Agenda item

Report PLA599 by the Acting Development Services Manager

                                (Enclosure)

Decision:-

That, contrary to the decision made at the Development Control Committee on 16^th May 2006, application SO6/0366/35 – residential development, 201 Barrowby Road, Grantham, be permitted without the requirement for an educational contribution through a Section 106 Agreement, but with the imposition of the conditions previously suggested.

In report PLA599 the Acting Development Control Services Manager reminded members that the above application had been considered at the committee’s meeting on 16^th May 2006, when authorisation had been given to determine the application after consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman and subject to a Section 106 Agreement relating to an educational contribution. 

In April, and as part of the written comment on the application, the County Council had indicated that they were seeking an educational contribution of £55,785.00.  The Acting Development Control Services Manager also reminded members that when an adjacent site (the Nissan garage) had been approved at the end of 2005 the County Council had also requested an educational contribution as part of that proposal.  However it was considered that as the required funds could not be apportioned to a nearby school and would have essentially been used by the County Council for any Grantham school, it was not deemed to be a direct requirement as a result of the development proposed and the request was not agreed.  Government Circular 05/05 provided the Secretary of State’s policy on planning obligations and stated that they should only be sought where they met certain tests, which were set out in full in the report.  It was considered that all of the tests were relevant, and further on the circular stated that obligations must be so directly related to proposed development that the development ought not to be permitted without them. There should also be a functional geographic link between the development and the item being provided.

In the light of the decision made on the adjacent site the County Council had been asked to justify their request, and their letter in response was set out in full in the report.

It was clear that the information received showed that the County Council were hoping to “bank” the requested contribution and they had in addition confirmed that there was no specific local school that the funds would go to as a direct result of the development proposed.  There was clearly no functional or geographical link between the development and the contribution being asked for, and in the opinion of the authority the request was contrary to the requirements of Circular 05/05 and should not be taken into consideration as part of the proposals.

During the ensuing general discussion, members queried whether or not a “community contribution” could be sought in place of the educational contribution now being specifically discussed.  The Principal Planning Officer responded that whatever the planning obligation was, it would be necessary for it to meet the criteria set out in Circular 05/05 and clearly the suggestions made would not.

It was accordingly proposed, seconded and agreed that the application be permitted without the requirement for an educational contributions through a Section 106 Agreement.