Agenda item

Change of use from café (class E(b)) and residential (class C3) to convenience foodstore (class E(a)), construction of single-storey side extension, two-storey and single-storey rear extension (following the demolition of existing single-storey element to rear of 37 High Street / 2A Main Street and store to rear of public house) with associated landscaping and other works.

This item was deferred at a previous meeting, therefore no public speaking will be permitted in accordance with the council’s constitution.

Late items received after publication of agenda:

Consultations:-

Since publication of the Planning Committee report, an additional objection has been received which is summarised below;

“Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to reaffirm that my wife and I remain completely set against the development plan adjacent to our home (REF 23/00711/FUL Bluebell Inn)

Having attended the HBBC planning committee meeting of the 07/05/2024 and following presentations from myself and others I was pleased that many of the members felt able to support my request for a deferral. The request was approved pending further analysis and investigation for the points raised, discussed, and flagged for further attention.

A new set of documents were released on the 10/07/2024. One of the documents received is from the Marrons Consultancy. The content is a brief overview of the current plan with a reiteration of original information that now includes updates. The document states that a further sound survey has been undertaken and results processed, also that A/C plant is to be relocated to a different roof point.

I would now like to restate our ongoing concerns.

The placement of a service yard adjacent to our property with a vehicle delivery bay to the rear is and has always been totally unacceptable. Despite the officer raising this point it was dismissed on the applicants behalf as site layout prevented any feasible alternative location.

The very close proximity siting of double delivery doors to the side of our garden amenity remains not only unreasonable but also wholly inappropriate.   

The current site drawing appears to indicate the grass banking to the rear of our property is to be removed. This proposal would place visiting store vehicles within a few metres of our back door and kitchen window. 

Nominally reducing delivery hours whilst disregarding long trading hours will not as claimed reduce noise, disturbance and result in  the claimed similar levels of current parking.

A significant DMP report produced by SHARPS REDMORE refers to driver training and store staff training to handle vehicle deliveries whilst taking into account the possible impact to residents. Whilst maybe well intended I stand by my best endeavour comments made to the committee members during my presentation.

Given the location of the proposed delivery bay and service yard when compared with the  distance from our property to the existing public house delivery area how is it possible to state as in point 24 of the note "that a satisfactory living environment can be achieved for the neighbouring property at 2 main St"   

Near the end of his report/note Mr Mullin requests?

"Should the Members of the Committee not grant planning permission for the proposed development, contrary to the officer recommendation to approve, the Central England Co-operative and Everards Brewery will be forced to pursue an unnecessary appeal, which will result in wasted time an expense for all parties. We’d ask that the Members’ are directed to assess the proposals dispassionately, and in doing so, balance the benefits of the proposals to the community against the concerns of individuals. We are confident that if Member’s are so directed, the Committee will approve the scheme, in accordance with all consultee and officer findings."

We would like to counter the request made by Mr Mullin with a request of our own

As the individuals directly affected by what we believe is a unique development proposal would the members kindly consider a site visit to appreciate the thoroughly negative impact this planning application would have on our lives.

Attached are some photographs to reflect the detrimental overbearing consequence this development would have on our home.   

For the reasons listed above we firmly believe the planning application should continue to  be flatly refused.”

Application for change of use from café (class E(b)) and residential (class C3) to convenience foodstore (class E(a)), construction of single storey side extension, two storey and single storey rear extension (following the demolition of existing single storey element to rear of 37 High Street / 2A Main Street and store to rear of public house) with associated landscaping and other works.

A ward councillor spoke on this application.

It was moved by Councillor Flemming, seconded by Councillor Lynch and

RESOLVED –

(i)            Permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report;

(ii)          The Head of Planning be granted authority to determine the final detail of the conditions.

Councillor Bools returned to his seat on the committee.