Agenda item

Minutes:

1.    V/2018/0221 - Erection of Retail Store with Car Parking and Landscaping -  Land Off Mansfield Road and Eastfield Side, Sutton in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire.

 

In accordance with the Council’s Policy for dealing with late matters in relation to planning applications (Minute No. D4.17, 1993/94), the Assistant Director for Planning and Regulatory Services gave a verbal report on additional comments received in relation to the application after the agenda had been finalised as follows:

 

The applicant had submitted a further email in support of the application. This explained that Lidl would not be making an offer on the Northern Bridge Road site as:

 

·         The site was not in a suitable location for a second store in the Town Centre and it would be detrimental to the turnover of the existing store.

·         Asda would not sell to a competitor, and had supported this with advice from a property agent (Frank Knight). Building a store that close to Asda would also be unviable.

·         Lidl had an immediate requirement in Sutton and works would commence early 2019.

 

The applicant contended that the Impact Test showed that the proposal was acceptable, the sequential test was passed and that the proposal would not affect amenity, design or transport. It was also confirmed that an offer of £100,000 had been made to mitigate the limited impact of the proposal and that Lidl planned to retain their existing store.

 

An additional letter of objection had also been received from a resident. This raised concerns over highways safety, sufficient retail stores already in Sutton-in-Ashfield, and that they would prefer bungalows to be built on the land.

 

Officer Comment in response:

 

The Council still contended, that Lidl’s failure to make an offer for the Northern Bridge Road site meant that the Sequential Test had not been passed.

 

It was noted that all the other issues raised by Lidl, and the resident, had been covered within the Committee report.

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at Planning Committee Mr Alan Jones of Asda Stores and Mr Matthew Williams of Williams Gallagher (objectors), Mr A Ranji (objector), Ms Julie White of Indigo Planning (agent for the applicant) and Ms Jo Hawley (the applicant), addressed the meeting.

 

Members of the Committee were of the of the view that while the store would have an impact on Sutton in Ashfield town centre and on the Outram Street local centre, the impact was not substantially adverse enough to refuse the application and could be mitigated by contributions to schemes outlined in the report. Members were also of the view that the proposed development represented an opportunity to develop a site that had been derelict for many years despite planning permissions for residential development being previously granted on the site that had not been brought forward to development.

 

It was moved by Councillor Wilson and seconded by Councillor Anderson, that against officer recommendation subject to a Section 106 contribution of £120,000 in order to mitigate the impact of the development on Sutton-in-Ashfield town centre and the Outram Street local centre that planning permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions being agreed between the Council as the Planning authority and the applicant as follows:

 

Conditions

 

1.    Development of the site to begin within 3 years of the granting of planning permission.

 

2.    A list of plans to be submitted before the commencement of development.

 

3.    A scheme of hard and soft landscaping to be submitted for approval.

 

4.    Noise mitigation measures, including an acoustic fence to be submitted for approval.

 

5.    Site contamination reports to be submitted for phases 3 and 4 for approval.

 

6.    Surface water and foul sewage plans to be submitted for approval.

 

7.    That no deliveries are made to the store after 19:00 Monday – Sunday.

 

8.    That five electric vehicle charging points are installed in the car parking area.

 

9.    That a barrier is installed at the entrance to the car park to prevent unauthorised access outside of store opening hours.

 

10.That details of the lighting scheme for the access footpath to be submitted for approval.

 

11.That details of the highways scheme for the access and egress on the site and other highway related matters be submitted for approval.

 

and for the Assistant Director - Planning and Services, in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee, to be delegated authority to determine any further conditions as deemed necessary in order to facilitate the delivery of the site.

 

 

For the motion: Councillors Anderson, Baron, Hollis, Griffiths, Madden, K Morrison, H Smith, M Smith and Wilson

 

Against the motion: Councillor Butler

 

Abstentions: Councillor Zadrozny

 

Accordingly, the motion was declared as CARRIED.

 

2.    V/2018/0408 - Erection of 4 Five Bedroom and 2 Six Bedroom Dwelling Units, (Class C4) within a Two Storey Block with Ancillary Car Parking and New Vehicular Access - Land at Junction of Outram Street and Park Street, Sutton in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire.

 

In accordance with the Council’s Policy for dealing with late matters in relation to planning applications (Minute No. D4.17, 1993/94), the Development Management Team Leader gave a verbal report on additional comments received in relation to the application after the agenda had been finalised as follows.

 

The applicant had submitted a statement to help address concerns that Committee members may have had about potential anti-social behaviour by residents of the proposed developments.

 

Members of the Committee were of the view that the proposed development with regards to its mass and size represented an over intensive development of the site which would create an over dominant presence in the street scene. Members of the Committee were also concerned that the proposed development had insufficient parking provision included for the number of dwelling units proposed which would create an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity or the residents of the surrounding streets where car parking provision was already very limited. Members were also of the view that increased amounts of on street car parking as a result of the development would have a detrimental impact on highway safety in the surrounding area.

 

It was moved by Councillor H Smith and seconded by Councillor Wilson that against officer recommendation planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons.

 

REASONS

 

1.    The Council considers the development would result in an over intensive development of the site with an adverse impact on the street scene and a lack of off street parking provision which would lead to parking on the adjacent highway, thus causing detriment to highway safety. There is a school at the end of Park Street, a cul-de-sac with restricted turning space and parking, the proposal would therefore result in the potential to exacerbate the conflict between pedestrian and vehicular movements and add to further indiscriminate parking within the area. It would therefore be contrary to saved Policies ST1 a), b), c); HG5 c), f) and g); and HG8 b), d), and g) of the Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002 and parts 9 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

For the motion: Councillors Anderson, Butler, Hollis, Madden, K Morrison, H Smith, M Smith, Wilson and Zadrozny

 

Against the motion: Councillor Griffiths

 

Abstentions: Councillor Baron

 

Accordingly, the motion was declared as CARRIED.

 

3.    V/2018/0262 - Outline Application for A Maximum of 24 Apartments and Associated Works

 

It was moved by Councillor Wilson and seconded by Councillor Baron that consideration of the item be deferred to the next meeting of the Planning Committee to enable officers to have discussions with the applicant regarding details of the proposed scheme.

 

For the motion: Councillors Anderson, Baron, Butler, Griffiths, Hollis, Madden, K Morrison, H Smith, M Smith, Wilson and Zadrozny

 

Against the motion: None 

 

Abstentions: None

 

Accordingly, the motion was declared as CARRIED.

Supporting documents: