Agenda item

Bottesford Filling Station, Grantham Road, Bottesford

Applicant:     PDRH Limited:- Peter Dunn

Location:      Bottesford Filling Station, Grantham Road, Bottesford

Proposal:     Proposed retail convenience store, associated external works and access alteration.

 

(a)  The Development Manager (LP) presented the report and stated that:

This application is a full application that seeks permission for a proposed retail convenience store with associated external works and access alteration.

The store would be single storey and would provide a retail sales are of 282 square metres and would also have a staff area, wc, office and chill stores. 

The building would be steel framed with cladding finish and red facing brickwork.  The unit would have a pitched roof with an eaves height of 3.8 metres and ridge height of 6.8 metres.

Since the publication of the report, the applicant has requested that members are made aware of the legal opinion that has been produced from No 5 Chambers and this has been circulated accordingly.

One further objection has been received since the report published and the objector has requested this be circulated to members of the committee, which again this has been done.

The objection makes reference to the impact of the proposal on existing facilities, which is largely covered in the committee report however it uses the phrase significant adverse impact and risk of closure being increased, however no evidence has been submitted to the LPA to demonstrate that existing businesses will close as a direct result of this application.

Overall it is considered that the proposed retail unit would be sited within a sustainable area providing a local service for the village, create employment and would reuse previously developed land, as such the proposal is considered to be complaint with both local and national policy including recent revisions and is recommended for approval with a slight amendment to condition 11 that rewords the opening hours to include Saturday and Sunday not just Monday to Friday.

 

The Assistant Director of Strategic Planning and Regulatory Services read out a statement from Cllr Chandler, the Ward Councillor:

 

(b)  Alan Gough, on behalf of the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Impact assessment states that the forecast for the store will draw 20% of turnover from Melton, however the transport from Bottesford to Melton is not good

·         Competition from Bingham etc.

·         Impact assessment gives no information on trading data for other businesses such as the butchers and greengrocers

·         No evidence to back up details such as 50% of people will be people passing adlib

·         Bungalow adjacent to the right of the site have problem with tree on site. This is not on the original plan however the write up states they are to be taken out

·         Traffic concerns

 

A Cllr asked if residents were in favour of the proposal or not.

 

Mr Gough stated that most are not against the application but have concerns on access and parking.

 

A Cllr asked if the opening hours of the garage were a problem.

 

Mr Gough stated that they were not and that a shop will be quieter than a petrol station.

 

(c)  Amy Cockayne, objecting on behalf of the Co-Operative Group, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Adverse impact on viability and vitality

·         Not sound or objective assessment

·         Council has not sought further independent advice on assessment

·         Underestimation of turnover of the proposed supermarket by 70%

·         Unrealistic expectations of the ability of the proposed supermarket to draw expenditure back to Bottesford

·         Lack of consideration of the trade diversion from the central supermarkets

·         Contrary to National and Local Planning Policies

·         Out of centre location

·         No quantitive need for additional floor space within rural areas

·         Impact on village centre

 

A Cllr asked if the assessment had included the new homes to be built in Bottesford.

 

Ms Cockayne stated the applicant’s assessment had been reviewed.

 

(d)  Christian Hawley, on behalf of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

·         Risk Impact Assessment supplied and updated sequential test undertaken

·         No preferable sites in the centre of the village

·         Polices in emerging Local Plan complied with

·         No adverse impact on village centre

·         No alternative assessment supplied from Pegasus Group

·         No sequentially preferred sites

·         Traffic is not be people coming from Melton but going to Melton to do shopping – this provides an alternative to shop locally

·         Brownfield previously developed land

·         Delivers employment and brings site into use

 

A Cllr asked what the importance of the extra hour is if opened from 6am-11pm instead of 7am-10pm.

 

Mr Hawley stated that it allows for morning set up, more efficient business and traffic movements would be minimal.

 

A Cllr asked if these hours were usual for equivalent shops.

 

Mr Hawley stated that it was dependant on the location and trading patterns.

 

A Cllr asked what time the lorry movements would be.

 

Mr Hawley stated that there could be a condition on delivery if this was a concern for local amenity.

 

A Cllr asked what time delivery would be made for fresh products and whether residents would be woken by reversing beeps.

 

Mr Hawley stated that this is dependant on the business and can be restricted if there are concerns. Products will not be delivered on HGV vehicles.

 

A Cllr noted that there is a difference between risk and direct impact.

 

A Cllr asked for clarification on whether it is the officer’s job to check the validity of a risk impact assessment, or if it is up to the objectors.

 

The Development Manager (LP) advised that it is a mixture of both.

 

Cllr Baguley proposed to defer the application to gather further evidence on the other two stores, especially Queen Street and the Post Office.

 

Cllr Glancy seconded the proposal to defer and stated that we needed to be clear on impact, and we need an up to date assessment. She stated she is not against the development but would like further information.

 

A Cllr disagreed and stated that there was enough information.

 

A Cllr stated that there was not much objection from the residents.

 

A Cllr had concerns on noise for residents nearby and stated that the opening hours should be 7am-10pm.

 

The Development Manager stated that there would be acoustic fencing on the boundary and a noise barrier. Further information on noise issues could be found on page 5 of the report.

 

A Cllr was concerned that the new store would impact other businesses.

 

The Chair advised that commercial competition is not a planning matter and the NPPF states that facilities in villages must be promoted and retained. Must promote growth in transport of walking and cycling, and support local amenities.

 

A vote was taken to defer the application. 2 Members voted in favour of deferral, and 8 Members voted against.

 

Cllr Greenow proposed to permit the application as in the report with the alteration to condition 11 to read 06.00-23.00hrs Monday to Sunday inclusive.

 

Cllr Cumbers seconded the proposal to permit.

 

Determination: PERMIT, subject to the conditions as set out in the report with the amendment of condition 11 to read : The store shall only be open to the public during the following hours: 06.00-23.00hrs Monday to Sunday inclusive.

 

REASONS: The proposed retail unit would be sited within a sustainable area providing a local service for the village, create employment and would reuse previously developed land. The proposal is supported in principle in policy terms by emerging local and national planning policies. The proposal would not have any undue adverse impact on residential amenity or highway safety and has been designed to respect the character and appearance of the locality.  Furthermore, the proposal would not be harmful to the vitality or viability of the existing retail provisions in the village. As such, the proposal is considered to be compliant with the emerging Local Plan policies referred to above and principles of the NPPF.