Agenda item

Change of use from car sales and repair (mixed use sui generis and Class

B2) to supermarket (Class A1), involving demolition of existing building and

erection of single storey supermarket building, associated car parking and

landscaping.

Recommendation – Refusal 

Change of use from car sales and repair (mixed use sui generis and Class B2) to supermarket (Class A1), involving demolition of existing building and erection of single storey supermarket building, associated car parking and landscaping.

Officers presented the report to the Committee and drew their attention to the amendments in the Addendum sheet.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting to the application addressed the meeting raising the following points:

• That as a local tradesman, owned a newsagent in Cowley Road and had lived in Chiltern View for 24 years
• Was speaking as a representative for the whole community as customers had suggested that he petitioned against the development
• Over 300 residents had signed the petition
• Concerned about increase in traffic from customers using the proposed development
• Concerned about the increase in queue lengths on Cowley Road
• Additional traffic would result in disturbances to residents
• Late deliveries to the development would result in further disturbances to residents
• The development would result in increased pollution and further damage to road surfaces, which were already in a bad state
• There were already 8 super markets within the area and the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the local community as well as local shops
• Suggested that the consultation process was limited.

In response to a question about where customers come from, the petitioner responded that customers walked to the shop.

The applicant addressed the meeting in support of the application and raised the following points:

• Had worked on the application over the last 15 months and officers had confirmed that the store would not have an adverse effect on existing stores
• There were no significant or wide range of convenience retail provision
• Was disappointed at refusal on highway grounds
• A proposal had been put forward to install full size right hand turn into the development which fully complied with Government Guidelines. This had been rejected and officers had not explained why
• That it was standard practice usually for 2 deliveries to all Lidl stores and this had been accepted on appeal
• Had discussed the issue of HGV access and egress, which the highways officer had concluded was acceptable
• Was surprised to receive last minute objection on 2 November 2010 about the proposed improvements to the traffic light junction at Cowley Road/Cowley Mill, which TfL had confirmed would lead to improvements
• Only just been informed 15 months later that the Council intended to re-phase the traffic lights
• That re-phasing of traffic light alone would fully mitigate traffic impact
• That S106 had been approved
• That of the 14,000 households that were consulted, 83% supported the application
• The development would stimulate economic generation by creating 30 jobs

In response to a query raised, the applicant advised that the proposed development would be a discount with 60 customers expected per hour.

A ward councillor spoke in objection to the application and made the following comments:

• Fully supported the objections to the development in this particular area
• The area was already suffered from severe traffic congestion
• Suggested that the Lidl store in Hayes was extremely busy
• That the 80% response from household did not give details of customer base and suggested that the majority of the respondents may have been based at Brunel University
• That turning would complete conflict with traffic entering and egressing on to the site
• A majority of vehicles would end up parking in the bus stop
• Expressed grave concerns about the impact on highway traffic the right hand turn lane would have
• Did not oppose such proposal but suggested that this location was not suitable for this type of development as the road width would not support buses or large vehicles
• Fully supported local shops in the community as the area would die without such facilities
• Business from the corner shops would be taken away by the proposed Lidl store which would sell items currently sold by the corner shops
• Urged the Committee to support officer’s recommendation for refusal.

The Chairman sought clarification from the Highways officer about suggestion from the applicant that they indicated that they were satisfied with the application.

The Highways officer advised that objections had been withdrawn on the plan relating to the access in respect of the amended radius to the egress.

Members’ attention was drawn to the Addendum sheet which set out the additional comments from the Highways officer in respect of the revised proposed drawing for the right turn lane at the site access.

The Highways officer advised that vehicles entering the site would require 5 to 6 car length into the opposite carriage way, which would result in the area becoming a conflict zone with vehicles leaving the site.

In response to a query that the UDP did not appear to set out how to protect local shops in the way PPS4 did; officers advised that PPS4 was a national guidance which protected town centres and not local providers.  The UDP Saved Policy was an intervention method to protect a parade by preventing the change of use from a shop. The applicant was not proposing to change the shop, but the main concern was that the proposed development would draw customers away from local shops.

Officers explained that the main emphasis of the different types of policies was not to look to protect parades, but to look at what the public would need.

A Member queried the suggestion that with only 4% of customer base coming from Yiewsley, the amount of loss would not be significant. Officers advised that they were required to look at competitive relationship, which in this case was between Lidl store and Aldi and ascertained where potential people would be coming from.  The analysis was then quantified and the outcome was the loss of the level of trade was 14% which would not result in loss of trade.

In clarifying the chart (attached to the Addendum sheet) outlining the degree of saturation of the performance of the Cowley Road/Cowley Mill Road junction in 2016; it was noted that even with the mitigating works proposed by the applicant, the degree of saturation would not be adequately reduced, which meant that the Council would not have a realistic chance of being able to achieve the required 90% reduction level by any further mitigation works, should the applicant carry out the works.

A Member asked what impact 60 cars per minute would have on the junction and suggested that officers did not appear to be satisfied with the transport assessment submitted.

A member added that should a new application be submitted, the Committee would require a noise impact assessment to be provided.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report, and amendments in and to the Addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

The Committee asked officers to write to the Appeal Inspectors stating the implication the approval of the Gas Site was having on the Borough, as a result of it having been approved on appeal.