Agenda item

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Cllr Bronwen Roscoe (On behalf of Effingham Parish Council) (to object) (in person)

·         Mrs Vivien White (Chairman of Effingham Resident’s Association) (to object) (in person)

·         Mr John Rhodes OBE, Quod – Planning Consultant on behalf of the applicant (in support) (online)

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for variation of condition 1 (approved plans) of planning permission 14/P/02109 approved at appeal on 21/03/2018, to refer to updated parameter plans annotated to show the areas no longer to be developed pursuant to that application.

The Committee received a presentation from the planning officer, John Busher and noted the supplementary late sheets.  This application also related to the Howard of Effingham site and was a Section 73 application.  The application should be determined on the basis of the effect of varying the specified condition.  The principle of the appeal scheme could not be re-opened or re-examined and was only an assessment of the changes which were being proposed in the context of current planning policies and the Local Plan.  The Section 73 application only related to the Lodge Farm site and the other sites remained unaffected by the proposal.  The proposal sought to remove, two parcels of land from the approved consent associated with application 14/P/02109.  The first parcel of land to be removed was located to the west of the school playing fields.  However, the orientation of the school sports facilities was amended and therefore this parcel of land had become surplus to requirements.  The second parcel of land was located at the entrance to the site fronting Lower Road and was originally proposed to be used as outdoor amenity space for the school. 

Planning officers had concluded that that the removal of these areas of land from the appeal scheme would have no particular harm on the operation of the school or the character and appearance of the site.  The proposal did not amend the original description of development and was not inconsistent with it.  The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions and the completion of a Deed of Variation.

In response to comments made by the public speakers, the planning officer, John Busher confirmed that in their opinion it was not a fundamental change proposed to the scheme.  The removal of the two parcels of land did not result in a development which was significantly different to that which had already been approved and did not introduce any new dwellings which the developer would need to seek planning permission for separately. 

The Committee considered the application and noted concerns raised that whilst it was accepted the two parcels of land were no longer required for the purposes of the school, they were still required to deliver a balance of open space for the permitted scheme.  The Planning Inspector had taken this into account regarding the amount of open space to be made available and stated that the northern element comprising the sports pitches would be entirely free of built development.  He suggested that less than half the site would be built on, so that a balance would be achieved between the amount of open space in the green belt against the amount of built form.  By taking these two pieces of land out completely altered that balance and would introduce the potential for more built form which was not considered acceptable.

The Committee considered the application and noted comments that the two parcels of land were effectively excluded at the reserved matters stage.  Despite the fact they went through an appeal, we now have a Section 73 application to remove those two parcels of land because they are no longer required and was therefore merely a tidying up exercise.

The Committee considered concerns raised that by taking the two parcels of land out meant they were at risk of being built on.  The Committee was also reminded that they could not speculate as to how the land would be used in the future but had to consider what was before them now.    

The planning officer, John Busher confirmed that the application did not propose any kind of built development on the two parcels of land.  They were simply being taken out of the appeal scheme and would remain as open space.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets, particularly condition 7 as part of application 20/P/02048, stating that once the school was built, and before it was first occupied, the applicant was required to provide a landscaping scheme for those two areas of the site and would form part of the open space for the wider development.    

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which was carried.

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to the application, the Committee

RESOLVED to approve application 21/P/01283 subject to the following:

(i)            That a Deed of Variation be entered into to secure the contributions and legal agreements under approved application 14/P/02109.

If the terms of the s.106 or wording or the planning conditions are significantly amended as part of ongoing s.106 or planning condition(s) negotiations any changes shall be agreed in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee and lead Ward Member.

(ii)          That upon completion of the above, the application be determined by the Head of Place / Director of Service Delivery.  The recommendation is to approve planning permission, subject to conditions.