Class A1 Food store, petrol filling station and associated parking and servicing facilities, resizing and refurbishment of two class B units and associated highway works.

The Committee deferred consideration of the application to a future meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.   He referred to additional representations and a proposed amendment to the printed recommendation set out in the schedule of committee updates, as appended to these minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Verity, representing Leominster Civic Society, spoke in objection to the application.  Mrs Thomas, of Thomas Panels,   then spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution Councillor PJ McCaull, one of the local ward members, spoke on the application.  He commented on a number of issues including:

·         He expressed concern in relation to the time taken to bring the application forward and its relative association with the application by Dales.

·         He understood that the applicants had only been informed of the reasons for recommending refusal one week ago and considered this had not given them any opportunity to seek to address the matters identified. 

·         He argued that the distance from the site to the town centre should be measured to Corn Square.  The site was closer to the town centre that the measurement given in the report and was easily accessible by foot.  If the distance from the Dales site to Corn Square were measured that site would be further away.

·         The report was mistaken in focusing on cycle and pedestrian access to the site ignoring the reality that people shopping at supermarkets generally travelled by car.

·         The proposed development would support a large number of residential areas within the City.

·         He made a number of observations about the effect of the introduction of car parking charges in Leominster, the prospect that existing supermarkets would begin to charge for use of their car parks and the implications of that for the town centre.  The proposed development offered an opportunity for park and ride to the town centre.

·         It was unsurprising that competitors were objecting to the proposal.

·         He considered that the application should be deferred to allow the applicant time to respond to the grounds for refusal set out in the report.

The debate opened and the following principal points were made:

·         Concerns about the proposed development had been known for some time.

·         The viability of the town centre was a particular concern.  The report by Deloittes considered the town centre was vulnerable.

·         The proposal involved the loss of employment and industrial land.  Additional housing was planned for Leominster and employment opportunities needed to be available.  There were clear grounds for refusing such a retail development on employment land.

·         The Environment Agency’s concerns about water contamination were significant.

·         A Member questioned the validity of the second ground for refusal set out in the report considering it hypothetical.

·         Another Member questioned the validity of the sixth ground for refusal set out in the report, noting the comment in the report that the transition of responsibilities for highway works had meant detailed costing for works has not been provided and therefore an agreed Heads of Terms was not available.

·         The use of alternative transport, specifically bicycles, is not realistic for a supermarket development.

·         Some members spoke in support of a deferral.

In response to points raised the Head of Neighbourhood Planning commented that the application had been under consideration for some time.  The applicant had sought pre-application advice and officers had expressed reservations to the applicant.  Morbaine Ltd had been aware that the application was to be submitted to the Committee and of the outstanding matters that required resolution.  The application was ready to be determined.

The Committee’s Legal Advisor commented that she had no concerns about the legality of the reasons for refusal and no reason to question the advice of the Head of Neighbourhood Planning that there had been sufficient consultation with the applicant.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his request for a deferral.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the application be deferred for two months to allow the applicant to respond to the content of the report.