Agenda item

Planning Application Document

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application which concerned the erection of a Class E retail store, car parking and servicing areas, access, landscaping and associated works following demolition of existing buildings. The application was at Planning Committee at the request of Councillors Boyes and Councillor Harvey.

The Officer recommendation was to permit subject to conditions and a Section 106 unilateral undertaking.

Speaking against the application, Mr McAlary, owner of Smith and Mann convenience store and CK Post office, explained that this application was the biggest threat that his business had ever faced. He did not believe that there were enough people in the Charlton Kings area to support a discount retailer of this size.  He disputed the Lidl and DPDs view that Lidl was a main food shop destination and that his store would retain top up shoppers. The potential loss of local shops and post offices represented a material consideration which falls to be considered separately from the retail impact test under para 22 of the NPPF subsection A. Lidl would be in direct competition with local businesses in an already saturated area and his business could not afford to lose 10% more of trade, if this application was granted planning permission. He urged the committee to take account of the significant number of objections raised by residents, local businesses and the Parish council to this application which would have a devastating impact on local businesses and the community of Charlton Kings.

Glen Stidever, speaking on behalf of Lidl, said the investment in the new store would remediate and regenerate the brownfield site and provide up to 30 jobs. It would be an energy efficient store using the latest sustainable technology and a recent public consultation exercise of 1500 people had attracted 85% support for the proposal. Benefits highlighted by residents included new job opportunities, bringing a derelict site back into economic use, improving the retail offer in Charlton Kings and encouraging residents to shop locally. He believed that the majority of concerns expressed related to supporting and protecting existing local stores. In this respect he referred to the assessment by the council’s expert retail adviser who concluded that there was unlikely to be an unacceptable impact on any of these local stores and in fact there was national evidence to suggest that a supermarket would bring a welcome boost to the local economy. He concluded by saying that plans had been adapted to ensure that all relevant policies were satisfied and that the technical consultees had raised no objections to the proposals, subject to the conditions.

In response to Member questions, the following responses were given:

• No explicit additional speed mitigation features were deemed necessary by the highways authority on the Cirencester Road given the relatively short distance and that traffic approached relatively slowly. Speed surveys were not always used as a measure- officers had visited and observed the site and there was a good level of visibility, particularly given the existing uses. 
• Existing pedestrian facilities would be relied upon and there existed an opportunity to cross the road before reaching the store
• The delivery management plan contained appropriate levels of control-it was for the operator to ensure the site was protected.
• There were no proposed changes to bus frequency, however work was underway to bring the bus stop back into the public highway which would be of benefit for the development, if supported.
• There were no proposals to install an island for turning in to the site when approaching from the town centre given the size of the site.
• Given this was a modest sized unit with only 2 main deliveries in 24 hours (which may be supplied by smaller vehicles) there was no justification for a condition to limit these. If deliveries were limited to daytime only, there would be a potential conflict of users of the car park.
• With regard to the travel plan, all HGVs exit and enter in forward gear. The plan details the extent of reversing necessary.  Given the small number of vehicles and the small distance this was fairly insignificant in the wider scheme
• A detailed external lighting scheme was proposed and had been reviewed by environmental protection team who were now satisfied that there would be no significant harm to neighbouring residential properties. This was a modern lighting solution which did not lead to levels of pollution.
• Sequential development –Lidl had vacated the Grosvenor terrace site and moved into Swindon Road site and the sequential test had been considered carefully at the time. This application was for an additional store.
• In assessing traffic generation, reference was made to the existing lawful use of premises which was light industry. These could be businesses generating quite a lot of local traffic
• Advertising was secured under a different part of the Planning Act so a separate consent would be required for illuminated lighting if the application was successful.
• Planning appeal decisions acknowledged the degree of impact on local businesses and local shopping centres from new retail developments-a small impact was however not sufficient to withhold consent
• The Lead Local Flood Authority had stated that the proposed development on the brownfield site would provide a betterment to the flood risk to the area and the surrounding area.

The Chair moved to the debate and Members made the following comments:

• Receiving 900 representations on an application was unprecedented
• Regretted potential loss in employment land by site use for retail, rather than industrial uses, particular given low level of employment space in the borough
• Recognised small net gain in employment
• Welcomed positive application in terms of sustainability
• Regretted potential 15 % loss in trade for existing local businesses on top of losses already incurred because of Sainsburys
• Unhappy with Highways response and that a pedestrian crossing can be demanded on a small shop but not a larger one, but can’t go to appeal on Highways grounds if Highways not in support.
• Referred to policy EM2 on loss of employment land and retail impact
• Previous application on this site was for sheltered accommodation.  There were also bidders for industrial units, but retailers would always outbid others financially.
• Retail consultant and Spirax Sarco commented that it would have a detrimental impact on existing local stores
• Need to balance another shopping opportunity against loss of good community businesses
• Agreed no demand for dilapidated units but site could be cleared and new industrial units put on.
• Did not think this site was properly marketed
• Application did have good points, for example, bio diversity, but another retail store was not needed and EM2 was not met.
• Sequential development assessment did not suit as already moved out
• Previous Lidl site in Grosvenor Terrace did not meet Lidl brand of being outside the town centre.  Had ample parking but not free and store wasn’t visible from High Street. Lidl did not support town centre rule 89 of the NPPF. 
• Regarding EM2 – why do we have classes of land if not going to protect them?  Why change to retail as were outbid?
• Cheltenham short of employment space and needs industrial places; rather see this remain as a business site than retail.
• In a market economy the highest bidder normally wins – cannot control market forces.  Housing will always outbid industrial or retail.
• We can control some things such as the change in the class of the use of land, ie, from Class B to E, but change of use of land was a global problem and guided by NPPF and other considerations.
• Charlton Kings always had a strong sense of community and binding this were the local stores and would not want to see this destroyed.
• A difficult decision as to whether to permit a supermarket on a site which should be industrial land.  Decision complicated by unhelpful support from Highways and the retail consultant.  No clear direction.
• This would be the second supermarket in this area and it would have a cumulative effect on the local store.
• The local bus from the town centre was an hourly service, so no sustainable public transport for people who needed it most.  Should consider the alternative use as employment land.

