Agenda item

Proposal: Construction of a retail foodstore, car parking, access, landscaping and associated engineering works

Location: Land North of West Road Bourne Lincolnshire PE10 9PS

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director of Planning to APPROVE planning permission subject to the conditions set out in section 8 of this report.

Proposal: Construction of a retail foodstore, car parking, access, landscaping and associated engineering works

Location: Land North of West Road Bourne Lincolnshire PE10 9PS

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director of Planning to APPROVE planning permission subject to the conditions set out in section 8 of this report.

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

Local District Councillor      -         Councillor Sue Woolley

Local District Councillor      -         Councillor Helen Crawford

Local District Councillor      -         Councillor Anna Kelly

Local District Councillor      -         Councillor Rhys Baker

Bourne Town Councillor     -         Councillor Nigel Eveleigh

Against                              -         Helen Powell

Against                              -         Peter Sharpe

Agent for the applicant       -         Nick Hardy (Avison Young)

The Committee noted the following policy considerations:

·       South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036 Policies (adopted January 2020)

·       Design guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document (adopted November 2021)

·       National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Published December 2023)

The following was noted:

• Comments received from Anglian Water
• Comments received from The Environment Agency
• Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire
• Comments received from Black Sluice Drainage Board
• Comments received from SKDC Tree Officer
• Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (as Local Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority)
• Comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust
• Comments received from Bourne Town Council
• Comments received from Bourne Civic Society
• Comments received from Friends of Bourne Woods
• Comments received from Natural England
• Representations in support and objecting to the application as a result of publicity.

During questions to public speakers, further information was highlighted:

• Many people in Bourne did not have an issue with a new Aldi store in Bourne, but one of the main issues with this site was its proximity to Bourne Woods.
• The number of vehicles approaching Bourne from Stamford Hill would increase due to the number of shoppers and lorries accessing the new site.
• ‘Edge of settlement’ should be adjacent to other developments in the opinion of a public speaker. If this were to be approved, it would lead to potential infill for sites adjacent Fir Avenue.
• More water was being seen from escarpments in Bourne Woods. There had also been recent flooding seen on a street local to this site.
• Bats and nightingales were two of the rarer species that were present on the site.
• The site was appropriately located, and the applicant had undertaken a sequential test on national policy and the Local Plan. There were no appropriate centrally located sites in Bourne.
• The site was not allocated for development, however it did not have to be to be considered appropriate. There was a site closer to Bourne town centre (Jewsons) which was not suitable for this development because it was not large enough to accommodate the store and car park. This submission and opinion on the town centre site had been shared with the Council’s independent retail advisor who agreed with this conclusion.
• The site was approximately 140 metres from property curtilages in Fir Avenue, and 70 metres from the closest property on Welland Drive; there was one property that sat to the east of the site that was closer.
• Ecological information submitted confirmed there would be no direct impact on Bourne Woods. There was a risk of indirect impacts as a result of dust and lighting during the construction phase, which would be mitigated by conditions as part of the officer recommendation. There had been extensive discussions with the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust on these necessary mitigation measures.

The following points were raised during questions of officers and during debate:

• There were no defined settlement boundaries in the South Kesteven Local Plan, so a planning judgment is necessary regarding the most appropriate spatial policy.
• Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue did not raise any objections to the Application. Fire safety measures would be secured through building regulations and would be  based on the site and layout. The access road into the site provided adequate access for fire vehicles to attend. Bourne Woods was 125 metres away from the site which was deemed an acceptable ‘fire break’.

Note:  The meeting was extended to 5:15pm as it was approaching three hours in length.

• The evidential requirement under the Local Plan at SP4a in terms of ‘substantial support in the local community’ was ‘at the point of submission’; this was considered to be complied with. The scope of this pre-application consultation exercise was discussed with the applicants before submission, and it involved amongst other things a website being setup, a consultation event and the circulation of questionnaires.
• Substantial support would mean a considerable amount of support. Throughout the pre-application process there were 100s of people in support and 100s against.
• No built heritage assets would be affected. There was a requirement for the applicant to carry out an assessment of what archaeology was present. It had been agreed with expert advisors that they would carry out ‘trial trenching’ to record any instances of archaeology prior to the commencement of development.
• There had been a further wildlife survey in August 2023 to accompany the initial evidence. Mitigation measures had been recommended based on the relevant impacts, and area-based habitats. As well as supplementary planting there would be a new native species hedgerow.
• There was no policy requirement to look at other sites that were not sequentially preferable to the proposed site.
• The policy test for biodiversity impacts first requires mitigation on the site if there would be detrimental impacts. If mitigation could not be put in place then compensation measures are required, and in this case it is proposed to be compensation off-site in respect of the loss of on-site area habitats.
• A lot of the impacts to biodiversity would be through the construction phase. A condition had been recommended to reflect this and to secure a Construction and Environmental Management Plan.
• The final mitigation measure recommended in the Ecological Impact Assessment was a lighting scheme to accompany the development. Recommended condition 15 required a submission and approval of a lighting scheme.
• The SKDC Tree Officer was content with the protection and supplementary planting of trees and hedgerow.
• There was a Co-op shop serving the Elsea Park area of Bourne; however a further store in the area would expand customers choice and it was not for the Committee to interfere with market choice.
• The Aldi store would have a visual impact on Bourne Woods, an ancient area of woodland which contributes positively to the area.

In summing up, the Assistant Director of Planning made the following points:

• The draft Bourne Neighbourhood Plan had no weight in the determination of the application. If it were to be in place in the future residents would be able to have a say in where they wanted to place housing. Any Neighbourhood Plan could support the Local Plan.
• This site had been one of several that had been considered as part of the ongoing Local Plan review.
• Mitigation measures, such as a buffer zone could be created for ecology issues.
• The Local Plan had to be written positively. In this case, Policy SP4 allowed ‘edge of settlement’ development, but also contained many other criteria.
• The Policy, and legislative test on ecology and biodiversity impacts were to first to avoid; failing that to mitigate and failing that to compensate where there was an impact. To accept compensation for an impact to ecology was acceptable in planning policy terms.
• Supermarkets were welcome in Bourne, but the position and visual impact, and landscaping of this store was questioned by Members.

A proposal to refuse planning permission on the basis of the visual impact of the proposal and resultant harm being contrary to policies SP4d and SP4b (development on the edge of settlements), DE1 (promoting good quality design), EN1 (Landscape Character) of the Local Plan was moved and seconded.

A request was made that a recorded vote for refusing planning permission be taken, as in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15.5 20% of those Councillors present at the meeting could request this:

For Refusal:            Councillors Harrish Bisnauthsing, Pam Byrd, Tim Harrison, Penny Milnes, Charmaine Morgan, Nick Robins, Max Sawyer, Sarah Trotter. (8)

Against Refusal:      None.

Abstain:                   Councillor Paul Fellows. (1)

Therefore, planning permission was REFUSED.

Note:  The meeting was further extended to 5:30pm. The meeting was adjourned and reconvened at 5:06pm.