Councillor ‘Upset’ Over 15 Year Old Planning Mistake

Council chambers at the Old Wesleyan Chapel

Council chambers at the Old Wesleyan Chapel

A St Mary’s councillor says she is “quite upset” about a planning mistake made years ago and has asked whether it can be rectified.

Cllr Avril Mumford was speaking at last week’s Planning Meeting, where an application to grant a Lawful Development Certificate for Tanglewood at Pilot’s Retreat was discussed.

Avril said her two stepdaughters live nearby and there’s “a lot of ill feeling” that the home managed to “escape” having a Section 106 agreement applied, which would restrict occupation to local needs and key workers.

She says this was a mistake by planning officers 15 years ago when the home was built and said it means the property could now be sold at a premium to others in the area.

Avril asked whether the restrictions could be applied retrospectively.

But Chief Planning Officer Craig Dryden said there was “absolutely nothing that we can do under planning law” because the property has been occupied for more than four years.

He said the matter was “out of our control.”

Council Chairman Amanda Martin said she “can’t help but agree” and that this had been “a thorn in our sides for many years.”

At the start of the meeting, Amanda said she wouldn’t comment on Section 106 agreements because she lived in a property with such a restriction herself, and she left the room while an application at South Tinks was discussed.

But Amanda said the situation at Tanglewood was “highly regrettable” and “should not have happened.”

10 Responses to Councillor ‘Upset’ Over 15 Year Old Planning Mistake

  1. Solomon September 29, 2015 at 8:57 am

    If a 106 was a condition that was applied to all those properties who sought planning consent at the time then there must be the opportunity for all the other owners to join in a single action to seek equal status, why should the other owners be penalised when they complied?

    • HG September 29, 2015 at 7:59 pm

      That’s like saying “X got away with robbing the bank, we should all now get free money”.

      Unsurprisingly, in the real world (and I believe Scilly is still attached to that world, albeit loosely in some people’s minds) the law doesn’t work the way you think it does…

      • Solomon September 30, 2015 at 7:47 am

        No it suggests that the enforcement of 106 has been so inconsistent since its inception that a legal challenge stands some chance of success and would be affordable if all those who feel aggrieved by the condition pooled their resources.

  2. Todd Stevens September 29, 2015 at 8:21 am

    Its time all other 106’s were lifted. You cant have a situation whereby one house is free of restrictions but its neighbours are not. Legal challenges are bound to ensue and that just means costs to try and uphold something that is already failing miserably.

  3. Malcolm James September 29, 2015 at 3:15 am

    Did councillor Mumford declare an interest at the start of the meeting? If she’s speaking on behalf of her stepdaughters then surely she should have pointed this out? And why didn’t Amanda Martin leave the room for this item as she did for the other item discussing a section 106? Seems like these councillors make it up as they go along…

  4. mary September 28, 2015 at 6:16 pm

    Who’s fault was it that there was no S106 ? Whoever it was should at least be severely repremandedf

    • ACE Ventura September 28, 2015 at 11:46 pm

      You’re right. Don’t think we need look too far.

  5. Scilly September 28, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    Lucky them now get over it avirl I don’t agree with 106 full stop

  6. kate knight September 28, 2015 at 11:36 am

    I suppose there may also be a lot of ill feeling that properties in that area having been built to house local families have now been morphed into guest houses and other serviced accommodation even though they have got a 106 on them which as Councillor Mumford says restricts occupancy to key workers and those with specific local need.
    It seems to depend on who you are whether planning rules are upheld.Maybe the applicant at Holy Vale should get on the council there’d probably be no problem with their plans then!

  7. Pete September 28, 2015 at 11:20 am

    Shut the gate, the horse has bolted.