Agenda item

(i)         That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to ensure the payment of a contribution to the Council for use in facilitating the implementation of public realm enhancements on Precinct Way.  Such sum to be paid to the Council upon commencement of the development. 

(ii)        It was also requested that the hedgerow on the border of the car park be retained if possible and that consultation be undertaken with the local Members about the time period for spending the Section 106 monies.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that there had been no objections from statutory consultees.  The current store and car park were within the town centre boundary of Buckley but the car park proposed in this application would be outside the boundary of the town centre.  He referred to the Buckley Masterplan and said that the proposed layout and arrangement of the scheme represented the appropriate response to the aim of the Masterplan in this location.  The current car park provided 90 spaces whilst the new car park would provide 210 spaces.  It was intended that it would be dual use for the store and the town centre to allow the development of the car park on the opposite side of Precinct Way; when the store was closed, the car park would be gated.  He drew Members’ attention to the proposed Section 106 obligation/unilateral undertaking for a contribution of £200,000 to facilitate the implementation of public realm enhancements on Precinct Way.  The officer referred to a late observation which had been received, asking for deferment of the application due to an application which was to be submitted for land to the west of the site, for a similar proposal; he had advised that there were no planning grounds to defer this application. 

            Mr. A.J. Worrall spoke against the application.  He indicated that he represented residents who were affected by the development with their main concerns being about security, noise and light pollution.  He referred to a hedgerow which had been in place for over 40 years which would be lost as a result of this proposal.  He felt that it would act as a barrier and that if it were be retained, then residents would have little or no objections to the application.  He spoke of a letter which he had sent to the Co-operative Group about the loss of the hedgerow in reply to a letter from them in which they spoke of their intention to support the retention of hedgerows. 

            The local Member, Councillor R.B. Jones, proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He asked whether the proposal could be amended to retain the hedgerow and thanked the officer for the exceptional report.        Councillor R.G. Hampson spoke in support of the application which he felt met the requirements of the Masterplan.  He welcomed the inclusion of the Section 106 obligation and the inclusion of the additional car parking spaces.  He also thanked the officer for his report.  Councillor M.J. Peers welcomed the proposal and congratulated the officer for the work he had undertaken.  He also felt that the hedgerow should be retained and queried whether the word ‘houses’ in condition 5 should read ‘units’.  In referring to condition 14, he asked if the wording could be changed so that the car park could be used when a special event was held by the Town Council.  He felt that the design of the building would be a welcome addition to Buckley and asked whether there was a time period on the use of the £200,000 for public realm enhancements. 

            In response to the queries raised, the officer felt that condition 14 did not preclude the Town Council from speaking to the Co-operative Group to discuss whether his suggestion for the use of the car park could be pursued.  The reclaiming of the monies for a commuted sum was a standard element of Section 106 agreements but he said that he could consult with the local Members on a realistic timeframe.  On the issue of the hedgerow, the proposals for the boundary of the site involved an element of landscaping to ensure security of the site and to ensure that it did not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area.  Discussions could take place with the Co-operative Group to establish whether something could be put in place to safeguard security, amenity and the hedgerow. 

            On the issue of the section 106 obligation, the Principal Solicitor said that it was entirely appropriate that it be refunded if it was not spent in a reasonable amount of time.  He explained about the guidance on the time period for play provision (5 years) and educational provision (10 years) payments.  It would be a matter for discussion with the Co-operative Group in consultation with the local Members. 

            In summing up, Councillor Jones agreed that the timeframe for returning the commuted sum should be in line with the Masterplan and asked that a condition be included to retain the hedgerow where possible.      

            RESOLVED:

(i)         That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to ensure the payment of a contribution to the Council for use in facilitating the implementation of public realm enhancements on Precinct Way.  Such sum to be paid to the Council upon commencement of the development. 

(ii)        It was also requested that the hedgerow on the border of the car park be retained if possible and that consultation be undertaken with the local Members about the time period for spending the Section 106 monies.