Agenda item

4 retail units (Class E), a tanning shop (Sui Generis), takeaway (Sui Generis) and ATM with associated access, car parking and landscaping (amended title).

The Principal Planning Officer, Jennifer Jennings 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 Principal Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for 4 retail units (Class E), a tanning shop (Sui Generis), takeaway (Sui Generis) and ATM with associated access, car parking and landscaping (amended title) and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Principal Planning Officer noted no objections from consultees, other than from comments from the Tree Section, noting loss of trees, but also noting the replacement trees within the landscape condition.  She added that there had been 19 letters of objection from members of the public, the main reasons being summarised within the report the main points raised including: impact on health as a result of additional hot food takeaways (HFT); impact on health from the proposed tanning salon; overdevelopment of the site; inappropriate development next to residential properties; anti-social behaviour (ASB), impact on air quality; highway safety; congestion, especially at school drop off and pick up times; night time use of the car park and EV charging; and greater disruption than the previous use a car showroom.  The Principal Planning Officer noted Praxis Real Estate, owners of Peterlee Town Centre had objected to the application noting they felt the sequential planning test had not been carried out correctly and that the application did not meet with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) or national planning guidance.  She noted there had been 52 letters of support, however, they were not from addresses in close proximity to the development and all appeared to be of a similar pro-forma letter style.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Stuart Box, local resident, to speak in relation to the application.

S Box thanked the Chair and noted he was, alongside the next speaker, representing the local residents who were in objection to the application.  He explained that the former garage at the site had operated Monday to Friday, 09.00 to 17.00 and with shorter opening times at a weekend.  He added those hours, and the nature of the business, had meant minimal disruption to neighbouring properties.  He asked Members to note, in contrast, the proposals for 24 hour, seven days a week operation, with EV charging and a cashpoint.  He explained he believed the impact on traffic, especially at school times had been underestimated, and reiterated the points raised by residents in their objection letters, that there was simply no need for additional HFTs, and noted the Officer’s report and presentation had set out that had the proposals been for HFTs alone, and not as part of mixed development, then any HFT application would have been refused under policy.  S Box added that he did not feel that was right, and neither was the inclusion of a tanning salon.  He noted the development, being all retail, would attract ASB, as evidenced by other retail centres in the town, such as at the ASDA and McDonalds, especially at the weekends.  He noted a recent stabbing at the former college site within the town centre and highlighted the issues with security faced by retailers in the town.

S Box added that there would be unreasonable noise and odour from the proposal from bins and plant equipment and highlighted the proposals were too close to residential properties.  He added that heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) delivering to the site would present a danger in terms of highway safety.  He reiterated that the vast majority of local residents objected to the proposals, with those in support simply having filled in an online proforma, noting they did not even live in the local area.  He noted that one local family had recently moved to the area from next to the Co-op store in Shotton, to get away from noise and ASB.  He concluded by noting that the focus for Peterlee should be to redevelop the town centre and not on this proposed development on what he felt was the wrong site.

The Chair thanked S Box and asked Tony Foster, local resident, to speak on the application.

T Foster noted that the photographs within the Planner’s presentation did not give a true sense of how close the houses to the rear of the application site were to the proposed development.  He noted that residents were first aware of the proposals six weeks ago when a sign was erected, without permission, as regards ‘development coming soon’.  He added that therefore many residents would have felt, from looking at that signage, that development was already approved, rather than was still at the planning permission stage, and therefore would not have submitted any objections as they felt the decision was ‘cut and dry, done and dusted’. 

T Foster explained he had serious material concerns as regards the proposals and reiterated that the ‘so-called’ supporters of the application appeared to be all from a website with a pre-drafted script.  T Foster explained that it was known nationally, and within the North-East and Peterlee specifically, as regards the problem of obesity and therefore it beggared belief that such a proposal was recommended for approval, being not in alignment with the policies of the Durham Health and Wellbeing Board or County Durham Plan (CDP) and against the principle of fighting to combat early mortality.  He noted the food that would be offered at the proposed HFTs would be high in saturated fat and carbohydrates and the food, especially from Cooplands, would be the worst possible type for children.

