Anger at builders bid to drop road-widening commitments
CONSTRUCTION FIRM BELIEVES JUNCTION WORK NOT NEEDED
A DEVELOPER has angered residents by seeking permission to drop road improvement works which were an agreed condition of the planning approval for a housing estate it is building.
Persimmon Homes inherited the condition which a previous developer had agreed with Charnwood Borough Council when the authority passed plans to build 270 houses on land off Hathern Road, in Shepshed in 2014.
Known as section 106 agreements, companies are commonly required to carry out work such as road improvements or by making significant financial contributions to local services, such as schools and medical centres.
Persimmon Homes has filed an application to remove the section 106 agreement to widen the lane on the Shepshed Road junction of the A6, to create a second lane for the site.
Hollins Strategic Land LLP originally filed the application for the development, which is called
Kings Gate. However, the site was later obtained by Persimmons.
The original application was approved with a number of conditions – one of which was that the developer would carry out the work on the road before the 150th home on the site was sold.
However, the company believes the work “should not have been a requirement” of the 2014 planning permission because its believes the development would not have such a significant impact on traffic levels.
However, one resident has sent a statement to the council, arguing: “Not only is there an issue with the traffic at the stated area, but ultimately, there will need to be development of that area of road. “By shirking their responsibility, Persimmon will ultimately be passing the cost of this road alteration on to tax-payers in the coming years. “I have no issue with the building of new homes, but I do hold issue with organisations backtracking upon their responsibilities.
“The residents of Shepshed have been impacted by the development and this requirement was one of the ways of mitigating that impact.”
The application to pull back from the agreement is being considered by the council’s planning officials.
By shirking their responsibility, they will ultimately be passing the cost on to taxpayers
Resident