Agenda item - BH2014/00331 - 50 Heath Hill Avenue - Deed of Variation

1.                 The Principal Planning Officer, Luke Austin, introduced the application an gave a presentation by reference to enhanced visuals.

Speakers

2.         Ms Sheath spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application and explained the rationale for the request for the variation to the Heads of Terms to allow for removal of the requirement to provide a replacement doctor‘s surgery.

            Questions of Officers

3.         Councillor Shanks sought clarification as to why the requirement that a replacement doctors’ surgery had not been proceeded with at the outset. This question was asked of applicant’s agent initially who explained that she was acting on behalf of the current lenders as this predated her company’s involvement she was unable to answer that question. Councillor Shanks stated that this scheme had generated a lot of local concern at the time and requested to know why enforcement action had not been taken when this element of had not been delivered. It was explained that this had formed part of the S106 agreement, in order for action to be considered there would need to be compelling reasons to do so and evidence had been given to show that circumstances had changed and that this element of the scheme was no longer required.

4.         Councillor Fishleigh asked whether/what facilities were being provided for local community in lieu of the doctor’s surgery. It was explained that there was now no identified need for an additional surgery. The original permission had been for a temporary building pending alternative provision which had been made available.

            Debate

5.         Councillor Theobald noted that the buildings originally on site had been demolished four years ago. It would be good for the site to be developed now potentially for family housing. It would be an ideal location for that.

6.         Councillor Yates stated that as enforcement action had not been taken at the point when the previous structure had been demolished it was not appropriate to do now as need for such provision had been met elsewhere and the requirement to meet that condition no longer existed. Also, there was no dearth of student accommodation and the opportunity to address the need for social housing was welcomed.

7.         Councillor Williams concurred in that view but was troubled by the amount of time that it had taken for this scheme to come to fruition.

8.         Councillor Shanks agreed that little could be done to remedy the fact that the terms of the original position had not been met now, but that lessons ought to be learned for the future to seek to ensure that conditions applied to any planning permission were met in a timely  fashion.

9.         A vote was taken and the 9 members present voted on a vote of 8 with 1 abstention that the S106 Head of Terms e amended in order to remove the requirement for a replacement doctor’s surgery to be provided.

133.1    RESOLVED – That the S106 Head of Terms be amended in order to remove the requirement for a replacement doctor’s surgery to be provided.