Agenda item

Demolition of existing food store and petrol station, and erection of a replacement food store (Class A1) and associated works

Consideration was given to the report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the demolition of existing food store and petrol station, and the erection of a replacement food store (Class A1) and associated works (for copy see file of Minutes).

C Harding, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site.

Richard Huteson, the applicant’s representative was in attendance to respond to questions from Members.

In response to a question from Councillor Nicholson, Mr Huteson confirmed that the petrol station would not be replaced. The Lidl model did not have concessionary units and the site of the former garage would therefore be utilised for additional parking.

Councillor Clare considered that the reasons for approving the application were clearly set out in paragraph 44 of the report, and the concerns expressed by occupiers of an adjacent building had been addressed in paragraph 63. 

Councillor Patterson, in supporting the proposed development, made reference to access arrangements and had concerns that there was no zebra crossing proposed at the point where pedestrians would cross from the store to the car park on the site of the former petrol station.

The point was made by the Member and Councillor Richardson that the access would also be used by the Police Station and Bradbury House, a nursing home.

D Stewart, Highways Officer advised that there had been a crossing as part of the former Co-op site. The Highways Authority had commented on the detailed layout of the car park to achieve improved connectivity and the majority of the issues raised had been addressed in a revised site layout. Although a zebra crossing had been suggested it had not been included in the revised car park arrangements. Nevertheless the absence of a zebra crossing would not be sufficient grounds to sustain a refusal of the application in highway terms.

In response Mr Huteson explained that it would not be possible to provide a zebra crossing at the point suggested by Councillor Patterson because it would encroach upon third party land, over which they had no control. Following further concerns expressed by the Member he advised that a pedestrian crossing would be provided for the West Durham Youth Centre building.

Councillors Kay and Armstrong both made the comment that other major supermarkets provided zebra crossings for the safety of pedestrians.  Councillor Kay asked if this could be included as a condition.

C Cuskin, Solicitor – Planning and Development informed Members that planning conditions had to be tested against certain criteria, one of which was that they must be necessary. Members needed to determine if the need for a zebra crossing was so great that the application could not be approved without it being included in the scheme.

Councillor Patterson stated that she was fully in support of the application as a supermarket in Crook was much needed and it would bring jobs to the town. She therefore welcomed this scheme although was disappointed with the length of time it had taken to reach this stage and that no petrol station was proposed. The Member also requested that the applicant take into account the safety issues raised in respect of the car park.

Councillor Dixon stated that Lidl had heard the concerns expressed by Members and hoped that the company would take on board the comments made.

Councillor Clare was of the view that the issue for Members was whether the need for a zebra crossing was so great that it would lead the Committee to refuse the application. The Highways Officer had advised that the absence of a zebra crossing was not sufficient grounds to sustain a refusal in highway terms and the Solicitor had advised that to impose this as a condition it must be necessary. Therefore whilst he hoped that Lidl would provide a zebra crossing there were no grounds to impose a condition requiring it, or grounds to refuse the application.

Councillor Clare moved and Councillor Davidson seconded that the application be approved.

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.