URGENT BUSINESS

Committee:     DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date:               16 JULY 2002

Title:               TCP/22370/A - OUTLINE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, ACCESS OFF SHERBOURNE AVENUE, BINSTEAD, RYDE

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

This report has been brought forward as Urgent Business at the request of the Local Member with the agreement of the Chairman of this Committee.

SUMMARY

To consider what action, if any, should be taken in respect of the failure to progress negotiations in respect of the Section 106 Agreement in connection with the abovementioned planning application.

BACKGROUND

Members will be familiar with this application that was submitted more than twelve months ago in June 2001.

At the meeting held on 6^th November 2001, Members decided to grant conditional approval subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement to co-ordinate the residential development of the site with light industrial development approved on Plot 2 of Westridge Business Park in accordance with a schedule to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

In April 2002, the Chairman and the vice-Chairman of this Committee, Leading Members and the Local Member were briefed on the latest situation. It was considered to be important to keep Members up to date with the developments in connection with this particular application, and certain guidelines were agreed to enable the Council’s Solicitor to continue with the negotiations, although it was recognised that it would be necessary to report the matter back to this Committee at some stage in the future.

The matter was considered by the Committee at the meeting held on 14^th May 2002. The view expressed was that Members need to be satisfied that the granting of outline planning permission for the re-development of this land for residential purposes will satisfactorily facilitate the re-location and retention of the existing business by financing the development, the physical re-location and a retention package for existing staff for a specified minimum period.

Consequently, the recommendation was to proceed and conclude the Section 106 Agreement in accordance with the draft obligations to be made with all parties with an interest in the land.

It was agreed to defer the matter in order to allow Members time to read the report; that the Section 106 Agreement should include a business plan; and that the owner of the major part of the site should be party to the Agreement linking other land in his ownership to the development as an alternative employment scheme.

Following a further internal meeting which involved the Local Member, it was decided that in order to try to progress the situation, we should write to the Solicitors acting on behalf of the respective parties with an interest in the overall site, asking them for a positive response to the latest resolution withing five working days. They were warned that a failure to respond meant that the matter would be reported back to the Development Control Committee who would then have the option to refuse permission.

I have to report there has been no response from either party and, on this basis, the matter is being reported back for consideration by Members of the Committee.

OPTIONS

1.        Amend the previous resolutions made in respect of this application and grant conditional outline planning permission without a Section 106 Agreement linking the residential development to the re-location to Westridge.

2.        To hold the application in abeyance on the assumption that the interested parties will resolve any present difficulties, allowing the Section 106 Agreement to be concluded in accordance with the resolutions of this Committee, which will then enable the issue of the decision notice granting conditional planning permission.

3.        To formally request that the applicant and other interested parties withdraw the application within the next 28 days.

4.        If the applicant and other interested parties fail to withdraw the application within the next 28 days, then the Council, as Local Planning Authority, in accordance with Article 25 (11) of the Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 finally dispose of the application.

5.        To refuse permission on the grounds that since the proposed development of the site is not linked to the approved scheme at Westridge that the proposal is in conflict with Policy E3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

CONCLUSION

Having considered the report to this Committee on 14^th May 2002, and this latest report, Members will appreciate that this is a complex situation.

In my opinion, throughout the processing, determination and subsequent negotiations in respect of this application, Members need to be satisfied that the granting of outline consent for the re-development of this land for residential purposes will satisfactorily facilitate the re-location and retention of the existing business. It is my firm opinion that this cannot be achieved in the absence of a Section 106 Agreement, and consequently, it would clearly not be appropriate to grant permission in the absence of such agreement.

Members should take into account that there have been changes in circumstances in recent weeks in connection with the ‘on site’ management of Neutrik (UK) Ltd. in addition to the major part of the site being recently offered for sale on the open market. Consequently, it maybe reasonable to conclude that holding the application in abeyance for a period of three or six months would not be unreasonable.

In light of the failure of Solicitors acting on behalf of the various interested parties to respond to the ultimatum put to them a few weeks ago, and in an attempt to bring the matter to a conclusion, setting aside any local uncertainty, it may be prudent to ask the applicants to withdraw the application. Alternatively, the Council, as Local Planning Authority, has the power under Article 25 (11) of the GDPO 1995, to ‘write off’ long standing planning applications after a period of eight months, comprising the statutory 8 week period and allowing six months for an appeal against non-determination. Essentially this means that if the applicants failed to withdraw the application of their accord, that the Council can conclude and finally dispose of the application.

The remaining option, the absence of the Section 106 Agreement, would be to determine the application. The inability to link this site with the development at Westridge would, in my view, mean that proposed development was in conflict with Policy E3 of the Unitary Development Plan, giving this Committee the opportunity to refuse permission. The impact of such a decision would undoubtedly considerably reduce any local uncertainty but, in my opinion, maybe somewhat politically insensitive bearing in mind that we are dealing with a major local employer. At this stage I do not favour this particular solution.

Contact Point: Chris Hougham, DC Manager - Tel: 4565

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director of Corporate and Environment Services