Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of new buildings for uses within Use Classes A1 (shops) and Class A3 (food and drink) with new vehicular access, parking, servicing areas and landscaping (revised description 18/12/2019).

The Senior Planning Officer, Laura Eden, 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 application was for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of new buildings for uses within Use Classes A1 (shops) and Class A3 (food and drink) with new vehicular access, parking, servicing areas and landscaping (revised description 18/12/2019) with the recommendation for the Committee to be minded to approve, subject to conditions, with the application to be referred to the Secretary of State via the National Planning Casework Unit.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted typographical issues and updates to the report as circulated: paragraph 126 of the report should state trade diversion of “1.1” percent, not “14.1” percent; paragraphs 65, 105, 129 and 191 should read “80” full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs rather than “95”.

 

Members were informed of the public right of way to the outside of the western boundary and the setting of the site with the nearby Arnison/Mercia District Centre to the north and residential properties to the south and east.  The Committee were shown the proposed layout for the site, with the four proposed units for a discount food store, frozen food store, home good store and drive thru coffee shop.   Whilst a hot food takeaway (use class A5) was initially proposed, this was later removed from the scheme.

 

The Senior Planning Officer referred to the plans showing the new proposed access and 267 car parking spaces and added that the electricity sub-station on the site would be retained, as would two telecommunications masts.  She added details as regards landscaping.  It was explained as regards a signalised pedestrian crossing to enable access to the site from the opposite side of Pit Lane.

 

In reference to consultation, the Senior Planning Officer noted advice from Spatial Policy in terms of the submitted sequential test and impact assessment submissions made under the application, given the proposal sought planning permission for a major town centre use development outwith of a town centre location, together with analysis of the impacts of the loss of the existing employment uses located on the site.  She added that it was advised that as the policies within City of Durham Local Plan (CDLP) most important for determining the application were considered out of date, the assessment of the application would be required under Paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF.

The representations received in relation to the application were summarised, being set out within the report, with objections from Framwellgate Moor Parish Council and noting no further objections from the internal or statutory consultees.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted objections from the Local Members to the application in its original form and in respect of the amended application there had been 19 letters of objection from local residents, one letter of objection from an existing business operating on the site, objection from the Pegasus Group on behalf of the Co-operative Group and objection from the City of Durham Trust.  She added that one letter of support for the application had been received.

 

The Senior Planning Officer concluded by summarising the benefits and potential adverse harm of the development in the context of the balance test under Paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF and noted that the recommendation of Officers was for Members to be minded to approve the application, subject to referral to the Secretary of State for consideration.

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and noted there were several speakers in relation to the application, he asked Councillor A Hopgood, Local Member, to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor A Hopgood thanked the Developer and Officers for their work in trying to mitigate many of the issues with the application in its original form.  She noted that unfortunately not all of the concerns had been addressed and reiterated the report in stating that the application represented a “major scheme” and reminded the Committee it was on the edge of another major retail scheme, which already generated a volume of complaints associated with traffic and lack of parking provision for employers.  She added that the site was within walking distance to a large housing estate, once the largest in Europe, and also the headquarters of Northumbrian Water Limited (NWL) and the Arnison Centre.  Councillor A Hopgood explained that the nature of the shops and development would mean that people would not walk to these shops, rather they would travel by car rather than travel on foot or by public transport carrying heavy or frozen food goods.  She noted this would create a huge influx of cars and was contrary to the Council’s own regulations in terms of 267 parking space, below the requisite level of 277 and this, together with the requirements of 80 staff parking, would likely lead to parking on the housing estates nearby similar to the experience of other nearby developments, citing an example where residents only parking was having to be implemented as a result. 

 

She noted that the Developer had ignored requests to put in a footpath link at the back of the site to allow those that worked at NWL and the industrial estate to access the site without having to use their cars to do so. 

 

Councillor A Hopgood noted that if the Committee were minded to approve the application, she would ask that consideration be given to the starting time for development works, given the close proximity of park homes for those aged 55 years and older, with 7.00am for 7.30am start being unacceptable and added that a strict construction management plan (CMP) should ensure that those properties would not suffer from the vibrations and detrimental effect from construction and construction traffic.  Councillor A Hopgood noted that there were at least four empty units at the Arnison Centre that could accommodate such additional shops, with another likely to become empty shortly.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor A Hopgood and asked Mr Jonathan Rainey from the Pegasus Group to speak in objection to the application on behalf of the Co-operative Group.

