Agenda item

N/2012/0058- Application for Variation of Condition 3 of Planning Permission N/2011/0588 to allow Pharmacy to be Open to Customers Between the Hours of 07.30 to 22.30 on Mondays to Friday, 08.00 to 22.30 on Saturdays and 08.00 to 18.30 on Sundays, Bank Holidays and Public Holidays at Abington Health Complex, 51A Beech Avenue.

Report of Head of Planning

(copy herewith)

 

Ward: Phippsville

Presented By:B. Clarke x 8916

Minutes:

The Head of Planning submitted a report in respect of application no. N/2012/0058, elaborated thereon and referred to the Addendum that set out an objection received from Michael Ellis MP.

 

Mrs Andrews, a local resident and member of the Phippsville Residents Association, commented that there had been previous problems with youths congregating in the area that an extension of hours would worsen. The health complex had formerly been the home of NeneDoc and there had been issues of late night noise. In any case there had been problems with deliveries and drug addicts at the health complex. Mrs Andrews believed that this was not the right location for a pharmacy to open for 100 hours per week and that 955 of residents were against the proposal. 

 

Mrs Tate, from the Abington Pharmacy, commented that a majority of their customers were against the proposal. She note that whilst the Applicant claimed that 100 hour opening was necessary, a NHS stipulation, the Planning Inspector in granting the application on appeal had stated that this stipulation did not override his planning decision. She asked the Committee to stick with the Planning Inspector’s decision.

 

Councillor King, as Ward Councillor, commented that a majority of residents were against the application. She noted that recently the gates had been left open accidentally and windows in the health complex had been smashed: This showed what was likely happen if the extension of hours was granted. She believed that supporters of the scheme tended to live away from the site and she asked the Committee to take in consideration residents views. 

 

Mrs Percival, commented that she supported the application. She had had a recent experience of helping a neighbour to get medication on a Sunday and had discovered that there was nowhere close to Parklands, where she lived, that was open; the nearest pharmacies being at Weston Favell or Balmoral Road. There were no buses from Parklands to Weston Favell on Sundays. Mrs Percival commented that people preferred doctors to be open later. She appreciated that residents were concerned about noise and vandalism but the Birchfield Road East centre was close by. She suggested that perhaps more pharmacies should open later. In answer to a question Mrs Percival commented that there were already issues concerning the shops in Birchfield Road East.  

 

Mr Waine, on behalf of the Applicant, commented that the application was about the extension of hours for the operation of the pharmacy; it was not about the principle of having a pharmacy at all. The surgery now opened later. The original planning application had asked for the opening hours now asked for and the Planners had not raised any issues. He queried what had changed. The Planning Inspector had said that the opening hours would affect the amenity of the neighbours but in his view had wrongly considered the hours asked for in the original application instead of those asked for in the amended application. Mr Waine believed that the Inspector had, in effect misdirected himself. He noted that there were no time restrictions on the opening of the health complex, sports injury clinic or the existing pharmacy. Mr Waine believed that many of the objectors did not live near to the complex.

 

The Head of Planning commented that the retail uses in the Birchfield Road Centre were more concentrated and that the immediate vicinity was less residential. He noted that the Planning Inspector’s decision was a material consideration and there was no evidence that he had made a mistake in making it. In answer to a question he clarified the opening hours that were being asked for.     

 

The Committee discussed the application.

 

RESOLVED:     That the application be refused by reason of the extent of the proposed operating hours, 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.

Supporting documents: