Agenda item

The application was for the amalgamation of existing (Class E) retail units (Units 2B & 2C) for use as a foodstore (Class E) along with internal works (including a reduction in mezzanine floorspace), changes to the building elevations (including a revised shop front), site layout (including revised servicing and car parking arrangements), revised opening and servicing hours, external plant area, trolley bay and associated works.

Members were advised of the following updates:

“UPDATE 

The Council’s GIS system names the properties to be amalgamated as Units 2A & 2B.  This has been amended on the proposal description.

The Council’s retail adviser raises no objections subject to clarification on retail impact.  This clarification was subsequently provided by the applicant and a view was taken by officers on these submissions.   Officers are satisfied that all outstanding matters have been addressed.

Representations

Waitrose & Partners have sent a further representation, maintaining their objection to the proposal, and requested that, if approved, they are given the opportunity to comment on the servicing plan (requested by Condition 6). They have also requested additional text to the condition to ensure that the open parts of the service yard shall be maintained free from obstruction and not used for storage purposes (whether temporary or permanent).

[Officer comment: It is considered that the servicing plan will provide such information and the temporary storage of goods in the service yard (as they are offloaded and before they are taken into the building) would not be easily enforceable. The more permanent storage could more easily enforced.  It is noted that the Waitrose service yard is only accessed by vehicles through the service yard to the rear of the proposed store.  The servicing plan will be provided to ensure access is maintained through this service yard to the Waitrose service yard beyond and control deliveries (during the proposed extension of servicing hours).  No amendment to this condition is therefore considered to be necessary.  If approved, any application to agree these details will be published and they can be notified at that time]. 

Two further objections have been received but these objections raise no new issues.

Corrections

Para 4.2: The net retail floorspace provided under this proposal (for Units 2A & 2B) is 1,019 square metres.  This is the amount proposed to be limited by Condition 4.

Para 4.3: The approved opening hours for the existing development is 07:00 to 23:00 hours on Mondays to Saturdays and 10:00 to 18:00 hours on Sundays [Condition 6 of permission 16/1041 and the same as Condition 26 of earlier permission 13/0435]. 

Para 7.3.8: The retail assessment considers that the proposal would result in a trade diversion from Bagshot of 1.9%. 

Response from applicant

The applicant has commented on the officer report by a two page email summarised below:

·         The proposal would not lead to an adverse impact on any defined centre or planned investment within any centre and the proposal complies with the sequential test.

·         Under the terms of national and local policy, there is no requirement to consider retail impact and that any retail impact would need to be “significant adverse”.  The benchmark for what is deemed unacceptable is high.

·         The existing Co-op stores being top-up shopping destinations is demonstrated by the Council’s retail evidence base [Town Centre Uses & Future Directions Study (August 2021)].

·         Bagshot is defined as a district centre.

·         The former BHS site had also been discounted in the sequential test because there were a number of constraints which make it unsuitable for a food retailer and Camberley is a different catchment for Lidl from Bagshot.

·         The pre-application public consultation exercise undertaken by the applicant concluded that of 7,805 properties notified of the proposal, there were 1,979 replies of which 12,483 were in support and 452 were not in support (with 44 undecided).

The applicant has sought amendments to Condition 9, relating to the provision of electric charging points.  The applicant is concerned that it will need to be tested how much the charging points are used to see if there is a demand for 13 charging points.   They have suggested providing a number (below 13) and add the remainder if demand arises. 

The County Highway Authority has agreed with the principle of this approach but has suggested a shorter timescale to deliver the remainder (6 months after occupation). However, it is considered that the wording of this condition needs to reflect the overall provision requirement and there are other mechanisms to challenge these requirements e.g. the NMA procedure.  A longer period (6 months) to provide the full amount is accepted.  An amended condition in this regard is therefore proposed. 

Amended condition

9. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied prior to the provision of 7 parking spaces and a further 6 parking spaces within 6 months of such occupation with a fast charge socket (current minimum requirements - 7kw Mode 3 with Type 2 connector - 230v AC 32 Amp single phase dedicated supply) in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of site sustainability and to comply with Policies CP2, CP11 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.”

As the application had triggered the Council’s public speaking scheme, Mr Adrian Fox, who attended on behalf of the agent, Quod, spoke in support of the application.

Members had concerns in respect of the potential negative impact of the deliveries by Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs), associated with the proposal, on the neighbouring residential amenity. As a result it was agreed that condition 5 in the officer’s report would be amended to stipulate that the latest HGV delivery should be completed by 9:30pm. Furthermore, it was agreed that an associated informative be added to the recommendation to reaffirm that deliveries should be conducted in a manner as to minimise impact on neighbouring residential amenity.

To further protect neighbouring residential amenity, the Committee agreed that an informative would be added to the recommendation in relation to the proposal’s travel plan; which requested that staff parking be provided on the application site.

Members had reservations in respect of the loss of trees attached to the proposal which would have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the area. It was noted that the details in respect of the hard and soft landscaping would be subject to a details to comply application.

The officer recommendation to grant the application was proposed by Councillor Edward Hawkins, seconded by Councillor Graham Tapper and put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED that

             I.        Application 20/0405 be granted subject to the conditions in the officer report, as amended, the additional informatives, and the completion of a legal agreement to secure a £50,000 contribution towards improvements to traffic lighting; and

            II.        The wording of the revised condition and the additional informatives be delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and relevant Ward Councillors; and

          III.        The Committee’s concerns in respect of the loss of trees be noted.

Note 1

It was noted for the record that:

               I.        Councillor Edward Hawkins declared that

                                i.        all Committee Members had received a letter from the adjoining retailer; and

                               ii.        himself and Councillor Victoria Wheeler had been copied into an email to Councillor Valerie White from a resident in respect of the application

             II.        Councillor Valerie White declared that she had received a phone call from the manager of Waitrose checking that she had received their written representation.

Note 2

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

Voting in favour of the officer recommendation to grant the application:

Councillors: Graham Alleway, Mark Gordon, Edward Hawkins, Robin Perry, Darryl Ratiram, Graham Tapper, Victoria Wheeler and Helen Whitcroft.

Voting against the officer recommendation to grant the application:

Councillors: Cliff Betton, David Lewis, Charlotte Morley, John Skipper and Valerie White.