Tesco Get Their Way….

Back in April we wrote about how a planning application to convert part of a car showroom into a retail unit had been refused by the Development Committee. It was in Eastwood Road Rayleigh:

There were numerous residents from Eastwood Road Rayleigh in the public gallery, concerned about a planning application near their homes.
_
The application was for ?Part Change of Use from Existing Car Show Room (Including Ancillary Retail Space) to A1 Use? , 239 ? 241 Eastwood Road Rayleigh. It?s a follow-up to a previous application in January for the same change of use. The view of the council officers back then was that:
– it should be refused on grounds of inadequate parking
– it wasn?t a particularly significant application
_
Because it wasn?t regarded as a really significant application, only about 8 residents were consulted. Also, it went on the ?weekly list? to councillors, with the recommendation for refusal. Unless a councillor called it in for further discussion, it would be automatically refused.
_
And that?s what happened. It went on the weekly list, no councillor called it in, and so it was refused for parking reasons.
_
End of story? No, because things have moved on a bit since then?. First of all, the applicants put in a revised application, with the parking amended so as to satisfy County Highways. Secondly, rumours have spread that the ?A1 Use? will be a small Tesco open till 11pm,which has alarmed many residents.
_
So this time the planning application came to the full committee and we had a lengthy discussion. Councillor Simon Smith outlined the residents concerns. Chris Black pointed out supermarkets were tough opponents at appeal, after all an inspector didn?t think the Asda in Priory Chase would affect residential amenity, and that was a bigger site on a narrower, quieter road.
_
But the real let-down for the residents is that this debate didn?t take place on the first application in January. Because there were other reasons that councillors wanted to give for refusal, but were hampered because councils are meant to include all valid reasons for refusal on the first application.. Introducing new reasons for refusal (when they could have been included first time round) weakens the councill?s case.

Anyway, we’ve just heard the result of the appeal. The inspector has refused the January application but approved the April application (the one with better parking). The store can be open from 0700 to 2200 hrs. You can download the inspector’s report here (327k).

Here are some of the key paragraphs from the inspector:

In the representations made on the appeal and the second planning
application, some local residents refer to the proposal as if submitted by a
specific national retailer. However, I must make it clear that the appellant is
the current site operator and there is no name of a potential retailer before me.
Further, I have to assess the planning implications of the proposed use rather
than any individual or company who may take up a permission if the appeal is
successful.

11. Given this background there must be some unusual and particular local
circumstances that demonstrate that there will be a material problem with the
proposal. The Council and some local people refer to parking problems that
exist, including cars parked by customers said to be visiting the existing ?Co-op?
store, but there is little evidence presented to demonstrate that a significant
problem exists. It appears to me that the issues described are not unusual
around a medium sized shop, possibly a convenience store, on a main road in a
residential area and do not amount to exceptional circumstance to weigh
against the proposal.
12. Overall, while I consider that the parking provision for the change of use in
appeal A is inadequate to the extent that refusal of permission is justified, I
find that the proposal in Appeal B would make reasonable provision for parking
and servicing so as not to cause local highway problems including for
pedestrians.