Image Source: via Google Earth. Illustrative purposes only, the playground has since been provided by the developers.
Oggy Bloggy Ogwr doesn’t receive any subsidy and isn’t funded by the BBC. If you like what I’m doing here and think this work is important in keeping locals informed of what’s happening in Bridgend, consider a donation. Â One-off or monthly; as little or as much as you want. Click the links below, or full details are available here.
At this month’s full council meeting, councillors debated a motion on planning reform – though it ended up being more complicated than that.
A Planning Bill has been introduced at the Senedd that will streamline and simplify existing planning laws. Other planning reforms are also being consulted on.
The full text of the original motion is available here, but it was later withdrawn for rewording (as will become clear later).
Failure to meet obligations "should have real consequences" for developers
Cllr Tim Thomas (Ind, St. Bride’s Minor & Ynysawdre) – who tabled the original motion – said it was clear that developers had failed to honour or deliver their Section 106 agreement obligations promptly or to a high standard.
His original motion suggested creating a register of poor developers (similar to those for rogue traders and landlords), considering a developer’s record on delivering Section 106 agreements when deciding upon new planning applications and possibly even blocking poor developers from receiving planning permission for a certain period.
Cllr. Simon Griffiths (Lab, Brackla East & Coychurch) – who is vice-chair of the council’s planning committee – shared the concerns around developers. However, he believed the Senedd and Welsh Government – which the original motion said should be lobbied to change the law – doesn’t have the necessary powers to intervene on this issue. He supported rewriting the motion after proper legal advice.
Issue falls under UK law
BCBC’s Monitoring (Legal) Officer advised that while the council could ask the Senedd or Welsh Government to address these issues, it would be more beneficial to focus on what they could do within their powers.
In this case, the relevant law would be the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, which was passed before devolution and applies to EnglandandWales (hence it’s a matter for the UK Parliament/MPs).
Cllr. Amanda Williams (Ind, Coity Higher) believed this was a significant issue that should not be delayed, even if the motion needed to be reworded.
Council needs to be on the side of residents let down by developers
Cllr. Martin Williams (Ind, Coity Higher) added that one of the biggest challenges he’s faced in his ward has been disputes with developers, with the Council’s hands often being tied on many issues. These developers often hold a monopoly on new local housing and tie residents into new developments through schemes like Help to Buy and interest rate deals.
He underlined the importance of sending a message that Bridgend Council was on the side of residents who have been let down by volume housebuilders.
The Council agreed to withdraw the motion and reword it so that it was legally correct and lobbies the right lawmakers in the right parliaments.
The council delegated power for the final version of the text to be agreed upon amongst the council’s party group leaders over the next few days.