 

Mr J Rainey thanked the Chair and noted the Co-operative Group had two stores within local retail centres at Newton Hall and Framwellgate Moor, approximately one kilometre away from the application site.  He added the Co-operative Group only objected to applications where it was felt there were legitimate planning reasons affecting local shops and services, those which provided facilities especially for those without access to a car or public transport.  He noted that the COVID-19 pandemic had highlighted the benefit of such local provision and noted that the effect of trade division on smaller retailers, often operating on a knife edge, could be large adding the Co-operative Group having predicted a potential trade diversion from its stores resulting from the application in the order of 15 percent in respect of its store at Newton Hall, in the context of the cumulative impact, including the Arnison Centre.  Mr J Rainey noted that it was felt the application should be refused as the proposals were contrary to national planning policies in paragraphs 85 to 90 of the NPPF and also in conflict with Saved Local Plan Policy S1A which seeks ‘to protect and promote the vitality and viability of all centres within the local retail hierarchy of the City of Durham area’ including the local centres of Newton Hall and Framwellgate Moor which were identified on the proposals map.  He concluded by noting that if the Committee were in any doubt as regards the impacts of the development, they should at least defer the application in order to obtain an independent review.

 

The Chair thanked Mr J Rainey and noted Mr Phil Malyan, a local resident, had registered to speak, however had submitted his apologies.  The Chair asked if the Senior Committee Services Officer, Ian Croft could read out the statement on behalf of Mr P Malyan. 

 

The Senior Committee Services Officer noted the statement from Mr P Malyan read as follows:

 

“I have submitted far more detailed objections formally, as have many others, but for summary purposes, I would ask Committee Members to consider the following submission from myself.  There are three objections that I wish to highlight today, and they are as follows: Objection 1 – Insufficient public consultation; Objection 2 – Highways issues are not resolved by access from Pit Lane; Objection 3 – Insufficient weight has been given in the report by officers to the impact of the Highways issues.

 

Objection 1 – Insufficient public consultation.  Although there are five paragraphs out of 204 paragraphs in the committee report outlining some objections but not in detail, (85 - 89), there is insufficient weight given to the objections, which is unsurprising given the lack of communication.

 

a.       Since the neighbour notification notice issued to potentially affected parties on 16 October 2019, there has been no contact with me by Council officers to discuss the scheme.

b.       I wrote to the Council on 4 June 2020, to point this out and never even received an acknowledgement.

c.       Since the beginning of 2020 alone, there have been 14 amended drawings submitted by the applicant, 11 additional comments by statutory consultees and five new pieces of supporting information from the applicant. There has been no further public consultation on these new documents.

d.       The advice on gov.uk regarding public consultation in planning matters states “Following the initial period of consultation, it may be that further additional consultation on changes submitted by an applicant, prior to any decision being made, is considered necessary.”  I believe that, given the volume of changes made, this should apply here, and further public consultation should have taken place.

 

Objection 2 – Highways issues are not resolved by access from Pit Lane/ Finchale Road.

 

 

 

 

a.       Clearly this development is meant to be a mini Arnison Centre, in the officer’s words” a major retail scheme” (para 201) and benefit from its proximity. For this development to be workable, access to it should be from the roundabout off Abbey Road, either alongside the footpath adjacent to Northumbrian Water or by driving past the Pulman garage and through the small warehouse site, both of which already have large lorries accessing commercial premises.

b.       There is no indication that this option has been explored in the same detail as the rest of the proposal.  I do not know why this has not been carried out, it has not been explained anywhere.  It would seem to me that a “major retail scheme” requires some major access for large delivery lorries and the general public.  The current proposals are insufficient for this.

 

Objection 3 – Insufficient weight has been given by officers to the impact of the Highways issues.

