Agenda item

130616/F Land at Mill Street, Leominster, Herefordshire

Hybrid planning application (part detailed/part outline) for the part demolition of existing buildings and structures and mixed use development of the site to provide a retail store, petrol filling station, residential and associated works.

Decision:

The application was refused in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

Minutes:

(Councillor AN Bridges declared an interest and left the meeting for the duration of this item.)

 

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

He highlighted that the principle of residential units was not opposed in outline as part of the site had been allocated for such housing. The size of the retail development was a fundamental concern.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr P Ellis spoke on behalf of Leominster Town Council, opposing the Scheme.  Mr J Verity, Chairman of the Leominster Civic Society, spoke in objection.  Mr A Ingram the Applicant’s agent spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors P Jones CBE and FM Norman, the local ward members, spoke on the application.

Councillor FM Norman commented on a number of issues including:

·         The size of the proposed store was colossal making it in effect a one stop shop.  It would have an unacceptable impact on the Town Centre.  This was supported by independent evaluation.

·         The loss of trade by the existing supermarkets in the Town would reduce linked trips.

·         The proposed petrol station would also affect other businesses.

·         The development of an out of centre Supermarket at Llandriddrod Wells was an example of the harmful effects such a development could have on a Town Centre.

·         The proposal was contrary to policy S7 in that it would jeopardise the character of Leominster, potentially putting the Town Centre’s listed buildings occupied by traders at risk.

·         There were concerns that the site was at risk of flooding.

·         Highway safety was a concern.  A considerable amount of traffic including heavy goods vehicles used Mill Street and account also did not appear to have been taken of traffic visiting Brightwells auctioneers.  The intention to increase the length of time for which the gates at the Mill Street level crossing were closed would lead to increased tailbacks.  Network Rail had originally proposed that a bridge over the railway would be needed.  Their current view that a roundabout would suffice was surprising.

·         The Town Council and many residents objected to the proposal.  She was unaware of any public support for the application.  It was therefore contrary to the Parish Plan.

Councillor P Jones spoke in support of the application.  He stated that Supermarkets were liked by customers and the Town would benefit from the proposal.  He acknowledged that there were a number of concerns including the volume of traffic using Mill Street, in particular given the increased time for which the level crossing would be closed.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         The focus needed to be on the needs of Leominster and its residents.  The sheer scale of the proposal and the detrimental impact it would have on trade in the Town Centre as a consequence was a major concern.  A major retail development of this scale, in this location was not proportionate for Leominster.

·         In response to questions the Principal Planning Officer commented that part of the site was allocated for housing within the Unitary Development Plan.  However, any such development would need to be the subject of a separate planning application.

·         The railway level crossing was a considerable constraint and the development would place considerable pressure on the transport network.

·         The concerns of the Environment Agency reflected in recommendation 4 as set out in the agenda papers were highlighted.

·         The Town Council was opposed to the application.

·         There were compliments for Dales as a firm and support for its wish to expand.  However, the proposed scheme was not the only option open to it to achieve that aim.

·         In recommending refusal of the application it was requested that the resolution specifically identified the paragraphs in the National Planning Policy Framework on which the grounds for refusal were based, to reflect paragraph 2.1 of the report. 

The local ward members were given the opportunity to close the debate.

Councillor Norman reiterated her opposition to the Scheme.

Councillor Jones reiterated his support for the Scheme.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

1

 

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact upon the viability and vitality of Leominster Town Centre contrary to paragraph 26 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies S5, TCR1, TCR2 and TCR9 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

2

 

Given reason for refusal 1 above, the Local Planning Authority consider that the proposed development would be likely to adversely affect the character of the Leominster Conservation Area contrary to paragraphs 128 to 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy S7 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

3

 

The proposal is considered to be in an unsustainable location that would increase reliance upon the private motor vehicle, contrary to paragraph 29 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policies S1, S5, S6, DR2 and DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan 2007.

 

4

 

The site is located within a Secondary Aquifer and a groundwater Source Protection Zone 2 and the applicant has not demonstrated that there are overriding reasons to justify its siting in this location. Furthermore it has not been demonstrated that the proposed petrol filling station and its associated underground storage tanks can be accommodated on the site without detriment to water supplies and therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy DR4 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

5

The proposal is likely to result in traffic movements that increase the frequency of queuing traffic along Mill Street to the detriment of highway safety, contrary to Policies S1, S2, S6, DR3 and T8 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

INFORMATIVES

 

1.

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations and identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the applicant.  However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

 

(The meeting adjourned between 12.10 and 12.15pm)

Supporting documents: