The committee received the report of the Head of Development Management, including the relevant planning history of the site and details of the responses to the application.

The Development Management Team Leader introduced the report.  He explained that, the application concerned a variation of a Section 52 agreement dated 7th July 1989 pursuant to planning permission ref. 9/851/88 to discharge clause 2(b) requiring the granting of an easement for the use of land by local residents.

The Development Management Team leader clarified that the location was in Callowland Ward not Tudor as stated on the report.  He explained that section 52 agreements were the predecessor to section 106.  There was no formal procedure for discharge or variation and no appeal procedure.  The council was considering the request along the same lines as a section 106 agreement.  The section 52 agreement required the developer to provide an area of land, then grant by way of easement or otherwise to allow residents of 2-16 Southwold Road to use this for the parking and turning of vehicles.  There was no evidence of a formal easement but the land owners had allowed free passage as was originally intended.  The surrounding roads experienced high levels of on street parking.  The land was secured as part of the wider redevelopment to provide off street parking. A loss of the use of the land would have the potential to exacerbate the parking problems.  For this reason there was no planning or legal justification to discharge this clause so it was recommended for refusal

The Chair invited Hannah Sessions, a local resident, to speak against the application.  Ms Sessions gave a brief history of the site, when it was redeveloped in 1988-89 there would have been a loss of parking spaces.  Residents worked with local councillor Irene Tunstall Dunn who arranged meetings with Fairview Homes.  The developer agreed to provide a strip of land for parking.  There were fewer cars then and now the area was often double parked but there had been an amicable arrangement. However, residents had been locked out with a bollard and chains.  There was a lockable swing gate that was no longer able to be locked.  Residents did use the area for parking at various times of the day as not everyone had a 9-5 job, the area was used and needed.

The Chair invited Jason Blake, the applicant, to speak for the application.  Mr Blake represented the Block E freehold company and had experienced problems with the loose agreement for the past seven years.  There had been issues with residents running businesses from their homes and a car had been parked there which was vandalised before eventually being removed.  Mr Blake questioned if the car had been set alight who would have paid for the damage.  The applicants had put up a sign to state the area was not for business purposes and erected bollards.  The council had asked them to remove the bollards which had been done.  The area was not being used for the purpose intended and was a dumping ground for vehicles.  The space was not intended to be used and it was a case of developers not thinking things through properly. 

The committee discussed the application and suggested that both parties should speak to each other and if necessary appoint a third party to come to a formal resolution and agreement.  There were parking problems in the area and the land was being used for the benefit of off-street parking.

The Chair moved the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED –

That the request to discharge clause 2(b) of the Section 52 Agreement dated 7th July 1989 be refused for the following reason:

1.         The area of land in question provides off-street parking facilities for the owners/occupiers of nos. 2-16 (evens), Southwold Road. This provision has existed since the area of land was formed pursuant to the s.52 agreement. Southwold Road and the surrounding roads experience high levels of parking congestion, particularly during the evening/night-time period, and the loss of this area of land would exacerbate these problems. This would be detrimental to the amenities currently enjoyed by the owners/occupiers of nos. 2-16 (evens), Southwold Road and to the wider highway network in the locality.