Agenda item

Councillor Jenny Hannaby had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report the purpose of the adopted Local Plan policy was explained by the Officers, including the need to apply policy consistently.  Furthermore, the Officers clarified previous uses of the application premises and commented that whilst it might be argued that recent development in the Town might have an impact on what was considered an appropriate use of this site, this was a matter to be considered when the policy was reviewed and was not a justification now for making decisions adhoc contrary to adopted policy.

At this point in the meeting, the Chair asked members of the public to refrain from interrupting the meeting.

The Officers reported that a petition signed by 765 people in support of the application had been received, but commented that this in itself was not a material consideration sufficient to override the policy reasons for refusal of the application.

Mr T Gashe, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application.  He asked Members in considering the application to follow the process that was set out in PPS1 and had been accepted by both the courts and Inspectors as the correct procedure for determining planning applications.  He reported that the 2004 Act stated that a Committee’s decision must be in accordance with policy, unless there were material considerations which indicated otherwise.  He explained that there were a number of such considerations, the first being the purpose of policy which the Local Plan made clear was to maintain and promote the vitality and viability of town centres as a key aim. He reported that this purpose coincided with the clear advice in PPS6 and this too was a very important material consideration in dealing with this application.  He explained that PPS6 set out a number of tests to help assess whether a given development proposal did promote vitality and viability, these included to reduce vacant premises; to increase the variety and diversity of uses and activities; to encourage and increase pedestrian flows; to meet the needs of the whole community; to improve and maintain accessibility; to reflect customer and residents views and to engender safety and reduce the occurrence of crime.  He commented that the current proposal met all of these criteria.  He explained that the next material consideration was to assess harm and he could see no evidence that any harm would result from approval of the application in terms of the objectives of PPS6 or the Local Plan.  He referred to the report noting that concern was raised regarding the setting of a precedent should permission be given which could cumulatively have an adverse impact on retail uses in the town centre.  However, Mr Gashe argued that he did not share this view, commenting that each application needed to be determined on its merits and it was unlikely that there would be another application with similar circumstances to the current application.  Furthermore, he referred to a High Court judgement in Anglia Building Society v Secretary of State where the judge had stated that mere fear of generalised concern of a precedent effect would not normally be enough; there would have to be some evidence for reliance on it.  Mr Gashe referred to his letter on the inflexibility of Policy S2 commenting that the policy failed to distinguish between those uses which were thought to create dead frontage such as building societies, estate agents and banks (Class A2) and the other non retails uses such as cafes and restaurants (A3) bars and pubs (A4) and hot food takeaways (A5).  He stated that the applicant sought permission to use the premises for A3 use and that there was no right to change to A4 or A5 without permission and that the Council could remove the right to change to A2 by condition.

Some Members spoke against the application making the following comments:

·                    Little weight should be given in planning terms to the personal circumstances of the applicant or the popularity of the facility.

·                    Primary retail frontage in the Town Centre would be lost.

·                    The proposal might result in “dead frontage”.

·                    Policy should be applied consistently.

·                    A precedent for similar applications would be set.

·                    A similar application in Abingdon had resulted in loss of retail frontage.

·                    The Local Plan, which had been considered in depth by Inspectors, had only recently been approved and it was unreasonable to grant planning permission for an application which was contrary to policy.

·                    There was insufficient justification to approve the application contrary to policy.

Other Members spoke in support of the application making the following comments:

·                    There was a considerable amount of support locally for the proposal.

·                    There were a number of material considerations which needed to be judged by the Committee. 

·                    There was scope in interpretation and application of the Local Plan.

·                    The proposed use would encourage increased footfall in this part of the Town thus improving vitality.

·                    The recent new retail development in the Town was a material consideration.

·                    The use should be restricted to A3 only.

·                    Policy was to be used but there was discretion in its application.

·                    This application should not be compared to an application in Abingdon as the circumstances were different.

·                    Areas of shopping frontage should be generally safeguarded, however circumstances changed not only in planning terms but in general economic terms which affected business vitality.

·                    It was better to have a change of use to meet changing circumstances than to have an empty shop.

·                    It was believed that allowing this facility would improve the vitality of the Town Centre.

·                    An article in a recent Planning Magazine dated 29 June referred to an Inspector’s decision to allow an appeal for a café in a town centre which raised the question whether the cafes could be regarded as adding more to the vitality of a town centre than other uses.

·                    Wantage was becoming a ghost town and this proposal would help bring some life back to the centre.

It was proposed by the Chair that application WAN/1645/10 be refused for the reason set out in the report.

In accordance with Standing Order 29(3) Councillor Terry Cox requested a named vote, which was supported by a fifth of the Members present.  The Vote was recorded as follows: -

FOR                  3       

AGAINST       10

The proposal was therefore lost.  It was thereupon proposed by Councillor Terry Cox, seconded by Councillor Matthew Barber and by 10 votes to 3 it was

RESOLVED

that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair, Vice-Chair and Opposition Spokesman of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application WAN/1645/10 subject to appropriate conditions, including conditions to prevent A2 uses and to cover details of any proposed extract systems having regard to comments made by the Environmental Health Officer.