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:
- 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.
-
A number of residents had expressed
concerns around traffic to the site.
- TfL had
proposed a pedestrian walkway to residential roads but local residents had expressed concerns
about this proposal on the grounds of safety.
- 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