Agenda item

The Planning Officer presented the application as per the agenda report he also stated that since writing his report he had received 3 additional letters of support and a letter from the tenant of the existing retail unit regarding the comment, within the report, made by the SSDC Economic Development Officer. With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed the site and photographs of the vicinity, he confirmed that his recommendation was to approve the application.

Mrs P Peppin of Castle Cary Town Council spoke in objection to the application as it stood; she wanted to ensure that Castle Cary remained a vibrant town and was concerned at the potential loss of a retail unit.

Mr G Stockman spoke in support of the application as he considered that the existing retail unit was an eyesore.

The agent Mrs V Russell considered the current retail unit to be no longer fit for purpose there were also no other shops along Lower Woodcock Street. The current tenancy was due to end in March/April 2015 however the current tenant had apparently now agreed to another tenancy locally. She urged members to approve this application.

Ward Member Cllr Nick Weeks was unhappy with the comments made by the SSDC Economic Development Officer within the report and felt they were irrelevant to this application. An application for a shop with accommodation above would have been preferable to this application.  He wished to show his support for local town centres.

During discussion, varying views were expressed. Some members felt the application was acceptable whilst others expressed concern about the loss of a retail unit, lack of adequate parking; the proposed roof height and two dwellings would have been preferable to the proposed three.

In response to questions from Members, the Area Lead East replied that:

·         County Council had a parking standard generally of 2.5 spaces per dwelling but departure from this could be justified as this site was located within a town centre location or if it was felt that the redevelopment brought such benefits as to justify relaxing the standards;

·         It was thought the unit had been used as retail for the past 15 years or so;

·         The application site was not in the core of the town centre, evidence would have to be provided to show that the loss of a retail unit in this location would damage the vitality and viability of the town centre;

·         The roof height would be higher than Dunster House but would be lower than the building on the other side of the site;

·         This application was for three dwellings and should be determined as such at this meeting.

The Regeneration Officer confirmed that having carried out an audit of the town centre car parks at different times of the day, there was adequate parking within the town centre, an extension to one had recently been approved and part funded by AEC. She would prefer to see the retail unit preserved if at all possible as any unoccupied retail units within Castle Cary town centre were occupied again fairly quickly.

Further discussion took place and a proposal was made and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation.  On being put to the vote this was held by 5 votes in favour and 5 votes against. The chairman used his casting vote against the proposal.

A proposal was then made and seconded to refuse the application due to the unjustified loss of a retail unit within a defined area of the town centre which would be unacceptably harmful to the town centre.  On being put to the vote the motion was held by 5 votes in favour and 5 votes against. The chairman used his casting vote in favour of the proposal.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/05104/FUL be refused contrary to the officers recommendation for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development by reason of the unjustified loss of a retail unit in the defined Primary shopping area of Castle Cary town centre would be unacceptably harmful to the vitality and viability of the town centre. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policy MC4, policy EP15 of the emerging local plan and the policies contained within the national planning policy framework, specifically Chapter 2.

2. The proposed redevelopment of this site to provide 3 additional dwellings would only provide 4 parking spaces to serve the retained and additional new dwellings. No reasonable case has been provided to demonstrate that this failure to meet the standards of the Somerset County Council Parking Strategy would not give rise to unacceptable increases in demand for parking elsewhere that might impact on the provision of parking for users of the town centre. As such the proposal is contrary to the Somerset County Council Parking strategy, policy TA6 of the emerging local plan and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

(Voting: 6 in favour 5 against)