Agenda item

Former Castle Donington Library Delven Lane Castle Donington Derby DE74 2LJ

Councillor D Harrison was welcomed back to the meeting.

Officers presented the report, relating to retrospective planning permission for a change of use.

Parish Councillor Rogers was invited to make a representation on behalf of Castle Donington Parish Council and confirmed that they did not support the application and were disappointed to see changes to the building, landscape and the removal of trees. It was asserted that local residents are disappointed that the shop would seemingly be a permanent fixture. The meeting was informed that the site is next to a nursing home and a veterinary practice and there had been occasions where customers, deliveries and staff had parked inconsiderately and caused traffic problems. It was suggested that a parking management plan would be beneficial and issues around litter and rubbish not being cleared away was also raised. The Parish Council stated that they would prefer a refusal to this application, however it was suggested that if permission were to be granted, then it would be beneficial to put a parking management plan and also a plan for the storage of waste and litter in place.

Councillor A C Saffell was invited to make his representation as ward member and cited the need for a convenience store nearer to the new housing, as opposed to allowing an additional store to be sited at this location. It was asserted that the available floor space was smaller than that of the proposed store. The roller shutter door was also raised as an issue, as this type of door is not allowed in the conservation area in which it is situated and several similar properties had had applications for this type of door declined. He asserted that should the committee permit the application then there would be areas which need addressing as a proviso to this permission.

The Chair referred members to the conditions outlined within the report and invited officer responses.

Officers informed the meeting that they were unable to take enforcement action against a premises which had a live planning application underway. Officers advised the meeting that the issue around retail floor space was based on an old document and a new retail survey had been commissioned which did suggest there was now a need in the area. In terms of staff and customer parking it was acknowledged that this was possibly due to inconsiderate parking as opposed to insufficient parking for the development. As such this would be a matter for the store owner or affected private land owners to address.

It was confirmed that a delivery management plan would be agreed with the applicant, in terms of times of and how often deliveries happen. With regards to litter management, officers agreed to suggest this as an additional planning condition.

With regards to the HSBC bank, the applicant offered the front part of the bank, however this building is no longer available for part of the sequential test.

Officers responded to concerns with regards to the roller shutter door by advising that the policy on shop fronts does allow ‘see through’ roller doors in conservation areas provided that they are see through, which the doors in question were and therefore they would be permissible .It was noted that the colour did not meet the criteria and therefore the authority would ask that these doors be changed to green in order to match the shop front, as part of the planning conditions. It was also noted that additional tree planting was part of the conditions.

It was noted that the advertisements on the building front were cluttered but members were advised that this would be dealt with by a case officer as a separate issue and that this was not for consideration by the committee.

Member questions were invited. A member noted his disappointment that the authority had not been contacted by the applicant prior to carrying out the alterations.

Officers informed the meeting that the building in question was not a historical building and was on the edge of the residential area. A member suggested that the appearance of the building would be improved with sensitive landscaping and acknowledged the difficulty in reaching a decision in regards to this item.

A motion to permit the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation with, an additional condition relating to a litter management plan and the detail of the conditions be agreed in consultation with the ward member was moved by Councillor D Harrison and seconded by Councillor J Bridges.

The Chairman put the motion to the vote. A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure, with an additional condition relating to a litter management plan and the detail of the conditions be agreed in consultation with the ward member.