Agenda item

Proposal: Construction of new retail unit and associated car parking, access and servicing on an existing redundant overflow car park

Location: Vacu Lug Traction Tyres Ltd, Gonerby Road, Grantham

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

 Proposal: Construction of new retail unit and associated car parking, access and servicing on an existing redundant overflow car park

Location:Vacu Lug Traction Tyres Ltd, Gonerby Road, Grantham

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

District Ward Councillors                    Paul Martin and Paul Stokes

Against                                               David Mardle

Agent                                                  Emma Lancaster

 

Together with:

 

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036  and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·       Comments received from LCC Highways & SuDS.

·       Comments received from Environmental Protection.

·       Comments received from Tree Officer.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

·       No comments received from Great Gonerby Parish Council.

 

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

 

·       A previously refused application on the same site.

 

Application S0307/2235 was a previous application on the same site that was refused.

 

·       Whether there was a speed camera on the same road as the application site.

 

The Ward Councillor confirmed there was a speed camera going downhill towards the Arnoldfield area.

 

·       Whether there was a pedestrian crossing adjacent to the entrance of the site, which was within close proximity to the school.

·       Concern was raised on cars turning right into the site down the hill, it was queried whether a survey had been carried out.

 

It was confirmed that the application was accompanied by a Transport Technical Note which had been produced by a qualified technical highway consultant, where speed surveys and traffic counts had taken place.

 

·       Whether any weight could be given to the new Government in relation to possible changes in the NPPF.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning stated that a consultation on the NPPF was currently taking place, and the possible changes could not be given weight at this stage. However, there hhad been Written Ministerial Statements published, which outlined the forthcoming direction for policy, and these were a material planning consideration but could be given limited weight at this stage.

 

The Highways Authority had not stated that there would be a severe impact on this application and had no evidence to support their suggestions.

 

The Chairman outlined paragraph 115 of the NPPF:

 

‘Developments should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be a unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impact on the road network would be severe.’

 

During questions to Officers, Members commented on:

 

Issues around highway safety

 

·       Whether a highway impact would need to be severe for Lincolnshire Couty Council to recommend a refusal on safety grounds. It was queried as to how Officers had come to the decision of approval of the application.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that Lincolnshire County Council had not stated a severe impact. They had merely raised concern that the application was detrimental to highway safety. Their concerns had been interpreted around the level of provision of parking for the factory itself. Lincolnshire County Council felt there was no guarantee that customers would go into the site and use the parking and had raised concern on drop-offs and vehicles parking on the road. 

 

The Highway Authority did not have any standards as to what the parking provision should be. Lincolnshire County Council had not challenged whether the level of parking provision was sufficient, they had merely challenged whether customers would utilise the car park.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning referred the Committee to their Planning training. It was noted that the issue around parking had to be underpinned by evidence on insufficient car parking and consequences in terms of impact on highway safety. The Council had requested further information and Lincolnshire County Council had stated they would not support an appeal on this application, if refused.

 

·       Whether Highways made decisions on quantitative rather than qualitive based on their experience.

 

Highways was underpinned by evidence in terms of highway transport assessments, junctions, site lines which were underpinned by standards and measurements. It was highlighted that Highways was very technical.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning suggested a condition whereby the Applicant’s had to use a parking management plan to ensure that the issue around visitors not utilising the car park was addressed.

 

·       One Member queried where HGV’s would park on the proposed site ad for other sites within the vicinity of a warehouse nature.

 

·       A question was raised as to why Lincolnshire County Council had not provided evidence to support their reason for recommended refusal.

 

·       One Member highlighted that other shops within Grantham had issues around the parking provision and visitors not utilising the car park, but using the side of the road. 

 

Egress and impact on amenity and open space

 

·       It was noted that whist on the site visit, a van had parked on the junction of the site.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning noted that all road users should adhere to the rules of the road, Highway Code and traffic regulations when they are enforced. A Planning Permission should not be refused on the basis of breaking rules of the road and laws.

