Agenda item

To consider a report of the Chief Planning Officer on an outline application for the demolition of existing building and erection of development comprising foodstore, petrol filling station, car parking, means of access and associated works

(report attached)

  Prior to consideration of this application, Councillor A McKenna, withdrew from the meeting

  Plans, photographs, drawings and graphics were displayed at the meeting.  A Members site visit had taken place earlier in the day

  Officers presented the report which sought Panel’s approval in principle for outline planning permission for the demolition of the existing building – known as the Miami Building – and the erection of a foodstore, petrol filling station, car parking, means of access and associated works

  Details of alternative employment sites in the surrounding area were outlined, with Members being informed that the adjacent site was now proposed to be retained as Green Belt

  In relation to highways issues, a road safety audit would be required for the road junctions proposed in the revised highways scheme which had been submitted.  The highways scheme would also deliver benefits beyond the site

  Whilst an end user for the proposed supermarket had not been indicated, due to the size of the site, Officers were of the view that it would be suitable for any of the main four supermarket retailers and possibly for some of the other operators, i.e. the budget retailers, although a smaller footprint might be expected in that case

  The receipt of additional representations were reported, with the comments received from Councillor M Dobson; two local residents and the owner of several business premises on Main Street Garforth, being outlined to Panel

  If minded to agree the Officer’s recommendation, a further condition was proposed which related to sustainability in respect of construction and use of the development, going forward

  The Panel then heard representations from an objector who outlined his concerns about the application, which included:

·  viability

·  the sequential test which had been carried out and the robustness of this

·  the impact assessment which had been carried out and the view this was not realistic

·  loss of employment land

·  the demand locally for modern, industrial units

·  the existence of an alternative site for the proposals

The Panel then heard from the applicant’s agent who highlighted

issues relating to the proposals, which included:

·  that discussion and engagement on the scheme had been ongoing for two years

·  the extensive public consultation which had taken place on the proposals and the high levels of support for the scheme

·  the benefits the scheme would bring in terms of job creation; the regeneration of the site; more consumer choice and highway improvements

·  the lack of demand in the market for the existing industrial unit and the existence of more preferable and suitable industrial sites

The Panel discussed the application, with the main issues raised

relating to:

·  the retail impact assessment and whether this had been independently assessed.  Members were informed this had been assessed in-house

·  the likely tenant and whether Tesco was considering the site for a relocation of their existing store.  The applicant’s agent advised that positive discussions had taken place with two operators but for commercial reasons further details could not currently be provided.  The applicant’s agent stated that no discussions had taken place with Tesco

·  the approach for securing the best outcomes for local jobs and that these outcomes could differ depending upon the supermarket operator.  Members were informed that agreed wording regarding employment and training would be included within a S106 Agreement, to be agreed as part of the delegation of the approval of the application to the Chief Planning Officer, as set out in the submitted report.  The Chair requested that details of the jobs being created should be submitted to Panel and a suggestion to condition the employment proposals was made.  The Head of Planning Services stated that tying down the employment elements of the scheme could be dealt with in either way, although including this in the S106 was more legally binding

RESOLVED -  To defer and delegate to the Chief Planning Officer for

approval subject to the conditions outlined in the submitted report, an additional condition for the submission for approval of measures to achieve a sustainable build; the submission of a highways safety audit of the revised junction arrangement; the expiry of the publication period, this being the end of 25^th June 2015 and no new representations being received that raise significant new planning issues and the completion of a S106 agreement to cover the following:

·  improvements to local bus stops (x2), comprising shelters, real time information, accessibility kerbing and associated lining

·  travel plan monitoring fee of £2,500

·  employment and training initiatives (applies to both the construction phase and once operational) with a further report being submitted to Panel detailing this element

In the circumstances where the S106 has not been completed within 3 months of the resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the application shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer

  Following consideration of this matter, Councillor A McKenna resumed her seat in the meeting