Agenda item

Variation of condition 17 on application no. 08/01129/FUL to allow the ground floor retail unit to sell convenience goods for Kempsten Ltd

(Under the Scheme of Public Participation, Tim Hamilton-Cox, Patricia Clarke and Matthew Wilson spoke in objection to the application.  Philip Robinson, agent for the applicant, spoke in support.)

Tim Hamilton-Cox spoke in objection to the application and informed Members that the case officer’s report did not provide a full analysis, for example it did not make reference to Tesco.  The layout plans submitted last month had indicated that the store would be smaller than Somerfield and half the size of Booths at Scotforth.  The proposal was aimed at top-up shopping and would have no beneficial impact.  The White Young Green report had said that a Tesco Express store could have a turnover of £3½ m.  He was concerned regarding the impact that Tesco would have on independent traders.  Other councils had rejected such applications on the basis of the impact they would have on town centres.  The report did not refer to the reasons for refusal in a previous application and was based on misleading representations from the applicant.  Members were asked to defer the application to allow a full analysis to be undertaken, and a highway safety audit and an air quality assessment to be carried out, as in a previous application.   The safety of pedestrians and cyclists had previously been considered and were still relevant, and he urged Members to have regard to them when considering this application.

Patricia Clarke, representing Dynamo, a local group promoting cycling as a means of transport, spoke in objection to the application and advised Members that the application made no provision for cycle parking.  The toucan crossing across King Street to Queen Square was welcomed.  Lancaster was a Cycling Demonstration Town and Dynamo wished to raise six points regarding the application, namely (1) The proposal did not make provision for a contra-flow lane; (2) The need for a contra-flow lane for cyclists travelling east to west; (3) Two cycle lanes had already been lost and a cycle contra-flow lane would offer some compensation, as did the toucan crossing; (4) alternative forms of transport were required and there was an absence of proposals; (5) the City Council was committed to cycling; and (6) the funding from Cycle England would run out shortly and this would be the last chance to request amended plans to improve the cycle contra-flow.

Matthew Wilson spoke in objection to the application and asked that the City Council use joined up thinking, referring to separate planning issues regarding Centros, the proposal regarding Lancaster Market in connection with the little-known supermarket, Asco, and the Booths supermarket development on the outskirts of Lancaster.  He advised Members that he had only learned of this application on Thursday of the previous week and felt that there had been a lack of public consultation.  He informed Committee that one large development would cancel out another, and there was a chance to look at what was needed in the town in the light of this and asked whether Lancaster would have got Tesco if Asco had been established in the Market, or whether Lancaster would have got Booths, had the Centros application been approved.  It appeared that the City Council said ‘yes’ to everything.  The Council seemed to be committed to sustaining the indoor market, which would be killed off should Tesco be established.  Tesco.  The LibDem website stated that the City Council was currently tied into a 99 year lease.  The great thing about Lancaster was the number of independent retailers and this proposal would not help them flourish, rather it would help them close down.

Philip Robinson addressed Members in support of the application and advised that he was employed by G. L. Hearn, Property Consultants, agents for the applicant.  The application was for the variation of condition 17 to allow the ground floor retail unit to sell convenience foods.  The objectors had raised issues regarding highways.  Under the S278 agreement between the applicant and the highway authority, all servicing of the approved development would take place from the loading bay provided in Spring Garden Street, which was in the interests of highway safety for cyclists and pedestrians, and would ensure congestion in the gyratory traffic system was not exacerbated by the development.  Since the initial application in 2008, no tenants had been secured.  County Highways’ previous opposition to the scheme had been due to the impact of service vehicles on the gyratory system and servicing arrangements.  The controls on servicing, which the applicant was willing to support, meant that County Highways now supported the application.  Members were asked to support the application and advised he would be willing to answer any questions they may have.

Members considered the application and the public representations.

It was proposed by Councillor Dennison and seconded by Councillor Greenall:

“That the application be deferred.”

Upon being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the proposition, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be clearly carried.

Resolved:

That the application be deferred to allow:

(1)        A meeting with the CDT Team, Highways, the applicant and Planning Officer to agree the final layout.

(2)        Further information on the number of deliveries of the non-food element (the cumulative total deliveries for Tesco), scale and size of delivery vehicles, length of duration of delivery, and issues of safety assessment (i.e. how far the buses will swing into the proposed cycle path).

(3)        An investigation of air quality issues associated with the additional deliveries and particularly queuing in the location.

(4)        County Highways to confirm that the proposed changes to the layout do not impact upon the car park opposite.