Erection of Class A1 convenience store including ATM with dedicated external servicing, refuse and plant area, associated car parking and landscaping.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 88, Councillor Dean Carroll left the room during consideration of this item.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, proposed site plan and elevations. 

Members had undertaken a site visit that morning 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 which detailed further public objections and comments of Shropshire Council’s Public Protection (Specialist) in response to a request from the agent to allow greater flexibility in respect of the delivery times. 

Mr G Heap, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The proposal did not take into account the impact on the surrounding area;

·         Would create on road parking which would be unsafe and dangerous;

·         Highway Safety – The entrance gate to the site which was opposite his property was currently permanently locked to prevent large vehicles using this entrance;

·         Traffic – A convenience store would result in increased traffic, which would include large/small delivery and collection vehicles;

·         There was no turning facility in Tilstock Crescent, which would cause further congestion;

·         Noise – Type of delivery vehicle would result in increased noise levels and, in addition, there would also be noise from industrial fridge/freezer motors and users of the store; and

·         Would have a negative impact on the retail provision in the area.

Ms R Childs, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The aim was to keep the public house open and for both businesses to work in conjunction with one another;

·         Had undertaken a car parking survey and the car parking provision on the site would exceed the local saved policy requirements;

·         There would be two deliveries per day and would be prepared to accept a condition regarding a Service Delivery Management Plan;

·         Highways had raised no objections;

·         The Co-op was satisfied that there was sufficient demand for a further store in this area;

·         Would create employment; and

·         Would be in accordance with policy and would be a beneficial development on an underdeveloped and used site.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor Ted Clarke, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         Concerned about the increase in traffic that would be generated as a result of this development;

·         This was a residential setting and the proposal would impact on the residents of Tilstock Crescent; and

·         Concerned about over-provision of retail space and there was a vacant unit on the opposite side of the road.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor Jane MacKenzie, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement and withdrew from the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         There had been 200 objections from local residents;

·         The existing nearby Co-op store was struggling, several units in the Parade were empty and she questioned the need for a further store in the area;

·         Traffic – delivery lorries would be turning into a residential road and next to a bus stop and there was a potential for deliveries to be unloaded at unacceptable times;

·         She requested that the delivery hours as set out in Condition No. 7 in Appendix 1 to the report be adhered to; and

·         Public Nuisance – there were already three off-licences within 100 yards of each other and this additional store could have a detrimental impact on the local community and anti-social behaviour.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules (Part 4, Paragraph 6.1) Councillor Jon Tandy, as local Member, participated in the discussion but did not vote. During which he raised the following points:

·         There had been a high number of objections to this proposal;

·         This was a residential area and the residents would now be looking out at a brick wall;

·         Would result in an increase in on road parking in a residential area;

·         Noise – there was already noise from car boot sales and other events and extractor fans and delivery lorries would exacerbate this issue;

·         There were empty units close-by;

·         The proposed store would be in direct competition with an existing nearby store.  Both stores would not be sustainable so would not create new employment;

·         What would happen to the Post Office if the existing Co-op store closed;

·         Would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS15; and

·         If approved, would like to see reduced opening hours and delivery times and no deliveries on a Sunday.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  In response to concerns and in order to protect the amenity of the area and protect the health and wellbeing of nearby residents, Members expressed the view that delivery times should be kept to a minimum and delivery times should remain as set out at Condition 7 in Appendix 1 to the report (Monday to Saturday 07:00-19:00, Sunday 08:00-13:00) and not as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters.

In response to concerns, the Principal Planner clarified that the weekend car park usage survey had not been undertaken on a football match day; the site operator could enforce private parking restrictions to protect the 11 parking spaces linked to the convenience store as is the case at Meole Brace Retail Park; the public house would not require planning permission if it wished to convert to an A1 Retail outlet; and reiterated that the combined level of parking space provision exceeded policy requirements. 

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted as per the Officer’s recommendation, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the report.