Agenda item

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 9 of the report.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of the former co-operative store and the erection of a 2 to 3 storey building to provide apartments with specialist care for the elderly (Use Class C2) with communal facilities, alongside associated parking, landscaping, refuse/scooter store and services at 8-10 St Johns.

Reason Why Being Considered at Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee as it is outside the scope of the adopted Scheme of Delegation.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the site itself, relevant policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper, which related to photographic evidence with regard to the proposal, from the objector who had registered to speak on the item.  It was also noted that the applicant had circulated a booklet on the proposal to all Members of the Committee.

Officer Presentation

The information was presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

The Deputy Service Manager – Development Management informed Committee Members that in terms of the Development Plan policies taken as a whole, it is considered that the identified adverse impacts outweigh the benefits, as set out in the report, and was recommended for refusal by officers.

Public Representations

The following people had registered to speak on the application:

Rebecca Underwood (Objector) and Rob Gaskell (Applicant) and James Carter (Acquisitions & Development Manager, Co-Op)

A local Ward Member, Councillor Udall also addressed the Committee.

Key Points of Debate

·        The local Ward Member, speaking on behalf of Councillors Lamb and Norfolk, and the large number of residents of St Johns, informed Committee that they would be making one of the biggest decisions on the future of St John’s.  He referred to his objections on pages 35 and 36 of the officer’s report.  The proposal was considered to be an over development of the site which would have a detrimental impact on the area.  He agreed with the recommendation of refusal by officers but also had concerns over the impact of parking in the St John’s area and the need for the shop frontages to remain as retail which would be vital for the St John’s area. 

·        The proposal would impact on the immediate neighbours at 14-16 St John’s, which is a listed building and referenced in the officer’s report.  He acknowledged that there would be development on this site, but not all residential, he considered there was room for compromise and asked that discussions and negotiations take place with the developer.

·        The objector, who owned 14-16 St John’s, identified a number of issues that the proposal would cause to the listed building.  A loss of light and privacy, overshadowing of communal gardens of the properties, access restrictions, size and construction style of the proposal not in keeping with the area, issue with car parking. She drew the Committee’s attention to the photographs outlined in the late paper which accompanied her address to Committee.  There were no questions from Committee Members.

·        The Acquisitions and Development Manager for the Co-Op commented on the viability of the retail use on the site and the objections raised with regard to the loss of the supermarket use.  He informed the Committee that investment in the Co-Op could no longer be made following the granting of the Sainsbury’s supermarket in 2009 and Aldi’s supermarket in 2016 which had an impact on the Co-Op store and possible investment.  The decision to close the store meant that future investment was no longer viable and there was no other viable retail interest in the site.  If consented the receipts from the sale of the site will allow the Co-Op to invest in its sustainable core convenience estate. 

·        The Acquisitions and Development Manager responded to questions from Committee Members particularly around the concentration of convenience stores and not larger ones and looking at alternative options rather than just retirement living.  He was also asked where the investment would go and would it be in Worcester, it was commented that no guarantee could be given at the moment but could possibly go towards the convenience store in Henwick Road.

·        The applicant responded to a comment made on the loss of car parking spaces compared to the site now and the proposal.  He stated that any development coming forward would not have the same level of car parking spaces as the Co-Op had. 

·        The applicant went on to address the Committee in support of the application and identified the benefits of the proposal and asked that the Committee grant planning permission.  The applicant responded to questions from Committee Members particularly around cycle storage and mobility scooter plans and the transport travel plan.  The slides from the powerpoint presentation clarified the answers to the questions.

·        Some Committee Members had sympathy for the applicants as the retail situation is competitive.  There was support for the need for residential accommodation for the elderly, but it was felt that this was the wrong location and endorsed the comments of officers relating to scale, massing and design.

·        It was asked how much of the amenity space was usable, in response the Deputy Service Manager – Development Management referred to the relevant slide on the powerpoint presentation and clarified the amount of space available.

·        Reference was made to paragraphs 7.89 and 7.94 of the report related to Heritage and the comments of Historic England who had not raised any formal objection but maintained that this was a missed opportunity to enhance and better reveal significance, as called for in national policy.

·        Concerns were raised that the proposed communal facilities such as a hairdressers, coffee bar and restaurant would affect local businesses in the St John’s area and it was felt that there was already a large amount of sheltered housing in the area. The Head of Planning informed Members of the Committee that they should not take commercial competition into consideration as this is not a material consideration, but the concerns were understood.

·        The Service Manager – Development Management sought Members’ clarification that the motion to refuse planning permission was in accordance with the three reasons for refusal as set out in the report.  This was agreed by the Committee.

A proposal to refuse the application, as per the Officers recommendation, had been made and this was seconded.  There being no further points made the Chair requested the voting of each Member of the Committee who was eligible to vote.  Following the recording of the votes the proposal to refuse was agreed as follows.

For - 10

Against - 0

Abstentions – 0

RESOLVED: That the Committee refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 9 of the report.