Agenda item

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

Ward: East Hunsbury

Councillor Oldham left the meeting in accordance with his declaration of interest recorded above.

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no N/2011/0323 and reminded the Committee of the reasons for the deferral of consideration of the application at the previous meeting. He commented that Wootton and East Hunsbury Parish Council had met with Tesco’s but that there remained a difference of opinion between them. The Committee’s previous concerns had been in respect of highways issues and he reminded the Committee that the application needed to be determined on the basis of what was presented to them. The Head of Planning referred to the Addendum that set out a resume of what had happened since the last meeting, Wootton and East Hunsbury Parish Council’s response to the meeting held with Tescos, and representations made by Legal and General Investment Management and residents since the meeting of the Committee on 13 September.

Mr Gonzalez de Savage, on behalf of residents, stated that it had been evident at the Wootton and East Hunsbury  Parish Council meeting that Tesco’s had not been willing to act on the wishes of the local community. The Parish Council and residents were against the application because of the access arrangements to the site off Clannell Road. He acknowledged that Tesco’s were a successful company and there had been a three year dialogue with them over their proposals. The Parish Council’s and the residents preferred option was for the Dot Com business vehicles to exit the site via the Mereway roundabout as at present. They were concerned at commercial traffic exiting the site into residential streets and using those streets as a means of access to other parts of the Town and outlying villages to the south. Tesco’s as a major employer and priding itself as a good neighbour could have redrawn its plans but had chosen not to do so. There were concerns about obstruction to neighbours opposite the site. Mr Gonzalez de Savage commented that Highways Agency representatives had indicated to him that commercial traffic could enter and leave the site via the Mereway roundabout. In answer to a question, Mr Gonzalez de Savage confirmed his statement that Highways Agency representatives had indicated to him that commercial traffic could enter and leave the site via the Mereway roundabout and that Dot Com vehicle drivers had stated to him that they had been advised to use the residential streets instead. 

Mr Nunn, the Chairman of Wootton and East Hunsbury Parish Council, noted that the public meeting of the Parish Council with Tesco’s had taken place on 12 October. This meeting had also confirmed that a large number of residents supported the Parish Council’s position. The Clannell Road access to the site remained the main public concern together with safety issues in respect of Sandhurst Close. The Parish Council believed that the proposals represented an over development of the site and suggested that the Committee would not be able to approve the application as it currently stood.  

Mrs Field, on behalf of residents in the surrounding area, commented that they were not against Tesco’s per see but were against the consequential effects of their expansion plans on residents. Tesco’s had indicated that other access options were either not viable or too costly. There were already problems with congestion and parking caused by the Leisure Centre. Residents believed that the ideas for yellow lines in Sandhurst Close would make things worse. Tesco’s own figures suggested that the expansion of the store would create 2,000 extra car journeys to and from the site. There was a conflict between parked cars, pedestrians and commercial traffic. In answer to a question Mrs Field commented that the Leisure Centre was already an existing situation and that if the yellow lines were not enforced they were pointless.

Councillor Larratt, as Ward Councillor, commented that he had e-mailed members of the Committee the previous evening about the application. He had attended two meetings with Tesco’s representatives since the last meeting of the Committee. Tesco’s appeared to remain intransigent. He believed that the issue was all about the amenity of local residents. He believed that the current application detracted from the use of the site to date. At present all commercial vehicle movements were via Mereway roundabout. This application would change this to move the Dot Com business traffic to access via residential streets, whilst the articulated lorry movements would remain via Mereway. He queried who would want traffic lights at the bottom of their gardens and the associated engine noise and fumes. The whole area would be affected, not just Sandhurst Close and Falconers Rise: it would become a back route to other parts of the area. He asked the Committee to consider the amenity of residents and refuse the application. In answer to a question Councillor Larratt commented that the proposal for a yellow box in Clannell Road had been put forward before the last meeting of the Committee and that residents of Sandhurst Close and Falconers Rise were against the current access proposals and that the Higways engineers had suggested other more acceptable solutions.   

Councillor Eldred, as Ward Councillor, commented that the Committee had heard many valid arguments against the application and displayed a map showing the surrounding villages whose residents were likely to use this store. Tesco’s proposals would increase floor space by 38%, car parking by 20% but only increase footfall by 10%. It could be anticipated that at least half of the increase in vehicle movements would be via Clannell Road. The Dot Com vehicle movements would add over 26,000 to the annual traffic count in Sandhurst Close and Clannell Road alone. He asked that the Committee take all of this into account. In answer to a question he confirmed that the Dot Com vehicle movements equated to one per twenty minutes.

