Agenda item

Change of use from industrial unit (B Class) to specialist pet food supplies (Retail) (Class E) (Retrospective).

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer for the change of use from an industrial unit (B class) to specialist pet food supplies (Retail) (Class E) (Retrospective) (for copy see file of Minutes).

M Sandford, Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the retrospective planning application that had been called to Committee by Councillor B McAloon who considered the use to be such that it could not operate in a town centre. 

The presentation included aerial photographs that showed the car park, site photographs that showed where the already occupied unit was located and that of the inside of the shop and floor plans and elevation of the unit.  There was a site visit that took place prior to the meeting.  The application did not adhere to policy 2 of the County Durham plan and safeguarded policy 9 that the business should be operated from a town centre.  There were no public objections made.

S Barker, Agent addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant in support of the application.  He appreciated that the application related to an existing use that was already in operation without giving rise to any practical problems for many months. He stated that the applicants did not realize that planning permission was required for them to operate in the unit and for that they offer their apologies. They thought they were not dissimilar to the other specialist retail uses found throughout the estate.  He noted that from the officer’s report and from the letter of support from the owners of the wider estate that this unit had been a difficult unit to let and the point was made that over the last 5 or 6 years it had been empty for longer than it had been occupied. The unit had not had a long-term stable tenant in it and if this application was refused, it was going to be an empty unit again with no jobs for local people, no business rates coming in, an empty waste of space. Unfortunately, the empty period did not count in terms of the planning policy as they lie just outside the policy timescales. Somewhat ironically if they had applied for consent before starting up the empty periods probably would have counted and it might have been policy compliant.

S Barker noted that if the applicants were forced to move out, they would not move to Festival Walk or anywhere else in the Town Centre as they needed a location where they could accommodate bulk freezers and where customers could get right up to the loading bays for bulk transfer of heavy dog food boxes. They were also aware that their healthy treats were great for dogs teeth and all dogs loved them but not all two legged people coped with the odour that was not everyone’s cup of tea and could be positively offensive to some.  The applicants had tried to explain this to officers but there was a reluctance to accept that they were not a Town Centre use. They would probably look for a rural barn conversion or farm shop type of location if forced, but really wanted to stay on the estate.  The landlord and other occupants wanted to keep them. There were quite a few other forms of specialist retailing on the estate, and they could not understand why they appeared to be singled out. 

He mentioned that dogs were allowed to be kept on the estate but could not supply their food from the same place.  It appeared no one wanted them to go, no one was harmed by their staying but there was a situation where potentially destroying a local start up business that was popular with lots of dog owners in the area, all because of a misplaced perception that they could be in the Town Centre which was being demolished in large parts. 

He added that Members had the discretion to make a pragmatic decision to retain the business and keep dog owners across the County happy or vote to close it down, taking enforcement action and destroy the business.  He hoped that Members were able to see the alternative potential and the joy and benefit of supporting the business to which there were no technical objections and which simply was not the right use for the Town Centre and urged them to set aside the officer recommendation in this special instance.

The Planning Officer stipulated that it was the only unit that had been occupied solidly for three years.  There was a requirement to show that the unit had been unoccupied for 2 years for the exemption in policy 2 to kick in.

Councillor E Adam referred to paragraph 43 in the report that related to the statement that had been provided by the freehold owners/managers of the site LCP Management Ltd that gave a history of the unit in that it had been difficult to rent in the past.  It appeared that it had been unoccupied for 4 years prior to the applicant taking over.  He questioned whether this was a real reason to refuse the applicant.  It was positive that the premises had been occupied for 3 years and operated that made use of the building and provided a service to the community.  He requested further details.

The Planning Officer clarified that the applicant had only occupied the unit since February 2022 and the prior business owner had operated for 2 years.

Councillor E Adam felt he could be swayed either way.  He noted that the business possibly would not fit in a town centre and did not know if there were other buildings that may be suitable.  He had heard nothing that would sway him to refuse the application.  It was a balancing act for members which was difficult.

Councillor J Atkinson did not like retrospective planning applications as he felt it should be completed properly in the first place.  He accepted the applicant’s explanation as to why the application was retrospective. It appeared to him to be a successful business and thought it would be just as successful in a town centre in the right place. 

J Jennings, Principal Planning Officer clarified that the unit had been empty from 2016 to 2020 then occupied from 2020 until Feb 2022 with the applicant then taking over the unit.  As the unit had been occupied for the last three years it did not meet the exemption criteria in Policy 2 of the Durham County Plan.  The unit had never been let out for retail use.   Similar businesses operated from within the Town centre as defined in policy 9 and the application was recommended for refusal on these reasons.

Councillor M Stead ran an accountancy firm that offered advise to small businesses and know how difficult different businesses were to run. He stressed that location was key and he did not feel that a dog feed business could operate successfully within a town centre. The unit was probably a low-cost option. He agreed with Councillor J Atkinson that he also did not like retrospective planning applications.  In this case it was negligible on the applicant’s part but they potentially did not understand the process.  He supported Councillor E Adam that the applicant was lost in paperwork.  He queried what could be done to support this.

Councillor N Jones asked what the business rates were for 2022.

J Jennings,Principal Planning Officer remarked that the question was irrelevant but did not have the information to hand.

S Barker noted that the previous business had maintained the business for a little while but then failed which was the reason he left.

Councillor J Quinn noticed that in the report the applicant claimed that customers bought products in bulk and questioned what the average weight was of the dog food.  He believed it would not be appropriate to carry heavy items down the high street if there was not nearby parking.

S Barker replied that the weight of products being bought would depend on each customer’s individual need but this could be in excess of 65 kg.

Councillor J Quinn agreed that feeding animals raw meat implied buying in bulk. 

Councillor M Stead moved to approve the application.  There was a high level of traffic, certain stock would not use large delivery vans and would not affect the business park.

Councillor N Jones was happy to second to approval of the application.

Councillor G Richardson also wanted to second the application to be approved.  His wife used a similar small business in St Helen that was not located in the town centre as people required access and items would be too heavy to carry back to their cars that would be parked a way away.  He supported approval of the application.

N Carter stated that the starting point was that Officers had found that the retrospective application conflicted with policy 2 and policy 9 of the Durham County Plan.  Members had to determine in accordance with the development plan unless there were material considerations which outweighed the harm arising from the policy conflict.  This was essentially a balancing exercise of harm v benefits. Members had referred to the economic benefits arising from the business and had expressed doubts as to whether it could function in a town centre location.  He suggested that if a decision was to be made to approve the application, it would be appropriate to attach a personal condition so that permission would be granted solely to the applicant and no future occupier of the unit. 

ThePrincipal Planning Officer suggested that if Members overturned officer’s recommendation that a condition should be imposed to restrict the use to the retail operation of the applicant therefore if the applicant left it would revert to the original use.  A condition could also be place on the opening hours.

Councillor E Adam had queried whether an alternate town centre property could be looked at between the original unit and the town centre that may be suitable.  However the suggestion was a new way to look at the application without deferring for a new application that was a sensible approach.

S Barker and the applicant were happy with the conditions that would be placed on the application if it was decided to approve the application. They also agreed to any restrictions that would be placed on the opening hours. 

Upon a vote being take it was unanimously:

Resolved

That the application be APPROVED as a personal permission and subject to a suite of conditions details of which were delegated to the Planning Officer.