Agenda item
23/00565/FUL: Change of use of land for parking of heavy goods vehicle (HGV) for a temporary period of 36 months including erection of fencing/gates and a mobile building
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Tuesday, 6th February, 2024 6.00 pm (Item 62.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 62.
Former site of the Stardust Nightclub, Beveridge Lane, Bardon
Minutes:
Former site of the Stardust Nightclub, Beveridge Lane, Bardon
Officer’s recommendation: Refuse
Having declared an interest in the item, Councillors J Simmons and N Smith removed themselves from the meeting during the consideration and voting thereon.
The Senior Planning Officer presented the report.
Ms H Binns, objector, addressed the Committee. She explained she was a representative from Greene King Brewery and was speaking on behalf of the owners of the public house next to the application site. She stated that the HGV access route through the public house carpark caused danger to life to the customers and the use of the site was not appropriate for the location. Concerns of noise were shared as well as safety for any pedestrian on foot in the proximity of the site. Ms Binns urged the Committee to refuse and to consider road safety, pedestrian safety, noise, and sustainability as reasons for refusal.
Mr N Rowe, objector addressed the Committee. He explained he was a highway consultant hired by Greene King Brewery to assess the use of the application site. He commented that the HGV movements through the carpark caused pedestrian safety concerns as well as damage to the carpark and insufficient manoeuvring space. It was noted that during his time on site he witnessed 10 HGV’s performing illegal right turns which lead to highway safety concerns. In his opinion, there was nothing that could be proposed by the applicant to sufficiently mitigate these concerns. He added that there was clear evidence to refuse the application on severe highway impact and safety.
Mr G Hutchinson, agent, addressed the Committee. He referred to the list of reasons for refusal but commented that there was no clear reason why the proposal was unacceptable. He explained that the business had been operating with no impact on the neighbours for four years and although it was undesirable for the neighbours, he felt it was not unacceptable in planning terms. He commented that there was no due regard given to the benefit of the site and stated that it was vital for the safety of HGV drivers to avoid parking in residential areas. He concluded that refusing the application would close the park and would show inconsistency in decision making.
Councillor K Merrie, Ward Member, addressed the Committee. He highlighted the regular complaints of residents, Greene King Brewery and the Parish Council in relation to highway safety at the access as it was clear it was not being used as intended. He also mentioned the unauthorised floodlighting and the fact it was currently operating without permission as the temporary permission had expired. It was noted that there had been multiple problems over the last four years in relation to highway and pedestrian safety and the use was incompatible with the public house due to the carpark users of the customers. He stressed that the business had a negative impact on the area and was unsafe, plus the site was not part of the strategic highway network so not needed on this site. He reminded Members that the National Planning Policy Framework refered to pedestrian safety for access and egress, and therefore urged the Committee to refuse the application.
The Planning and Development Team Manager addressed the matters raised by the speakers and referred Members to the update sheet which explained why the reasons for refusal put forward by Greene King Brewery could not be used.
In determining the application, Members discussed their concerns of safety, location and the impact on the local community and businesses. Advice was sought on the officer’s reason for refusal in the event the application was refused and was taken to appeal. The Legal advisor confirmed that there were no objections to the recommendations.
Further discussion ensued and the overall views of Members was that they were not in support of the application.
The officer’s recommendation to refuse the application was moved by Councillor R Morris and seconded by Councillor J Legrys.
The Chair put the motion to the vote. A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.
The motion was CARRIED.
RESOLVED THAT:
The application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Infrastructure.
Supporting documents: