Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

 

The Committee considered an application by Lidl – 3/19/1767/FUL - which proposed the demolition of two existing dwellings and the redevelopment of the site through the construction of a Lidl supermarket and associated development, including parking – for 79 vehicles - manoeuvring, and loading areas, plant, boundary treatment, lighting, and landscaping at 76-78 Ringwood Road, Verwood.

 

Officers explained that the proposed retail building would be a detached structure occupying the southern half of the site and the parking area would be located at the northern end. Access was proposed from Ringwood Road through the existing site entrance, with the building having a gross internal area of 1700sqm in area, of which 1170sqm would be given over to sales space. The remaining internal area would accommodate, amongst other things, storage, staff facilities, a chiller and freezer areas.

 

Officers clarified that there were to be 12 cycle parking spaces provided, with 6 Sheffield bike stands; that 64 letters of objection had been received from neighbouring addresses and 3 received with no address; and that a Statement of Community Involvement was also submitted with the application which included 3648 consultation responses - with there being a large majority in favour of the application.

 

As to the relevant planning history of the site, whist the land had been recently used for the display and sale of caravans - as well as accommodating the two residential properties, 76-78 Ringwood Road - an application previously had been refused to build a 64 bed, care home on the basis of its scale, style and bulk, impact on the character of the area, impact on neighbouring amenity, impact on trees. However, the application now being considered had addressed such issues satisfactorily so that this development was now seen to be a means of making best use of this brownfield site and going some way to providing for and meeting the retail need in Verwood which had been identified.

 

Officers clarified that whilst the category of A1 - shops - was now class E (commercial business and service), as amended 1September 2020 under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020, there was a material transitional period until 31 July 2021 where the former use class was still referred to and valid.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers provided context of what the

main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were; how

these were to be progressed; how the development would address retail need in that part of the county; and what this entailed. The presentation focused on

not only what the development entailed and its detailed design, but what

effect it would have on residential amenity, Verwood town centre and the character of the area. Officers were obliged to consider whether there were any alternative, suitable sites and whether the development would be harmful to the viability of Verwood town centre. Analysis of evidence had indicated that, in both cases, it was their view that this would not be the case. If the proposal had been considered to be harmful to the viability and vitality of Verwood, the creation of 40 full time and part time jobs would not have been considered to carry significant weight to overcome the harm that would be caused. As the proposal was considered not to be harmful to the viability and vitality of Upton town centre, this was one of the reasons for what was being recommended. Overall, the modest economic benefits were seen to be acceptable and should be seen to be beneficial in contributing to economic growth in that part of Dorset in particular and the county in general.

 

Plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location, orientation, dimensions – form, bulk, size and mass - and appearance of the development; how it would look – with contextual elevations / visualisation and floorplans being provided for this purpose; the materials to be used; the layout of the car park and where trolley parks would be located; access and highway considerations; the means of landscaping; where any pedestrian access would be situated; how Ringwood Road could be crossed safely and where the best places to do this would be; the relationship with Verwood Heath; and its setting within Verwood and the characteristics of that part of the town. How deliveries would be achieved was also described. The retention of a mature oak tree to the northwest of the site was also critical in being able to now make the recommendation members were being asked to consider.

 

Officers showed the development’s relationship with the neighbouring residential estates and views into the site and around it, as well as along Ringwood Road, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.

 

In particular concern had been raised as to the impact the development could have on the neighbouring residential properties and amenity - particularly those in Crescent Road - in terms of noise disturbance from intensified use, plant, traffic movements and hours of operation; loss of light; loss of privacy; air pollution and light pollution. This had been reflected in the objections received.

Officers considered that the proposed development would provide a clear economic benefit to Verwood and its surrounding area. The development would generate 40 jobs in the store. This was considered to be a positive benefit to the area. Moreover, a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) would

be applied to this development so as to provide for enhancements and improvements being made to benefit the community as per the applicant’s obligations in being able to proceed with the development.

 

Given all this, officers considered that all material planning considerations had been addressed and were acceptable, with the development making best use of previously developed – brownfield - land and would result in a positive contribution to the townscape. As such, members were now being asked to agree to what was being recommended.