 

During debate, Members commented on:

 

Issues around highway safety

 

·       Concerns was raised over cars parked on the road heading north up the hill and wanting to turn right into the site. Concern was raised that vehicles would be over the central reservation line on Gonerby Road prior to turning into the site.

·       That cars had been seen speeding down the hill, although there had been a speed camera fitted further up Gonerby Road.

·       Concern was raised on the safety of children attending the nearby school.

·       Other businesses within the vicinity in terms of the parking provision.

·       Lincolnshire County Council’s recommended refusal and from an expert’s opinion and why they would not defend their recommendation at appeal.

 

Lincolnshire County Council had informed the South Kesteven District Council that they will not be defending the application at appeal. It would be up to South Kesteven District Council to take Lincolnshire County Council’s comments to appeal and to defend it.

 

The Legal Advisor clarified that Lincolnshire County Council had not raised objection to the actual access arrangements of the site and considered this to be safe. They were content with the number of car parking spaces being provided.

 

Lincolnshire County Council only had concerns relating to the operator of the store and that they could not guarantee that existing car parking issues experienced in the site’s location won’t be worsened. Officers had suggested that car parking being mitigated via a car parking management plan to address concerns raised by Lincolnshire County Council.

 

The Chairman informed the Committee of the suggested condition as part of the additional information reports:

 

‘Prior to the occupation of the store, hereby permitted a car park management scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development in the interests of Highway safety.’

 

·       The Committee were wary of approving a planning permission in line with the safety of children being the upright importance.

·       It was highlighted that Members could no provide evidence on something that didn’t exist, however, existing factors on the site could be used as evidence: 60mph to 30mph downhill, bus stop, HGV’s and cars turning right.

·       That the delivery management plan including permitted times for delivery lorries. The delivery hours coincided with school start and finish times. It was queried whether a delivery management plan had been received.

 

The Senior Planning Officer clarified that the delivery management plan was to protect the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers in terms of noise whilst delivering rather than accessing the site to deliver.

 

Notwithstanding Lincolnshire County Council’s concerns raised on the application. They had not mentioned the car parking or arrangements for delivery within the site or accessing/exiting the site.

 

A condition secured deliveries to take place outside of school hours, Mondays – Saturdays, no Sundays and Bank Holidays (9:30am-15:00pm and 16:00pm-18:00pm).

 

It was suggested that the application be deferred for a traffic assessment to be completed to address the sensitivity of concerns of children.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning informed the Committee that a deferment would require detailed reasons of what further information would be expected from the Applicant. Once heard again with additional information, the scheme should then be acceptable.

 

·       Whether EV charging points would be included on the site, if approved.

 

It was suggested that delivery times changed to 14:30pm-16:30pm, in order to allow time for children to be picked up from clubs etc.

 

·       How often Local Authorities go against Highways recommendations.

 

The Chairman highlighted that an objection from Highways was unusual.

 

Egress and impact on amenity and open space

 

·       That the scale of the site harmed the character and amenities of the area in line with policies.

·       Members noted that open space should be utilised in better ways.

·       The one-way traffic system on the site was discussed.

·       One Member requested advice on which material considerations could apply to this application, and which ones could be ruled out.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning clarified that there was no definitive list of material considerations, and which could apply to this application, and which ones could be ruled out.

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director of Planning to REFUSE planning permission, for the following reasons:

 

1.    The application scheme would result in vehicles, including heavy goods vehicles parking on the public highway, which, due to the proximity to the primary school and other large scale commercial and employment land uses that have a prevalence of larger vehicles, accessing them would lead to restricted visibility at nearby junctions and crossing points resulting in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, contrary to Policy ID2 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan and paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.    The application scheme would result in the partial loss of an area of informal open space, which would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy DE1, OS1 and E4 of the adopted Local Plan, and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In this case, the Local Planning Authority does not consider that the public benefits associated with the proposal, including the additional employment generated, would outweigh the identified harm.

 

(The Committee adjourned for a 10-minute break)