Bridge and link-road delay at Land To The North Of Eastfield, Scarborough

“SCAZF25/01139/OLA - VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 19 (LINK ROAD & BRIDGE) AND 53 (LINK ROAD & BRIDGE) IN RELATION TO 21/00052/OL (HYBRID PLANNING PERMISSION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) TO ALLOW FOR DELAY IN PROVISION OF THE LINK-ROAD BRIDGE ON LAND TO THE NORTH OF EASTFIELD, SCARBOROUGH”

“The Head of Development Management – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application which sought to vary conditions 19 (Link Road & Bridge) and 53 (Link Road & Bridge) of planning permission 21/00052/OL insofar as they related to the trigger points for the provision of the bridge linking the two halves of the housing development on land to the north of Eastfield, Scarborough.”

“The planning officer presented the report as published advising that technical evidence submitted by the applicant indicated that retaining the existing trigger point of 640 dwellings could result in construction work being halted part way through an existing phase of development, causing disruption to construction activity and future occupiers.”

“The applicant had originally sought to increase the occupation trigger point from 640 dwellings to 790 dwellings before delivery of the bridge and link road. Officers considered this increase unacceptable and noted that it had attracted objections from both National Highways and the Local Highway Authority. The applicant had subsequently proposed a revised trigger point of 693 dwellings, representing an increase of 53 dwellings above the existing threshold.”

“In accordance with public speaking arrangements at planning committee, the local Division member, Councillor Tom Seston then addressed the committee.”

“Councillor Seston related his constituents’ longstanding concerns regarding the delayed delivery of infrastructure and a perceived failure by developers to fulfil commitments associated with the wider development. He expressed concern that approving the variation could result in further requests for extensions in the future. The councillor urged the committee to require the developer to fulfil its infrastructure commitments and requested that the application be refused.”

“Some Members shared Councillor Seston’s concerns adding that approval of further variations could result in the bridge being delayed indefinitely and that future committees could be asked to approve additional extensions to trigger points. This could risk undermining public confidence in the planning process.”

“Clarification was sought regarding previous variations to the trigger point and alternative delivery options that had been considered for crossing the Deepdale gap. Officers advised that an earlier embankment proposal had been withdrawn following concerns regarding impacts on wildlife corridors and public use of the green corridor, and that current work was focused on a bridge solution.”

“Following discussion, a proposal was moved and seconded to defer consideration of the application pending more substantive information regarding the bridge proposal and anticipated delivery programme.”

“That consideration of the planning application be DEFERRED pending more substantive information from the developer regarding the bridge proposal and anticipated delivery programme.”