 

a.       The projected increase in traffic has not been adequately presented in the body of this report.  I have carried out visual surveys of traffic entering and leaving the site using the current access on a variety of different days since this application was made, some 9 months ago. Usually there is a total of between 30 and 40 vehicles either entering or leaving the site between 9.00am and 4.00pm on weekdays, even less on a weekend.  Table 6.7, page 39 of the Transport Assessment Plan shows “vehicle trip generation” of 2,556 vehicles each Saturday between only 11am and 3pm. 

b.       It is worth noting here that this is a closed site with only one way in and out by car or lorry onto Finchale Road.  After hours, high metal gates are locked to prevent anyone accessing the site.  Lorries occasionally come and go by remote access to the gates.

c.       The document submitted by the applicant shows that the site will have vehicles coming and going starting at 5am and up to midnight. (JN1888-Rep-0001.2 Transport Assessment 20 September 2019) A total of 3,768 journeys by vehicles entering and leaving the site each day, (i.e.1,884 vehicles) including 410 between 2.00pm and 3.00pm when school traffic backs up already along Finchale Road as St Godric’s School and Framwellgate School come out.  Even with traffic lights, there will be substantial delays on the road, and within the retail park.

 

 

 

 

d.       This projected substantial increase from about 40 a day, coming and going, to 3,768 a day, nearly 100 times more, is not reflected in the Council report submitted, and provides sufficient evidence for the application to be rejected by the Committee, as along with other factors, this means the development will not meet NPPF objectives, in the way described, for the reasons below:

(i)      NPPF Part 8 Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities – “Developments should be safe and accessible”  

Answer - The highways issues, even with traffic lights and pedestrian assistance, will not meet this

(ii)      NPPF Part 9 Promoting Sustainable Transport – “Developments that generate significant movement should be located where the need to travel will be minimised”

Answer - This location is unsuitable without different access.

(iii)     NPPF Part 11 Making Effective Use of Land - Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.

Answer - The increase in traffic on Finchale Road by 100 times will not be conducive to an improved environment or safe and healthy living conditions for the general public”.

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Committee Services Officer for reading the statement of Mr P Malyan and noted the supporters registered to speak in relation to the application, Mr Jonathan Wallace of Lichfields, representing the Applicant and Mr Nigel Cook of Elddis Transport.

 

Mr J Wallace noted that since the initial application submitted in September 2019, there had been a lot of close working with Officers from the Planning Department and a number of changes made to the application, as noted by the Case Officer and Local Member, Councillor A Hopgood.  He noted this included the removal of the drive thru restaurant, amended layout to minimise impact on adjacent residents, a revised, more efficient car park layout and new vehicular access arrangements to meet the requirements of the Council’s Highways Team.

 

He added that the proposals represented an improvement to the visual aspect from Pit Lane and would provide significant benefit to the community, with many positive comments in this regard from residents at the consultation stage.  In addressing comments from Councillor A Hopgood, Mr J Wallace noted that car parking levels were pretty much in line with policy and were agreed by Officers. 

 

He added it was felt there was need to strike a balance in terms of the provision of parking for the development, the generation of traffic and provision of pedestrian access.  In terms of the potential impacts of the construction phase, he noted that the Council’s Environment Health Officer had required a condition that restricted the hours of operation, no earlier than 7.30am on a weekday with a 8.00am start on Saturdays, with no works on Saturday afternoons and no works on Sundays.  Mr J Wallace explained that in relation to the public right of way at the north-west of the site and providing access to the application site, there was an area of land owned by a third party and also creating a link would require a route across a service yard which would not be acceptable in terms of security and health and safety.  In respect of the objections from the Co-operative Group, Mr J Wallace noted he strongly disagreed with their comments and suggested they were a commercial objection and should not be given significant weight, referring to the impact assessment as submitted as part of the application.  He concluded by noting that the four proposed units were under offer and could provide 80 FTE jobs and construction jobs that could help with the post COVID-19 recovery within County Durham.

 

Mr N Cook noted he was the Managing Director at Elddis Transport, a local family owned road haulage and warehousing business company based in Consett, owners of the application site since the late 1970s.  He added the business employed 320 staff, 260 in the North East, 170 being based at Consett.   He noted the use of the application site had reduced in more recent years and was not required by the business for operations, with a number of units having been let, however, the units were now of an age and in poor condition and at the point of significant investment or redevelopment.  He added the units generated sub-market levels of rent on short-term flexible lease arrangements adding little to the wider business in commercial terms.  He explained that the site had been looked at in terms of redevelopment for the business, however, it was concluded it was not viable and the location and proximity to residential properties was not suitable in terms of access by large heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and warehousing machinery.  Mr N Cook noted after various approaches over the years it had been agreed to sell the land to the Applicant, subject to obtaining planning permission.  He noted that the proceeds from the sale would be reinvested in the company, including at the headquarters in Consett and noted Elddis staff from the application site could be redeployed and more jobs could be created at the site, 80 FTE, together with wider public benefits.  He concluded by noting he hoped the Committee would support the application.

