Cllr Bernie Mooney said there had been 26 residents opposed, but what about the other hundred, what if they say they want a play area, what are the legal implications? Cllr Elderton said this had been raised in the briefing. They were asking to take into account the views of twenty-six versus one hundred and forty. He said Cllr Lewis had concluded that everybody wants no play facility.
Cllr Lewis said the ward he represents was interesting electorally. He said the opposition outweighs the benefits and “the residents don’t want it”. Cllr Hayes pointed out the variation to the s.106 agreement regarding the water feature. Matthew Rushton said there had been an application to remove the water feature two years ago and a decision was made. The water feature had been put in because of its nature conservation value as it supported wildlife. However after the houses had been built its nature conservation value had decreased. There had been a planning application made with public consultation and it had not been part of a legal agreement. The legal adviser mentioned about maintaining the area.
The Chair said nobody was “smelling of roses”. However he said if it had gone ahead there would’ve been consultation on what it would have looked like. Matthew Rushton said if it proceeded the Parks and Countryside Service would do consultation. The wording of s.106 agreements usually required the developer to build something after a certain proportion of the housing had been completed. There was no deadline with relation to this case which was unusual and it didn’t rely on other things which was unique.