Agenda item

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 the Members of the Committee who had attended the site visit.  All three Ward Members supported the Officer recommendation of refusal.  It was the view of the Ward Members that the building would be detrimental to the area due to the size, mass and bulk, together with the traffic movement in and out of the car park.  It was also noted that the roots of the large oak tree could be damaged during the land excavation to create the lower ground floor steel sheeting. There would also be a gap in the central island in Farnborough Way and visitors to the site may use this to turn right when coming out of the car park. There appeared to be no provision for waste/food disposal bins or storage on the plans. The proposed location of the manager’s office, meeting room and staff room, together with the cycle racks on the lower ground floor, may allow employees to make use of the side door access, with staff perhaps parking their cars in nearby roads.  Although it could be a condition with any consents for foul and surface water disposals, it was the view of Councillor Joel that these should have been shown in the plans.  Consequently, Councillor Joel supported the Officer recommendation and moved that the application be refused.  Councillor Fawthrop seconded the motion for refusal.

Councillor Benington explained that he had lived in Farnborough Village for a number of years and was therefore familiar with the Village. The proposed opening hours (8am to 10pm) were long and would be a disturbance to local residents.  Delivery times were also long and there would be consequent noise affecting local residents. It was unlikely that staff would cycle to work and as a result of shift patterns, the majority of staff were in fact likely to travel by car.  As a result, Councillor Benington supported refusal.

Councillor Terry queried how, with the pedestrian access now closed, local roads would be congested with parked cars. It was also noted that market competition was not a material planning consideration. There were a number of benefits to the application such as increased employment, greater choice and reduced travel to other supermarkets.

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reasons set out in the report of the Assistant Director, Planning and the additional reason:-

1. The proposal would add to traffic in the locality.