 

The Chair thanked Mr J Wallace and Mr N Cook and asked the Committee for any questions in relation clarifications on the report or issues raised.

 

Councillor S Wilson asked for comments from the Highway Development Manager in relation to traffic and signalisation.  Councillor F Tinsley asked the Officers’ view in relation to the potential impact of the application, given the assessment within the application and provided by the Co-operative Group being at odds.  The Chair added he would appreciate clarification from Officers in relation to the issues associated with the proposed footpath link.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted there had been extensive discussions in terms of the potential footpath link.  She noted a footpath link had not been included within the application for the reasons stated by the Applicant’s agent and was listed as an adverse impact, however, Officers considered the site performed well in all other regards therefore did not have significant concerns in relation to its locational sustainability.  In relation to the start time for construction, she referred to Condition 25 set out within the recommendations which restricted works in line with standard Council conditions.  She added that Condition 7 required a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to be submitted to and agreed, and this would seek to mitigate any adverse impact during the construction phase and therefore Officers considered the conditions as being appropriate.

 

The Highway Development Manager, John McGargill noted the issue of 267 proposed parking spaces, with 4 such units individually requiring 277 spaces.  He explained that a lot of the generated traffic would in fact already be on the highway network and people could be also visiting other nearby shops when visiting the proposed development and the shops within the proposed development itself.  He noted a consultant was asked as regards a parking accumulation model and traffic modelling was informed by trip generation.  He explained the modelling predicted the potential of 0.4 percent each Saturday for overdemand for parking, a low likelihood.  He referred to the nearby Arnison Centre, where parking saw peak demand during “high days and holidays” and added that if developments were built to meet those types of demands the car parks would be very large and in general not be full and would impact on developments.  In reference to the comments received from Mr P Malyan relating to  gaining access to the site from the roundabout, he noted this was not possible as this would be via third party land. 

 

 

In terms of the volume of traffic, the Highway Development Manager noted that the Council had insisted on the addition of a traffic signal junction to manage the arrivals and departures from the development and had been proposed at that specific location to allow for queues of vehicles to managed as per modelling, a maximum of thirteen vehicles, this model including background traffic.  He added that in terms of Highways it was felt a robust approach had been taken, modelling had been taken from first principles where vehicles had been considered as new to the road network where in fact many would already be on the road network.

 

Councillor S Wilson asked as regards the current use of the site and the proposed use of the site and if the number of HGVs accessing the site would be comparable.  The Highways Development Manager noted that was correct and that the current uses would equate to use should the site become a retail centre.

 

The Principal Policy Officer, James Cook noted that Councillor A Hopgood had referred to four empty units at the Arnison Centre and noted at the time of the application there had been three vacant units and the Applicant’s assessment in terms of the sequential test had shown those units were not of sufficient size to accommodate the scheme and those conclusions were accepted.  In relation to the comments made on behalf of the Co-operative Group, he clarified the Applicant had provided an impact assessment in terms of the local centres where the Co-operative stores were located and Officers agreed with the assessment in that there would not be significant adverse impact with those stores meeting the top-up demands of shoppers in those local centres.

 

The Chair thanked the Officers and asked the Committee for their comments on the application.

 

Councillor A Laing noted, after careful consideration of the report and the comments made by all parties at Committee, that there was a need to look at the development plan and she noted Officers had stated that the proposals were technically contrary to policy.  She noted, however, that looking at all material concerns, there was significant employment associated with the proposals over and above those already existing on site and while the requirement to relocate existing businesses was regrettable, Business Durham had not objected to the application and therefore they must have felt the relocation would be possible and added that the net increase of employment was a positive and a material planning consideration. 

 

She noted the concerns that had been raised in terms of highways and also noted the response provided by the Highways Team in terms of parking and highway safety and felt that while there may be some occasions where the development could lead to local impacts upon the highway she did not feel that it would be so significant to resist the scheme.  She also noted the comments of Officers and the report in terms of retail impact and was satisfied that impact on City Centre traders would also not be significant and noted she had been pleased to see amendments to the application had been made to lessen the impact on adjacent residents.  Councillor A Laing concluded that, on balance, the Committee had been provided with an application that contained a number of significant planning benefits of the redevelopment of an aging site with a significant net employment gain and felt Members should support the application as a departure from planning policy and moved the Officer’s recommendation for approval.

