Issue - meetings

Description of application - Demolition of existing buildings on site. Redevelopment to provide a food store (Class E) and associated access, car parking, and landscaping works.

The Planning Officer gave a brief presentation, providing an overview of the amendments proposed and update on the report.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the applicant who gave the following responses to Member questions:-

• The pedestrian access from residential roads had been closed off as a result of consultation with local residents but if necessary, pedestrian access could be opened up.
• It was not considered that a new Aldi Store would have a significant impact on the existing local stores in Farnborough Village.  The main competition would be with other supermarkets in the locality.
• It was considered that traffic through Farnborough Village would be limited and although there may be a modest increase, there would not be a significant impact on the Village.  The figures for traffic through the Village (accepted by TfL) were 22 (weekday peak) and 37 (Saturday peak).  Calculations had indicated that in any one hour there would be 70 departures and 70 arrivals to the store (with 22 of these travelling through the Village).
• For traffic heading south from Bromley, it would not be possible to turn right into the store, so traffic would have to make a u-turn at the roundabout to access the store.
• A large proportion of staff, if not all, would be recruited from the local area and would therefore not be parking in the local area.  The store was also on a bus and cycle route.  While some staff may drive to the store, this would be a small number and it would be wrong to assume that all staff had access to a car.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from a neighbour.

Councillor Marlow, local Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee explaining that, in his view, the Officer’s report provided an excellent assessment of the application, and he supported the Officer recommendation of refusal for 4 key reasons:

1. The application was balanced in terms of support and opposition. However, it was noticeable that those opposed to the application provided extensive details of the grounds for their opposition, while no such detail was provided by those in support.  It was also noticeable that residents in support of the application lived on the other side of the A21 and were therefore less affected by the proposals. 
2. A number of residents had expressed concerns around traffic to the site.
3. TfL had proposed a pedestrian walkway to residential roads but local residents had expressed concerns about this proposal on the grounds of safety.
4. Due to the current policies being pursued by TfL, it was unlikely that a new bus route would be introduced. Consequently, the site was likely to remain car dependant.

As a result of the above, Councillor Marlow encouraged the Committee to support the Officer recommendation and refuse the application.

Committee Member and Ward Member Councillor Joel thanked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95