The Chair was concerned about the lack of valid reasons to put forward for not permitting, as the case would likely go to appeal if not approved.

A member cited EM2 and NPPF 92d as reasons for refusal, but welcomed the opinion of Officers.

The Interim Head of Planning noted that members would like to see something else on this site, with a different new use and to protect existing businesses, but informed members they must determine the application on its merit.  He did not think there was sufficient evidence to refuse on retail impact or highways matters.  Other matters had been assessed over a long period of time by the Planning Team and he believed the requirement of the policy was met.  Clear evidence would be needed that employment opportunities were being harmed if members wished to follow policy of keeping and protecting jobs.

The Senior Planning Officer referred to notes relating to EM2 that ‘in the vicinity’ related to adjacent businesses and land, or business, land or property in the same estate, and each had to be considered on its own merit and that it did not extend to the wider village.  She also stated that the site had been vacant and she had not been aware of other interest and was satisfied that this was a job generating proposal.  She did not feel it would have such an impact on other businesses as supported by the retail consultant.

A member quoted that EM2 stated about protecting existing employment land, albeit the site was derelict, and argued that this application was indeed in the same neighbourhood as Smith & Mann and other local shops. He reiterated that the Retail Consultant had stated there would be a detrimental impact to local shops. NPPF 92d was also quoted again as promoting healthy and safer communities and it was pointed out how important this had been over the last year and how much the existing local shops had done towards this.  He felt there were reasons to be cautious regarding the impact on the community.

The Chair pointed out to members that the committee had to demonstrate substantive and sufficient reasons to justify refusal if that were to be the case, otherwise it would be very difficult if the application went to appeal.  He agreed it was a sensitive issue and that people felt strongly about historical businesses, but he was not convinced he had heard substantial reasons to be able to defend the application and urged members to make the right decision otherwise it could be a costly mistake.

A member concurred that he didn’t think they would stand a chance at appeal as the applicant had gone about it in the right way and knew the way the system worked.

The Interim Head of Planning advised members that although EM2 had been put forward as a reason for refusal, they would need to provide evidence of harm and the bar for that at appeal was very high.  He didn’t feel the degree of harm was high enough versus the benefits of the scheme or that there was sufficient evidence that was quantifiable to win an appeal.  If the appeal was lost there could be costs awarded to the Council in going against the recommendation of the Retail Consultant. 

In reply to a further question about increased bus frequency and whether this was a material consideration, the Head of Planning suggested this scheme was not of a significant scale to request increased efficiency in public transport.

Regarding grounds for refusal, a member, whilst accepting the content of the Retail report, repeated that policy EM2 talked about the detrimental impact on the continuing operation of existing businesses in the vicinity.  He stated the retail study said it would have a detrimental impact, but not the degree of that impact and argued that the impact was subjective as no one knew what degree of impact this would have over the coming years.  He continued that reason NPPF 92d was pretty clear.

The Head of Planning further informed members that relying on EM2 alone was dangerous territory and that the Planning Inspector could say it was out of date and non-compliant with NPPF.  He explained that the NPPF had been up-dated in July and that the Council’s local plan was adopted in 2020 making it now out of date and if this was relied upon it could incur the Council costs.

A member also queried that the Council only got costs awarded against them if the refusal reasons were frivolous.  The Legal Officer explained that it was not if they were frivolous but more if the refusal was unreasonable and there had to be evidence on which to base a refusal reason otherwise it was likely to be unreasonable.

A member stated he wanted to support the local retailers and would not be supporting the application but would not be putting forward a refusal reason as he did not want to incur costs to the Council.

The Chair summed up telling members to consider carefully the advice of Highways, the Legal and Planning Officers and the Retail Consultant.  He admitted it was a delicate and difficult situation and that often planning decisions were on balance and he felt this was one such case, whereby whatever decision was taken there was a higher authority to take into consideration.

As no formal recommendation for refusal had been put forward, the Chair went to vote on the substantive motion for approval.

FOR : 3
AGAINST : 3
ABSTAIN : 3

After a brief adjournment to take legal advice, it was confirmed that the Chair had the right to and was obliged to use his casting vote.

The Chair retained his vote FOR.

APPROVED