Agenda item

Erection of retail unit and associated parking court (amended plans received 07.03.22).

The Senior Planning Officer, George Spurgeon 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 Senior Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for the erection of retail unit and associated parking court (amended plans received 07.03.22) and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that there was no specific type given for the retail unit, though it had been intimated that it was likely to be a convenience store.  He noted a previous application in 1998 as regards demolition of 6 Front Street, with the land subsequently walled off and used as garden for 5 Front Street.  He noted that the applicants did not own all the land subject to the application, however, they had undertaken the required advertisement of the application, as part of the land was unregistered.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked Councillor C Fletcher, Local County Councillor and Parish Councillor to speak in objection to the application.

Councillor C Fletcher thanked the Chair and Committee and explained that while she could appreciate that the proposals looked to be acceptable in principle, with the land identified within the CDP for retail, there were serious concerns as regards the scheme from local residents.  She noted that Policy 9 referred to retail and looked at issues such as the vitality and viability of such development, together with other elements such as public safety.  She noted that the applicants had yet to clarify what the retail unit would be used for specifically and that was of great concern to local residents.  She noted the nearest property to the proposed development was residential and that the proposals would mean that one resident would lose access to being able to park his car and another access to his land altogether.  She added she felt the report had not adequately covered this aspect and there was a need for more discussions between the applicant and residents in terms of the needs of the community.  In terms of the potential use as a convenience store, Councillor C Fletcher noted she felt there was no need in the area, with the close proximity of the existing successful convenience store at 4 Front Street.

Councillor C Fletcher noted CDP Policy 29 referred to sustainable development and she felt that the proposals were contrary in terms of parking and deliveries.  She noted that it would be likely that delivery vehicles would use the main road, very close to a five-way junction, leading to traffic congestion.  She added that residents were concerned as regards potential opening hours, noise and light issues especially as the final use was not known.  She added if the proposals were approved then hours of operation must be controlled.  She noted that the Committee may feel that it would be appropriate to defer the determination, until the final use was known, and consideration was given to those residents that would lose access and amenity as a result of the application.

The Chair thanked Councillor C Fletcher and asked Alan Appleby and Chris Osborn, local residents to speak in objection to the application.

A Appleby noted he had kept horses on the adjacent land for over 20 years and the proposals would mean he would not be able to get access to allow him to provide hay for the animals. 

C Osborn noted the report had been pulled previously when he had spotted inaccuracies.  He noted the report did not refer to off-road parking for two cars, which would be lost.  He explained he would no longer be able to charge his electric vehicle and asked who he would claim compensation from.  He added there was still no idea as the intended use for the proposed retail unit or details of any lighting plan, noting rumours that the site would remain as a car wash.  He noted an e-mail from the Planning Officer as regards the widening of the access road and he noted he had responded to that e-mail, however, he had no further response from Planners. 

C Osborn explained that the land was unsightly as a result of the applicant and noted that previously the Council or residents had mowed the grass and kept the site clear and tidy.  He noted that the applicant was occupying land they did not own and had dumped a large amount of soil on the land.  He noted an incident of verbal abuse and added that A Appleby would lose vehicular access and would not be able to get a horse box or hay onto his land.  C Osborn noted the proposed access for the service yard was ridiculous, going across disabled parking spaces.  He added there would be vehicles having to reverse out on to the very busy main road, across a path used by many people, including children.  He concluded by asking that the Committee refuse the application.

The Chair thanked the speakers and asked Steven Karim to speak on behalf of the applicant.

S Karim corrected the position, noting the applicant owned the application site, explaining the applicant had bought the land in 2018.  He added there had been an application for a car wash, however that had been refused.  He explained as regards discussions with the Council and noted space had been left available for access to Whitwell House and also a few metres at the rear of the site for the other resident.  S Karim noted that the proposed use would be for a convenience store, the applicant already operating a successful similar store in Gateshead, showing a proven track record in that regard.

The Chair thanked S Karim and asked the Senior Planning Officer if he wished to respond to the points raised by the speakers.

The Senior Planning Officer noted the concerns raised by residents as regards any final use for the retail unit.  He noted that, notwithstanding the comments from the applicant, the recommendation within the report was for Class E use, though the exact goods to be sold could not be specified. 

