Agenda item

As detailed in the preamble above, Councillor J. Robinson left the room at the conclusion of the public speaking and took no part in the debate or decision thereof.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 41 to 48 of the Public Reports pack.

The application was for the Stourbridge Road car park, Stourbridge Road, Bromsgrove and sought the Construction of a freestanding restaurant with associated works.

The site’s proximity to the Aldi supermarket, Bromsgrove District Council Offices and adjoining roads were highlighted and their locations identified on page 45 of the Public Reports pack. Landscaping around the site included a retaining red brick wall and railing and there was a proposed widening of the access point to accommodate two directions of traffic. The building would be predominantly constructed of red brick with brey brick infill panels and white canopy detailing, a CGI representation of which was shown on pages 67 and 68 of the Public Reports pack.

The main issues for consideration were detailed which included, the principle of development, public health, the design, Highways matters and Trees.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Gerner, on behalf of the Bromsgrove Society, Dr D Raven and Carol Bennett address the Committee in objection to the application. Mr P Isherwood, on Behalf of the applicant, spoke in support. Councillor J. Robinson also address the Committee as Ward Member.

After questions from Members the following was clarified by Officers.

• The site will have parking; however, this would only be for customers. The control of this was an operational issue for the restaurant.
• It would be outside of the remit of the planning Committee to impose litter picking via the Section 106 (S106) planning obligation nor Conditions. This would be an operational issue for the restaurant.
• There was no requirement for West Mercia Police to be consulted on the application. Furthermore, how the security was managed on the site would be an operational issue for the restaurant.

It was noted that Paragraph 97 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that Local Planning Authorities should refuse applications for hot food takeaways and fast-food outlets within walking distance of schools or other places where children and young people congregate, unless the location is within a designated town centre. However, Officers clarified that as the application was within the defined town centre the application complied with paragraph 97 of the NPPF.

It was noted that the application originally proposed a two-storey building with substantial internal seating. This would have generated a large number of vehicles and therefore, Worcestershire County Council, Highways (County Highways) objected to the application due to the cumulative impact of the volume of vehicles on the road network. However, the application before Members was a much smaller building and with the proposed mitigating measures, was deemed acceptable by County Highways.

Mr B. Simms, of County Highways further clarified the following.

• The £10,000 provided as part of the S106 agreement would be used to upgrade the Mover traffic light system to optimise the signal change times to minimise traffic queues. This value also accounted for some money towards future calibration work on the junction.
• All current and known future developments were accounted for during the highways impact assessment modelling.
• Yellow box junctions could be utilised where two roads meet which was deemed to be the case with the development. Section 174 of the highways code forbids stopping in this area, this would be a matter for the police to enforce.
• There was currently a level of traffic which was being rerouted due to works in the area and that County Highways had to consider the baseline function of the road when determining an application, not necessarily the current situation.
• There was some professional disagreement between Jacobs, Mott MacDonald and County Highways as to if the modelling was accurate and if the proposed measures would be sufficient to mitigate the impact of the development. County Highways considered all the views and it was their conclusion that the severity test set out in Para 116 of the NPPF was not met, therefore, they did not raise an objection.

Members expressed strong support for the regeneration of the Town Cantre and welcomed businesses to the area, however, there were concerns around if the location was suitable and if the traffic measures would be adequate to mitigate the impact on the highways. Members were also concerned that there were differing professional opinions supplied by the highway’s experts.

In addressing Members concerns, officers drew their attention to page 31 Paragraph 6.11 of the Public Reports pack, noting that although Mott MacDonald expressed a difference of opinion, they had stated that “Overall, the development’s traffic impact, particularly at the Parkside junction, remains “not proven” rather than demonstrably severe”, it was highlighted by Officers that demonstrably severe was the threshold required to raise an objection to the application. Therefore, there was no evidence supplied to directly support an Alternative Recommendation that the cumulative highways impact was severe as to warrant refusal.

There would be a loss of 71 car parking spaces within the Town Centre of Bromsgrove due to the closing of the Stourbridge Road carpark. Parking reports indicated that there was very little capacity in some of the town centre car parks, However, School Drive and North Bromsgrove car parks had sufficient excess capacity to accommodate the 71 spaces lost by the development. It was further noted that Employees of Bromsgrove District Council would be asked to use these carparks and the recreation road carpark near Asda was often at 50% capacity so could also accommodate vehicles. Therefore, following enquiries from Members and in light of the above figures, Officers advised that it would be difficult to justify the imposition of a S106 Contribution from the developer to re-open the Churchfield Road carpark.

Councillor M. Marshall proposed an Alternative Recommendation to refuse the application as to the application was supported by transport modelling which contained limitations and deficiencies such that the degree of impact on the Parkside junction and neighbouring roads, including proposed mitigations, remained uncertain and that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the cumulative impact on the road network would not be severe. The Alternative Recommendation was Seconded by Councillor R. Lambert. However, following Legal advice and after a 10-minute adjournment from 19:31 hours to 19:41 hours to consider the advice, the Alternative Recommendation was withdrawn.

Councillor A. Bailes Proposed an Alternative Recommendation to defer the planning application with the view that Members did not have up-to-date base data, nor did they have enough evidence that the scheme had been tested under all reasonable future scenarios in order for members to make an informed decision. The Alternative Recommendation was Seconded by Councillor R. Lambert and on being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED that the application be deferred to a future meeting of the planning committee to allow Officers time to supply information as requested by Members detailed in the preamble above.