Agenda item

Remove section 106 that was signed on application 2/22/448B that restricts the use of building and land to agricultural use and no business or commercial use.

 

LOCAL MEMBER:    Councillor Gruffydd Williams

 

Link to relevant background documents

Deletion of Section 106 Agreement signed on application 2/22/448B restricting the use of the building and land to agricultural land and no business or commercial use. 

 

(a)     The Planning Manager elaborated on the application's background and noted that the principle regarding the circumstances under which an application for removing a Section 106 agreement may be made was explained in detail in Circular 13/97 Planning Obligations. In addition to the above-mentioned circular, the Town and Country Planning (Modification and Discharge of Planning Obligations) Act 1992, was relevant to this application.

 

         It was explained that the documents (including Regulations 122 and 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy, 2010), state that in order for a legal agreement under Section 106 to be valid, five relevant tests must be met, whether it was a new agreement or an application to remove or amend an agreement.  

 

         It was noted that the application to remove the agreement was submitted on the grounds that the applicant was of the view that the agreement was ambiguous, unnecessary and could not be implemented.

 

         It was highlighted although a 106 agreement had been signed in connection with application 2/22/448B, the limitations of the 106 agreement had also to an extent been repeated in conditions on the planning permission. It was explained that applications for stables would now be subject to a planning condition on the permission, rather than a 106 agreement. It was considered that there was no planning purpose for the 106 agreement and it was not required to make the approved development acceptable for planning purposes.

 

         It was noted that it was considered that the contents of the agreement under Section 106 did not meet the five tests referred to in Circular 13/97, Planning Policy Wales, Chapter 3 "Making and Enforcing Planning Decisions" and the Town and Country Planning (Modification and Discharge of Planning Obligations) 1992, and the agreement did not continue to serve a useful planning purpose. It was recommended to approve the application unconditionally.

 

(b)     The local member (a member of the Planning Committee) made the following main points:-

·         That Nefyn Town Council objected the proposal as changing the land use to create any commercial development would have a serious impact on the road to the site that was used every day by walkers;  

·         That land on the site was a link to the Coastal Path, and Penrallt path was closed periodically due to land safety. Therefore, if there was a development on the site then the link to the Coastal Path may be lost; 

·         That the 106 agreement and the conditions were essential;

·         If the removal of the 106 agreement was granted then the application withdrawn in July 2018 would be re-submitted;

·         That the site comprised stables for horses, if the 106 agreement was withdrawn then they could be used for business purposes. If there was no further use made of the stables then they should be taken down; 

·         The site was in open countryside, concern regarding the visual impact of any development on the site following the withdrawal of the 106 agreement; 

·         Request that the Committee keeps the 106 agreement in place. 

 

(c)     In response to the local member’s observations, the Planning Manager noted that there were five criteria regarding setting or withdrawing a 106 agreement and it was considered that the 106 agreement duplicated the conditions imposed on the planning permission. She added that the planning conditions were robust enough and that the current system was to impose conditions to control use. She noted that although she recognised local concerns in terms of developments on the site in the future, a planning application would have to be submitted for any other development.

 

(ch)   It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application on the grounds of the impact of the development on the Coastal Path and the landscape (The Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Llŷn and Bardsey Island Landscape of Outstanding Historical Interest), if there was commercial use, and that the planning conditions were not sufficient on their own.

 

During the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:

 

·         The applicant was willing to sign when the application was approved, perhaps the applicant wanted to withdraw the 106 agreement in order to have another plan. If a future application were to be submitted would it come before the Committee for determination?

·         Did not see any purpose in deleting the 106 agreement;

·         If there was no useful purpose for the 106 agreement then the applicant would not apply for its removal;

·         That the application submitted was to withdraw the 106 agreement only, there were conditions in place therefore what was its purpose. Should the application be refused by the Committee then it was likely that the application would be granted on appeal; 

·         Why was planning application C18/0332/42/LL withdrawn by the applicant in July 2018?

 

(d)     In response to the above observations, the officers noted:

·         If a future application were to be submitted, and that the local member called in the application then the Committee would consider it. 

·         That planning considerations had changed since the 2/22/448B application had been approved, Circular 13/97 Planning Obligations gave guidance that use should be controlled via conditions;

·         The existence of a 106 agreement did not prevent a person from submitting a planning application. Whatever the intentions of the applicant were, the Committee should assess if there was a purpose for the 106 agreement;

·         That the 106 agreement was part of the considerations when assessing application C18/0332/42/LL, however the application was withdrawn by the applicant to consider options;

·         Any future planning application would be dealt with at that time;

·         That a strong recommendation had been given, if there was an appeal then the proposer and the seconder would present the case in an appeal.

 

RESOLVED to refuse the application.

 

Reason:

 

On the grounds of the impact of the development on the Coastal Path and the landscape (The Llŷn Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Llŷn and Bardsey Island Landscape of Outstanding Historical Interest), if there was commercial use, and that the planning conditions were not sufficient on their own.