Agenda item

Councillor Anderson advised members that as the site included Council owned land, the committee must be careful not to stray into commercially sensitive information.

Councillor Timmis made a statement:

This is a story about a broken promise and no accountability.

The broken promise is one made to Markyate residents when as part of the planning agreement for 80 new houses in the village in 2012, a new space would be provided for a Doctor’s surgery. The accountability or lack of it, arises from the failure of the development company to deliver a space fit to be a doctor’s surgery and it would appear the failure of the planning department of Dacorum Borough Council (DBC) to inspect and oversee the construction of the surgery.

The square footage was delivered but not the surgery bit, e.g. no disabled access, no disabled parking, a dark alley way access to the rear door and stairs to the first floor, no lift space, low ceiling height on the upper floor and a massive frontage of glass like a car showroom.

The additional aspect to this collection of failures is that the development company went bust (twice) during and after the build and the planning officer concerned as long left DBC.

The questions that we have come here tonight to explore are why, when the promised surgery space was not suitable, was it allowed to be signed off without proper planning oversight, why has it not been under investigation for so long, nearly two years with little progress, and can we hold you account for a solution and a timeline for its delivery?

Councillor Anderson invited the members of the public to speak:

Dr Sepai

The report states that the surgery made no comments and I can confirm it was quite the contrary. The visions presented by the developer worked on the basis of making Markyate beautiful and they asked the surgery what they could do to help. They held meetings with the surgery and the patients practitioner group. The agreement was that none of the houses were to be occupied until the surgery was built and functioning. The surgery that was built is inadequate and the current surgery is being burdened by the new residents. In March 2014, I questioned the plans and the building was not built to specifications and the NHS were not consulted. NHS England have the funds available to build the surgery but this money is only available for two years. The planning department have failed and neglected the village. There are no bus services to the local hospitals making the surgery even more important. I look forward to greater cooperation.

Catherine Comfort

I would like to bring to your attention the feelings from residents. We have set up a Facebook page about the surgery and I would like to present to you some of the comments. The current surgery is not fit for purpose and having it over two floors is unsuitable for elderly and disabled residents. People are happy with the service provided but feel better premises are required. Residents are concerned about loosing what the village currently has when the lease runs out. There is frustration in the village that the developer implemented so little of the original plans and it feels like Markyate is the poor relation of DBC. The parties involved have not worked together and have let down residents. Dacorum must take some responsibility and enforce the delivery of the planning permission. We need a timeline of future progress and we need someone to take accountability.

Nick Robeson

I moved to Markyate in 2015 with a young family. My wife did not drive so the nearby surgery was a unique selling point. There is great concern that Dr Sepai’s lease will expire in 2019 with nothing to replace it. There has been no communication from Dacorum with the village – this meeting was not posted on the Parish Council website. The site looks unfinished and graffiti is appearing with extremely rude words. 150 houses have been built and there is no infrastructure to support this. There are a couple of questions that need answering:
1) Western Homes have triggered the two year clause so can Dacorum’s enforcement team make the developer provide a surgery fit for purpose?
2) Can Dacorum  submit its own planning application on its land?
3) Who is responsible? Is it DBC, NHS England, the developers?

Mark Tibbet

I am a Professor at Reading University and have lived in Markyate for five years. The surgery is a critical hub for the village and those surrounding. It has little resemblance to original plans and there was no communication about the changes. The inadequate surgery undermines the future of the village as it is a vital component in village life. This has caused little faith in the village in the council and its councillors. There is a will to get things moving and I believe there is a moral obligation to sort these problems out and that promises are fulfilled.

J Doe ran through the main points of the report and hoped to answer some of the questions from the public.

