FOI request (FOIR-697553477)

Archery Ground application - HS/FA/24/00549

Requested Wed 19 March 2025
Responded Thu 24 April 2025

The officer's presentation to the planning committee for application HS/FA/24/00549 falsely claimed that the issues raised post the the publication of the officer's report to the planning committee had been addressed. This is simply untrue.

I raised a number of issues that the officer did not address. These included:

1. The fact that pre-commencement condition 17 Construction Management Plan had not been discharged and requested evidence that it had been discharged.

2. That the affordable housing contribution of £96k was not open and transparent and not supported by any estate agent valuations.

3. That the officer claimed that the police, ESCC, and HBC Parks and Gardens were happy not to increase infrastructure contributions, yet there was no evidence that these bodies had ben consulted and agreed to no increased infrastructure contributions.

4. The claim that the Armstrong judgement allowed the use of a section 73 application instead of a fresh and full application. I raised the Fiske case as an argument that this application should not have been a section 73 and asked whether legal advice had been sought.

5. The officer report stated that the application was not retrospective. Many residents stated works had begun.

Please provide, under FOI, the following information:

1. Evidence that pre-commencement condition 17 Construction Management Plan was discharged.

2. The estate agent valuations and any other correspondence concerning Affordable Housing contributions.

3. All correspondence relevant to the claim that ESCC, Police and HBC were happy not to increase infrastructure contributions.

4. The legal advice provided that stated that Armstrong takes precedence over Fiske and that this application was valid as a section 73 application.

5. All correspondence concerning why HBC deemed the Armstrong judgement relevant in allowing this application to be a section 73 rather than a fresh and full application.

6. Evidence held by HBC that the works on the 5 new units had not begun and that the application is not retrospective.

Response

1. Please see the attached decision notice for condition 17.

2. Please see attached confirmation from the Council's Housing officer, that the commuted sum calculation is correct.

3. No information held. No correspondence was received regarding infrastructure contributions.

4. No information held. No legal advice was provided.

5. No information held. No legal advice was provided.

6. No information held.

Attachments

• FOIR-697553477_FOIR-697553477_2-FOI697553477_(2)_Archery_Rd_additional_AH_contribution._Redacted.pdf
• FOIR-697553477_FOIR-697553477_1-FOI697553477_(1)_Decision_-_Condition_17_Redacted.pdf