Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused due to the traffic associated with the development having a detrimental impact on highway safety.  

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 21 July 2014.  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 and explained that the application was to extend the existing building.  A letter of support was detailed in the late observations.  Local Members and Broughton & Bretton Community Council had raised concerns regarding highway problems at the junction with Broughton Hall Road and had also raised objections.   However, it should be noted that the Council’s Highways officers had no objections to the application and it was recommended for approval. 

                        Mr. S. Hughes spoke in support of the application.  The proposal complied with local and national policy and would enable a greater range of products and groceries, including more fresh goods, to be available.  The applicant had addressed concerns on the issue of parking and highway safety and no objections had been received from a highway safety perspective and no letters of objection had been received from residents.  He explained that a similar size store in Kelsall had eight car parking spaces and operated at capacity and added that this store would have 16 spaces for customers.  The store would not generate significant movements for deliveries and all except one of the employees at the existing store, which was to relocate to this area if approval was granted, walked to work. 

                        Councillor S. Stevens from Broughton & Bretton Community Council spoke against the application.  She felt that the main issue was the location which would result in increased traffic on a particularly busy road which was a main route to the retail park and Airbus factory.  She said that the proposal would result in five accesses onto the small junction and she felt that many people would not park there or walk from the nearby car park.  Councillor Stevens also raised concern about the use of the shop which would be vacated if the application was approved as she felt that it would be taken over by an ‘express’ store which the proposed Co-op store would not be able to compete with.  She concluded that a new road system was required with either traffic lights or a roundabout to ease the congestion at the junction.       

            The Local Member, Councillor Billy Mullin, proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He welcomed the presence of the Co-op store in Broughton but reiterated the concerns about highways.  He referred to the busy main road which took traffic heading for the retail park and which was a thoroughfare to Deeside and spoke of the campaign to get improvements to the junction.  He referred to the daily battle of motorists to exit the junction which would increase if the application was approved.  He added that he was not objecting to the Co-op store moving to this location but it would require significant improvements to the junction to ease traffic congestion. 

            Councillor Derek Butler concurred that he had no objection to the relocation but said that the shop at the new site would cause major problems, particularly in the morning and evenings, at the junction which was the main access and egress into the community.  It was reported that the maximum parking standards as set out in the Council’s Local Planning Guidance Notes equated to 29 car parking spaces.  However as there was additional parking available near to the site, it was reported that the proposed 16 spaces was sufficient.  Councillor Butler queried this and whether the car parking area would allow for an adequate turning circle. 

            Councillor Mike Peers raised concern that the proposal did not show the nearby zebra crossing and spoke of the conflict that could occur with the crossing for traffic turning right into the site.  He suggested that the entrance be off the main road with the exit from the site being onto Broughton Hall Road i.e. one way traffic movement and said that he could not support the application due to the traffic impact. Councillor Owen Thomas concurred that there should be one entrance in and one exit out of the site and commented on not having a slip road from the A55 to the retail park which he felt would have alleviated the traffic problems in the area.          

            Councillor Richard Jones welcomed the proposal.  He referred to the site history and the application reference 051738 for an extension to the site and asked why it had been refused on 19 June 2014.  The officer responded that the application had been refused due to lack of parking and visual impact. 

            The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control said that there were no objections from Highways subject to conditions and added that the proposal met the standards for visibility.  She felt that the suggestion for one entrance in and one exit out of the site would exacerbate the problem and added that there was no reason to refuse the application. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager felt that there was a need to look at the proposal in proportion and said that he had not heard any comments about any harm that the proposal might have on the area.  On the issue that Councillor Owen Thomas referred to, he spoke of the major developments in the area which had not resulted in the delivery of a slip road from the A55. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager reminded Members that they had heard from officers that there was no evidence to refuse the application on highway grounds. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application due to the traffic associated with the development having a detrimental impact on highway safety, against officer recommendation, was CARRIED.          

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused due to the traffic associated with the development having a detrimental impact on highway safety.