T Foster noted that in terms of traffic, he felt there would be considerably greater volume than anticipated, and he felt it would just be a matter of time before someone was killed, with three roads coming together at the junction.  He reiterated that there was a lot more traffic along Passfield Way than was being referred to.

The Chair thanked T Foster and asked Nicola Crowley, Agent for the applicant, to speak in support of her client’s application.

N Crowley explained that the proposals would help bring a vacant site back into use, providing a neighbourhood style retail development to allow top-up style shopping, with a Sainsbury Local on site.  She added other occupants would include Cooplands and also a veterinarian practice, a welcome addition to the services within Peterlee.  She explained that the sequential planning test had been correctly applied, as the development was on the edge of town.  She explained that such developments required that type of mixed retail to be developed collectively, rather than disaggregated as suggested by the owners of the town centre in their objections.  She noted that the site had been vacant for a considerable amount of time and that having an occupied site would in fact help provide a natural surveillance and reduce ASB.  She added that the uses for parking and EV charging were not such that would generate ASB, and noise and odour from the development would be in line with the agreed noise/odour impact assessments submitted, which were considered satisfactory by Council Officers. 

N Crowley added that, in terms of highway safety, a Transport Consultant had been engaged and a Road Safety Audit had been carried out.  She noted that, following the submission of the conclusions to the Council, the Highways Section had offered no objections to the application.  She added that the proposals were sustainable, with only partial demolition required at the site, reducing the use of new materials and noted that locally sourced materials would be used in the construction required. 

She noted the energy efficiency measures that would be put in place, including the high efficiency insulation, advanced glazing and air source heat pumps for all but one of the units, Dominos, which by nature of the business required a gas supply.  She reiterated that the proposals were policy compliant, would bring a vacant site back into use, had no objections from technical consultees and therefore she would ask that the Committee approved the application, as per the Officer’s recommendation.

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

Councillor C Kay noted he did not have personal experience of the site, however, the starting position for most people would be that they did not want a takeaway next door to their property.  He added he found it hard to believe that the site passed the sequential test, with no sites closer to the town centre being able to accommodate the proposals.  He noted that, as the proposals were within 300 metres of a school, if the proposals had been simply for a HFT, then the application would have fallen flat.  He noted, however, as mixed use then it was deemed permittable.  He noted it was the first time he had heard of such a mixed-use development and asked how was that ok, adding he felt that if it was permittable, it was deeply flawed.  He explained he was always generally very supportive of sites being regenerated and generating employment opportunities however, he would like to hear more from other Committee Members before coming to a conclusion on the application.  He reiterated that allowing HFTs within 400 metres of a school, just because it was in a mixed-use development, seemed absurd.

Councillor J Elmer asked if there had been any comments, within those received from Durham Constabulary, as regards any incidents of ASB associated with the site being derelict.  He also asked, through the Chair, how confident the developer was in terms of being able to secure those businesses as described.  The Chair asked if the Agent, or one of the applicants present could respond on the latter point.  Neil Creenlay, one of the applicants noted that end users were signed up, simply being subject to approval of permission at Committee.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that in terms of the sequential test, the applicant had been required to show availability of any suitable town centre units.  She added that none of the units within the town centre were of the appropriate size for the larger units within the proposal.  She noted that it had been looked at in terms of whether it would have been possible to break up the uses over the town centre and it had been shown to not be possible.  She added that the proposals were for a local retail offer, for top-up shopping and for uses where it would not be reasonable to go into the town centre.  She reiterated that Officers felt the application was policy compliant. 