The report focusses on the planning process and the delivery of the surgery, there are no immediate solutions but some options are set out in the report (paragraphs 3-10) and proposed meetings with stakeholders. Some of the site is DBC owned land which the developer has not built out. They can do that and the requirements are set out in the planning conditions. For example, the playarea has not been built as some of the land is under DBC control. Section 5.1.1 of the s.106 agreement provided details of the surgery in phase three of the development including dwellings should not be occupied before practical completion of the surgery.
Officers have changed hands and the developer commenced work without compliance of the s.106 agreement. This is not uncommon but Council has to take a proportional response. The enforcement dilemma comes as action has to be taken against the owner of the land which is now the homeowners and it would be unfair to take action out on them. The phasing of development was secured by condition 2 and the public areas are on DBC land and the developer will argue that they cannot deliver because they do not control the land.
Enforcement action is a long process but accept this could have been stronger.
The Council are looking for a way forward and numerous meetings will be arranged to discuss options. It is easy to look back on what went wrong. Consultations were taken place with local residents and the local GP surgery was consulted – the absence of feedback relates to the planning application.
Looking forward, officers are chasing the developers and it is highly unlikely that they will submit surgery details. There will be a meeting with the CCG and NHS England to understand what it would take to convert the current space. A specialist survey will be commissioned with specialists in the health sector.
So who is responsible? It is not simply down to the planning service. The delivery of the whole project falls to property and legal services, the CCG, the GP service and NHS England.

The report highlights the options available. One option might be to look an alternative site in the village unless the surgery can be converted to a high standard at a reasonable cost. We are in the second year of the two period to acquire the land. Any option must work financially for the Council and the CCG. All parties are supportive of the new building and officers from the Council will meet with the CCG and the GP to find a workable solution through the proposed meetings arranged.

Questions and answers

Councillor Anderson asked if Council carry out a risk assessment for deliverability for major schemes.

J Doe said the phasing plans and s.106 trigger clauses. The public elements are developed in advance of the residential elements. Planning permission cannot be refused on the fitness of a developer.

Councillor Hicks asked if the land could be ‘locked’ and prevent the developer from selling units until all conditions have been met.

J Doe said this isn’t a route that would be explored first. A temporary stop notice would be more appropriate. Legal injunctions would be imposed in only the most extreme cases and all planning routes must be exhausted first.

Councillor Riddick said this was a huge mess. Did more than one developer go into administration?

J Doe said yes, the first developer called Zog reappeared under a different name and transferred the land to a house building developer.

Councillor Riddick said a risk assessment should take place and the developers must have professional teams involved. Surely a warranty could be secured for future recourse.

J Doe said it can be secured through planning consent but it wasn’t done in this case.

Councillor Howard asked why no one was overseeing the developers to ensure everything was on track and being built according to the specification. Surely this should have been spotted.

J Doe said that doesn’t happen in the planning department. The council is not resourced to inspect developments as they progress but officers do constantly liaise with developers. The Council has a reactive enforcement service and action is normally taken when a complaint comes in from residents.

Councillor Anderson said that s.106 legislation was changing and would it cause a problem for the Council to introduce its own risk management scheme so lessons can be learnt and make it less likely to happen in the future.

J Doe said there would be plenty more s.106 agreements coming forward and phasing of developments need to be controlled and the risks are taken on board. Conditions are based on risk especially when developers finish the profitable sections of a development first. An internal officers group meet once a month to review cases and if necessary they are referred to the corporate working group on which the Portfolio Holder sits so there is an escalation procedure in place.

Councillor Hicks said that he understood staff were busy so it is possible in to future to have some way of making developers submit a bond as a guarantee.

J Doe said bonds were used on occasions but it was not appropriate in this case. It was always the case that the developer would build the shell and core of the doctors surgery and the health sector would fit it out internally.

Councillor Timmis said looking forward, what kind of timescale are we looking at to ensure progress is made?

J Doe said he had a meeting with the CCG that day and had another meeting planned in the next 2-3 weeks. With regards to a longer timeline, no guarantees can be made as it depends on what option is taken.

Councillor Timmis asked if she could be kept updated along with the residents.

J Doe said yes, certainly.

Councillor G Sutton thanked the people of Markyate for presenting their case in such a polite and measured way. He said he sat on the Development Control Committee when this planning permission was passed in 2011. The planning application looked good and it is disappointing to hear that some elements are not going to plan. Councillor G Sutton said that he had every faith in J Doe and promised to work together to resolve the issue. It is also important to ensure that the surgery provision is continuous.

Outcome

Councillor Anderson put forward a resolution to the committee:

The committee expresses disappointment in the failure to provide an adequate surgery. A referral to Cabinet should be made about mitigating risk in future large developments. Every effort should be made to resolve the current issues and ask that an update report is brought to committee in July.

Councillor Howard seconded the resolution and the committee agreed.