The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will submit a report (Document “AI”) which sets out a hybrid planning application comprising of full planning application for the construction of a retail food store (Use Class A1), together with car parking, landscaping and associated works and outline planning for a retail unit (Use Class A1) and coffee drive-thru (Use Class A3/A5) requesting consideration of access.

Recommended –

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Assistant Director’s technical report.

(John Eyles – 01274 434380)

The Assistant Director, Planning, Transportation and Highways submitted a report (Document “AI”) which set out a hybrid planning application for the construction of a retail store (use class A1), together with car parking, landscaping and associated works and outline planning for a retail unit (use class A1) and coffee drive thru (use class A3/A5).

The Assistant Director provided an overview of the application showing the area map as well as photographs with building, floor and elevation plans.  Details of the neighbouring properties were provided which comprised mainly of retail and industrial units.  A number of support letters had been received which identified the benefit the proposed store would bring to Keighley plus the possible additional employment and development of a derelict site.  In response to the letters of objection, the Assistant Director confirmed that no sequential test was necessary and no other suitable sites were identified within the town centre.  The apparent lack of pedestrian access to the town centre and the inward facing nature of the development was raised as a concern but the Assistant Director indicated that the applicant’s agent could address this issue during his submission.

The developer had been asked to consider a design review to discuss the issues identified but no concessions had been made by the applicant.  Concern was expressed that the application was for a large retail development which was not considered to relate to or be appropriate in terms of its design.  The disconnect of the additional retail units from the town centre and the drive through unit were also highlighted as a concern in relation to it being a drive through for vehicles.  The Assistant Director stated that the development failed to address pedestrian movement between the site and the town centre and hence, would not be a positive addition.

In conclusion the Assistant Director recommended that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the technical report.

Members asked a number of questions in relation to the application, the questions and responses are detailed below;

The Chair asked whether the former ‘Beales’ store would be a suitable alternative site in conjunction with the relocation of an existing Marks & Spencer store.  In response, the Assistant Director stated that given the nature of the development with a proposed drive through and more than one additional retail unit it would only be suitable for a replacement store site.

A Member asked if the site was secure as it had been empty for some considerable time.  In response, the Assistant Director stated that he had not been made aware of any issues and that the site was secured with fencing and hoardings.

A Ward Councillor attended the meeting to support the application stating that the brownfield site was unsightly and this development represented a significant financial investment for Keighley.  The walk into the town centre was only a short distance.  He also stated that there were very few Victorian buildings in the vicinity of the site and that other buildings in Keighley town centre were of a similar design.  

In response, the Assistant Director stated that there were still Victorian buildings in the area and there was concern that the development would erode the nature of the town centre.  It was felt that this may not be the right design for the area but the Assistant Director stressed that he was willing to work with the developer to address the site design and pedestrian access issues..

A second Ward Councillor also attended the meeting and addressed Members.  He queried whether access was the key issue on this application.  He also stated that the site had been vacant for a number of years and that Beales and Marks & Spencer sites had no parking.  He then urged Members to approve the application.

The agent for the applicant was also in attendance at the meeting and addressed the Committee and stated that the site had been allocated for retail use as part of the Local Plan.  The developer had undertaken a public consultation and had received overwhelming support for the new and improved proposal.  He also stated that previous technical planning matters had all been addressed and that the materials proposed were compatible and felt that the recommendation for refusal was unfair.  He further stated that the applicant was willing to continue working with the Planning Service to resolve the outstanding issues and has done so previously making changes as requested.  The plan included six new pedestrian access amendments and it was intended that the new store would open in 2022.  The agent stated that the new store would improve choice and convenience and would offer employment opportunities and urged the Committee to support the application.

The Assistant Director confirmed that the application was a hybrid and reiterated that the scheme was not right at this time for the site and would require significant changes in order to address the concerns raised. 

A Member stated that the report suggested that the applicant had not been cooperative and sought to ascertain how they had engaged with Planning Officers.  The agent confirmed that they had been working with the Planning Service and had added walkways, as well as alterations to boundaries and that the design was not generic as suggested, with the proposed use of stone and glazing.

A Member expressed concern with the layout of the site and the effect it would have on a nearby business (public house).  He suggested that the application should be withdrawn to allow the applicant to work with the Planning Service on the design of the site layout.

Members suggested that the application be deferred in order for further negotiations to take place and improvements to be made.  The Assistant Director stated that deferring the application would only be an appropriate decision if the applicant was willing to work on improvements as the outstanding issues were fundamental to viability of the application. 

The agent confirmed that the applicant was willing to continue working with the Planning Service to reach an agreeable plan and it was therefore:

Resolved-

That the application be deferred to the January 2021 meeting of this Committee, to allow the applicant to undertake further consultation with the Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation and Highways) on the layout of the site and the pedestrian link to the town centre at the intersection of East Parade/Coney Lane.

ACTION: Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation and Highways)

                                                                        (Stewart Currie – 01274 434380)