Erection of store extensions (Class A1) to front of store, elevation changes, alterations to car park layout including new deck, new landscaping, associated plant and works and variation of condition 7 of CW1999/3251/F to allow not more than 30% of the total sales floor space for the sales of comparison goods.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

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

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillors JD Woodward, one of the local ward members, commented on a number of issues, including:

• Concerns that the authority may be seen to be allowing other competitors to expand but restricting Sainsburys.
• The route from Sainsburys to Eign Gate via the underpass was not aesthetically pleasing but did not warrant refusal of the application.
• Should parking provisions be increased whilst Sainsburys allow workers from the nearby West Mercia Police offices to park in their car park.
• The re-siting of the recycling facilities was welcomed to address noise concerns from the nearby residents of Pomona Court.
• The increase to 30% for the sale of comparison goods was not welcomed.
• No objections had been received from the Traffic Manager, the Environmental Health Manager or the Highways Agency.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JJD Lavender, the other local ward member, reiterated the points raised by Councillor JD Woodward and made additional comments, including:

• Sainsburys were committed to Herefordshire with good community investment and community relations.
• It was not reasonable to ask Sainsburys to split their operations between 2 sites when they already owned the existing site.
• By citing the Edgar Street Grid development in the report the Council would be giving a commercial advantage to a competitor.
• It was not fair to state that the proposed application would be at a detriment to the city centre as it was realistically no further from the city than the proposed site of the Edgar Street Grid.

The Assistant Director – Environment, Planning and Waste advised Members that they were not required to make a judgement on the integrity of Sainsburys or were they required to make a decision based on the forthcoming livestock market application. He added that the proposed application at Sainsburys and the livestock market application had to be determined separately. He also advised the Committee that they were not required to make a judgement on the quality of the route from the Sainsburys store to the city centre or were they required to make a judgement based on the percentage of non food goods sold at other supermarkets throughout the city.

The Assistant Director – Environment, Planning and Waste advised the Committee that their decision should be based on the impact the application would have on the vitality and viability of the city centre. He noted the report produced by Drivers Jonas Deloitte, the Council’s long term retail consultants, which supported the view that the application should be refused due to the impact on the city centre.

The debate opened with Members of the Committee discussing the fact that the proposed application was contrary to key strategic policies and could therefore undermine the Council’s key regeneration site as well as undermining the long standing policy approach of the authority.

Other Members disagreed with this viewpoint and felt that the application should be supported. They noted that there had been no objections from the Traffic Manager, the Conservation Manager or the City Council and added that a distance of 580 metres could not be deemed as outside of the city centre. It was also noted that Sainsburys were not responsible for the route from their store to the city centre and that the Committee should welcome an extension on the site which would not impact on the city centre trade.

In response to the comments in support of the application the Locum Lawyer advised that under PPS 4 it was for the applicant to prove that the application would not have the type of adverse effect on the city centre that PPS 4 sought to avert. He also added that the site had been deemed as outside of the city centre and not even classed as on the edge of the city centre in planning terms.

The Committee were advised that comparison goods referred to in the application would consist of non food goods, including toys, white goods and electronics.

Members noted that in their opinion it appeared that Sainsburys were being asked to split their operation over two sites and that this was not a reasonable request. They also noted the community support for the application and the fact that there had only been two letters of objection received.

In response to a question, the Principal Planning Officer advised that store deliveries were made at the rear of the store and did not cause concern locally. The also added that the road improvements would address any concerns from the Highways Agency.

Some Members of the Committee felt that the expansion of the site was acceptable however the increase to 30% for sales of comparison goods was not. Members discussed the possibility of approving the application with the omission of the increase to comparison goods.

The Assistant Director – Environment, Planning and Waste advised Members that the application could not be amended to remove the reference to 30% of comparison goods and could only be addressed by deferring the application for further discussions with the applicant. A motion to defer the application failed.

The Assistant Director – Environment, Planning and Waste noted that the application had raised a complex set of issues and that there had been a good debate by the Committee. He stated that there was clear evidence that the current application had the potential to undermine the future vitality and viability of the city centre. Finally he noted that investor and developer confidence in the development of the city’s key strategic regeneration proposals would also be affected if the application was approved.

Councillors JD Woodward and JJD Lavender were given the opportunity to close the debate. They reiterated their opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

• It was imperative that Members voted on the application in hand without consideration of the Edgar Street Grid development.
• It was difficult to separate the proposed application from the Edgar Street Grid application especially as the second reason fro refusal stated in the Officer’s report was based on the afore mentioned application.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The proposal fails to demonstrate that this out of centre site is sequentially preferable to potentially available sites located within or on the edge of the existing Hereford City Centre.  Consequently the development is contrary to Policies TCR9 and TCR20 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and Policies EC15 and EC17 of Planning Policy Statement 4.

2.         The proposal fails to demonstrate that the increase in size of the store would not adversely impact on the vitality and viability of Hereford City Centre.  Furthermore the proposals contained in the application would undermine the potential to deliver the Eign Gate Regeneration Area.  Consequently the development is contrary to Policies TCR1, TCR2 and TCR20 of Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan and Policy EC16 of Planning Policy Statement 4.

[Councillor PA Andrews wished for it to be noted that she abstained from voting in respect of this item.]