Agenda item

Discharge of S106 Agreement dated 15^th March 2005 under S/2004/1131 in respect of public meeting area.

Public Participation

Clive Gutteridge spoke in objection to the application

Stuart Marinet spoke in objection to the application

Richard Greenwood (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Dr Simon Creasey spoke in support of the application

Cllr Debbie McIsaac, Chairman, spoke as representative of Pitton & Farley PC.

The Senior Planning Officer, Becky Jones presented the application for the discharge of S106 Agreement dated 15th March 2005 under S/2004/1131 in respect of public meeting area. The application was recommended for approval.

The original old Black Barn as it was in 2004, was shown on the presentation slides and the circumstances around the agreed S106 in 2005 at the time of the application to replace the barn was set out.

Two drawings which had been provided by the PC were also shown and explained by the Officer. These detailed; Plan 1, produced 8 days prior to the S106 agreement in 2005 and then Plan 2 after the S106 agreement which showed a gap between the barn and the space for the notice board.

The owners of the Black Barn no longer wished to be party to the agreement, due to the public liability associated with owning and maintaining the public space.

The PC wished to continue to use the site as a public place to display notices. There was significant but divided local opinion to the removal of the S106.

The main issues which had been considered to be material in the determination of this application were listed as:

1. Planning history and reasons for the S106 Agreement under S/2004/1131

2. Purpose of planning agreements (or obligations) and “useful” purpose

3. Highway & pedestrian safety and visibility splay

4. Public open space provision (Policy R2)

5. The planning balance.

There were 3 letters of objection, from Pitton & Farley Parish Council (PC), 9 letters of support and a further 10 letters of objection.

The Committee was asked to consider whether the S106 agreement still served a useful purpose, and whether it should be retained or discharged. 

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to queries, it was clarified that for a short time an alternative meeting point had been located outside the village shop, which was opposite the barn. There were 2 other areas of open space as detailed in the report.

Members of the public, as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application.

Some of the main points included comments around the use of the shop and post office, highway safety, vehicular movement through the village past the barn and shop, the responsibility of maintenance of the area where the notice board was sited, who was responsible for the public liability at the location, legal aspects and alternative suggested locations.

The PC Chairman spoke in objection to the recommendation.

Local Member Cllr Chris Devine then spoke in objection of the recommendation, noting that the public space at the barn was well used and at the heart of the village. The notice board when sited there had been widely used.

He noted that the original application had been approved by Highways and nothing had changed since that time.

The point of the road at the public space was not dangerous and there were no speeding issues.

It was stated that although the land was owned by the applicant, the PC was responsible for the liability of the public space.

Cllr Devine then moved a motion of refusal against Officer recommendation, stating the reasons as detailed above. This was seconded by Cllr Hocking.

The Committee was invited to discuss the application, the main points included that the open space had been given to the village as an amenity and that since the original S106 agreement, nothing had changed.

The importance the public meeting space and the use of a notice board had for the community was widely appreciated by the Committee.

The Wiltshire Council Senior Solicitor, Dorcas Ephraim was invited to provide advice on the S106 agreement where it was clarified that:

Clause 7 was specific as to what was required. It was at the expense of the land owner not the PC to keep the land clear and make available for use by all members of the public at all times. It detailed that it was not for the PC to maintain

Clause 8 stated that the area could be adjusted – the plan A & B showed this. It went on to provide 1.5m, only when approved by the Head of Development Services.

The agreement runs with the land and the new owner must take it on. It would have been for the new landowner to make sure that they were happy with the agreement associated with the land/property before they purchased it from the previous landowner who entered into the S106 agreement.

Plan 2 was done after the agreement was completed. The documents provided did not show to be an agreement in writing varying the S106 agreement (and the plan attached to it) as required by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Unfortunately Plan 2 was not appended to the original agreement. So, the argument could go that there was nothing in place to make an amendment.

The Council is unable to force the owners to modify the agreement, the owner’s consent is required to modify the S106 agreement. Consequently, it was up to members to decide whether it still served as a useful purpose.

Members continued to discuss the matter.

The Chairman noted that the original agreement was made under the former Salisbury District Council. The requirement that the owner maintain the land in perpetuity made it difficult to make requests that the greenery was removed or changed as it remained in the freehold of the owner of the barn.

Following debate the Committee confirmed they had heard and seen all relevant visual materials, and voted on the motion of refusal against officer recommendation, with the reasons stated.

Cllr Jose Green abstained from the vote due to losing connection momentarily.

It was:

Resolved:

that application 20/05658/106 to discharge the S106 Agreement be Refused for the following reasons:

The side (road facing) elevation of the original barn on the site was historically used to provide a public notice board and meeting area. One of the main issues for the original application was that the new dwelling was permitted on the proviso that the public meeting area was also provided. It is therefore considered that the S106 Agreement still serves a useful purpose, because the land is at the heart of the village and is a good place for a public meeting area (and a notice board) opposite the village shop. It is considered that the site is not unsafe in highway terms particularly as traffic tends to be slower at this point in the High Street due to the narrow nature of the road. There are no better alternative sites in the village.