Mr Robeson, the Agent on behalf of Tesco’s, commented that their plans were to improve community relationships for example by moving the service area away from neighbouring residents. He noted that Sandhurst Close also serviced the Leisure Centre and the proposed new access point was positioned so that no commercial vehicles would pass residential property. He also noted that the suggestion for a pedestrian crossing on Clannell Road had come from the Parish Council but would be paid for by Tesco’s. A three hour parking limit would be applied to the new car park. The new signalled junction benefited both pedestrians and residents of Falconers Rise who had current problems turning in and out of their road. Relocating the entrance would not improve the situation for residents as the pedestrian crossing would not be where people would want it to be as there were footpaths from Falconers Rise leading to other streets. He was confident that the application represented the best compromise between the views of the Parish Council, residents and Tesco’s. In answer to questions Mr Robeson commented that Tesco’s had considered road improvements to Clannell Road and Falconers Rise three years previously and the Highways Agency had first suggested a controlled crossing at that time: a solution that benefited the most people had been sought; Falconers Rise linked to other areas to the south; moving the access further west gave less access to pedestrians; modifications to the crossing had been considered and the main concern was for public safety; there were nine Dot Com vehicles each making three outbound journeys and three inbound; there were no current plans to extend the Dot Com vehicle fleet; the junction plans had been submitted to transport modelling; there would be 50 full time equivalent jobs created; the concerns of the public had been listened to even if all the points raised could not be met; the proposed Mereway Forum would be for all the commercial businesses to meet to discuss improvements to the site and the wider vicinity; and at present the Dot Com business was serviced from the south east part of the site, it was not part of the back house distribution area and the expansion plans would not significantly alter the internal layout of the store to move the Dot Com business would not be viable.    

Mrs Gosling on behalf of Tescos, commented that the store was very busy and people had expressed frustration that products were not always available. She gave an example of a nearby resident who drove to the Weston Favell store to be sure of getting what she wanted. The expansion would improve this and the scheme included £2m of highway improvements plus public transport improvements. Tesco’s wanted to build on a sense of community in the area and she noted a petition from customers and residents in support of their plans. The Parish, County and Borough Councils, residents and shoppers had been consulted. The current service area had been moved in order to meet residents concerns. Solutions had been agreed with officers and further changes made. She believed that the proposals were positive for the wider community and had been worked on for several years to get to this point. She urged the Committee to accept the report. In answer to questions Mrs Gosling commented that further improvements included the provision of a yellow box, the pedestrian crossing and extended scope of litter picking; the running of the Mereway Forum would be funded by Tesco’s for five years and was seen to be a small scale chamber of commerce made up of the businesses and organisations on the wider site that would look at how the area could be improved and work with the Parish and Borough Councils; this could be written into a Section 106 agreement and the Forum could choose to include Parish Council and resident representatives.

The Head of Planning commented that speakers had referred to various highways related options but that the Committee had to make a decision on the basis of the application before it. The application had been through a rigorous assessment and the Highway Authority was clear that there were no highways objections to the proposals and Environmental Health were also clear that there were no objections on the basis of loss of residential amenity or noise or fumes. There were no planning reasons on which to refuse the application. The Dot Com business was already on the site and in a similar configuration to that currently proposed but at present exited via a service road onto Mereway. The proposal for an access via Sandhurst Close would benefit some residents but concerns about other residential areas had been raised. The Dot Com business might in future expand or contract and the vehicle movements discussed were, in planning and highway terms, low volume. In answer to questions the Head of Planning commented that any possible condition on the Dot Com business had to be considered in terms of it necessity and whether it could be enforced. Bearing in mind that the Highway Authority had raised no objection and the difficulty in enforcement such a condition would not be appropriate. There would be some thinning out of trees on the boundary of the site to help create a better integration with the wider area. The Head of Planning commented that if the Committee were minded to refuse the application this could only be done on valid grounds and justified by reference to planning policies. The Borough Solicitor concurred with this advice.

The Committee discussed the application.

Councillor Meredith proposed and Councillor N. Choudary seconded “That the recommendation in the report be approved.”

Upon a vote the motion was lost.

Councillor Davies proposed and Councillor Markham seconded “That the application be refused on the grounds of inadequate mitigation of the highways effects of the proposals on the Sandhurst Close / Clannell Road junction and the impact on the amenity of residents in the wider area in terms of the general access arrangements to the site from Clannell Road”

Upon a vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED:   That the application be refused on the grounds of inadequate mitigation of the highways effects of the proposals on the Sandhurst Close / Clannell Road junction and the impact on the amenity of residents in the wider area in terms of the general access arrangements to the site from Clannell Road

(NB: Councillors N. Choudary and Meredith asked that their votes against the decision to refuse the application be recorded) 

Following the resolution the Chair indicated that she would welcome the applicant’s continued dialogue with a view to resolving these outstanding matters.

 Councillor Oldham rejoined the meeting.