Agenda item

The Planning Officer introduced application number 138836, Hillcrest Caistor Top, Caistor, an application to vary condition 24 of planning permission 135031, granted on 14 December 2016 to allow local business to use the site (D2 Use).

 

The recently revised NPPF did not change the officer recommendation.

 

There were two speakers present speaking in favour of the application.  The first was Councillor Tom Regis, Ward Member for Wold View.  He raised the following points:

 

·         The site had previously been backed by West Lindsey District Council (WLDC), and contained 17 small starter units;

 

·         It had the benefit of a WLDC commercial loan; in addition, because the employment rating had scored highly, the units had received money from the Leader Grant Fund;

 

·         Planning policy needed to be challenged and exceptions made;

 

Lauren Harpham, a business owner at the site also spoke in favour of the application, raising further points:

 

·         Services provided at ‘Soul Healthy’ included one to one personal training, nutritional advice and planning, sports massage, Swedish massage and corporate wellness.  The services had many benefits to clients;

 

·         Customers were attracted because Soul Healthy was not a large gym establishment; it was currently being run from a garage;

 

·         There were no other venues to run the business in the local area;

 

·         It had been made clear by WLDC that they didn’t want this business operating in a residential area;

 

·         The developer had had an assessment done on the noise and parking, and the business would be right out of the way.

 

Note: Councillor Robert Waller left the Chamber and did not return.

 

The Planning Officer responded to the supporters by outlining that the previous planning permission was being built out for a number of uses, but this did not include gym use (D2). 

 

As part of the application, a noise assessment had been submitted.  The agent was asked for opening times, and the number of customers for the business, but this had not been forthcoming.

 

The business at the site did not just do one to one classes, there were also other classes such as spin.

 

Following this update, Members provided their comments and questions on the application.  These comments, and answers to the questions are provided below:

 

·         Lincolnshire County Council Highways have objected to the application on the grounds that there was not sufficient parking;

 

·         Officers confirmed that the application would have been refused by them if it had not been required to come to committee;

 

·         Two buildings in the town centre would not in any way be suitable to house the gym; one in particular needed further investment;

 

·         As a council enterprise should be supported.  The application had been supported by Caistor Town Council, and they noted that the application brought regeneration;

 

·         Policy 6 of Caistor’s Neighbourhood Plan referred to business and start up units; new business units would be supported if they were within existing employment areas, and should include the opportunity for flexible floorspace arrangements;

 

·         This site had been conditioned under a previous application, which granted 17 rural enterprise units, limiting use to 323 square metres.  The current application was seen as an intensification on site, and there had been a lack of clarity on timings and level of custom;

 

·         No additional car parking was being provided.  This could conflict with other uses on site which needed a number of spaces.  This specifically referred to the A1 and A3 uses;

 

·         Under the NPPF, the edge of the centre would be 300 metres from the very centre.  This site was 800 metres from the market place in the town centre;

 

·         There had been a refusal for another gym to use the site around 18 months ago;

 

·         It was mentioned in the application that the business would wish to grow and expand; therefore the comments from Highways had to be given weight.

 

Following these comments, an alternative recommendation of granting permission was moved and seconded, on the grounds of enterprise, and extending permission to business use class D2, relying on Caistor Neighbourhood Plan Policy 6.

 

A vote to take this new recommendation forward was lost; therefore the recommendation to refuse permission as per the report, which had also been previously moved and seconded was put to the vote, and was supported. It was therefore AGREED to REFUSE permission for the following reasons:

 

1. The proposed use is for a Main Town Centre Use (D2 – Assembly and

Leisure). Paragraph 86 of the NPPF indicates that local planning

authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for

main town centre uses which are neither in an existing centre nor in

accordance with an up-to-date plan. No sequential test has been

undertaken as part of this application which is considered contrary to

the NPPF and policies contained with the Central Lincolnshire Local

Plan namely LP1, LP2, LP5, and LP13 as well as Policy 8 of the

Caistor Neighbourhood Plan.

 

2. The nearest residential dwelling (Hillcrest House) is located

approximately 66 metres to the south of the proposal site (Units No.14

and No.15). As the application contains no information on the proposed

opening times, the amount of customers/staff using the facility and

therefore increased noise from visiting cars, customers coming to and

from the building and noise from within the building from equipment

and music playing together cannot be ascertained. No mitigation

measures have been put forward as part of this application. Although,

the separation distance is approximately 66 metres it has not been

possible to ascertain whether the proposal will have a harmful impact

on the living conditions of neighbouring dwellings. Therefore, it is

considered to be contrary to the NPPF and Policy LP26 of the Central

Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 

3. No information has been provided that details the proposed opening

hours, the number of people (or visitors) and specific activities that will

take place within units 14 and 15 (the application site). No additional

car parking provision is provided to that granted under application

135031 which has the potential to impact highway safety and the

viability of the other rural enterprise units on the site.