Planning Committee 18 December 2017
PRESENT: – Councillor N Sherwood (Chairman)
Councillors Ogg (Vice-Chairman), Bainbridge, Collinson, J Davison, Glover, Grant, Kataria, Longcake, and Wells
Councillor(s) Briggs, Evison, Robinson, K.Vickers and P.Vickers attended the meeting in accordance with Procedure Rule 37(b).
The committee met at Civic Centre, Scunthorpe.
1856 DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS, SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH APPLICANTS OR THIRD PARTIES (LOBBYING) AND WHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS (IF ANY)
The following members declared a personal interest:-
|Member(s)||Minute||Application(s)||Nature of Interest|
|Cllr Briggs||General||General||Member of the Fire Authority|
|Cllr N Sherwood||1857 (i)||PA/2017/1449||Knows one of the objectors speaking at committee|
The following members declared that they had been lobbied:-
|Cllr Bainbridge||PA/2017/1449||1857 (i)|
|Cllr Briggs||PA/2017/1449||1857 (i)|
|Cllr Collinson||PA/2017/1449||1857 (i)|
|Cllr J Davison||PA/2017/1449||1857 (i)|
|Cllr Evison||PA/2017/1449||1857 (i)|
|Cllr Glover||PA/2017/1449||1857 (i)|
|Cllr Grant||PA/2017/1449||1857 (i)|
|Cllr Kataria||PA/2017/1449||1857 (i)|
|Cllr Longcake||PA/2017/1449||1857 (i)|
|Cllr Ogg||PA/2017/1449||1857 (i)|
|Cllr N. Sherwood||PA/2017/1449||1857 (i)|
|Cllr K. Vickers||PA/2017/1449||1857 (i)|
|Cllr P. Vickers||PA/2017/1449||1857 (i)|
1857 (59) MAJOR APPLICATION – The Director: Operations submitted a report containing details of major applications for determination by the committee, including summaries of policy context, representations arising from consultation and publicity and assessment of the applications.
(i) PA/2017/1449 by Lidl UK GmbH and Hillcrest Garages (Sowerby Bridge) Ltd for planning permission to erect a foodstore (Use Class A1) and pub/restaurant (Use Class A3/A4), along with associated accesses, car parking, servicing and landscaping at land off Ferriby Road, Barton upon Humber.
The Group Manager – Development Management and Building Control updated the committee on the following areas:-
Third Party Responses:
- A number of responses have been received subsequent to the committee report being produced, as a result of additional publicity carried out on 1st December.
- 74 additional representations in objection to the proposal.
- 55 additional representations in support.
- Online petition in support with 410 signatures.
- Majority of responses reiterate previous comments. Many of the objectors disagree with the conclusions of the Road Safety Audit and the comments from NLC Highways.
- A number of responses refer to comments in Safety Audit regarding footpaths that appear to lead nowhere and should be removed. It is noted that these footpaths are used by the local community and in particular allow pedestrian access across A15 dual carriageway.
- Objection from Barton TC in respect of amendments only. TC consider that NLC Highways concerns regarding road safety issues and proposals for the access need to be addressed and deemed safe prior to the planning committee determines the application.
- Addendum to the Noise Assessment provided by applicants on 7 December in response to the questions raised by Environmental Health (EH) team. EH have reviewed this information and confirmed that it has provided the necessary clarification in respect of the noise assessment.
- On this basis EH have confirmed that condition 23, which required an updated noise report to be submitted, was no longer required. In its place they suggest a condition requiring the submission and agreement of the specification of the proposed acoustic barrier prior to commencement.
- They have also confirmed that, following this additional clarification, condition 26 should be varied to allow deliveries on bank/public holidays in line with condition 24 – opening hours of foodstore.
- Additional condition recommended by planning officer:
“Not withstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with our without modification) the net sales area of the Use Class A1 development shall not exceed 1,325 square metres with no more than 20% of the net sales area used for the sale of comparison goods”.
“To protect the vitality and viability of nearby centres in accordance with policy S8 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan”
Five objectors from Barton addressed the committee with their concerns, and in doing so referred to the petitions and online objections submitted as part of the consultation process. They covered the following issues:
The current Lidl store is accessible in the Town Centre by foot, and people will not walk up the hill to the proposed new store as it is too steep. This would lead to an increased dependency on the private car travelling to and from the proposed new store.
