Issue - meetings

Variation of Condition 7 (Restriction on Sale of Goods) of planning permission ref. 2621/APP/2010/2407, dated 20-12-2010: Application for the variation of Condition 7 (to allow for the sale of pets and pet products (including food for non-human consumption)) of planning permission ref: 2621/APP/2010/1283 dated 14/09/2010: Sub-division of existing building to create 4 units, external alterations and associated works (including reconfiguration of car park.) to allow food and convenience goods (for consumption off the premises) to be sold from Unit C1 (formerly known as Unit C3).

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Variation of Condition 7 (Restriction on Sale of Goods) of planning permission ref. 2621/APP/2010/2407, dated 20-12- 2010: Application for the variation of Condition 7 (to allow for the sale of pets and pet products (including food for non-human consumption)) of planning permission ref: 2621/APP/2010/1283 dated 14/09/2010: Sub-division of existing building to create 4 units, external alterations and associated works (including reconfiguration of car park.) to allow food and convenience goods (for consumption off the premises) to be sold from Unit C1 (formerly known as Unit C3).

Officers introduced the application. It was noted that the site boundary within the report was incorrect and was verbally revised to include the area to the south, and an access road. It was also noted that a third Heads of Term would be added, in relation to a 5% project management fee, which had been agreed by the applicant.

Members asked about the shopping trolley park and noted that trolleys were occasionally left in the middle of the car park, and not within the trolley park. Members asked how this could be managed. Officers noted that there was an existing condition which could be strengthened.

Members also asked about parking management and suggested that a new food store would likely cause increased strain on the availability of parking. Officers clarified that the transport assessment showed that even in worst case scenarios, i.e., at peak times, there would still be spare capacity. The suggestion of time restrictions in the car park was noted. However, officers advised that the car park served a number of different outlets.

The Chairman asked about any nearby parking management schemes. Officers confirmed that the local area was well controlled - capacity was finite and there was heavily restricted on-street parking in the area. It was further noted that the current site had a shared car park, and was acknowledged that people often parked to visit more than one store. The Council did monitor parking situations in general, and parking far away was inconvenient for shoppers.

The Chairman noted that it was not unusual to have to wait for parking at peak times in other car parks, and that accordingly Members had to be fair and consistent in their assessment of this shared car park.

Officers noted that the retail park contained a gym, whose users may park for longer time periods. The Chairman commented that surely the applicant or landowner would consider parking restrictions should the need become apparent.

Members referenced the ‘sequential assessment’ contained within the report, and asked if this was conducted by the applicant or with the applicant. Officers clarified that this was conducted by the applicant and reviewed by officers. Officers had requested amendments and so more tests had been carried could. It was noted that it would be unreasonable to expect the new occupants to split into two separate stores.

Members also highlighted the need for the application, and officers noted that need was not a material planning consideration.

Members questioned the impact of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34