Change of use to permit retail sale of pre-packed pet foods and accessories.

Change of use to permit retail sale of pre-packed pet foods and accessories.

The following updates were reported:

§             A letter had been received from the agent indicating that the applicants had been searching for some time for appropriate premises but, for various reasons, these had not met their needs.

§             The agent had also provided a floor plan showing the proposed breakdown of uses within the building.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr. Hodgson spoke in support of the application.

Councillor DB Wilcox, a Local Ward Member, acknowledged the importance of Policy E5 but he did not consider that this application was contrary to the policy in this instance as the majority of the floor area would be used for storage and distribution purposes and more people would be employed through the proposed use than the existing use.  The need to identify suitable premises for businesses to be relocated from the Edgar Street Grid (ESG) area was noted and Councillor Wilcox felt that this proposal was acceptable.

The Central Team Leader noted the difficulties of relocating businesses and the particular requirements of the applicant but advised that the proposed primary use of the building was for retail purposes and the storage area was ancillary to that use.  Therefore, the proposal would result in the loss of safeguarded employment land and was considered contrary to Policy E5.

Councillor AJM Blackshaw commented that the proposal would increase the number of people employed at the site and the relocation would help to maintain a thriving family business, as well as assist broader economic regeneration objectives in the ESG area.  He also noted that the Economic Regeneration Officer fully supported the application and the Traffic Manager had no objections.

A number of Members spoke in support of the application, with particular emphasis on the need to accommodate the requirements of the established business, the need to enable the relocation of businesses from the ESG area, and the fact that the building had an existing showroom element.

Councillor AM Toon commented that permitting retail use in this location could result in any retailer using the site and she supported the officers' recommendation of refusal.

Councillor PJ Edwards felt that the proposed use would provide amenity benefits, as it would remove industrial operations within a residential area, and he supported the application, subject to the floor space percentages (storage/retail/office) being specified.

In response to comments by Members, the Central Team Leader advised that the referral procedure only required the senior planning officer present to indicate whether they would be minded to refer the matter to the Head of Planning and Transportation; if it was referred in this way, it would then be for the Head of Planning and Transportation to decide whether it was necessary to refer the matter to the main Planning Committee for determination.  The Central Team Leader advised that only substantial benefits to residential or other amenity mitigated the loss of safeguarded employment land and officers did not consider that this proposal had overcome the policy objection.

Councillor Toon suggested that, if planning permission was permitted, then a personal condition to the applicant should be required to recognise the fact that it was the particular circumstances of this specific business that made the proposal acceptable in this instance.  This suggestion was supported by a number of Members.

RESOLVED:

That    (i)   The Central Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to approve the application, subject to the condition listed below (and any further conditions felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning and Transportation) provided that the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

1.      Personal condition to the applicant.

(ii)     If the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to approve the application subject to such conditions referred to above.

[Note: Following the vote on the above resolution, the Central Team Leader commented that the Sub-Committee had carefully considered the policy issues and, therefore, the application would not be referred to the Head of Planning and Transportation.]