Decision details

Outline Application: Proposed Commercial/Retail-Led Development, Mixed Use Development, Associated Works and Demolition of Existing Buildings at Riverside Business Park, Buxton Road, Bakewell

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Decision status: REFUSED (In accordance with officer recommendation)

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

Members had visited the site on the previous day.

 

The following spoke under the Authority’s Public Participation Scheme:

 

·         Mr Peter Stubbs - Resident of Holme Lane, Objector

·         Mr Colin Bateman - Objector

·         Mr Jim Harrison – Supporter

·         Mr Neil Goldsmith NLP – Agent

 

Members raised an issue regarding Highways and why a report had not been included from the Highways Authority, Derbyshire County Council, Officers stated that  the report had not yet been received.  Officers confirmed that the installation of a new bridge already had planning permission, although funding had not been found by developers.  The Authority is working with the developers to try and locate funding to enable the bridge to be built.

 

Members were concerned regarding development taking place prior to the installation of a new bridge and the impact on the residents of Holme Lane and felt the development can not take place until the bridge was built.

 

Members also expressed concerns regarding the plan for retail units so close to the centre of Bakewell and the economic impact this could have on the town centre.

 

Officer clarified the first sentence of reason 2 of the recommendation by adding  “The proposals are contrary to saved Local Plan policy LB7 because they do not constitute the

comprehensive redevelopment of the Riverside Business Park predominantly for employment uses, nor do they include an appropriate mix of uses as provided for by policy LB7.

 

The officer concluded that in light of the recommendation, even if a comparative exercise had been carried out between this application and the Aldi application,  the Aldi Application would still have been a positive recommendation. The Aldi Application was acceptable in planning terms whilst the Riverside Application  is not, for reasons beyond that only one additional food store is acceptable in Bakewell

 

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded, voted upon and carried.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

1.    In the absence of sufficient evidence to demonstrate the current proposals would achieve a sufficiently viable scheme to fund a new road bridge over the River Wye to the site, it cannot be demonstrated that exceptional circumstances exist which demonstrate that granting planning permission for major development in the National Park is in the public interest, contrary to policy GSP1 of the Core Strategy and national planning policies in the Framework.

 

2.    The proposals are contrary to saved Local Plan policy LB7 because they do not constitute the comprehensive redevelopment of the Riverside Business Park predominantly for employment uses, nor do they include an appropriate mix of uses as provided for by policy LB7.. In the absence of sufficient evidence to demonstrate the current proposals would achieve a sufficiently viable scheme to fund a new road bridge over the River Wye to the site, there is insufficient justification to grant permission for proposals that do not constitute the comprehensive redevelopment of the Riverside Business Park predominantly for employment uses, contrary to saved Local Plan policy LB7.

 

3.    In the absence of sufficient evidence to demonstrate the current proposals would achieve a sufficiently viable scheme to fund a new road bridge over the River Wye to the site, there is insufficient justification to grant permission for over 2600m² of floorspace for a mixture of town centre uses outside of Bakewell’s town centre, contrary to saved Local Plan policy LB9 and policy HC5 of the Core Strategy.  

 

4.    In the absence of sufficient evidence to demonstrate the current proposals would achieve a sufficiently viable scheme to fund a new road bridge over the River Wye to the site, it cannot be demonstrated that the proposed development would be provided with a safe and suitable access, contrary to saved Local Plan policy LT18 and national planning policies in the Framework.

 

5.    By virtue of the size and scale of the proposed development, and the range of town centre uses proposed on the site, granting planning permission for the current application would have a significant and adverse impact upon the viability and vitality of Bakewell Central Shopping Area by creating a quasi-town centre environment that would compete directly with the existing town centre. These impacts would be exacerbated by the cumulative impacts of the food store proposed in this application and the foodstore already granted planning permission on an adjacent site. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to the specific policies in the Framework relating to retail development and town centres, and acceptance of the proposals would not be in the public interest, contrary to the provisions of paragraph 116 of the Framework.

 

Stella Maguire joined the meeting at 11.05 following the vote.

 

 

 

 

Publication date: 07/01/2016

Date of decision: 11/12/2015

Decided at meeting: 11/12/2015 - Planning Committee

Accompanying Documents: