Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a Lidl store (Use Class A1) with associated car park and landscaping.

The Senior Planning Officer, Colin Harding, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for demolition of existing buildings and erection of a Lidl store (Use Class A1) with associated car park and landscapingand was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

The Senior Planning Officer noted the history of the application site, having been part of Crookhall Colliery as the Latterday Saints Pit, and then the Victory Pit, ceasing operation in the 1960s, with the remains of the former cottage only having walls, backing on to Boyd Street.  He added that the last use of the site was for a scrapyard, however, this was no longer in operation.

Members were referred to proposed elevations of the new store, comprising of a standard retail design and plans highlighted where the remaining colliery buildings were located, and the proposed car park, with the former mineshafts underneath.  It was explained that the arch at the site was subject to much debate, and while the roof was original, there was evidence of work over the lifetime of the works, and indeed since the colliery ceased operations.

The Senior Planning Officer noted there were no objections from statutory consultees, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.  It was noted that the Council’s Conservation Officer had noted that retention of the arch as a non-designated heritage asset should be explored, however, had no objections to the application.  Members were advised that further to comments from Environmental Health and Consumer Protection, a condition was added in terms of restriction of delivery times until adequate monitoring had taken place.

The Committee was advised that there had been several representations in respect of the application, from: the Local Member of Parliament, Laura Pidcock MP; Local Councillors, the Crookhall Foundation; the Mining Museum; and from 3 members of the public received since publication of the report.  It was explained that all were not in objection to the application for a new Lidl store, however, all felt that the history of the site be retained and that the arch was a local heritage asset, with a suggestion to its retention by way of condition.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the application was acceptable in planning terms, having passed the sequential planning test and the Spatial Policy Team had noted that in terms of these types of developments, “like affected like” and would not have an adverse impact on Consett town, with the Lidl store within the town to close in any event as the lease was coming to an end.

The Senior Planning Officer noted the main issue raised was in terms of the retention of the arch.  He added that the arch and buildings were not designated heritage assets, they were not listed buildings, and were not within a Conservation Area.  It was also noted that the building was not the best architectural example of the type within the County and required significant work in term of structural integrity and would require further works if the arch were to be moved to a new location and these would not be guaranteed to be successful.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that therefore he was not convinced that a condition was necessary or required.  He added that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that the loss of non-designated heritage assets be balanced against the benefits of a development, in this case the social and economic benefits of a new supermarket and the offset against the potential jobs lost with the other Lidl store closing.

The Chairman noted Members of the Committee and the Local Member had some questions as regards the report.

Councillor J Brown noted that paragraph 82 of the report did not mention which technical report had been submitted in terms of a retention of the arch being unsuccessful.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that as no technical report or proposed scheme had been submitted it was rather that any scheme may prove to be unsuccessful, or indeed it may prove to be successful, however without such as report it was unclear as regards how successful it could be.  Councillor J Brown asked how many households had been contacted in relation to the application.  The Senior Planning Officer said he would check and inform Members.

Councillor J Brown noted paragraph 83 stated it would be unreasonable to impose a condition to retain the arch and was “excessively onerous”, and asked what evidence this was based upon.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that this was in relation to retaining the arch in-situ, with the implications in terms of access to the car park.  He added that in terms of moving the arch this would be beyond what was normally imposed by condition, which would not normally require a redesign or change to the scheme and concluded that it would be unreasonable to seek this through a planning condition. Councillor J Brown noted that if the applicant had engaged with the local community a position may have been agreed.  The Senior Planning Officer noted work with Lidl in terms of the arch, however, no condition was recommended, and Members should weigh the loss of the heritage assets against the benefits of the new store.

Councillor A Shield noted his father had worked at the colliery and noted there were two shafts and felt that heritage needed to be looked at.  Councillor A Hopgood asked if discussions were still ongoing with Lidl in terms of the arch and why was it not possible to put in a condition pertaining to the arch at this stage.  The Senior Planning Officer noted discussions were not ongoing, and that although the matter had been raised with the applicant, no progress had been made on incorporating the arch into the development, and the application as proposed was at Committee for determination.

Councillor L Boyd noted on the site visit that she liked the look of the arch.  She noted that Cookhall Trust was in favour of retention.  She considered it would be bad to lose Lidl and would be good to have the store on site.  She felt that there was a dilemma and therefore proposed a deferment to allow the parties to look at the issues in retaining the arch. 

The Chairman noted that the discussion was focusing on the arch but that the Committee had to determine the application in front of them and approve or not approve.  He advised the Committee to listen to the speakers and then ask questions rather than focus on the archway which might influence the application or not.

Councillor J Brown noted she was not objecting to the application noting that the site has been in need of development for years, but was asking for a further planning condition and to say that cannot happen is not right.  She reiterated that the new Lidl store would be welcomed and that all people wanted was for the arch to be retained.  She added it would be disingenuous to suggest that the matter cannot be conditioned.  Councillor J Brown added that she had attended a public consultation held by Lidl, at the village hall, where residents raised the issue of retention of the arch and were assured that Lidl was listening.  She queried why a survey of likely in excess of £1,000 had been carried out, noting the arch was in good condition, then to have local concerns ignored and the application not looking to retain the arch, with no costings in terms of retaining the arch.  Councillor J Brown added that while there was reference to arches elsewhere, the report was not factual and that it was an opinion without comprehension of the local community. She added that it was connected with the local area and was the last example in the area, and to dismiss this was to dismiss the proud mining heritage of our area.  Councillor J Brown noted that paragraph 82 of the report noted a condition as regards an “interpretation board” and queried why Local Members hadn’t been consulted on this condition, and added that herself and fellow Divisional Member, Councillor M Clarke would be willing to meet some of the cost of the relocation of the arch from their Neighbourhood Budgets.

