Agenda item

Councillor RT Johnston had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he left the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee was advised that further to the report a plan showing amended elevations; a reduced amount of parking and a reorganisation of the car park had been received.

The Committee was advised of the details of the flood mitigation plan which set out level for level reductions in flood storage capacity and how the replacement of that loss would be provided. It was noted that subject to the measures proposed in the mitigation plan being carried out, the Environment Agency had no objection to the application.

Further to paragraph 4.1 of the report, it was noted that the Town Council had objected to the application raising concerns regarding the proposal being out of keeping and its adverse affect on the vitality of the town. 

Finally, the Committee was advised that the County Planning Authority had recommended that this Council should object to the application, although it recognised that the District Council was better placed to determine whether there were material reasons to outweigh refusal.  It was also suggested that South Oxfordshire District should be consulted namely because of the impact of the proposal on Didcot (although it was noted that this had been taken account of by the Council’s Consultant) and that the Environment Agency should be consulted (which it was noted had been undertaken).  Further concerns were raised regarding traffic, the creation of an out of town market centre, contributions towards highway improvements and the need to advertise the application as a departure from the Development Plan (which it was noted had been done).

The Committee was advised of an amendment to the recommendation in the report in that it was not necessary to include a condition regarding reduced parking as this had been covered by the revised plans.

Mr B Hedley, Vice-Chairman of the South Abingdon Flood Plain Action Group made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He referred to a letter dated 12 February 2005 to the Council.   He particularly raised concern regarding the increased effect of incipient and immediate run off rain water including run off from the increased roof area; surface material absorption; any new hard-standing should be permeable blocks over gravel; flooding; the need for foundation work; the speed at which water would penetrate the area and the diminished ability of the flood plain to cope with it; the proposed ancillary works and the need for details and advice on those; the need for consideration of other measures such permeable blocks on the ground for car parks and underground storage tanks; the impact on rescue services; the conditions required by the Environment Agency; and quantities of run off from nearby farm land.

Mr M Buxton the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application.  He advised that the aim of the proposal was to make marked qualitative improvements to the shopping environment, details of which were explained.  He reported that there would be a reduction in peak hour congestion; there would be an additional storage area to meet the existing needs of the store; and an improved external appearance including glazing which would provide maximum natural light to the store.   He reported that the independent retail assessment did support the proposal and there had been significant consultation.  He reiterated that there was a need for the development justifying its approval.  He explained the layout and commented on the sequential approach taken in that other sites had been looked at. He commented that the Officers were satisfied that these investigations were exhausted.  He reported that the Environment Agency was satisfied with the proposed flood mitigation measures and the County Engineer had no objection subject to a contribution towards ABITS and reduced parking.  Finally, he reiterated that this was the most appropriate site.

One of the local Members speaking on behalf of the other local Member raised concern at the proposal in terms of flooding.  He commented on the need to keep local residents advised of any works and highlighted their real concern regarding the constant threat of their homes being flooded.  He questioned whether the Environment Agency was correct in its response.  He asked Members to be certain that the mitigation measures proposed would be sufficient as he was not confident that they would be. Also, he raised concerns regarding the existing lighting and abandoned trolleys around the town, notably in the river.  The Officers advised that these matters were not relevant to consideration of this application, although the comments made could be taken up with the applicant. 

Some Members spoke in support of the application making the following comments: -

·               In terms of permeability, the existing ratio would be unchanged.  A condition specifying this could be added should the Committee be minded to approve the application.

·               Independent experts such as the Environment Agency raised no objection to the proposal and were satisfied with the mitigation measures proposed.

·               The independent consultant was satisfied with the likely impact on the town centre. 

·               There were 400 – 500 new units of accommodations in Abingdon which required shopping facilities.  The independent consultant would have had regard to the pattern of development in the town, income levels etc. 

Some Members spoke against the application making the following comments: -

·               There was concern regarding the detrimental impact of the proposal on the retail units in the town centre.  Small businesses were finding it hard to survive already.  The Officers reported that there had been a thorough consideration of the likely impact on the town centre and the independent expert consultant was in support of the proposal.

·               There was a concern that further businesses would be pulled away from the town centre to this site. 

·               The adverse affect on the vitality of the town centre had not been adequately considered. 

·               The Abingdon Chamber of Commerce and the Abingdon Association of Small Businesses should be specifically consulted on the application. However, this was not specifically agreed.

