Agenda item

To determine a full planning application for development of 6no. retails units (Use Class A1/A3), including associated servicing, car parking, landscaping, drainage and other ancilliary works.

The Committee considered a report from the planning officers in relation to a full planning application from Northumberland Estates for development of six retail units (Use Class A1/A3), including associated servicing, car parking, landscaping, drainage, and other ancillary works. A planning officer presented details of the application with the aid of various maps, plans and photographs.

In accordance with the Committee’s Speaking Rights Scheme the following residents of Edmund Road had been granted permission to speak to the Committee: Gillian and John Rowe, Carl Dean, and Edward, Glynis and Peter Thompson. As there were a number of speakers, the Chair had requested that the speakers appoint a lead spokesperson to speak for 5 minutes and the remaining speakers be allowed a further 5 minutes to address the Committee.

Gillian Rowe stated that the proposed development did not meet the Council’s guidelines set out in its Local Plan. The development would have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties because of the increased volume of traffic, poorer air quality, noise disturbance, risk to safety and increased anti-social behaviour. The shopping centre would be larger than those supported by the Council’s policies and it would attract increased traffic to an already congested area.

Carl Dean described the access and egress from the development site which passed down a residential street. It could be used by in excess of 10,000 vehicles per week and if congestion, speeding or parking problems occurred there did not appear to be any capacity to resolve the problems. The proposed servicing arrangements at the front of the retail units would be problematic. Staff arriving before 6.00am would disturb residents and hotel guests. The development was also likely to lead to an increase in vehicles dangerously turning right from the Holystone Bypass into the access road.

Guy Munden of Northumberland Estates addressed the Committee to respond to the speakers’ comments. He explained that the application was for a small parade of local shops on a brownfield site. It would serve the needs of Holystone Park residents who did not at present have any local shops. Its location next to residential streets would minimise the need for car journeys.  It was not on the scale of a large destination shopping centre and it did not seek to draw trade from other centres. The land had been designated for employment use but there had been no market interest during the past 10 years, its loss was negligible and the provision of a retail centre would support economic growth and enhance the amenity and appearance of the site.  The Council’s highways officers had raised no safety or capacity concerns regarding the proposal.

Members of the Committee asked questions of Guy Munden and officers and made comments. In doing so the Committee gave particular consideration to:

a)    the type and nature of local convenience stores likely to open at the site and the definition of the A1 and A3 use classes;

b)    the location of the units subject to a proposed condition restricting their use to A3 only. (At the meeting the applicant confirmed that these units would be those numbered 5 and 6, the units furthest from residential development, and not 1 and 6 as stated in the planning officers report.)

c)    the size of the units and the effect of the proposed condition restricting their amalgamation or sub-division;

d)    the separation distances from the retail units to the nearest homes;

e)    the proposed quantity of car and cycle parking spaces on the site in the context of the Council’s minimum requirements; and

f)     the impact of the development on the safety and capacity of the highways network surrounding the site.

Resolved that planning permission be refused on the following grounds: 

a)     The proposal is an inappropriate use of employment land resulting in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity in terms of noise, disturbance and pollution by virtue of its proximity to local residents and traffic movements through residential areas.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policies DM5.19 and DM6.1 of the North Tyneside Local Plan and NPPF.

b)     The proposal is considered to be an inappropriate size for the site, due to the overall floor area of the proposed development exceeding that set out in Policy DM3.6 which seeks to support local facilities to serve the needs of local populations.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DM3.6 of the North Tyneside Local Plan.