Agenda item

The Committee will be requested to consider an application for planning permission,

details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Committee considered planning application 19/0149 seeking planning permission for the erection of a single storey retail store with 21 car parking spaces and associated vehicle access and service access from North Drive including loading bay, service yard, external plant area with associated landscaping and boundary and service yard fencing.

Mr Shaw, Principal Planning Officer, provided the Committee with an overview of the application and presented an aerial view of the site and the site layout, location and elevational plans.  He also provided supplementary information from the highways engineer received following publication of the update note.  Mr Shaw provided a summary of the history of the site in terms of planning, advising that the second application approved in 2017 for eight houses was still valid. He advised that the last application submitted in November 2018 had been recommended for refusal for three reasons which included the availability of sequentially preferable sites, adverse impact on existing local centres and impact on the character of the street scene.  The applicant had subsequently withdrawn the application prior to it being considered by the Committee.

The application had subsequently been revised and Mr Shaw reported on the key changes from the original application.  The changes included a reduction to single storey, a reduced number of parking spaces, access to the site restricted to North Drive and a minimally larger floor space. The resubmitted application had been accompanied by a Sequential Test and Impact Assessment. The sequential test demonstrated there were no suitable available sites within the local centres or Cleveleys Town Centre following the intended occupation of the former Tesco store by another retailer. The Impact Assessment had indicated an impact on the local centres but in the planning officer’s view and following advice from the Council’s retail consultants, it was not considered that the impact would be sufficiently significant to justify refusal.  In the planning officer’s view the requirements of Policy CS4 of the Core Strategy had been met.  Mr Shaw referred to the Highways and Pedestrian Safety/Servicing and Car Parking Provision as detailed in the officer’s report that illustrated the Head of Highways and Traffic Management’s view that the proposed development was not considered to have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.  Mr Shaw also referred to the design of the development that had sought to address previous concerns regarding the visual impact on the streetscene.  With regards to the impact on the amenity of nearby residents Mr Shaw referred to the opening hours which were considered standard for this type of store, an acoustic fence along the eastern boundary of the site and a condition that could be attached to the permission if granted to restrict the delivery hours and size of delivery vehicles.  He advised that there had been no objection from Environmental Protection and no issues had been raised by them regarding the noise impact assessment submitted by the applicant.

Mr Shaw concluded by referring Members to the suggested amendment to proposed condition 6, restricting the display of goods and an additional proposed condition to restrict the use to food retail only.

Ms Hardman, member of the public, spoke in objection to the application and highlighted the proximity of other food retail outlets in the vicinity and her view of the availability of other sites within the area.  Her main concerns included her view of the impact of the proposed store on the local shops and the local community, health and safety concerns from the increase in traffic, including heavy goods vehicles, increased parking issues and the potential for anti-social behaviour.

Mr Armstrong, the Applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application and highlighted a number of changes that had been made to the resubmitted application to address previous concerns.  In his view the current application accorded with both local and national policy and presented a sustainable development in the form of a retail store that respected the local environment, provided job opportunities and an investment in the local economy. He referred to his view of the lack of sequentially preferable sites and lack of significant impact on local centres. He indicated the applicant’s willingness to agree a servicing strategy if required.

Councillor T Williams, Anchorsholme Ward Councillor, spoke against the application. He presented his concerns regarding the information in the traffic report which included the lack of information regarding the speed and flow of traffic on North Drive.  He also highlighted a number of road traffic accidents that had occurred. His main concerns with the proposed development included the impact on local residents particularly in relation to the potential loss of a local store, increased traffic and parking issues and he also questioned the benefit of the store for the local area and the siting of it in a predominantly residential area.  He also referred to the representation received from the Headteacher of a nearby primary school that raised concerns regarding the proposed development.

Councillor Galley, Anchorsholme Ward Councillor, spoke against the application.  He referred to a key objective in the Council’s Local Plan to promote sustainable and safe neighbourhoods and highlighted a number of anti-social behaviour incidents at other locations, including at another Co-op store, and raised concerns at the potential for similar incidents to occur at this location should the application be approved.  Further concerns related to the level of parking provision and the impact this could have on on-street parking, an increase in traffic flow, highway safety and a significant adverse impact on the local shops and local community. He also reported his view of the unsuitability of the area for the proposed development.  In his view the application, if approved would undermine the key objectives of the Council’s Local Plan.

Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management, clarified that there were no suitable alternative sites that were currently available.  He also reminded the Committee that there needed to be a significant adverse impact on local centres and severe impact on the level of traffic to justify refusal.  Mr Shaw highlighted that the site was in a sustainable location and the level of parking was close to the maximum standards.  He also reminded the Committee that anti-social behaviour, the use of the car park for other purposes and licensing were not planning considerations.

The Committee held an in-depth discussion on the merits of the application and considered the representations made at the meeting. Members concluded that the application, if approved, would have a significant adverse impact on the existing nearby local centres and an adverse impact on the local community through the potential loss of community facilities.  Members also considered that the proposed development would increase traffic, particularly in relation to heavy goods vehicles which would have an adverse impact on highway safety.

Resolved:  That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Appendix in the minutes. 

Background papers:  Applications, plans and replies to consultations on the application.

Note: 

1.      Prior to the consideration of the above item, Councillors Hugo and Owen, having declared a prejudicial interest, left the room and took no part in the discussion or voting on the application.

In the absence of the Chairman, Councillor O’Hara, Vice-Chairman, chaired the item