Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Laura Mayes.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 18 March 2010 (copy herewith).

The minutes of the meeting held on 18^th March 2010 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any declarations of personal or prejudicial interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

E/09/01602/FUL – Councillor Philip Brown declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application as he is an employee of Sainsbury and therefore would not participate in the consideration of the application, withdrawing from the meeting for the duration of the consideration and determination of the application.

Councillor Peggy Dow declared that she had publically supported the Tesco Supporters Group in 2009, however this was before she had known that another Supermarket was interested in establishing premises in the Marlborough area.  In the interest of making decisions that are open and transparent, she would speak in her capacity as local member and then withdraw from the meeting for the duration of the consideration and determination of the application.

E/10/0183/S73 Councillor Chris Humphries declared a personal and prejudical interest in the application as he is the applicant and would therefore withdraw from the meeting for the duration of the consideration and determination of the application.

E/09/0758/FUL – Councillor Richard Gamble declared a personal interest in this item as Mr Bennett is known to him through the group ‘Business over Breakfast’..

There were none.

Members of the public who wish to speak either in favour or against an application on this agenda are asked to register in person no later than 5:50pm on the day of the meeting.

The chairman will allow up to 3 speakers in favour and up to 3 speakers against an application. Each speaker will be given up to 3 minutes and invited to speak immediately prior to the item being considered. The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice.

The Committee noted the rules on public participation and the manner in which the meeting would proceed.

To receive details of the completed and pending appeals (copy herewith).

The Committee noted the report. The Chairman remarked on the favourable results, which compared with the national average for local planning authorities of the Appeal Performance April 1^st 2009 -31^st March 2010.

The Committee received a presentation by the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the application. 

The Committee then received statements from the following members of the public expressing their views regarding this planning application.

Public Participation:

1. Mr Bruno Moore spoke in opposition of the application.
2. Mr David Dudley spoke in opposition of the application.
3. Ms Melanie Chiswell spoke in support of the application.
4. Mrs Lisa Farrell spoke in support of the application.
5. Mr Carter spoke in support of the application.
6. Mrs Hannaford-Dobson Marlborough Town Councillor spoke in support of the application.
7. Mrs Peggy Dow Marlborough Town Councillor and Unitary Member for Marlborough East, spoke in support of the application.

Following a lengthy debate of the salient points,

Resolved:

Planning permission is GRANTED for the following reasons:

The decision to grant planning permission has been taken on the grounds that the proposed development would not cause any significant harm to interests of acknowledged importance having regard to the policies of the development plan, central government planning statements and guidance and other material considerations.

The proposed development is an out of centre food store in Marlborough which will offer convenience goods and, to a lesser extent, comparison goods.  The application for the development is accompanied by considerable evidence which demonstrates that there would be no adverse impact from this on: 

(i)                 town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience offer;

(ii)               in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area; and

(iii)             other locally important impacts.

There are no existing, committed and planned public and private investment proposals in the centre or centres within the catchment area of the proposal.  There are no allocated sites outside the town centre being developed.

The application site is neither in the town centre nor at the edge of the centre.  It has, however, been robustly demonstrated that there are no sequentially preferable sites in these locations in any event.  The proposal is of an appropriate scale in relation to the size of the centre and its role in the hierarchy of centres.   

In general terms the proposal:

(i)                 has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions, and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to climate change;

(ii)               is accessible by a choice of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car, and would not aggravate congestion after public transport and traffic management measures have been put in place;

(iii)             secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area (including the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and the way it functions;

(iv)              achieves development on a long term vacant site which has failed to generate interest for other business uses, and provides consumer choice to the benefit of social inclusion objectives;

(v)                does not have a detrimental impact on local employment provision.

It is material that there is only one  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

The Committee received a presentation by the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the application. 

The Committee then received statements from the following members of the public expressing their views regarding this planning application.

Public Participation:

1. Mr Cowan spoke in opposition of the application
2. Mr Evill spoke in support of the application

 Following a debate of the salient points,

Resolved:

Planning permission is GRANTED for the following reasons:

The decision to grant planning permission has been taken on the grounds that the proposed development would not cause any significant harm to interests of acknowledged importance and having regard to policies PD1 and ED29 of the Kennet Local Plan 2011 and to central government planning policy contained in PPS5 'Planning for the Historic Environment'.

The Committee received a presentation by the Case Officer which set out the main issues in respect of the application. 

The Committee then received statements from the following members of the public expressing their views regarding this planning application.

Public Participation:

1. Mr Barrett spoke in opposition of the application
2. Mr Bennett spoke in support of the application

Following a debate of the salient points,

Resolved:

Planning permission is GRANTED for the following reasons:

The decision to grant planning permission has been taken on the grounds that the proposed development would not cause any significant harm to interests of acknowledged importance and having regard to national guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment and the following policies and proposals in the Kennet Local Plan 2011 namely: policy PD1.

Subject to the following conditions:

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency 

There were none.