Agenda item

Proposal:Full application for demolition of existing industrial unit (Unit 21) and the erection of a retail supermarket (use class A1) and a drive-through coffee shop/cafe (mixed use class A3/A5) with associated car parking and landscaping

Applicant: Standard Life Assurance Ltd.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in Agenda pages 93 to 130.

The Committee was advised that the Members’ Update included:

• Additional information regarding employment and traffic;
• Various amendments to the report;

·        Proposed updates to plan numbers in condition 2, 14 and 15;

·        Proposed amendment to condition 24 to clarify the floor space limit;

·        Proposed amendment to condition 28 to reflect a change to delivery hours following discussions and negotiations with the applicant.

Tim Marsh, resident, spoke in objection to the application.  He raised concerns about noise and litter and questioned the proposed delivery and opening hours and suggested that they be curtailed.  He commented on the visual impact of a long white wall, requesting it be changed to brick.

Simon Handy, Strutt and Parker,Agent, spoke in favour of the application.  He outlined the results of a survey they had carried out of residents and that the majority of responses had been positive about the development.  He commented on the measures taken by the developers to minimise the impact of the noise of deliveries by designing that these activities take place in away from Shepherd House Lane.  He stated that the existing property permitted deliveries and waste collection 24/7 and that the times referred to in the application represented a reduction of hours.  He stated that staff would be trained to maintain the site in regards to bins and litter and that trees would be planted to counter the effect of those removed.

The Planning Officer stated that the Environmental Health Team was satisfied with the application.  The opening hours were similar to those of comparable stores.   In regards to bins, the Council would have an expectation that bins would be provided on site but bins outside the site could controlled as part of the application.  He also stated that although the white wall referred to was of a slightly different character to others in the area, it was not such as to cause harm to the visual amenity of the area. 

Members raised questions as to whether it was possible to establish a distance from the outlet that would have to be kept clean and free from litter.  They also questioned what type of contamination was referred to in item 36 of the planning issues.

Officers stated that establishing an area outside the outlet that would need to be kept clean and litter free was not something that could be controlled through the planning application.  They stated that there was an Environmental Plan in place to deal with possible contamination.  In regards to access and deliveries it was pointed out that the plan offered wider aisles in the car park than required and that having the same entry for deliveries and the public was now a common feature.

RESOLVED: That application No. 161666 be approved, subject to the conditions set out on Agenda pages 93 to 113, with the amendments to conditions 2, 14, 15, 24 and 28 as set out in the Members’ Update.