He added that use as a car wash would not be permitted as this fell within another use class and any use other than within Class E would be subject to enforcement action.  He added that reference to another similar store nearby and potential competition were not material in considering the proposed use.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that opening hours would be set by Condition 17 being 7.00am to 10.00pm on Sunday to Thursday and 7.00am to 11.00pm on Fridays and Saturdays.  He noted these were similar to that of the nearby convenience store.  He noted that Condition 6 referred to external lighting and that details of which would be required to be submitted and approved prior to first use.  He added that noise from plant equipment would also be subject to condition, with the applicant having to demonstrate compliance. 

In reference to the comments relating to land ownership, the Senior Planning Officer noted a Land Registry Search from May 2022 noted ownership of a strip of land by another party, part ownership by the applicant, together with an area of unregistered land.  He noted that land ownership issue was a civil matter and not a material consideration in terms of planning.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that each application was assessed on its own merits and added that planning permission was attached to land and was not granted to an applicant as such.

The Principal DM Engineer, David Battensby noted the concerns raised by the Local Member and resident in respect of delivery vehicles and referred the Committee to Condition 18 within the report which set out that Servicing Management Plan would be required to be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority.  He noted the suggestion that there would not be sufficient space, however, that was incorrect.  He noted that the development plan showed a turning circle that did not go over the proposed disabled parking space, rather it was over the section of the road that would be marked with “keep clear” around the disabled parking space and therefore was acceptable.  In terms of reference to the proximity to the signalised junction at Dragonville, he explained that junction was around 180 metres to the east and there were already two access points to other service yards in between the application site and the junction.  He noted it was felt the proposals were acceptable, given the light additional volume the proposals would generate, the traffic calling in at the proposed store likely to be predominately already on the network.  He reiterated that the proposals were acceptable in highways terms.

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways), Neil Carter reiterated the points made by the Senior Planning Officer in that the land ownership and access matters raised were private law matters and not for the planning system to resolve. 

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

Councillor C Kay noted that any development of the land would be an improvement on the current situation.  He noted that the issues of land ownership were not material, however, he could not recall a full planning application where the final use of the proposed unit was not known, with the application appearing like an outline application, with a reserved matters application to follow.  He asked what the situation would be in terms of any different use and requirements for change of use application in future as required.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that Use Class E covered all retail use, for convenience store, clothing store etc., with the planning system not requiring that level of specificity.  He added that if the store changed from convenience store use to another Class E use it would not require a change of use application.

Councillor A Surtees asked for clarity in terms of the access, noting residents having noted access for over 40 years.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) reiterated that was not an issue for the Committee.  He noted there may be private rights, however, that was not an issue for Members to consider.

Councillor K Shaw noted the issue would be civil matter, however, the application would have an impact upon the residential amenity of those residents currently accessing their property.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that as a general proposition that was the case, however, it was difficult if framed purely on the impact on any right of way that may or may not exist.  Councillor K Shaw noted those residents affected would lose their currently enjoyed rights of access to parking and in maintaining horses.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) understood the point, however, it was not permissible to consider private law rights as amenity in order to come to a refusal reason, it was not for planning to enforce any such existing rights.

Councillor M Currah asked if there could not be some compromise in terms of the site layout in order to retain access for residents.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that the application before Members was that which was submitted and ultimately that was to determined, any discussions and agreement between the applicant and residents was for them as private citizens.  Councillor A Surtees asked if it would be appropriate to defer the application in order to have the access issues discussed further.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that the strict legal position was that as resolution of those access issues was not a requirement in terms of planning, there was no basis to defer determination.  Councillor A Surtees noted she thought that any agreement in terms of a private right of way could impact on whether an application goes ahead and is completed. 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that in some cases there were restrictive covenants in place and other issues that may prevent an application from being built out.  He noted that if planning permission was granted, it would not necessarily follow that the scheme could go ahead for a number of other reasons.  He reiterated that, however, those other reasons were not for the planning system to address.

The Chair proposed that the application be approved, he was seconded by Councillor LA Holmes, and upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions as set out within the report.