Decision

The acceptance of a reduced car park (60 space to 35 space car park) and the receipt of £150,000 for the remaining land (in lieu of the 25 lost car parking spaces) at Tinever Road, Chivenor.

Reasons for the decision

1. BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR THE DECISION REQUEST

1.1. Planning permission 55214 secured a 60 space Park and Ride facility – the associated S106 Agreement required the land to be transferred to NDC to manage the facility. The car park has been delivered on site but the land was never transferred to NDC as the roads leading to the site have yet to be completed/adopted.

1.2. A current planning application (including the car park) seeks to build a supermarket on the land. As part of the application, a replacement 35 space car park is proposed that would be transferred to NDC to manage– resulting in an overall loss of land and 25 car parking spaces to NDC and the community. The reduction in size of the car park is acceptable to the local planning authority.

1.3. The 35 space car park would be secured through the planning process via a new section 106 agreement that would require the facility to be constructed and then transferred to the council.

1.4. NDC could now require that the original car park is transferred to it but there are time constraints with the proposed development and that approach is likely to take longer than the time allowed. As an alternative the council could agree that it was not necessary to formally transfer the original land if a solution could be sought that acted as if the transfer had happened.

1.5. The current scheme shows a replacement car park for 35 car parking spaces – DCC have concluded that a park and ride facility would not be pursued and this reduced car park would still allow for park and change/recreational use of the Tarka Trail to serve the community, hence the opinion that the reduced car park is justified in planning terms.
1.6. The car park that will be transferred to NDC (35 spaces) is a reduction in land that should have been in NDC ownership (as per the legal requirement in the S106 Agreement). For the avoidance of doubt, that permission has been implemented.

1.7. Lidl have offered to transfer the new car park to the council and to pay £150,000 for the loss of the additional land (acting as if in NDC ownership), which is in line with an independent valuation that was carried out.

1.8. Our Property team consider £150,000 to be reasonable and recommend that it be accepted.

1.9. NDC, acting as landowner, would receive a 35 space car park and £150,000 instead of the original 60 space car park. This would be secured through an agreement with the landowner and would not form part of the planning considerations or the planning process. These monies could be ring fenced for spend within this community.

1.10. Under paragraph 7.8 of Annex 2 of the Constitution it provides the following delegations to the Head of Place, Property and Regeneration: To determine freehold and, in accordance with paragraph 7.7 above, long leasehold land (up to a term of 21 years) and other property transactions, in consultation with Senior Management Team, the Leader, the Deputy Leader and the Lead Member, including acquisitions and disposals, up to a financial level of £250,000.00.

1.11. It is considered that this proposal falls within the delegation referenced in the Constitution and it is recommended that this proposal is accepted.

Alternative options considered

3. ANY ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED?

3.1. We could refuse to accept this offer and in time adopt the 60 space car park on site. On that basis, the proposed development could not proceed. It is considered that the proposed solution is an acceptable alternative given the move away from the original park and ride concept.

3.2. It would not be appropriate to deal with this matter through the planning system as it is a transaction proposed by the applicant to resolve the fact that there is an existing car park on site (due to be passed to the Council). A reduced size car park is offered and acceptable to the LPA and the remaining financial contribution arises from the difference in value between the larger site of the 60 space car park (which should have been transferred to the Council) and the 35 space car park now proposed.