Proposal: Erection of roadside services to include a petrol filling station with ancillary retail floor space.
Location: Land adjacent to the A15/A1175 roundabout, Peterborough Road, Market Deeping
Recommendation: That the application is approved conditionally.
Location: Land adjacent to the At15/A1175 roundabout, Peterborough Road, Market Deeping
Decision: Minded to refuse the application contrary to officer recommendations
As applications S18/2263 and S18/2264 related to the same site, the Chairman stated that the applications would be considered together but voted on separately.
As the application was part-heard and Councillors Cottier and Morgan had not been present when it had been considered previously, they did not participate in discussion or vote on the application.
· Comments submitted by Market Deeping Town Council and reiterated in the addendum to the initial committee report
· Comments submitted by Langtoft Parish Council
· No objection from Lincolnshire County Council Highways and SUDS Support subject to a condition
· Removal of a previous objection by the Environment Agency leading to no objection from the Environment Agency subject to a condition
· Support for the proposals from InvestSK
· No comments from SKDC’s Environmental Protection Services
· No objections and comments from Heritage Lincolnshire
· No objection and comments from the Welland and Deeping Internal Drainage Board
· No objection and comments from Lincolnshire County Council Minerals and Waste Planning
· Removal of a previous objection by Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Services
· Representations received as a result of public consultation
· Additional work commissioned by the applicant’s agent following the committee meeting on 26 June 2019 in respect of road safety and pedestrian access and demand, including comments from Lincolnshire County Council Highways thereon
· Provisions within the National Planning Policy Framework and the South Kesteven Core Strategy and supplementary planning documents
· Site visit observations
· The additional information report: and officer comment thereon
· Comments made by members at the meeting
· Comments made during the public speaking session on 26 June 2019
· Comments made by members on 26 June 2019 when the application was first considered
It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused contrary to officer recommendations for the following reasons:
1. The road layout and difficult pedestrian and cycle access meant that the application did not promote healthy and safe communities or promote health, inclusivity and safe spaces. Reference was made to crossing issues and the accident history along the A15 between Bourne and Market Deeping
2. The application was contrary to guidance on sustainable transport and should give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, creating spaces that were safe, secure and attractive that will minimise conflicts, avoid unnecessary street clutter and respond to local character and design standards. The development should also be designed to incorporate charging for plug-in and ultra-low emission vehicles
3. The development site was not allocated within the existing or emerging Local Plan documents
4. The application was on a greenfield site and was therefore contrary to paragraphs 84 and 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework
5. The proposed development would cause light pollution in a greenfield area within the open countryside
6. The application was out of keeping with its surroundings, contrary to paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposed development was not considered sensitive to its surroundings, had an unacceptable impact on local roads and would not help improve sustainability
7. The proposed development would not conserve or enhance the natural environment, nor would it enhance the gateway into Market Deeping
Members who supported the proposition to refuse the application also spoke about the evidence of need for such provision and the location of other petrol filling stations within the vicinity. They spoke of their experiences of using the A15 and how they considered it to be a dangerous road. Members also expressed concern that the proposal did not incorporate electric vehicle charging points, particularly given the context of the recent Council resolution to declare a climate emergency and the formation of a task and finish group to consider climate change matters. Committee members also noted that the proposed development was outside the settlement area and would set a precedent for the encroachment of the built form towards Langtoft.
Some support for the proposal was also expressed, recognising the ancillary nature of the convenience store in its relationship with the petrol station and that the route was a key thoroughfare.
The Council’s Constitution required that when the Committee proposed the refusal of an application contrary to an officer recommendation to approve, unless the Head of Development Management agreed that the reason for refusal put forward was defensible, the proposition would become that the Committee was minded to refuse the application. A cooling-off period would then be invoked to allow members to submit reasons for refusal for consideration at its next meeting when the application would be determined.
The Head of Development Management stated that there were some reasons for refusal that she did not consider defensible. Others of the reasons, she felt, might be crafted into reasons for refusal that were defensible. Given the number of reasons that had been put forward and the complexity of the arguments, the Head of Development Management decided that the cooling off period should be invoked as set out in Article 9.1.9 (c) of the Council’s Constitution. In accordance with the Constitution, a recorded vote was taken:
For: Councillors Adams, Benn, Bisnauthsing, Dilks, Milnes, Reid and Judy Smith (7 Members)
Against: (No members)
Abstain: Councillors Exton and Jacky Smith (2 Members)
The vote was carried and those Committee members who voted in favour of refusal of the application had five working days to provide the Head of Development Management with the planning reasons for their view, together with supporting evidence. The application would be placed on the agenda for consideration at the next meeting of the Planning Committee when the Head of Development Management would provide her opinion on whether the reasons advanced were substantial enough for the authority to defend the decision at an inquiry. In light of any additional information, the committee would then be empowered to determine the application without being fettered by their vote at the previous meeting.