·               If there was no intention to attract new customers then there should be no need for an additional 200 spaces.

·               It was suggested that the extra car parking would be taken up by customers travelling from further away.  It was questioned whether this was acceptable in view of the Council wishing to discourage use of the private car.  The Officers explained that the proposal now provided for the maximum number of parking spaces for a facility of this nature.  There was an extra supply of car parking to meet the maximum level.  The CountyEngineer had advised that parking should not be provided above the maximum level.

·               There was concern regarding the types of sales and the types of businesses in the town centre which might be affected.  It was questioned whether there had been any restrictions placed on sales as had been the case for other stores.  The Officers responded that planning permission for any extensions was required but there were no restrictions placed on the type of goods which might be sold at this store. The Officers commented that there had been a public inquiry in the early 1980’s regarding a site for this store.  It was noted that the expansion of food stores to enable them to sell non food items was a phenomena of the last 10 years, which had not been the case when the store application was originally considered. 

·               Whilst measures were to be put in place to mitigate the building and an alternative area provided which could flood, the problems associated with sudden run off had not been addressed.  The Officers reported that the issue of run off had been discussed with Environment Agency which was content with the ratio and had raised no objection.

·               Further measures to hold water when it was at its peak and could cause flooding were needed. It was not certain that the Environment Agency had addressed this. 

·               The car park and nearly the store had been flooded which indicated that the existing mitigation measures were inadequate. The Officers reported that the store was built above the flood plain.   The proposed works were to compensate for the loss of the flood area and not to improve the existing situation.

·               There was concern that the Environment Agency had not had regard to other matters such as the likelihood of a reservoir.  It was questioned whether consideration had been given to the impact of the proposal on the whole of the Thames Valley. Also reference was made to the proposed development at Grove and the possibility of drainage being northwards and the impact of this on the River Ock.   The Officers responded that these were not matters relevant to this application.  It was explained that the Environment Agency would have taken into account all relevant considerations including run off and the need to ensure that flooding elsewhere was not worse as a result.  It was commented that the Committee must have regard to the advice from technical experts.

·               More alternative sites should have been investigated.  Reference was made to the Bury Street Precinct; the Old Gaol and the Cattle Market. The Officers explained that there was guidance on looking at alternative sites which had to be reasonably available within the time limits of the Local Plan.  The Officers commented that Bury Street had been considered by the agents as part of their original assessment, but had been deemed unsuitable for their business needs. It was commented that the Old Gaol was a listed building and therefore any development would be restricted and the availability of the Cattle Market had been unknown at the time of considering alternative sites. It was explained that the Ock Street sites had been the only ones which would reasonably have been available.  It was questioned whether it was reasonable for the applicant to have considered two sites only and whether the Committee should determine the application knowing that alternative sites might be available now.  The Officers responded that the applicant could be asked to consider the alternative sites mentioned.

It was proposed by the Chair that the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair and Opposition Spokesman of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application ABG/1615/51 subject to the following: -

(1)        Referral of the application to the Department of Local Government and Community as a departure from the Development Plan and a decision not to call-in the application.

(2)        The completion of a Section 106 Obligation to secure a financial contribution to ABITS and a Travel Plan for Tesco staff.

(3)        Conditions to include conditions addressing materials and detailing; flood compensation; the control of the ratio of permeable to impermeable surface treatment on site (i.e. how much surface allowed water to drain through to control run off); external lighting; the prohibition of a mezzanine floor; and conditions recommended by the Council’s retail consultant Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP).

(4)        The retail consultant (NLP) investigating alternative sites including the Cattle Market.

However, this proposal was lost by 7 votes for to 9 against.

At this point, it was suggested by one Member that the application should be refused, with the reasons for refusal to be formally endorsed at a future meeting, such reasons to include the availability of other sites within the town centre and the adverse affect of the proposal on the retail vitality of the town centre.  However, the Officers reminded the Committee that there was no evidence to support this and therefore further advice should be sought in the first instance.

It was proposed by Councillor Terry Cox, seconded by Councillor Tony de Vere and by 10 votes to 2 with 4 abstentions (with one of the voting Members not being present during consideration of this item) it was

RESOLVED

that consideration of application ABG/1615/51 be deferred to enable issues raised in relation to flooding and surface water run off and the impact of the development on town centre vitality to be further checked with the Environment Agency and retail consultants including the appointment of second consultants if necessary.