 

Formal consultation had resulted in Verwood Town Council not objecting to, and accepting, the principle of the development so as to benefit the viability and vitality of the town. Dorset Council Highways Team raised no objections to the proposal, considering the relevant highway conditions covered all that was necessary. Advertisement of the application had generated both support for and opposition to the proposal: with the considerable majority of representations made being in favour of the provision of the store.

 

Officers considered that it was appropriate to condition any approval to ensure that, should the company’s business model alter in the future, it would not be in a position to sell goods that would have a harmful impact on the viability of other stores within the town centre (condition 3). How convenience and comparison goods available in the store were categorised and what these entailed - in terms of what proportions there would be and what arrangements would apply for their accessibility - so as to be acceptable in any direct competition to that provide in the town centre, was clarified. Members appreciated this better understanding.

 

The Committee were notified of those written submissions received and

officers read these direct to the Committee - being appended to these

minutes. Having heard what was said, officers responded to some of the

pertinent issues raised, being confident that, where applicable, each one could be addressed by the provisions of the application.

 

The Committee were joined by one of the three local Ward Members, Councillor Simon Gibson, who welcomed what he considered to be a much needed development to serve the needs of the local population with any effect on local established convenience stores being minimal. This store would offer the opportunity for residents to be able to do a weekly sized shop in close proximity to their homes and would attract shoppers from neighbouring rural villages and settlements. He was also supportive of the benefits for employment and the economy in Verwood.

 

The Chairman, as another of the Ward Members, was also supportive of the application and what it would bring to Verwood.

 

The opportunity was given for members to ask questions of the presentation and what they had heard, in seeking clarification of aspects so as to have a better understanding in coming to a decision. Particular reference was made to how the store would be constructed; the design and location of the external plant store and what nuisance this might cause; access arrangements; traffic management, speed limit provision and pedestrian safety; how the landscaping would be achieved; and what impact the development would have on neighbouring residential amenity. So as to prevent unauthorised use of the site after hours, they asked officers to consider the application of a barrier at the entrance to the car park to restrict use of the site outside store operating hours and so as to deter such use.

 

Officers addressed the questions raised, providing what they considered to be

satisfactory answers. As well as clarifying aspects of the development of the store itself and the site as a whole, the Highways Advisor explained how the access arrangements were designed to operate and the safety issues that had been considered and, where necessary, addressed in doing this.

 

Officers considered that the request for a barrier was acceptable and could be accommodated – by condition - to address any potential unauthorised activity in addressing those concerns Members raised.

 

Whilst some members maintained their reservations at what access arrangements were being proposed  - particularly with an operational garage opposite the entrance - and how, seemingly, these could not necessarily be enhanced at this stage, the general view was that the development was acceptable and an investment, in contributing quite significantly to both employment opportunities and economic growth in the area and would be an asset in meeting local retail needs.

 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application, having

understood what was being proposed and the reasoning for this; having taken

into account the officer’s report and presentation, the written representations;

and what they had heard at the meeting in taking account of the views of the two Ward members and the Town Council, and having received satisfactory

answers to questions raised, the Committee were satisfied in their

understanding of what the proposal entailed and the reasoning for this and, on

that basis – being proposed by Councillor David Morgan and seconded by Councillor Robin Cook - on being put to the vote, the Committee unanimously agreed that the application should be approved, subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 9 of the report and taking into account the addition of a condition to provide for a vehicle height barrier upon entry to the site.

 

Resolved

That planning permission, in respect of application 3/19/1767/FUL, be granted subject to the conditions contained in paragraph 9 of the report, with an additional condition being provided for in respect of:-

“Site security

·       details of a vehicle barrier to be installed at the entrance must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to the store opening to the public. The barrier must be installed before the store is opened to the public and permanently retained in accordance with the details. The barrier must be closed when the store is not open to members of the public.

Reason: In the interests of security and anti-social behaviour.”

 

Reasons for Decision

Para 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that

permission should be granted for sustainable development unless specific

policies in the NPPF indicate otherwise

• The proposal is not considered to harm the viability or vitality of Verwood Town Centre

• The location is considered acceptable and the proposal is considered acceptable in its design and general visual impact.

• There is not considered to be detrimental harm to neighbouring residential

amenity that would warrant refusal

• There are no other material considerations which would warrant refusal of this application