Agenda item

The planning application was for the erection of a foodstore with associated car parking and landscaping on the land adjacent to Haddon House, Brickburn Close, Hampton Centre.

The main considerations were:

·         Principle of Development;

·         The Sequential Test;

·         The National Planning Policy Framework;

·         Cycle Parking;

·         Car Parking;

·         Impact on nearby residents;

·         Design;

·         Drainage;

·         Sustainability;

·         Air Quality and Contamination;

·         Section 106 Legal Agreement.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused.

The Planning and Development Manager provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         47 letters of support of the application had been received, with many residents supporting the introduction of an alternative to Tesco.

·         There was no objection to the principle of development in Hampton, however national guidance directed such development to local centres.

·         The development needed to pass the sequential test, or it should be refused. It was considered that a more appropriate undeveloped site was ‘available’ in the local centre.

·         The alternative site was included in the Site Allocations DPD, included retail use and was not subject to a current applicant. As such, it was considered available by officers.

·         Many of the reasons for refusal could be overcome by conditions, however the Highways Authority had objected to the design of the access and insufficient parking.

·         The update report included a parking survey carried out by the applicant. The number or car parking spaces to be provided on the site had been increased to 98.

The Senior Engineer advised that the junction proposed to access the site had originally been designed for low key use. The alteration proposed to change the ‘nose’ of the junction would result in HGV’s moving into the next lane to manoeuvre out. It was unclear whether there was a solution to this problem, as such the Highway Authority objected to the proposal.

Councillor Seaton, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         He supported the application and believed that it would bring further jobs and income to the city.

·         Residents were clearly in favour of the application.

·         The reasons for refusal were technical, but not practical. The site presented as an alternative by officers was not available, in the sense that the owners of the site would not sell it and would be more appropriate for a town square or cinema development.

·         A development on the alternative site would not be viable because of the competition from Tescos.

·         Within the sequential test, all three categories – availability, suitability and viability – were questionable for the alternative site.

·         The applicants were prepared to offer a local labour agreement within their proposals.

·         It was not anticipated that any congestion problems would result from the proposals and all deliveries would be carried out at night.

·         Any future planning applications for residential dwellings near the proposed site would need to consider any permission granted for a foodstore.

·         Access from the A15 was possible. However, for a development on the alternative site, access through Hampton would be incredible difficult for deliveries.

Mr Adam Ward, Applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         ALDI were pleased that their proposal had the support of local residents.

·         Many of the issues cited as reasons for refusal had been resolved and it was believed that all the highways issues raised could be dealt with via conditions. The applicant was keen to work with the authority on these.

·         The highways implications would be minimal, as all HGV’s would be accessing the site at night, when traffic would be at its lowest level.

·         ALDI stores nationwide, including the store at Stanground, worked with around 95 car parking spaces. The applicant would not wish to propose insufficient car parking, as it would not be in their interest to do so.

·         The alternative site suggested by officers was not available, as the owners would not sell to ALDI and the site lacked the infrastructure to support such a development. Nor would a foodstore be viable on the alternative site as access and visibility were poor, and competition in the shadow of the Tescos store would be too great.

·         The development would be environmentally sustainable with solar cells and a heat recovery system.

·         There would only be a maximum of two deliveries a night and these would not be at similar times as they were provided by ALDI themselves. The delivery system was integrated into the building to ensure that it was as quiet as possible.

The Committee commented that it would be a shame to deny residents a store they clearly desired because an alternative site had been identified, if that site was not practically available. An opposing view was expressed that a site closer to the local centre would be more appropriate.

Concern was expressed regarding the unresolved highways implications of the proposal. The Planning and Development Manager advised that no condition could be put in place to resolve this issue, as no solution to the matter of access was readily apparent.

The Committee suggested that they did not have sufficient information to make a decision at that time. The Planning and Highways Lawyer advised that if the Committee were minded to defer the application any such motion would need to be clear on the precise grounds that the decision was being deferred on and whether that would be limited to highways access or include consideration of the parking survey information and sequential test.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be deferred to consider the highway implications of vehicle access to the site.

RESOLVED: (5 voted in favour, 2 voted against) that planning permission is DEFERRED.

Reasons for the decision

To consider the vehicular access to the site and any alternative suggestions of the Highways Authority.