Demolition of existing buildings and erection of food store, along with car parking, recycling centre, servicing arrangements, junction improvements, access and landscaping and erection of petrol filling station.

The proposal was for the demolition of existing buildings on site and the erection of a food store and petrol filling station. The proposed store would provide 5,016 sqm Gross Internal Area with a split of 70% of the floorspace for the sale of convenience goods and 30% for the sale of comparison goods.

The store would be positioned to the rear of the site with the store frontage facing Station Road and the service yard would be to the rear, accessed from Fircroft Way. A new four arm access roundabout was proposed at the existing T-Junction at Station Road and Fircroft Way. The store would be served by 295 car parking spaces, 21 cycle parking spaces and 6 motorcycle bays.

There were 6 buildings on site consisting of 23 units: 8 units vacant; 3 B1 use; 1 retail; 3 vehicle repair units; and the remaining 10 had B8 and B2 uses. The site had been allocated as protected employment land.

132 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs would be created from the proposals, compared with 78 FTE jobs on site at present and 96 FTE jobs which could be provided through upkeep and letting of the existing buildings.

The report outlined that the scheme resulted in an unacceptable loss of protected employment land and would have a detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre. In isolation the scheme was considered to be “just on the edge of” acceptability.

The cumulative impact of this and application SE/13/00935/FUL would be unacceptable in terms of impact on the town centre.  As such, only one of the schemes could be permitted. In planning policy terms, the present application was unacceptable as it used more employment land.

The Officer displayed photographs of the site and described the elevations of the proposed building.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       Sam Saltie

For the Application:              Peter Kingham

Parish Representative:         Cllr. Davison

Local Member:                      -

It was noted that a Members’ Site Inspection had been held for this application.

In response to a question Officers clarified that reason 1 for the refusal should refer to application SE/13/00935/FUL only being recommended as it had not been granted.

The GVA consultant confirmed that the company had acted for many supermarkets in the past. He could not recall acting for Sainsbury’s but the company was acting for Tesco in Dartford. The company had not advised either of the relevant applicants regarding Edenbridge. The GVA consultant had provided advice to the Council over the past 10 years.

The Kent Highways Officer confirmed the proposed development was on bus routes. Southdown Buses had been consulted on possibly rerouting buses to service any development from application SE/13/00935/FUL but they were not prepared to divert the existing bus routes to that proposed development.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report be adopted:

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

The capacity for out of centre retail provision would be met through the planning permission granted at land north west of the junction with St Johns Way, Station Road under SE/13/00935/FUL.  In the absence of capacity for any further out of town retail provision without detriment to the vitality and viability of the town centre, the proposal is considered to have a detrimental impact on Edenbridge town centre contrary to policies LO6 of the Core Strategy, EB1 of the Local Plan, and the NPPF

The proposal would result in the loss of an unacceptable level of employment land contrary to policies EP8 and EB1 of the Local Plan, SP8 and LO6 of the Core Strategy, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Committee considered the report from GVA that the present application could result in a 26.5% reduction in turnover for Edenbridge High Street, compared with a reduction of 11.7% resulting from application SE/13/00935/FUL. There was some concern that GVA had acted for the applicants of the other item elsewhere in the County.

Some Members commented on the significant detrimental impact supermarkets had upon the viability of high street shops elsewhere in the District. In those cases the supermarkets had reneged on initial promises concerning the types of good sold and the timing of delivery vehicles. Although the Edenbridge Chamber of Commerce supported the proposals it was suggested the application may not help the town centre of Edenbridge in becoming a destination retail area.

Members noted the strong public support in favour of the application. It would provide some goods and services, such as clothing and petrol, which were not well provided by existing retail in Edenbridge. 50% of Edenbridge residents shopped outside of the town for their principal food shopping. Edenbridge already had medium and small sized food shops which would be replicated by application SE/13/00935/FUL. The present proposal was more suited to the town’s needs. It was also felt that a large shop could draw customers back to Edenbridge and act as a draw from neighbouring rural areas.

It was noted the applicant had offered to sign a legal agreement not to sell certain goods and services currently found in Edenbridge High Street, such as a post office or chemist.

The Local Member on the Committee advised that arrangements had been made for all jobs currently provided on the site to be relocated elsewhere in Edenbridge. She added that the application would promote a dynamic economy and there were no objections from statutory consultees. There was sequentially no superior site in Edenbridge town centre and the harm done would principally be to the two larger food stores who could resist the competition.

Members voiced support for the proposal as it would provide more FTE posts than the existing use. It was considered that the proposal would have less of a detrimental impact upon the amenity of nearby residents than application SE/13/00935/FUL.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

8 votes in favour of the motion

9 votes against the motion

(Cllr. Mrs. Davison voted against the motion).

The Chairman declared the motion to be LOST.  Cllr. Mrs. Davison moved, and it was duly seconded, that planning permission be granted subject to the completion of an acceptable unilateral undertaking within three months of the meeting and with conditions to be agreed in consultation with the local Members. Officers advised the scale of the development required that any approval of the application be referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

It was felt the development would not have a detrimental effect on residential amenity; it would respect the context of the site and the street scene; traffic would be accommodated; there would be adequate parking; although there would be a loss of employment land there would be an increase in the number of jobs; there would be planning benefits to Edenbridge in the increased retail choice provided by the development.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

9 votes in favour of the motion

7 votes against the motion

Resolved: That, provided the application was not recovered by the Secretary of State, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the completion of an acceptable unilateral undertaking within three months of the meeting and as per conditions to be agreed in consultation with the local Members.

The development would not have a detrimental effect on residential amenity; it would respect the context of the site and the street scene; traffic would be accommodated; there would be adequate parking; although there would be a loss of employment land there would be an increase in the number of jobs; there would be planning benefits to Edenbridge in the increased retail choice provided by the development.