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

By virtue of their declaration of interest at Minute No. 85, Councillors John Hurst-Knight and 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, proposed layout and elevations, existing layout and previous consent layout.

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

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

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.

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 was not supported by Bridgnorth residents; it would not enhance the local retail experience; there was already a wide variety of independent shops in the Town; and this proposal could have a detrimental impact on up to 20 independent retailers;

·         He reiterated his concerns regarding the loss of parking spaces.  It was already difficult to park and if there was less parking as a result of this proposal being granted shoppers would vote with their feet and go elsewhere.  Local traders may not always be able to afford to contribute to the current park and ride scheme;

·         Along with a possible increase in Business Rates and Brexit, this would exacerbate the pressures existing retailers already faced; and

·         Bridgnorth had recently been successful and had won an award in the Great British High Street competition based on what was there at this point in time.  Granting this proposal would do nothing to enhance the economic viability of the Town Centre.

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.  6840 persons had signed a petition against this development and the loss of parking spaces;

·         These units would generate the need for more parking.  There would also be a further impact on parking in the Town arising from any extra house building and loss of the Westgate car park;

·         Innage Lane Car Park – He questioned where HGVs would park if the HGV parking spaces were used for car parking on a Saturday.  Recycling was on the increase and the loss of the waste recycling facilities would impact on those who regularly used them; and

·         He urged refusal of the proposal.

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.

In the ensuing debate Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  If granted, some Members stressed the importance of displaying appropriate signage directing cars and pedestrians to and from Smithfield, Innage Lane and the Town Centre. 

In response to questions, the Solicitor provided clarification relating to the existing Car Parking Management Agreement and reiterated that as the Management Agreement was not a lease or tenancy, forfeiture would not apply.  The Principal Planner drew Members’ attention to the extant planning permission and what could be built, and commented that the proposal would provide more link-shopping.  She drew Members’ attention to the suggested conditions which would ensure appropriate landscaping/tree planting and prevent the individual units being sub-divided and reduced in size.

RESOLVED:

That, as per the Officer’s recommendation, delegated authority be granted to the Planning Services Manager to grant planning permission subject to:

·         The conditions as set out in Appendix 1 to the report; and

·         A Legal Agreement to secure a financial contribution towards increasing car parking capacity at Innage Lane and providing signage at Smithfield and Innage Lane to direct cars and pedestrians.