Issue - meetings

            That the application be deferred with a report being submitted to the next meeting of the Committee with additional information on the issues raised. 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 18 January 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that planning permission had been granted in March 2015 by Committee against the officer recommendation.  During the development of the site, it had become apparent that there were some issues with the location of the store in relation to the surrounding residential properties and the extent of the works that would need to be undertaken on the existing vegetation and bund.  This retrospective application had been submitted to regularise the proposal and to reflect the proposed changes which included the removal of the housing element of the application, instead proposing a commuted sum, an extension to the car parking and also the erection of a substation.  The officer explained that a number of objections to the proposals had been received and these were set out in the late observations.  The main issues in this application were whether the landscaping in this scheme provided adequate screening, whether the extension to opening and delivery hours was acceptable and also the acceptability of a commuted sum in place of the five affordable houses on the site and for public art.

                        The principle of the site had been established but there was a need to consider the differences between what had been approved and what was built on the site.  The previous application stated that the existing landscaping bund, which was on site as part of its former use as the compound for the construction of the retail park, would remain.  The bund was covered in unmanaged vegetation and it was proposed that the mature trees would remain with some removal of low level vegetation as required.  However following the marking out of the store on site and the commencement of the construction process, it became evident that the works required to the bund were more substantial than initially envisaged.  The stores location was plotted using GPS with the retail park spine road used as the starting point.  The site boundaries with Simonstone Road and Chester Road had not been surveyed due to the vegetation on the site.  The submitted plans therefore relied upon Ordnance Survey data which in this instance was inaccurate with what was actually built on the ground.  The main discrepancies relating to the position of the boundaries and siting of 24 and 26 Simonstone Road with these properties being located closer to the site boundary than indicated on the Ordnance Survey plan.  The officer explained that it had therefore been necessary to remove some of the existing bund during the construction process and support it with stone filled gabion baskets with a fence on top.  This led to the removal of trees and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113