Agenda item

Application for determination:-

Hybrid application seeking planning permission for the regeneration/redevelopment of the Peel Centre comprising:

·         Full application for the conversion of former cinema to class A1 including mezzanine;

·         Outline application for demolition of existing units and erection of extensions to the former cinema building, to provide four new Class A1 units in total

At the Peel Centre, St Ann Way.

The Principal Planning Officer presented his report which detailed a hybrid application seeking planning permission for the regeneration/ redevelopment of the Peel Centre comprising:-

a)    Full application for the conversion of former cinema to Class A1 including mezzanine;

b)    Outline application for demolition of existing units and erection of extensions to the former cinema building, to provide four new Class A1 units in total.

He referred Members to the late material which contained new representations, an update on the Kings Quarter development and further advice on non-poaching conditions.

He introduced Dr Steve Norris of Carter Jonas who summarised the specialist retail advice commissioned from that company by the Council.

Councillor Pullen as a Member for Moreland Ward addressed the Committee.

Councillor Pullen stated that he was also representing the other Members for Moreland ward, Councillors Hampson and Stephens.

He noted that the site had operated successfully since 1989 but since the closure of the cinema it had become tired and run down. It was attracting anti-social behaviour and graffiti which did not present a very good first impression for visitors to the City.

The proposals for a quality development would regenerate the area for the people of Gloucester and visitors.

It would provide 100 jobs and should the application be refused the site would decline further.

He believed that the Peel and Next surveys demonstrated the public support for the proposals and the Council should be considering how the Gate Streets and Peel could complement each other.

He stated that people already left the City to shop at places such as Cheltenham and Cribbs Causeway without considering any future drain to the planned development at Ashchurch.

He noted that Kings Quarter was no longer retail-led and it would be important to examine the linkages between Peel, the Quays and the City Centre.

He believed that an exciting opportunity would be lost should the application be refused.

Matthew Williams of Savills and Martin Penn, licensee of the Dick Whittington public house addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

Mr Williams stated that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the City Centre and he cited the Officer’s report and Dr Steve Norris, one of the country’s most respected retail advisors.

He trusted the Carter Jonas report and stated that jobs created on this site would be jobs lost from the City Centre and Quedgeley. He believed that Gloucester needed to adopt a joined-up approach to the regeneration of the City Centre and he believed it would be wrong to approve this application before the Kings Quarter consultation had been completed.

Mr Penn stated that he was also representing 15 independent traders. He stated that the City Centre was struggling due to loss of trade to the Quays and the independent traders in the city Centre would bear the brunt of the significant adverse impact of this application.

Gareth Finch of The Peel Group and Steven Ardron, South West Region Estates Manager, Next PLC addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Finch stated that the impact on the City Centre would be low and the planned development at Aschurch would have a greater adverse impact. The proposal would bring people back to Gloucester.

He believed that should the Aschurch proposal proceed Gloucester would be stronger with this development. The Joint Core Strategy Inspector had noted the need for significantly more retail provision but had not offered any alternatives.

Mr Ardron believed the proposal represented a fantastic opportunity to halt the leakage of trade to Cheltenham. The Quedgeley store would be relocating due to the expiration of the lease and moving the store closer to the City could only be good.

The former British Home Stores premises in the City Centre would not be suitable and the Company was not prepared to split the home and fashion elements of the store.

The Vice-Chair expressed concerns on the negative impacts on Quedgeley and the City Centre.

A Member believed that the impact on Quedgeley would not be as severe as some thought and noted that the Railway Triangle now had a commercial vehicle business. He believed that the City Centre needed shops that catered for visitors. He believed that people would not wish to see the Peel centre destroyed for a vague hope.

Another Member noted that there was agreement that something needed to be done about the Peel Centre.

A Member stated that there was not a single vacant unit at Quedgeley Retail Park and existing Next employees may well move with the business.

A Member stated that he was not prepared to give up on the City Centre and he did not believe that linkages between the City Centre and the Peel Centre would be as straightforward as portrayed by the applicant. He was particularly opposed to unrestricted Class A1 use on Units 6a and 6b.

The Chair was advised that no information was available on the perceived drain of business from empty Class A1 units on Eastern Avenue. He noted that Peel would deliver while the City Centre has not. Although the site was not within the City Centre there would be linked trips to the Quays. The proposals would smarten up this side of the City. He believed that the economic benefits would outweigh the harm.

A Member suggested that bulky goods restrictions should be imposed on units 6a and 6b. The Chair noted that unrestricted Class A1 use was required to ensure the viability of the whole scheme. He expressed concern at the possible loss of a flagship store.

The Development Control Manager noted that the Committee could impose conditions but the Council could be held to account at appeal. He reminded Members that while Next PLC was named as intended occupant any planning permission went with the site and the planning use of the store should be considered rather than just potential occupiers.

The Chair announced a brief adjournment and together with Committee Members withdrew to receive legal advice.

On their return, the Chair cited Paragraph 19 of the National Planning Policy Framework as he believed the economic benefits of the proposal, together with the environmental improvements and bringing the site back into viable use ,outweighed any harm and he moved that the application be approved subject to referral of the application to the Secretary of State under the Consultations Direction and delegated authority being given to the Development Control Manager, following consultation with the Chair and Vice- Chair, to agree conditions and the detailed wording of the Section 106 legal agreement  to secure a no poaching clause.

RESOLVED that, subject to

1)    The Secretary of State not calling in the application; and

2)    A Section 106 planning obligation to secure a no poaching clause,

Planning permission be granted subject to conditions. Authority is delegated to the Development Control Manager to agree detailed wording of the planning obligation and planning conditions following consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee.