Agenda item

MJC introduced the application, which seeks to make minor alterations to the approved scheme as set out in the five bullet points in the report at page 58 [of the Agenda], concerning the plant area, disabled parking provision, internal lay-out, the shop front, and drainage.  It also seeks variations to some of the conditions set out in the description of the development.    It seems complicated but given that some of the original conditions have already been discharged and in light of the cumulative effect of the proposed amendments, officers felt it appropriate to deal with a revised application. If permission is granted, a new planning permission will be granted, with the revised conditions attached.  Members need to focus on the five proposed changes, which officers have recommended to permit. Also, and thanks to PB for drawing officers’ attention to this, the previous application was subject to an S106 payment of £25,000 – which has been paid – and it is therefore important that this application also has the same legal agreement attached.  If permitted, it should be subject to S106 agreement on the same terms as the original consent which related to a build out, pedestrian crossing, and waiting restrictions if necessary.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

PB:  this has been a contentious application from the start, with the original application refused, and the new scheme hugely better than the previous one.  The current application offers mostly improvements, and represents an important opportunity for the applicants to show their good intentions.  Cages are to be unloaded at the front of the shop, and replacing the block paving with tarmac will make this a much quieter operation – can this be conditioned?  Newspaper deliveries will be very early, and if these can be made through the front access rather than the car park, neighbours will be less disturbed; as a general principle, all deliveries should be through that area.  Regarding the S106 contribution, in principle this will cover all the potential problems that the scheme will create and should therefore be implemented before the scheme starts.  The highways authority is slow to say that it is at least implementing the scheme.  The trigger should always be that any highway improvement scheme is in place before the applicant starts trading.  It will be too late in this case, but in future, where there are material changes/highway concerns, why should these not be addressed before the applicant starts trading? 

SW:  will the vehicles loading and unloading at the front of the shop pull off the road?

JF:  has a question regarding the reduced number of disabled parking spaces.  How many were originally proposed, and how many are proposed now?

MJC, in response:

-       the consented scheme made provision for 16 parking spaces including two disabled spaces; this scheme makes provision for 16 spaces including one disabled;

-       these are the requirements of the Local Plan.  Parking standards have changed, but this is in line with the Local Plan.  The developer offered an additional disabled bay and wider-than-required bays throughout, but the change to the plant has eaten into this, leaving just the standard-sized bays and one fewer disabled bay.  This is regrettable but consistent with policy;

-       to SW, there is a detailed delivery management plan, requiring lorries to pull into the site and unload from the front; all cages will be unloaded at the front;

-       to PB, regarding tarmac rather than block paving at that location, Condition 12 is detailed and refers to hardstanding to be used  in accordance with the drawings, which show tarmac in that area;

-       regarding the legal agreement, it is important to say that the applicants have complied with all the requirements of the agreement, with prior contribution having been made to the county council.It is now for the county to implement the works, not for the applicants.  All we can require the applicants to do is facilitate the works; the county will carry it out at the time when it has the capacity to do it;

-       the local authority needs to lobby the county, as a priority.  It is not the applicants’ fault and they should not be punished because the work has not been done;

-       MJC and CL will have a discussion about this with regard to future agreements.  It is an important point, but we cannot do anything about it for this application.

KS:  has a number of issues with this application, the main one being the reduced size of the parking spaces.  If these are smaller, albeit standard size, it may well encourage more people to park on the road, who can’t be bothered to park in the bays.  The road is a nightmare and not safe.  This is a serious concern, which hasn’t been considered fully, and could cause mayhem.

GB:  parking is always an issue, but would think the majority of people who using the store will be people in the neighbourhood.  It isn’t a large supermarket, and although some people will use cars, imagines it will be mostly used for bits of shopping; car parking won’t be a particular issue.  The NISA store has no parking either and this doesn’t appear to cause any concern.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit, subject to the completion of a s106 applying the same provisions of the previous s106 to this application

12 in support

2 in objection

PERMIT