000 had already been paid in s106 contributions towards its construction) and whether a further condition could be imposed on the application to set aside a guaranteed sum before the occupation of the first dwelling (officer response: this would be very difficult to agree since the final design of the bridge had not yet been identified nor its final cost.  The proposed amendment to condition 18 was about timing of delivery which required the delivery nonetheless and would be enforceable if not fulfilled)

·       The officers’ recommendations in the report were based on a calculation of the balance of risk to provide as much assurance to the committee as possible that the bridge would be delivered and to minimise the risk that the developer would abandon the project

·       The completion of the bridge was in the developer’s interests since it would make the dwellings in Phase 3 more attractive to the market

·       The risk that refusing the application would further delay the scheme

The decision:

That this non-material amendment to the existing outline planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions set out in the report and the addition of an informative emphasising the bridge’s importance to the scheme and the desirability of its completion even before the limit of the occupation of the 50^th home.

Voting record:

A vote was taken and the motion was declared carried with 4 for and 1 against.

(Following his declaration at Item 105, Councillor Broadbent withdrew from the meeting for the debate and determination of this item.)