Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a Class A1 foodstore together with plant and service areas, car and cycle facilities, hard and soft landscaping and vehicle entrance/exit onto Stonecot Hill and Sutton Common Road.
The Committee considered a report on the above application for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a Class A1 foodstore together with plant and service areas, car and cycle facilities, hard and soft landscaping and vehicle entrance/exit onto Stonecot Hill and Sutton Common Road.
The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Javelot.
In response to Member questions officers stated that the owner could demolish the current building without requiring permission as the council only needed to be made aware of the way the building would be demolished. The original application was deemed inappropriate by officers as it was set back on the site and would not be inline with neighbouring buildings. Officers informed the Committee that there would be minor changes to Sutton Common Road and that it was felt that the car park layout would deter motorists from using the site as a rat run. Transport for London had not raised any concerns with the Traffic Assessment provided by the applicant.
Charlotte Gillhooly, an objector, Terry Rix, a supporter, and Councillor Miguel Javelot, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and Matthew Anderson and Phillip Bartram, the applicant replied.
The principal issues raised by Charlotte Gillhooly were:-
· That Asda would not bring more retail options to the community.
· The Woodstock pub car park is open to all to park in during the day and that the Asda car park would displace this parking into the surrounding roads.
· Parking spaces at the back of the supermarket which could cause a security risk
· The design did not fit with the surrounding area as it was shorter than neighbouring buildings.
· The proposed plan did not make best use of the site as it was not a mixed development.
· The proposal contravened five planning policies.
In response to Member questions Ms Gillhooly stated that the pub was a beautiful building and would like to see it saved as the proposal had little architectural merit.
The principal issues raised by Terry Rix were:-
· The current pub caused a number of issues for local residents, including crime, drug taking and vermin.
· That there would be adequate access to the site.
· Good economic opportunity for the local area.
· Would remove anti-social behaviour issues within the area.
· The applicants had listened to residents views during a consultation period.
· Local residents want the application to be approved.
In response to Member questions Mr Rix stated that Asda would be good for the local area, and that the car park was in constant use throughout the day so it was unlikely the supermarket would increase traffic issues in the area.
The principal issues raised by Councillor Javelot were:-
· There had been a good consultation period with local residents and councillors.
· Residents felt that the application would lead to a loss of a community landmark and there was no need for an additional supermarket in the area.
· Concerns had been raised by residents about potential traffic issues.
· Residents however feel that the application would provide a competitively priced supermarket to the area which would be accessible to those without cars.
· The application provided an opportunity for a fresh start for the site and removal of anti-social behaviour in the area.
· The proposal would re-use materials from the old site where possible.
· The proposal was an emotive issue within the local area.
In response to Member questions Councillor Javelot stated that Ward Councillors had raised the possibility of a mixed use developments with the applicant however they were informed that it would not be possible on this site. Councillor Javelot informed the Committee that resident concerns were with regards to the loss of the building rather than the loss of the pub business.
The principal issues raised by Matthew Anderson and Phillip Bartram were:-
· The current pub was an unviable business with a number of known issues.
· That extensive public engagement had been conducted and changes had been made to the proposal to reflect comments submitted.
· The car park would be DA compliant.
· Seven new trees would be planted on the site.
· Materials from the current building would be reused on the site.
· A tight corner would be implemented in the site to inhibit rat running
· There would be socio-economic benefits from the development, including 40 new jobs.
· The application was for a development which would be opened in late 2015.
· That Asda wanted to be part of the local community.
· The supermarket would provide an option for those on a lower budget and would be accessible to those without cars.
In response to Member questions the applicant stated that they had felt that it would not be possible to deliver housing units of the site due to parking and overlooking issues. Mr Anderson stated that a Traffic Assessment had been submitted to the council and to Transport for London and if it was felt that additional measures were needed then Asda would work with the Highways Authority. In addition, if it was found that the car park was being used as a rat run, Asda would implement measures to deter this further as they would want the car park to be safe. Mr Anderson confirmed that contractors would take care on the site due to possible archaeological finds. Furthermore, the proposal would reuse materials and maintain the Gallows signage. An ATM would be provided on site and security would be also be provided to ensure the site was safe when the store was closed. The applicant stated that the trees planted on the site would be of a suitable maturity to ensure that they remained on the site and healthy for a long period of time. The supermarket would only have signage for the store, however there would be no external advertisement on the site.
Some Members expressed concern that the proposal did not make optimum use of the land as housing units would not be provided, however it was felt that this site would not be appropriate as a mixed use development.
A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:
To grant (7) Councillors David Bartolucci, Samantha Bourne, Richard Clifton, Vincent Galligan, Hamish Pollock, Jason Reynolds and Hanna Zuchowska
Against (2) Councillors Tony Shields and Graham Whitham
Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. A2014/70348/FUL, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.