In respect of HFTs, the Principal Planning Officer noted that Policy 30 clearly related to A5 use only as standalone proposals, with the supporting text following the policy clarifying that it would not apply to sui generous or mixed-use developments and therefore it would not be possible to recommend a refusal on that policy, with the HFT elements being part of a larger development.  She noted that Officers had initially sought to remove the HFT element, however, upon assessing the details of policy 30 and receiving legal advice on this, it was confirmed that based on the policy wording and supporting text, it would not be appropriate to request its removal from the scheme or uphold a refusal on that basis.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the response from Durham Constabulary’s Police Architectural Liaison Officer had related to design suggestions to help prevent ASB only and had put forward no objections, nor comments on any issues at the site currently.  She noted that Planning Officers had not noted any issues when attending the site or preparing photographs for Committee.

Councillor L Fenwick noted she was a Member for Peterlee and had been consulted upon the application as part of the process.  She noted that the original plan for Peterlee, as a new town, had included local sets of shops to provide such local retail.  She noted that she felt the development would enhance the area, bringing a derelict site back into use.  She added that the inclusion of a veterinarian practice would be a useful service and she could not see any negatives to the scheme.  The Chair noted that having responded as part of the consultation, Councillor L Fenwick may need to leave the chamber while the application was decided.  The Legal Officer, Planning and Highways noted that having set out her position within a consultation response, Councillor L Fenwick should declare an interest and leave the chamber.

Councillor L Fenwick left the meeting at 10.09am

Councillor D Oliver noted he had attended the site visit and his overwhelming impression was of a derelict site that was that it was a real scar on the area and he would be concerned if it continued to impact the overall streetscape of the town.  He noted that therefore he saw the proposals as an improvement, and while he acknowledged the concerns raised as regards traffic, Highways Officers had not submitted any objections to the scheme.  He noted that the prior use had been a working car sales garage, with repairs, and therefore he did not have any concerns in terms of road safety.  He added that when looking at the wider economy, three would be the jobs generated by the new units, as well as during construction, all of which was positive.  In terms of ASB, he noted that a vacant site would be of more concern than an occupied one, and he noted that in terms of litter, it had been explained on the site visit that there would be plans in place and asked if that could be explained for the benefit of the Committee. 

Councillor D Oliver concluded by noting that he felt in general the scheme was a positive one and therefore he would move approval as per the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor J Elmer noted he shared Councillor C Kay’s concerns as regards the HFT policy not applying to mixed use development, and that the 400- metre rule only applied to A5 use.  He noted he understood the policy as explained by the Principal Planning Officer, however, he would say it was an issue to be flagged for the review of the CDP in due course.

Councillor J Elmer noted the proposals represented regeneration of a derelict site, included EV charging, air source heat pumps and reused materials and part of the existing structure, all good points for consideration.  He added he agreed with Councillor D Oliver as regards the importance of a litter picking regime, with such shops and HFTs being litter generators, a wider issue for the Council and residents across the county wherever there were such clusters of shops.  He added that therefore he was very pleased to hear as regards the condition relating to litter picking on site and within a radius around the shops, noting he hoped such conditions would be applied to these types of applications.  When looking at the impact upon the town centre, Councillor J Elmer noted that all were aware of the impact of large out of town developments on town centres, however, the scheme proposed was not of that scale and was within the urban outskirts of the town rather than outside of it.  He understood that it was to serve a more direct local market and therefore he felt it would not have a negative impact upon the town centre.  Accordingly, Councillor J Elmer seconded approval of the application.  The Chair noted that Councillor J Elmer was correct in terms of raising issues relating to Policy 30 when the CDP was to be reviewed.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the issue of litter picking had been discussed on the site visit, with a litter strategy having been received as part of the submissions from the applicant.  She noted that Condition 24 set out the requirements and noted that the latest strategy received removed the litter picking outside of the immediate area.  She added that Officers would look for that to be reinstated, and only once Officers were happy would the strategy be approved.  She added that this, being via condition, would allow for the option of enforcement if there were issues in the future.  She noted the comments from Members in relation to Policy 30 and HFTs to be looked at during review of the CDP in future.

Councillor C Kay noted the 52 letters of support being pro-forma and from people not in the direct area did not carry much weight.  He noted no objections from Highways and agreed with the points made by Councillor J Elmer in terms of it being a local retail offer.  He concluded by noting the issue of HFTs was one of a number that would need to be addressed when reviewing the CDP in the future.

