Agenda item

MJC introduced the application as above, on the former Shop Fitters’ site, telling Members that it will provide an additional 42 spaces, following demolition of derelict buildings on the site.  The recommendation is to permit, and the update clarifies a couple of points:  that the Environment Agency has no objections with regard to possible increased flood risk, and that the County Council has no concerns re highway safety.  Condition 1 will make it clear that, if granted, the permission will be discontinued on or before 17^th September 2020 with restoration to its former condition not including the re-erection of the demolished derelict buildings. 

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

KS:  if the scheme is approved, will there be any documentation of the site and the interesting buildings to be demolished before they go?

BF:   noted on Planning View that the listed wall that is remaining needs re-pointing and re-building in places.  Is pleased to note that KR’s comments have been taken into account .

CH:  notes there is a condition about lighting, and suggests that LED lighting be used, as it is cheaper to run and altogether better, being more directional and with less drift, so causing minimal light pollution to adjacent properties.  The Civic Society is disappointed that the site won’t be redeveloped for five years, but points out that a scheme can be submitted before five years.  In the meantime, with the shortage of car parking in the town, this is a good solution and will provide a good income.

AM:  reiterating that point, the application is only for up to five years and another application can be made in the meantime.  The site is not blighted. 

MB:  why has a five-year limit been imposed anyway?

MJC, in response:

-       the five-year period was suggested by the applicant, so that we don’t lose sight of the desire to develop the site itself.  If left open-ended, it could be said that the car park is working well and should be retained.  This way, a degree of pressure on the land-owner will be kept up;

-       to KS, there has been no suggestion of the need to document the buildings to be demolished. They are in a sorry state, and this isn’t something that would usually be asked for.  Conditions relate to essential matters without which the permission would be refused, and this would not be the case here. Ultimately, it is in Members’ hands – do-able but not essential;

-       CH’s point about lighting is valid, but we cannot insist on LED lighting.  An informative can be included to encourage the applicant to consider it when complying with Condition 7.

GB:  do Members want to pursue KS’s suggestion of documenting the buildings?

KS:  understands that this cannot be included as a condition.  Would do it herself if allowed– did so for the Axiom, through the County Record Office – and realises that there may be nothing of any interest to us now, but it may be of interest to future generations.

KR, in response:

-       there is usually a requirement for the recording of listed buildings when they are demolished.  These are not listed buildings, and as a good design and access statement was provided by the applicant, it would not be considered necessary in this case. 

SW:  suggested that the Local History Society may want to do something about it.

GB:  is sure thatthe Council’s Property Team will take Members comments on board, and take the appropriate action.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT