Agenda item

Ashfield House, Resolution Road, Ashby De La Zouch, Leicestershire, LE65 1DW

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.

Town Councillor P Zamani, on behalf of Ashby Town Council, addressed the Committee. He referred to a number of technical considerations as to why the application should be rejected including that the application would be contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan and would have significant detrimental impacts on Ashby Town Centre. He then requested that if the Committee were minded to approve, that a financial contribution towards the maintenance of Ashby Town Centre be attached as an additional condition of the S106 agreement, following the precedent of the contributions of Aldi and Tesco when they had built or extended stores very close to the proposed site.

Ms K Hall, objector, addressed the Committee. She referred to various technical considerations as to why she felt that the application was procedurally flawed, such as but not limited to non-compliance with policy EC8 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan. She stressed the impact of traffic congestion created by the proliferation of similar business in the area, which this development would exacerbate.

Mr R Huteson, agent, addressed the Committee. He stressed the close cooperation with Officers to develop the proposal, that Leicestershire County Council Highways were satisfied with the proposal, that the design would contribute to and enhance the site and the surrounding area, and that Environmental Health had not raised concerns on the grounds of either air or noise pollution. As for tangible benefits, the proposed development would boost the local economy, create up to 40 jobs at living wage or above rates of pay, and improve local shopping choice. He concluded that Members should approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendations.

Councillor M Blair-Park, ward Member, addressed the Committee. He was concerned with the increasingly grave problem of traffic congestion on and around Nottingham Road which had not been mitigated commensurately with development over the years. This was exacerbated by the fact that the site was near to several major road networks. The proposed housing at Money Hill would also contribute to further congestion. There were already three nearby grocery retailers. Multiple other uses for the building had been proposed by people within the community. The developer was consequently encouraged to seek an alternative site.

Members raised concerns that this was not the sequentially best site for the store and other sites on the Money Hill development should be explored further. The impact on the town centre in terms of loss of trade was also raised.

Members discussed the design of the proposed building and associated landscaping plan. Members expressed significant concern about the loss of frontage trees, that the existing award winning building would be demolished which could also adversely impact local residents in terms of noise and dust nuisance. Members also requested extra conditions be attached if the application was successful to remedy the landscaping damage that had already been carried out. Officers advised that Members should consider that the building was not currently utilised and at risk of dereliction; and that the positioning of different types and designs of building to highlight contrasts in different locations, as was proposed in this application, was a fairly standard development and design practice.

Members discussed whether securing a financial contribution from Lidl as part of the S106 agreement was possible, as had happened with other retail sites near to the site when they had opened/extended. Members were strongly in favour of such a contribution and discussed whether it could be spent on enhancement schemes in the town centre, the creation of cycle routes from the site to the town centre or perhaps both. Officers advised that section 106 regulations had changed since previous retail stores had been built or extended and worked up schemes must now be in place before a financial contribution could be requested from developers.

Members expressed concerns about existing traffic congestion issues in the area around the development and how this might be exacerbated by the proposed development.

Members suggested that residents of Ashby would likely support a new grocery retail at a different site in the town and made some suggestions of where it could potentially be located.

A Member said that, whilst there seemed to be many “common sense” grounds to reject the application, it was likely that these would not constitute material planning reasons. As such, the Committee should be wary that refusal of the application would likely be appealed by the developer.

As a result of the debate, the Chair asked officers about the possibility of deferring the application to further consider the concerns raised.

The Head of Planning and Infrastructure summed up the concerns the Committee had expressed as follows:

-          Lack of financial contribution towards town centre enhancements/cycle route links;

-          Design of the building;

-          Loss of trees and landscaping;

-          Whether the sequential test had been applied properly;

-          Had adequate marketing of the building for Alternative uses taken place; and

-          Impact on neighbour’s amenity during demolition of the building.

The Head of Planning and Infrastructure advised that he would raise these matters with the developer if the application was deferred, which in light of the issues raised, he was now suggesting as an option for members to consider.

In response to a further question about neighbours’ concerns about the demolition of the building, the Planning and Development Team Manager advised that the building could be demolished by the developers through a simplified consent process which could be outside of this planning application.

A Member requested that during the deferral period Officers contact interested parties about potential schemes where money could be spent if it was forthcoming. The Chair concurred.

The motion to defer the application was moved by Councillor R Boam 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 motion be deferred for the issues outlined above.