The Senior Planning Officer noted he did have an appreciation of the mining heritage of the area, Consett and County Durham, and that the report represented a fair and balanced view.  In terms of the interpretation area, it was not standard practice to consult Local Members on proposed planning conditions.  In reference to a previous question in terms of the number of households that had been consulted regarding the application, the number was 30, together with the usual notification in the press and on site, in accordance with statutory requirements.

The Chairman asked Mr Lister, the landowner to speak in favour of the application.

Mr Lister thanked the Chairman and Committee and explained his father had bought the land and property in 1963/64 and had been there at the site all his life. 

He added that the business was no longer in operation and the site was in a sorry state, with the building and roof being held secure by an engine block on a rope and with bags of soil preventing the roof from blowing off in high winds.  He stated that no one had been interested in the arch before now. 

He added it was not possible to retain all pieces of history, relating to where everyone’s father used to work, and he felt given the current state of the buildings, the sooner they were pulled down the better.

Mr D Murphy, Head of Property for Lidl noted he had nothing else to add, however would be available to answer any questions as required.

The Chairman asked the Committee for any more questions or comments.

Councillor A Shield noted no one could not be sympathetic to the views of the Local MP, Councillors and residents and felt therefore it would be necessary to condition the retention of the arch.  He added however it was important to retain the 40 jobs with the closure of the Consett store and considered the development to be excellent for the local area.  He noted that a single access point was mentioned, and if the arch was retained elsewhere on site, would the access be a protected right turn, adding issues with a similar access at a nearby supermarket which Members would be aware of.

The Senior Planning Officer noted it would be a protected right turn, imposed by condition and deemed acceptable by the Highways Section.

Councillor A Shield asked if this would be dual flow, one lane in, one lane out.  The Senior Planning Officer noted this would be the case and that Highways would have suggested alterations should it not have been deemed safe or have a detrimental impact.

The Principal DM Engineer, David Smith noted the applicant had submitted a full transport assessment and that the access to the B&M store did not conflict and that the stacking and queuing would not be the same as that for residential traffic and therefore there would not be an impact on the roundabout.  He added that trip analysis had shown that the proposals were acceptable.

Councillor A Hopgood asked to see the objections received since the agenda papers had been prepared. The Senior Planning Officer advised that a letter had been received from a local resident, the Crookhall Foundation and Durham Mining Museum and read out the objections.  He noted that they did not raise new issues and mirrored previous comments in terms of retaining the arch, not objecting to the development of a new store, but to keep the memories of the area, noting removal of the last remnants of the steel industry in the area and not wanting to lose this mining history.  Other comments included having the arch retained in some form at Beamish Museum if it could not be retained on site.  He added the objections from the Crookhall Foundation were to the demolition of the arch and they promote the retention of mining heritage. 

Other comments reference every effort being looked at to retain the arch in situ, perhaps as part of pedestrian access to the site, together with a plaque.  Comparisons were made to how the Genesis site relating to the steel industry had artwork on the site a monument to those former workers.  The Senior Planning Officer added that the Durham Mining Museum had noted County Durham had been “built upon coal” and their objective was to remember our heritage and suggested that a memorial and plaque be incorporated into the scheme.

Councillor A Hopgood noted the proposal from the Local Members in terms of contributions towards retention of the arch and asked if Lidl would object to a deferral of the application for a month to further explore options.

Mr D Murphy noted he would rather deal with the matter through a condition if possible but noted that Officers did not consider that this could be done.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that it was not reasonable for a condition to simply state “retain the arch” without knowing if it could be and that by deferring the application, a detailed scheme of how the arch could be retained could be investigated.  He was happy to discuss the matter further and bring the report back to Committee.

Councillor L Boyd noted that in light of hearing new information, that the Ward Councillors were willing to assist in financing retention and Lidl were prepared to discuss the matter further, she proposed that the application be deferred.  Councillor O Milburn seconded the proposal.

Councillor M McKeon noted she too supported deferral, adding that as Local Members had offered to help it was important to allow time for those options to be explored.

Councillor J Brown noted Local Members had not been asked as regards agreeing to meet, however, would wish to meet to discuss options in terms of the scheme.

The Solicitor - Planning and Development, Neil Carter noted for clarification that if Members were to vote to defer the application, this would not be conditional on any meetings outside of the Committee, and as such should not form part of any resolution.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that should the Committee wish to defer he could look to arrange such meetings with the applicant and Local Members.  Mr C Murphy noted Lidl would be happy to meet to look for a successful outcome and to have the application back at Committee.

Councillor L Boyd moved that the application be deferred; she was seconded by Councillor O Milburn.

RESOLVED

That the application be DEFERRED.