Agenda item

Development of Class E(a) retail food store with associated parking, landscaping and access.

The Lead Project Officer delivered an update to the committee, in which it was explained that the applicant had requested for the application to be deferred until after the revised NPPF was finalised. Figures around the applicant’s public consultation exercise were also provided in the update.

With the aid of a visual presentation, that included plans and photographs, the Lead Project Officer identified the location of the site, which lay outside of the defined settlement boundary and within the Green Belt. The proposed site plan was shown, giving an indication of the scale and appearance of the proposed development. Details of both the public comments in support and objection to the application were outlined, as well as details of consultee responses.

The Lead Project Officer outlined the proposal, which consisted of developing a 1.25 hectare site for retail purposes, including a parking area, access and landscaping. This represented a marked change to the currently undeveloped nature of the site. It was explained that, where the Green Belt would be impacted, very special circumstances would need to be identified to outweigh any harm caused. 

It was considered that the site was in a sustainable location, within walking distance of Wareham and linked by bus routes to Poole and Swanage. A sequential test carried out by the applicant, showed that there were not any other suitable sites in the nearby or wider area that could be used for the development.

The landscaping plan and design of the store were shown and it was explained that these had been designed to reduce the visual impact of the site, however it was considered that the concerns over the visual impact could not be overcome due to irreversibly impacting the character of the area, by developing the Green Belt and filling in an open pocket of land.

The Lead Project Officer gave details of conditions that would be included should the application be approved, which included lighting restrictions, delivery and opening hours, a biodiversity plan and drainage plan. It was also explained that there were no objections on highways grounds, on the condition that improvements were made to the nearby pedestrian crossing.

To conclude, details of the planning balance were shown to members, detailing the level of weight given to each factor and officers considered that the harm to the Green Belt could not be overcome from the benefits of the application.

Public representation was received in objection to the application from Mr Chambler, Mr Fagan (Wareham Town Trust), Mr Schofield, Cllr Williamson (Wareham St Martin Parish Council) and both Dorset Council ward members, Cllr Ezzard and Cllr Holloway. They raised concerns including, impacting the character of the area, eroding the Green Belt, setting a precedent for developing Green Belt land and increased traffic and congestion.

Public representation was also received in support of the application from, Mr Stewart, Mrs Fletcher and Mr Mitchell, who spoke on behalf of the applicant. They noted the benefits that the application would bring, such as offering a discount supermarket for residents, reducing the number of car journeys of people travelling outside of the area to do their shopping and the significant number of people, who had expressed support for the application.

In response to questions from members the Lead Project Officer, with support from other officers in attendance and a retail consultant provided the following responses:

·       The pedestrian crossing, which was proposed to be improved, was outlined on a map and photographs provided.

·       The applicant’s public consultation did not contain information about the Green Belt or the settlement boundary.

·       The traffic impact assessment took into account a range of times of day and was compliant with guidelines.

Members had the opportunity to debate the merits of the application, several members expressed support for the application, identifying several benefits of the proposal, such as providing more choice in supermarkets for residents, they also noted the large amount of public support from residents and lack of objections from consultees. In addition, the value of the Green Belt land, in this particular case being surrounded by existing development and woodland, was questioned.

Other members agreed with the Case Officers recommendation to refuse the application on the grounds of loss of the Green Belt, which impacted the overall character of the area. They also highlighted the objections raised from the local parish council and ward members.

It was proposed to grant permission for the application on the grounds that there were very special circumstances, these being the provision of additional retail space in the area and a reduction in journeys travelling out of the area for shopping, which outweighed the harm to the Green Belt and other harm from the development. Members voting in favour of the development considered the benefits afforded by the scheme constituted very special circumstances and that those benefits clearly outweighed the harm caused by allowing development in the Green Belt in accordance with national policy.

The Lead Project Officer gave an overview of the conditions that would be imposed should permission be granted and that a S106 obligation was required to secure a financial contribution to mitigate biodiversity loss and provide biodiversity net gain. The proposer and seconder confirmed they were happy with the conditions, with the formal wording to be delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair and the requirement for a S106 obligation.

Proposed by Cllr Flower and seconded by Cllr Brenton.

Decision: Resolution to grant subject to securing the required biodiversity compensation payment; planning conditions with authority delegated to the Head of Planning and the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement to agree the wording of conditions with the Chair and the Vice-Chair of the Eastern Area Planning Committee; and referral to the Secretary of State.