 

Councillor M Wilkes noted he would firstly like to thank all the Officers involved with the application over the last nine months, especially the Senior Planning Officer and the Highway Development Manager for their work with the Developers in improving the application.  He noted the removal of the drive thru restaurant and the additional of the signalised junction were very good and welcomed, adding that without those amendments he would not have been able to see any positive balance.  He questioned whether the amendments that had been made were sufficient and noted he felt there were three issues to consider.  He explained the first issue was that of sustainability, with the parking provision being less than the County Council would normally recommend, however, it was not by a significant number and therefore would not warrant refusal by itself.  However, he felt there was an additional consideration to be made in terms of the western boundary, around 100 metres long, where there was a public footpath.  Councillor M Wilkes explained the footpath was next to the headquarters for NWL and other businesses where around 1,000 people were employed.  He noted that given that fact he felt it was shocking that the Applicant had been unable to include a footpath link to the public footpath despite repeated attempts by Council Officers to encourage this. 

 

He noted that it would not only allow access on foot by the workers within the area, a footpath link would also allow residents from Pity Me to be able to access the site, reducing additional traffic impact.  He felt that on those grounds alone the application could warrant refusal and added that he felt it went against the Council’s climate change goals, reduced the sustainability of the site and would increase highways issues.  He noted the Developer had said it was not possible to create the link on safety grounds, however, there would be access to the area for staff with 16 car parking spaces being provided. 

He noted that in terms of the protected area, Councillor M Wilkes noted he had spoken to the Council’s Ecologist and they had noted they were not against any link if it was provided in accordance with the rules, rules Councillor M Wilkes noted the Developer would need to be adhere to when developing the rest of the site.  He noted there was a 100 metre boundary and added the Developer was unable to provide a two metre access on to this footpath, adding this was not acceptable and the application therefore not sustainable.

 

Councillor M Wilkes noted his second concern was the impact on the viability and vitality of the local shopping centres, including Durham city centre, noting that the report set out at paragraph 125 that the cumulative impacts of the application would be a 9.2 percent hit to retail in the city centre.  He noted this was a pretty significant amount and the analysis by the Co-operative Group had noted an impact of up to 15 percent at Framwellgate Moor and Newton Hall, both areas having empty shops in addition to those empty properties previously mentioned at the Arnison Centre.  He noted that there was nothing within the application being offered in terms of a financial contribution to help mitigate the impacts in these local centres.

 

Councillor M Wilkes noted the largest proposed unit was for a food retailer and he noted no objection to this use on the site.  He added that when coupled with the other three units the cumulative impact upon the city centre and other surrounding shopping areas was too great, especially in the current uncertain retail environment.  He noted the third issue he had with the application was the removal of prime employment land, which could after some reconfiguration of the site as a business park to provide high skilled jobs, likely in the region of the number put forward by the Applicant.  He noted there was reference to an oversupply of business land within the County, however, he noted the report failed to note there was not such availability on this side of Durham should a business which to relocate to a business park.  Councillor M Wilkes noted the businesses currently on the site had not been contacted to see if they needed help and one business owner had been extremely concerned as regards their business.  He added that he had spoken to some commercial agents and one had noted that they received around ten enquires each week as regards the only other business park in the area. 

He noted that the site was identified for business use within the emerging County Durham Plan (CDP) and the report had noted Business Durham had not made a submission.  Councillor M Wilkes noted he therefore had spoken to Business Durham and they confirmed there was no other land allocated for business this side of Durham city centre and there was a significant shortage of smaller business units, under 5,000 square feet, across the entire county. 

He noted that the CDP states the site is for employment land for business and light industrial use and added that therefore the application was not only in breach of the current Local Plan it was also was going to be in breach of the emerging CDP.  Councillor M Wilkes noted that if the application had included access for the thousands of employees at NWL and residents of Pity Me to the site he would had been more inclined to support the application.  He added if the application had been just for a supermarket with the rest of the site being redeveloped for business use, including for skilled jobs, he would have been more inclined to support the application, in addition to the lessened impacts upon traffic flow and the city centre and other retails centres from such an application.  He noted that despite the efforts of Officers to secure improvements to the application he felt that on balance he felt there were too many problems for the benefits to overcome them.  He explained that he had hoped the Applicant would have come back at a later date with an application that would not breach planning policies or the future CDP, protected high skilled jobs, provided pedestrian access to the rear of the site, did not create unnecessary car journeys and did not cause as much retail damage to the city and the surround retail offer.  Councillor M Wilkes noted for those reasons he would ask colleagues to refuse the application.

