Agenda item

EP introduced the application as above, adding that it is for use by Majestic Wine.  A retail consultant has confirmed that there will be no adverse affect on the town centre, and there are no highways objections.  The application is at committee due to an objection from the parish council.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

BF:  welcomes the application, but would like a condition included requiring a contribution to the TRO on Manor Road, where the 60mph speed limit and parking restrictions has impacted on Manor Road and Hayden Road, with Jaguar workers parking on Hayden Road.  The TRO will cost £5k, and a contribution should be conditioned.

EP, in response:

-          a contribution such as this would have to be required through S106 and it would need to be proved necessary to mitigate harm.  Highways officers do not identify any harm, and therefore there are no grounds to require such a contribution.

BF:  Highways officers are wrong.  They are aware of the impact the scheme is having, and have made a mistake.  This new retail unit will attract more people.  In is favour of the proposal but wants to do it properly.

EP, in response:

-          if the condition BF wants is attached to the decision and the applicant goes to appeal,  CBC would be severely criticised for attaching such a condition with no grounds.

BF:  all conditions are appealable.  This is much needed, and £5k isn’t much for a development on this scale.

CL, in response:

-          is very dubious about requiring such a contribution.  It would have to be through an S106 agreement, and this would have to be delegated.  If the applicant goes to appeal, and there is no evidence of any potential highways issues, costs against CBC could be awarded;

-          also, if BF wants to add the condition against officer advice, in order to avoid a potential situation where, under protocol, a majority of Members are opposed to the condition but otherwise support the application, and a vote against the recommendation with the condition would result in the application being refused, BF must move to amend the officer recommendation with the addition of this condition.  A separate vote can be taken on that first.

PT:  is it possible to include in the recommendation that the issue of a TRO is explored – to leave the gate open, and allow the issue to be looked at behind the scene after the vote?

KS:  has sympathy with BF’s comments but thinks it unfair on the applicant to impose this condition.  Would ask, however, that officers to take note of these concerns when considering the Local Plan.  This area is very different from ten years ago – a thriving trading estate – but there are issues with the road network which need to be looked at strategically.

Vote on BF’s suggested amendment – inclusion of a condition requiring a contribution to TRO

1 in support

11 in objection

1 abstention

MOTION LOST

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support – unanimous

PERMIT