Agenda item

Construction of an A1 discount food store with associated car parking and landscaping on the site of the former Imperial House. External refurbishment of Units 1 and 2.

Recommendation: Approval

Construction of an A1 discount food store with associated car parking and landscaping on the site of the former Imperial House. External refurbishment of Units 1 and 2.

Officers introduced the report and referred Members to the addendum sheet circulated. The application proposed demolition of the vacant single storey Imperial House and replacement with a building that would house a Lidl food store.

It was noted that the application was the resubmission of a similar scheme that had been refused permission in April 2014. This refusal had been based upon the likely impact on other retailers, highways issues and the lack of a legal agreement and flood risk plan. Officers advised that Members should focus on these issues when considering the application. It was also noted that the site was within a designated IBA. There was no bulky goods restriction at the site following a previous appeal and the principal of industrial use had already been established.

Approval of the application would enable vacant land, which was currently not contributing to the local economy, to be brought back into use. There had been significant changes since the refusal of the previous application. An updated retail impact assessment had concluded that the proposals would not have an adverse impact on the viability other retail centres. Issues in relation to highways were complex, but the key conclusion was that the development would not cause an unacceptable impact in terms of either traffic or safety. Overall, officers considered that the issues that had resulted in refusal of the previous application had been overcome to the extent that the current application was recommended for approval.

A number of additional consultation responses had been received from the public in relation to application, the majority of which were in support. At the time of publication of the addendum, there had been 54 additional responses received in support of the application and 4 against. A petition in support of the application was also presented to the Committee. While the petition had been received too late for formal consideration, it was noted that the petition contained 52 signatures.

Members expressed concerns that the parking at the site would not be sufficient, which could cause congestion in nearby roads. Concerns were also raised that there was a possibility that pedestrian safety could be compromised by delivery vehicles, given the proposed site layout. Officers advised that the site currently contained 85 spaces. The proposals would add 19 spaces to give an on-site total of 104. This was only slightly less than the forecast peak requirement of 116 parking spaces. It was also noted that the proposed scheme complied with the maximum number of parking spaces permitted for either retail or non-retail use, which would be 162. There was no minimum requirement. In relation to pedestrian safety, officers advised that the proposed Lidl store was of a standard format used in locations across the country and they were not aware of any serious incidents or safety concerns at these other locations.

In response to a Member question about disabled access, officers confirmed that there would be not be an impact as access was separate. Some Members remained concerned that the footprint for the site was too small for the proposed development. The Chairman reflected that while the Committee appeared to be satisfied with the proposal in principle, there were concerns about highways issues, particularly in relation to parking and traffic volumes. Officers advised that these concerns did not amount to strong planning grounds for refusal and that parking related issues were particularly difficult to win at appeal. It was questioned whether conditions could be used to require the applicant to manage traffic at the site. In response, officers advised that this would not be practical in this case.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed by six votes in favour to one against, with one abstention.

RESOLVED - That the application be approved as per the officers' recommendation, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report  and the addendum sheet circulated.