Agenda item

Site Visit: 10.45 am – 10.55 am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought a proposed retail unit with associated parking.

A site visit had taken place prior to the commencement of the Planning Committee, for Members as there were particular site factors which were significant in terms of the weight attached to them relative to other factors if they would be difficult to assess in the absence of a site inspection and there were significant policy or precedent implications that needed to be carefully addressed.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

The Business Manager – Planning Development informed the Committee that further representation had been received from residents after the deadline, there however were no new material planning reasons raised.

Members considered the application, the Business Manager – Planning Development confirmed that there was a formal boundary between the site and the neighbouring site.  Access onto Kirklington Road was raised as an issue as that area had three sets of traffic lights and was already a very congested area.  There was also a lot of pedestrian activity including primary school children and students walking around that location to the local primary and secondary schools.  It was therefore felt that the level of movement from this site from both vehicular and pedestrians would make the situation worse.  Kirklington Road was also a diversion route when the MARR route was closed, the junction to the proposed site was already heavily congested and the proposal was considered unacceptable.

A Member commented that small electric delivery vans should be used for these sites.  Sustainable drainage was also raised and whether a condition could be placed to ensure this was undertaken by the developer.  The Business Manager confirmed that Building Regulations would be a regulatory process for ensuring a degree of sustainable design in construction terms. Concern was raised that adding conditions for sustainable drainage features at this stage could be considered unreasonable unless the developer was in agreement.  These issues would ideally need to have been considered earlier in the planning application stage.

The number of car parking spaces, nineteen in total, was also considered too many for such a small area.  It was felt that it was not safe for pedestrians to safely walk into the store, pedestrians would be walking behind parked cars and inadequate lighting.  Members questioned why this scheme was prioritising car parking and less about pedestrian access and their safety.  Some Members also felt that the gate was important to prevent cars from parking in the car park, outside of the stores opening hours, which would ensure the car park was empty in order for the delivery vans to reverse safely into the car park.  Members felt that the safety issues of this site had not been addressed. Members were unconvinced that the previous appeal decision concerns had been adequately addressed despite the introduction of a pedestrian entrance from Kirklington Road.

A vote was taken and lost for approval with 1 vote For and 10 votes Against.

Councillor E Oldham having left the meeting and returned during the debate of this item did not take part in the vote in accordance with the Planning Protocol.

The motion to Refuse planning permission was moved by Councillor Tift and Seconded by Councillor Smith.

AGREED          (with 9 votes For and 1 vote Against) that:

                        (a)        contrary to Officer recommendation, Planning Permission be                                     refused for the following reasons:

               (i)         highways issues due to traffic congestion; and

               (ii)        vehicle and pedestrian concerns and conflicts.

                        (b)       the wording for refusal be delegated to the Business Manager                                     - Planning Development.      

In accordance with paragraph 18.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against Officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.