Councillor A Bell noted he felt this was a difficult decision as, on the one hand, there were genuine concerns raised by residents and on the other a site that had limited use, the former use being a victim of the impact of car sales.  He noted that the site was an eyesore, having been derelict for three years.  He noted that the condition relating to litter picking was very good and asked if anything could be included in terms of recycling.  In terms of the highways issues, Councillor A Bell asked if there was any management plan relating to the car park, noting similar car parks in other areas often had barriers to stop people and cars gathering late at night.  He noted the proposed hours of operation, up to 23.00, and asked if there was any scope in relation to these as there could be impact upon children in bed in nearby residential properties.  He noted Officers had referred to suggestions from Durham Constabulary as regards reducing ASB and asked what they had suggested.  He agreed with the comments from other Members in relation to Policy 30 and HFTs, it was one to addressed when the CDP was reviewed.  Councillor A Bell noted the road leading to the site also went past nearby schools and residents had referred to a large number of vehicle movements, and asked if there was any scope for traffic calming measures to be brought in.

The Principal DM Engineer, David Battensby explained that the site itself would operate during school pick up and dropping off times, however, the majority of traffic going into the site would be passing trade.  He added that potentially there was some positive use for the proposed car park on site, enabling some parking for those on the school run, then walking from the site to the schools.  He noted that Passfield Way was a 30mph road and was one of the main arterial routes from the A19 into Peterlee town centre and therefore there was minimal opportunity for traffic calming measures, adding that the existing mini roundabout and signalled crossings were appropriate.  In respect of the car park, he noted that issues in terms of management would be for the developer, and for the Police if any problems.  He added that gating off the car park may have implications in terms of accessing EV charging and the cash point.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that Durham Constabulary had not referred to any specific ASB in their comments, their only comments related to crime prevention through design, such as controlling access to the rear of the units and ATM security.  She noted they had also asked that some proposed outdoor seating be removed, and their suggestions had been taken into account.  She noted the proposed hours of operation were those considered acceptable for the proposed uses, and were set out in condition, with Cooplands having an extra hour in order to begin cooking, again considered acceptable for the proposed use.  She added that noise and odour would be controlled, with conditions referring to those controls. 

In terms of the car park, the Principal Planning Officer noted that there was a condition for a car park management plan to be submitted and agreed by the Council prior to occupation, to included details of hours of operation.

Councillor A Bell felt that it would have been useful for Members to have those details relating to the car park to be able to consider and vote upon at Committee, rather than being in the hands of delegated authority. 

He reiterated his concerns in terms of unrestricted operation which could potentially be a nightmare situation, however, he took from the condition that the situation would be well monitored.

The Chair allowed S Box to raise a point.  S Box asked for clarification in terms of allowing a HFT within 400 metres of a school, contrary to policy.  The Chair noted he felt the point had been explained by the Principal Planning Officer, and Members were clear on the matter, that it did not apply to mixed use development.

Councillor C Kay noted Condition 24 referred to the litter management plan and suggested that, should the application be approved, a further application to remove Condition 24 may be submitted.

Councillor K Robson explained he had attended the site visit and felt the application site in its current state was an absolute mess and looked like a first-hand opportunity for ASB.  He noted he had not noticed any through access to residential properties from the site and therefore could not see any issues associated with parking on the existing estate to then access the proposed shops.  He noted that the proposals were similar to several in his area Newton Aycliffe, another post-war new town, with parades of shops within localities within the wider town.  He noted those facilities were, as previously described, handy for top-up shopping and for elderly residents.  He noted that he was not dismissing the concerns raised by the objectors, however, that was how he understood the application.

The Chair noted the application had been moved for approval by Councillor D Oliver, seconded by Councillor J Elmer and upon a vote being taken, it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED as per the conditions set out within the report.

Councillor L Fenwick entered the meeting at 10.32am