Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: Phippsville

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application number N/2011/0588 elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out an amendment to paragraph 7.2 of the report and an objection from Mr C Richardson.

Mrs Andrews, on behalf of local residents commented that the proposal was for a proper commercial pharmacy and not just a dispensary. The operation of the pharmacy would impact on residents and the contract applied for included a needle exchange scheme. She believed that there were issues of security that were not compatible with the residential nature of the area and the school adjacent to the site. Mrs Andrews queried the car parking provision for the pharmacy out of hours and believed that this commercial use would impact unfavourably on the nearby local centre as would the loss of a consulting room at the existing doctors’ surgery. The proposal would be a loss of amenity to residents. 

Miss Betts, a neighbour, commented that the health complex already attracted a lot of visitors for which the existing car park was inadequate. When the Normed Service had been located there the situation had been unacceptable in terms of noise and anti social behaviour from youngsters. She believed that the proposal would attract similar problems. The existing pharmacy provided a good service and there were other pharmacies for out of hours needs in non residential areas of the Town. She had already found discarded methadone bottles and questioned the suitability of the proposal given the close proximity of the school. She supported the refusal of the application. In answer to questions Miss Betts commented that the existing pharmacy had started a petition against the proposal and that she had lived at her current address for 24 years and could easily recall the problems caused by Normed that had abated once that service had moved to a different location. 

Councillor King, the Ward Councillor, stated that the majority of residents had objected to the proposal and she confirmed the anti social behaviour problems caused by youngsters when the Normed service had been at the site. Residents did not want a return to this. She did not believe that there was the need for another 100hour opening pharmacy when there was an existing one only 1.2 miles away and buses to Weston Favell Centre running to 21.23hours. The existing pharmacy served the community providing consultations etc which the proposal might adversely effect.

Mr Waine, the agent, commented that the recommendation for refusal in the report was based upon issues raised by Environmental Health and in particular about late night customers. National advice about noise in residential areas defined daytime as 07.00 to 23.00 when heavy traffic was acceptable. The location was not suburban at it was just three kilometres from the Town Centre. The car park was private and the situation would not be the same as for a night club, for example. There had not been an objection from the Police and the situation was not comparable to when the Normed service had operated from the site. He suggested that the Committee consider if the  refusal was focussed and whether the reasons were robust. No noise study had been completed. The proposal would be a local facility and bring local benefits with it. In answer to questions Mr Waine commented that he believed that clear cut reasons had not been given for a refusal; and that the situation with Normed which had involved Doctors and Nurses was very different from this situation.

The Head of Planning commented that the Police had not made any comments about any anti social behaviour but would offer advice to the applicant if the application were to be approved. The proximity of another pharmacy to the site was not a planning matter. The question of needles was a site management matter. The PCT monitored sites on this type of issue. It was felt that the potential benefits of the proposal did not outweigh the loss of amenity to the residents.   

The Committee discussed the application.

RESOLVED:    That the application be refused by reason of the proposed operating hours, intensification of use and proximity of the site to residential properties, the proposed development would have a significant detrimental impact upon residential amenity as a result of increased noise and disturbance. The proposal therefore fails to comply with the requirements of PPG24 – Planning and Noise.