Erection of 5 No retail units, car parking, reconfigured access, landscaping and associated works.

By virtue of his declaration of interest at Minute No. 68, Councillor David Turner left the room during consideration of this item.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, she drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.  

Members had undertaken a site visit and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting.

Mr S Robbins, representing Bridgnorth Chamber of Commerce, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Mr M Cooksey, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Councillor David Cooper, representing Bridgnorth Town Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the 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) Councillor Christian Lea, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·       The proposal would mean the end and demise of Bridgnorth High Street and side streets.  Bridgnorth had a wealth of traders and businesses that were popular with local people and liked by those that regularly visited the town;

·       With regard to paragraph 4.1.2 of the report, he questioned whether the £2.0m figure quoted was actually realistic and considered it optimistic to expect that much clawback of trade leakage could be achieved as Bridgnorth could not be expected to compete with places such as Telford and Merry Hill;

·       He expressed concerns regarding the reduction in car parking spaces.  It was already difficult to park and more so on a Saturday.   Local traders may not always be able to afford to contribute to the current park and ride scheme; and

·       The scheme would cause congestion and pollution created by additional vehicle movements and delivery vehicles.  This could have a detrimental impact on the accessibility of emergency vehicles.

With the permission of the Chairman and due to the fact that additional speakers had been allowed to speak against the proposal, the developer was permitted to speak for up to six minutes.  Mr J Liggins, the developer, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees and responded to questions from Members.   In response to questions from Members of the Committee, Mr Liggins provided clarification on the potential impact on the Town, current parking agreement held between Shropshire Council and Sainsbury’s and why the DIY store covered by an extant planning permission had not been developed.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15) Councillor William Parr, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·       Residents, Bridgnorth Chamber of Commerce and Bridgnorth Town Council did not support the proposal;

·       Would have an impact on the viability of the Town; there was already sufficient shops on the high street;

·       Tourism footfall would fall;

·       Bridgnorth had recently become the winner of the 2016 Large Market Town award based on its current character; and

·       Would result in the loss of valuable car parking spaces and the retail units would generate further vehicle movements.

In the ensuing debate and having considered the submitted plans and noting the comments of all speakers, Members expressed differing views.  Some Members expressed concerns regarding the loss of car parking and considered the developer’s estimate that only 4.7% of trade would be lost from Bridgnorth town centre as being no more than guesswork with some suggesting that the impact could be higher.  Some Members acknowledged that the site fell within the development boundary for Bridgnorth and supported the proposal and suggested that it would provide increased retail choice and help to claw-back expenditure/trade lost elsewhere.

In response to comments and questions, the Principal Planner, Solicitor, Principal Policy Specialist Officer and Area Highways Development Control Manager (South) provided clarification on parking arrangements, the existing parking agreement, extant planning permission, the submitted Retail Assessment, the methodology for conducting retail assessments, national and local policy on retail development, future parking strategies and the Local Plan review.  Officers advised that the proposed reduction of parking spaces and a total trade diversion of 4.7%  could not be considered as one that would have a significant adverse impact and significant enough to warrant refusal.  Prior to being put to the vote, the Solicitor advised Members that if the Committee determine and wish to refuse an application contrary to the Officer recommendation, it may not continue to determine that application if the reasons to refuse might not be considered to be defensible if challenged and should be a “minded to refuse” decision.

RESOLVED:

That, in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Constitution, consideration of this planning application be deferred to a future meeting with Members minded to refuse the application for the following reasons:

The Committee acknowledges that the proposal would provide additional retail choice in Bridgnorth Town Centre, but the loss of car parking spaces and the uncertainty of the impact on independent traders in the Town Centre would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS15 and paragraph 27 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(At this juncture, the meeting adjourned at 15:50 and reconvened at 15:54.)