Open space and play areas at Abbey Farm, Blunsdon St Andrew, Swindon

What was proposed

Retrospective approval was sought for completed public open space, landscaping, and amended neighbourhood and local play areas.

“This application seeks approval for the construction of Public Open Space (POS), landscaping, and neighbourhood and local equipped areas for play (amendments to those approved under previous permissions S/18/0246 and S/RES/16/0289).”

“The application proposal aims to obtain retrospective approval for the comprehensive 'as built' POS and landscaping scheme at the site. The submitted drawing consolidates the final approved landscaping plan as it has been implemented, accurately reflecting the completed scheme.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions approved the wider development, open space, landscaping, land-level changes and phasing, while later applications addressed further amendments.

“Outline Planning Permission S/OUT/14/0080 o Original conditional granted 2 nd April 2015 ▪ Condition 2 – requires the submission and approval of reserved matters. ▪ Condition 22 – requires the submission and approval of an Open Space Strategy. ▪ Subject to S106 originally dated 2 nd April 2015 • The S106 requires the POS to be provided and maintained in accordance with the approved Open Space Strategy. • First Deed of Variation dated 11 th November 2015.”

“Full Permission S/18/0246 o Standalone permission granted 6 th November 2018 o Related to the remodelling of land levels and POS in the northern section of the wider site. o Subject to conditions, including condition 3 phasing strategy. o Not subject to any S106.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the open space remained usable and functional, the amendments were acceptable, and the completed works were not materially different.

“In the context of this planning application, the only considerations relate to whether the open space and landscape useable and functional to meet the needs of the residents and is in line Policy EN3 of the local plan and the open space. The amendments have been discussed above and found to be acceptable.”

“This application proposal seeks retrospective approval for the comprehensive 'as built' POS and landscaping scheme at the site. The submitted drawing consolidates the final approved landscaping plan as implemented, accurately reflecting the completed scheme. This application seeks to regularise the completed works which are not materially different from those approved through the site outline.”

Officer report

Objections raised

Fourteen public objections criticised the quality, safety, maintenance and specification of the play equipment and open space.

“- The benches on the plan that are showing are, in fact, on the wrong side of the fence. - The play equipment NEAP item 2 is not the original item from the first plan, and the substitute item has not been installed either. - The quality of the workmanship is appalling and will leave residents with large bills to rectify. - The developers are trying to get away with not doing what they originally proposed.”

“This equipment needs to be to original specification and plan. - Other developments of this scale have far superior play equipment which has been more robustly installed. - It appears to be yet another attempt from the developers to side step their obligations, agreements and costs. - The developers must be held accountable and provide what was originally agreed to and formed part of the reason we bought the house from them.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two ward councillors and three objectors spoke at the meeting.

Committee debate

Officers said the open space remained functional and the play-area changes were not materially different, while members proposed refusal under planning policies.

“Overall Officers consider that the proposals set out within this application would maintain the functionality and usability of the POS, whilst the amendments to the play areas would not be materially different to the previously approved equipment. • Officers are satisfied that the application complies with Policies EN3 and DE1 of the Local Plan in that it does provide a high-quality open space.”

“Councillor Jake Chandler proposed refusing planning permission on the basis that the application failed to comply with Policy EN3 of the Local Plan, Policy DE1 and Sections 135 and 139 of the NPPF. Councillor Matthew Courtliff seconded the proposal to refuse planning permission.”

Minutes

The votes

The refusal motion received three votes in favour, five against and two abstentions, so it fell; the approval motion then carried.

“Three Members of the Committee were in favour of the proposal to refuse planning permission. Five Members were opposed to the proposal to refuse planning permission. Two Members abstained from the vote. The motion fell.”

“Four Members were in favour of the proposal to grant planning permission. Three Members abstained from the vote. Three Members were opposed to the proposal. The motion was carried.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to the conditions set out in the case officer’s support.

“Councillor Rob Heath proposed granting planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the case officer’s support. The Chair, Councillor Carol Shelley, seconded the proposal.”

“Resolved – That planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.”

Minutes