Agenda item

Application for Determination.

Contact: Development Control (Tel 01452 396783)

The Principal Planning Officer presented an application submitted by WM Morrisonsupermarkets PLC for the demolition of the Ridge and Furrow Public House and the erection of a petrol filling station to include new sales kiosk, 6 no. fuel pumps, and forecourt above ground fuel tanks, jet car wash and staff parking. She referred to the late material submitted by Mr Staddon on behalf of the Ridge and Furrow Campaign Group commenting that no change had been proposed to the recommendations following this.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the item had been deferred from the March 2015 Planning Committee at the request of the applicant, who then submitted an appeal on the grounds of non-determination. She advised that the application would now be decided by the Planning Inspectorate and the application had been bought to this Committee to consider what decision would have been made, as this would form the basis of the appeal. She also made reference to paragraph 7.5, to revise the date, which should read 12 February 2015.

Councillor Gravells of Abbey ward addressed the Committee as an objector to the application.

Mr Gravells stated that the Ridge and Furrow Public House was at the heart of the community and a place where residents came to socialise. He reported that whilst out canvassing it was clear that many Abbey residents felt very strongly opposed to the demolition of the pub, which had been listed as a community asset.  He stated that the plans for the petrol filling station would be detrimental to the visual impact of the area and cause serious safety concerns.

Councillor Gravells reflected that the local Morrisons supermarket had a community focus and served the residents well but the corporate head office cared little for the local community and refused his invitations to meet and discuss the matter. He commented that a notice of motion that he had submitted to Council on 27 March 2014 had attracted cross party support and was designed to protect Public Houses.

Phillip Staddon of PJS Solutions on behalf on the Save The Ridge and Furrow Campaign Group addressed the Committee as an objector to the application.

Mr Staddon remarked that that there were a number of planning aspects that were cause for concern, primarily the above ground fuel tanks which were a safety hazard and would adversely affect the overall appearance of the area. He stated that the application should be rejected in principle, as there was no requirement for a filling station at a site listed as a community asset. He commented that the applicant had shown little evidence of marketing the site to test its viability. He requested that these be included as an additional reason for refusal referencing the late submission of material.

Mr Staddon reported that many residents felt this to be a very controversial decision and felt that an appeal by way of written representations as requested by the applicant would not be appropriate. He requested the Committee ask the Planning Inspectorate for an Informal Hearing to allow representations for members of the local community.

The Chair opened up the matter for debate.

The Chair reported that he felt the plans would have a harmful visual impact on the area. He commented that the proposals set out at the appeal could be resisted on the basis of the relevant policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF) and welcomed the recommendations put forward by Mr Staddon. He agreed on the principle of arranging an appeal to be heard at an informal hearing to allow community representation.

Councillor Hilton thanked Councillor Gravells and Mr Staddon for their representations in objecting to the proposed development. He reflected that the pub served a very large area and voiced his serious concerns regarding the lack of market research. He commented that it was very unusual to have above ground fuel tanks, which would be large and have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding area. He requested that a public hearing be requested to decide the appeal.

Councillor Chatterton highlighted the distance of the hostile mitigation barriers on the current plans advising that they did not meet the Counter Terrorism Security Advisor’s requirements and could therefore be additional grounds for refusal. He also stated that the Ridge and Furrow was a social venue that was accessed by families and voiced his concerns regarding safety. The Principal Planning Officer concurred that the hostile mitigation barriers did not meet the minimum requirement. 

Councillor Noakes expressed her dissatisfaction with the applicant’s handling of the application process, preventing the City Council for determining the application. She commented that the Ridge and Furrow also catered for Barnwood residents and concurred with Mr Staddon’s recommendations and request for a public hearing into the appeal.

In response to Councillor Lewis query regarding the various modes of appeal, the Development and Control Manager explained that written representations would be the straight forward and the Planning inspectorate would consider all the representations concerning the application and the local objectors would be given a further chance to comment once the appeal was registered. He advised that an Informal Hearing would be a public meeting where representations could be made to the Planning inspectorate. He advised that a Public Local Enquiry was adversarial and costly in nature and would have a strong legal focus. The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that it would be the decision of the Planning Inspectorate which mode of appeal would appeal.

Councillor Lewis welcomed the idea of an informal hearing, to allow representatives a chance to comment on the proposals. He stated that the proposals for a petrol filling station should be rejected in principle.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that applicant’s decision to appeal on the ground on non-determination could not be used for reason for refusal. The Planning Officer explained that the Council’s Interim Planning Policy Statement on Public Houses was not a formally adopted Planning Policy and would be a material planning consideration.

The Principal Planning Officer reported during the appeal process the consideration of The Ridge and Furrow as a community asset under the Localism Act 2011 was a material planning consideration.

The Chair moved to accept the points forward Mr Staddon with the addition of a further reason for refusal but removing the reference to “an unneeded and undesirable petrol filling station. This was seconded by Councillor Lewis.

RESOLVED: That the City Council’s position in relation to the appeal is that an Informal Hearing should be requested and the appeal should be dismissed for the following reasons:

1.    By virtue of their scale, appearance and prominent siting adjacent to Abbeymead Avenue, the proposed above ground fuel tanks together with the associated external infrastructure and palisade fencing would appear unduly incongruous and would have both an unacceptable and harmful impact on the visual amenities of the street scene and character of the area as a whole. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy BE.7 of the Second Deposit City of Gloucester Local Plan (2002) and paragraphs 56 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    Insufficient information has been provided by the Applicant to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the above ground fuel tanks will be adequately protected from potential accidental or intentional damage by vehicles contrary to paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.    The proposal would involve the destruction and permanent loss of a much valued community pub, which is an integral part of the District Centre that serves the local community, and its replacement with a petrol filling station. The community pub has played a significant role in the cultural and social life of the area, and has made a significant and positive contribution to the well-being of the local community. The pub which, has been listed as an Asset of Community Value, has not been marketed to demonstrate that it cannot continue as a viable business to fulfil its longstanding community role. Accordingly, the loss of this pub, along with its recreational, dining, children’s play area, performance space, sporting facilities and general social, meeting and interaction facilities, would undermine and be harmful to the local community’s cultural and social well-being and would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day to day needs. For all of these reasons, the proposal seriously conflicts with the principles of sustainable development and, in particular, with paragraphs 7, 69 and 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework and with the Council’s emerging interim Planning Policy Statement on Public Houses.

It is further recommended that delegated powers be given to the Development Control Manager to amend or withdraw the second reason subject to further advice from Consultees in relation to the amended plans submitted as part of the planning appeal.