Agenda item

MJC introduced the application as above, at committee at the request of Councillor Baker to consider the impact of the COU at this prominent site.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

PB:  when he asked for this application to go to committee, it was not because of concerns about the building being used for a sandwich business, but in terms of the principle of a change of use to A1 retail use and what that might mean. Was concerned about what use we may be granting but is happy with the use that has been proposed.  Cox’s Meadow is very popular with dog walkers and children, and this building is very prominent.  A sandwich business here will be great, the proposed hours of operation are fine, and understands that the business cannot be changed to a hot food take-away without coming back for planning permission. 

DS:  supports the proposal but is concerned about the potential build-up of traffic.  The lay-by is used by people visiting Cox’s Meadow.  Is thinking about the lay-by by the Post Office Depot which gets very busy and causes problems.  There is no obvious passing pedestrian traffic here, so not a lot of trade from them so is concerned that the new business might attract too many cars.

MB:  has no issue with the change of use, but would like to raise the issue of PB’s comments in the Echo earlier today and whether these cause any problems regarding pre-determination.

CL, in response:

-            this has already been brought to her attention, and she feels that PB’s comments did not reveal  any pre-determination of this matter.

KS:  considers this application a good thing and hopes it will be welcomed, but is also concerned about parking.  Were residents of nearby houses consulted?  Most people living there are tenants, and the owners may never go past the site to see the site notices.

GB:  to Members with concerns about traffic, would say there is no need to worry.  The site is so close to the roundabout that it would be impossible to park illegally.  If the lay-by is full, drivers will have to go and find somewhere else to park.

MJC, in response:

-            has spoken to the case officer and to the County Council regarding parking, having anticipated     that questions would arise at committee;

-            the lay-by has space for five or six cars, but in view of the nature of the site and the proposed use, officers do not anticipate it will attract a significant numbers of additional visitors – it is not likely to be a destination - and illegal parking is therefore not anticipated.  Cox’s Meadow is used by students, dog walkers, passing trade – the sandwich business will be an incidental use to the road, and the County Council is happy with the parking situation;

-            to DS, it wouldn’t be right to compare this lay-by with the one next to the Post Office depot, which is a much larger scale operation;

-            regarding publicity and advertising of the application, did not write to neighbouring properties, but a site notice was posted, together with an advert in the Echo.  The local authority is not obliged to write letters to neighbouring properties, and although this authority generally does, it was felt that a site notice was appropriate and fulfilled our statutory obligations.  There were no objections to the proposal;

-            officers are comfortable with the publicity given to this proposal.

HM:  notes that the water authority was consulted and commented that the apparatus may be at risk during construction.  Should this be included as an informative?

MJC, in response:

-            considers this would be appropriate and should be added if Members vote in support of the          proposal.

KS:  is there any provision for staff parking?  The lay-by is well used by users of Cox’s Meadow.  Is there any parking within the site?

GB:  parking at the lay-by is restricted to 30 minutes.

MJC, in response:

-            it’s correct that there are parking restrictions in the lay-by.  The building is part of the wider site     of Cox’s Meadow and it would not be appropriate to introduce parking to that site and would be to the detriment of important space in the conservation area.

PT:  it will be difficult if staff do have cars, as all roads in the area have double yellow lines due to the hospital.  The area is also accessed by a small roundabout.  Staff will have trouble finding somewhere to park.

GB:  at the risk of sounding unsympathetic, this has to be seen as their problem, not ours.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support – unanimous

PERMIT