Highway safety/access –
They felt that the proposed new access was too dangerous, and the entrance and exit from the site would be unsafe and could potentially lead to more traffic accidents. A number of objectors stated that the A15 roundabout was a large, busy roundabout and adding more traffic to it could make it hazardous.
Impact on the town centre –
It was suggested that a new pub was not needed on the site as pubs in the town were already struggling, and independent retailers in town should be supported. They stated that building the supermarket on the edge of Barton would draw the footfall away from the town centre, and leave a big empty retail unit where the current Lidl was situated.
Loss of green/recreation space –
The objectors were very concerned at the loss of the recreation space that had been used for over 30 years by the community, and was regularly used for dog walkers and exercisers. They stated that there was plenty of brownfield land available that could have been developed rather than Top Field.
Design and virtual impact –
One of the objectors highlighted that the site was a key gateway at the entrance to a town of national historic importance, and the proposed development would destroy the scenic entrance to the historic market town. They felt that the glass design of the store would be an eyesore as the first thing people see when entering the town.
Amenity Impacts –
They indicated that the development would result in increased noise and litter in the area, and would have an adverse impact on the adjacent residential area. Noise from the delivery vehicles will be disruptive when servicing the site.
Ecological Impacts –
The main concern as part of the ecological impact was the loss of the mature trees as a result of the development, and the wildlife that would disappear as a result of their removal.
Drainage was also another concern they highlighted, and indicated that the proposed site had poor drainage. They stated that the site holds water and was very boggy after heavy rain and had the potential to cause flooding for properties lying downhill of the site.
Two representatives from Lidl, and three members of the public from Barton spoke in support of the applicant and in doing so highlighted the following issues:-
The two Lidl representatives stated that they had been trading in Barton town centre successfully for 20 years, and the demand was continuously increasing. However, with the current store being in a conservation area it had become heavily constrained and difficult to manage the demand without expanding, with restricted delivery times on a Sunday. He highlighted that the Ferry Road site would be a much more suitable location, creating more jobs, and allowing for further investing in the town centre through the vacant shop units. The agent referred to the extensive consultation that had taken place to achieve the most suitable site, access, and that no other site on the edge of the town could accommodate the proposed store. He also referred to the letters of support received, the officer’s report recommending approval, and the fact that the scheme met local and national policy.
The three residents made reference to the following points in support of the application:-
The proposed development was exactly what a growing town such as Barton needed, with the population expanding and the services need to do likewise. They stated that the current provision was not enough services for the level of housing built in Barton.
In addressing the committee they highlighted it was time the won had something new, and could not understand why people were opposed to it. One speaker stated that the development would make use of a piece of land that was not used to its full potential. They felt that Barton was left behind in comparison to other towns in the area, and it would be great for the local economy. Creating new jobs, and bringing new people to shop in the town.
The local ward members Councillor’s Evison, K. Vickers and P.Vickers spoke at the committee, and whilst doing so indicated they were not totally against development in the town, more the site it was to be situated on. They stated that they had received a great deal of opposition from residents opposed to the use of Top Field. Along with the site being inappropriate, they also had highways and access concerns on a busy road.
Cllr J Davison having listened to all the speakers and said that if the application was to be approved then he would like to see the condition change to enforce construction be completed within 12 months of commencement. That would be in order to protect the resident’s quality of life, and reduce the disruption caused.
Members of the Planning Committee commented on the application and the concerns, and asked questions of clarification to the Highways and Drainage Officer’s, whom responded accordingly. Cllr Bainbridge also sought clarification that there was no other site in Barton appropriate for the development, and Cllr Glover asked for confirmation that there was no tree preservation orders on the trees at Top Field.
Councillor Collinson had concerns about moving shops out of the town centres, and the long term effects it can have. However, stated he did see the need for expansion and the restrictions on the current town centre store. He felt the highways concerns highlighted during the meeting would not cause any problems, and therefore supported the officer’s recommendation to approve the application.
Resolved – That planning permission be approved in accordance with the recommendations contained within the report, with the amendment to the following condition:
The development must be begun before the expiration of one year from the date of the permission.