 

Councillor A Shield noted he shared some of the concerns as raised by the Local Members.  He noted that while we were not sure of the post COVID-19 impact in terms of online shopping, he felt that if there was a return to normal then the additional provision of services would mean more use of cars and greater use of the highways network.  He added that he felt not including a footpath link was a strange decision.  Councillor A Shield noted that paragraph 74 of the report set out there had been objections raised by the Durham City Business Improvement District (Durham BID) as regards the impact the proposal would have on Durham City.  He noted he had serious concerns and noted Councillor M Wilkes had made a valid point in terms of the loss of employment land and asked if it was right for the Committee to potentially ride over that roughshod.

 

Councillor S Wilson noted the assurances from Officers in terms of the highways issues raised and signalised junction and noted the issue of a footpath link across a service yard was the security for those businesses.  He noted on the basis of the additional employment provided through the application he was happy with the Officers recommendation.

 

Councillor J Atkinson noted he would second Councillor A Laing in supporting recommendation for approval.

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted he was not against development, however, he felt it was always important to take into account the views of Local Members, especially in terms of the impact in terms of traffic and also noted comparisons with Durham City, Bishop Auckland and Consett in terms of retail provision, with many empty shops in those retail centres.

 

Councillor F Tinsley noted the issue as raised by Local Members in terms of a footpath link and added that given there would be a requirement in terms of acquiring third party land, he could not see how it could be a requirement to have such a footpath link.  He noted the valid concerns as regards the potential impact on the city centre, however, upon looking at the types of businesses proposed: a discount food store; a frozen food store; a household bulky goods store; and a coffee shop, he did not feel these represented direct competition to the city centre offer and therefore the impact would be minimal.  He took the point as regards the loss of employment land in the area, however, he would encourage businesses to relocate to the other areas available within County Durham.

 

Councillor J Clare noted he had listened to the discussion with some interest and noted that he felt it would be very difficult to refuse the application in terms of transport, given the Officers noted that the application had met the relevant criteria.  He noted Councillor M Wilkes had a valid point when highlighting the proposed use for the site did not corollate with the proposed use within the emerging CDP, however, it was not a valid planning point to suggest alternative uses for a site, rather it was for Committee Members to consider the application before it on its merits, in this case to be considered under the balance test from Paragraph 11 of the NPPF and that for an application to be refused, Members would need to agree that the negative adverse impact demonstrably outweighed the benefits of the application.

 

Councillor I Jewell noted the responses from Officers in respect of issues raised by objectors and Local Members and noted that those Members may wish to pursue a footpath link if it would provide such benefit. 

 

Councillor M Wilkes noted the reason given of third party land on a proposed route, however, he reiterated that the site adjoined the public right of way along a 100 metre length and felt a footpath link could be designed safely within the site and Policy Q2 of the Local Plan in terms of design and accessibility and policies within the emerging CDP was relevant.  He added that the report was clear in noting a 9.2 percent impact upon the retail offer within the city centre. 

Councillor M Wilkes noted the 2.25 hectare employment land site did not have any comparable sites within the area.  He concluded noting he felt the points he had made were based upon planning policies and he would follow up as required.

 

Councillor A Bell noted the footpath link seemed to be a stand-out issue and wondered if there was any movement from the Applicant to reconsider.  He also noted that the Arnison Centre was a gem within County Durham and the application would help in terms of jobs, especially post COVID-19 and therefore he felt it was important to look at the employment aspect and the regeneration of the site to make it as presentable as the Arnison Centre.  He noted the businesses that would need to relocate and asked if Business Durham could step in to provide assistance.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development, Neil Carter noted that in terms of the footpath link, it was not possible to force the applicant to provide this, and they had stated that it would involve land they did not control.  He added that the Senior Planning Officer had noted the application was sustainable and the application before Committee for consideration did not include a footpath link.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved:

 

That the Committee were MINDED TO APPROVE the application subject to; referral of the application to the Secretary of State via the National Planning Casework Unit; and in the event of the application not being called in, the Head of Planning be authorised to approve the application subject to the conditions as set out within the report.