Erection of a new foodstore (Use Class A1), access, substation and associated car parking and landscaping.  (Report to Follow)

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application for the erection of a new foodstore (Use Class A1), access, substation and associated car parking and landscaping and confirmed that the Committee had undertaken a site visit that morning to assess the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area. Members’ attention was drawn to the information contained within the Schedule of Additional letters, a letter from Aaron & Partners on behalf of Aldi and a document from Plan A on behalf of Lidl.

Councillor John Sinnott, on behalf of Whitchurch Town Council spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Mary Yates and Gillian Hazelhurst spoke in support of the proposals, for a combined time of three minutes, in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees. 

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor Peggy Mullock, as local ward councillor, made a statement and then moved to the back of the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         The site was located outside the development boundary for Whitchurch, as identified in the Shropshire adopted SAMDev Plan;

·         The two allocated sites at Heath Road and Waymills were preferable;

·         The site was too close to a busy road and roundabout and not well connected to the town centre; and

·         The residents of Whitchurch would welcome a new food store, but not at the site currently proposed. 

Mr Anthony Crean QC on behalf of the applicant spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during his presentation the following points were made:

·         Mr Crean began by congratulating the Principal Planning Officer on preparing a fair and thorough report to Committee;

·         There were 47 towns within England with both an Aldi and Lidl, so granting permission for Aldi would not mean that the Lidl would close;

·         Increased competition would improve the shopping experience in Whitchurch;

·         Planning Officers had concluded that there was no breach of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);

·         There was no substance to the threat from planning consultants representing Lidl to commence judicial review proceedings should planning permission be granted; and

·         His advice was that a decision to refuse the application would result in a successful appeal with the possibility of a costs award against the Council.

During the ensuing debate, Members commented on how useful the site visit had been as it had enabled them to view the site within the context of the surrounding historic, rural landscape and particularly the canal as a non-designated heritage asset.  The Council’s Natural and Historic Environment Manager was in attendance and provided advice to the Committee.  Members of the Committee expressed concern at the location of the proposed development and the harmful impact on the town centre, the Principal Planning Officer (Policy) provided advice to Members. 

Having considered the submitted plans and listened to the comments made by all of the speakers, the majority of Members expressed their support for the Officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refusedin accordance with the Officer’s recommendation for the following reason:

The proposed development will have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre, albeit not a significant adverse impact, there remains an impact.  The site, taking into account the proposed shopper bus, is not well connected to the town centre to encourage linked trips and use of alternative means of travel other than the private car.  Furthermore, the application site lies in a historic and rural landscape context and the proposed development is considered to have an adverse impact on the significance of the setting of the non-designated heritage asset and an adverse impact on the immediate landscape. 

The heritage and landscape impacts are not considered to be overcome by mitigation offered by the proposed landscaping or finish material for the building.  Furthermore, these impacts, in addition to the impact on the town centre and the impact on connectivity are not considered to be outweighed by the public benefits of the development. 

As such the proposal is not considered to comply with the Development Plan Core Strategy policies CS5, CS6 and CS17 or with policy MD13 of the Shropshire Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), specifically paragraph 135.  In arriving at this decision the Council has used its best endeavours to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner to secure an appropriate outcome as required in the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 187.