Developer in row with council over condition on Telford homes scheme

A developer is at odds with council officials over a ban on a house being occupied before a workshop is demolished.

Telford & Wrekin Council officials say they have no record of an alleged verbal agreement and now have refused to drop a planning condition imposed on the haulage yard site at Wrens Nest Lane, Ketley.

Applicant Jack Perry had been given permission in 2018 to demolish a workshop and build three homes and one garage.

But the council had imposed a condition saying that none of the homes shall be occupied until the workshop is demolished.

A council planning enforcement officer became involved and Mr Perry applied for the condition to be dropped.

"We request the immediate removal of this pre-occupation restriction as it directly contradicts our verbal agreement reached on or around April 2016 with the then planning officer," Mr Perry wrote.

"This was discussed at an onsite meeting and further reiterated and agreed via a telephone conversation. All my meetings / calls are logged, documented and filed for reference.

"During that consultation, it was mutually agreed that this condition was unnecessary for this scheme and illogical, in any case, the “workshop” removal is required for developing plot 2."

Mr Perry claimed that the condition "appears to be an administrative oversight"

He added that the area houses a site's camera surveillance system.

Its demolition would lead to a "total security blackout that leaves the site and its equipment completely exposed."

But the council has rejected the move, adding that one of the dwellings has been constructed and is being lived in, in contravention of the condition.

Officials say that the council "cannot find any record of a meeting in 2016 between the named officer and the applicant."

They add that the officer named "was not the case officer" on any of three applications that were submitted between 2015 and 2018.

And officials state that the condition was necessary and "was not an administrative oversight."

They add it was necessary to "safeguard the residential amenities of existing and future occupiers."

Officials added that "nothing has changed since the approval of the last application to warrant the removal of this condition."

They add that the CCTV system "could be housed elsewhere on the site and therefore, there is no reason why this condition needs to be removed."

The applicant has been told that he can appeal against the council's decision.