Agenda item

To consider application UTT/22/1598/DOV.

The Principal Planning Officer drew Members attention to the late representation received from the Town Council which requested that moderate weight was given to the Saffron Walden Neighbourhood Plan as it was two weeks from referendum.

He presented a request for variation of 106 agreement made pursuant to section 106 of the 1990 Act dated 13th July 2020 and made between (1) UDC (2) ECC (3) Gordon Carl Kenmure Roberts, John Anthony Shippey, Lucinda Burnett, William Gustav Robert Engelmann and (4) Dianthus Land Limited in relation to UTT/17/2832/OP.

He recommended that theDirector of Planning be authorised to grant permission for the variation to the Section 106 Legal Agreement attached to application reference UTT/17/2832/OP.

The Essex Highways Strategic Development Engineer responded to questions from Members and said that:

• Essex Highways were responsible for the provision of the link from the residential area. The County Council would give the contract to build the school at the same time on parish land
• She said that the spine road has a cycle way all the way along it
• The obligation in the S106 was linked specifically to the school being provided

Members discussed:

• The lack of provision of cycle paths in Saffron Walden
• The lack of evidence of the school being built in the near future
• If the school was not built then the cycle path would not be built
• Whether the deed of variation was viable
• That the 80% completion should be reduced to 50% completion

Councillor Freeman suggested that the proposal should be refused.

The Development Manager said:

·        He said that the S106 had to be changed

·        The deed of variation was required to achieve the link road

·        There was an error in the drafting S106, which was resolvable

·        The developer needed to sign the deed of variation

The Development Manager Team Leader said:

·        The developer would not execute the work but was making a financial contribution to the County Council who would provide the path when they build the school.

·        The actual spine road would have sufficient foot and cycle paths through all three sites.

·        The cycleway would go from Thaxted Road to Radwinter Road.

·        The cycleway would be on the Town Council`s land.

·        The triggers enabled the developer to be in possession of sufficient funds to continue to execute the road works and join with the adjacent site

The meeting was adjourned at 14:23 and reconvened at 14:35.

The Development Manager said:

·        The trigger through the byway site was outside the control of the developer.

·        The developer was accepting it had to deliver all of the link way up to the byway into the Bellway estate , within the 50% build as specified in the S106.

·        The developer could not undertake the work until the County Council had completed their obligation.

·        The developer was putting right a situation that was not of their making.

·        The drafting of the S106 was the problem as a piece of land was missing from it.

·        Because the developer had been proactive they had been enabled to agree a way forward with the County Council.

The Essex Highways Strategic Development Engineer confirmed they have been very active working with the developer and the District Council, and that it would be delivered through a S278 agreement. They have already undertaken conversations with Bellway, who were completely on board and want the road completed. She said that everyone wanted the road to be put in place in the most cost-effective manner.

Councillor Emanuel proposed approval of the recommendation with the DOV triggers unchanged, apart from the bit across the bridleway which would be delivered within the 80% build. This was seconded by Councillor Merifield.

RESOLVED that the Director of Planning be authorised to authorised to grant permission for the variation to the Section 106 Legal Agreement attached to application reference UTT/17/2832/OP with the specified amendment.

P Gadd (Town Councillor) spoke against the application.