Agenda item

(Councillor Dean Ruddle, having earlier declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, left the room for the presentation and consideration of this application.)

Proposal: Erection of a new retail unit (between Williams supermarket and Lancaster House).

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and updated members that two further letters had been received. One letter commented the proposal was unsightly and unnecessary as there was already a varying selection of shops, the other letter raised concerns about the size of the proposal and ownership of part of the land.

The Planning Officer highlighted that revised plans had been submitted to bring the entire proposed building onto land solely in the applicant’s ownership, and hence resolved the ownership issue. He noted any signage would require Advertising Consent.

Mr Harrison, spokesperson for Somerton Town Council, acknowledged the issue of the proposal encroaching on third party land had been resolved. He commented the anticipated proprietor wanted a small unit that was not otherwise available. It was also noted that the land on which the unit would be built was not a public space, but the use to date by the public had been tolerated. The limited size of the unit was a matter for the proposed tenant.

Mr R Williams and Ms J Hurley, spoke in objection to the proposal and their comments included:

·         Don’t object to another business as good for economic development, but there are three other shops selling bread and cakes.

·         Do object about the design, feel the proposal will detract from local buildings.

·         Design is not good and will be visually intrusive

·         Reference to current use of canopy area by precinct entrance and supermarket, and the proposal would make the entrance dark and gloomy.

Mr C Wilson, addressed members in a personal capacity as a supporter of the application. He referred to the negative comments made years ago when the precinct was first built, but it was now accepted by most people. He supported the modern design of the proposal and wished the new proprietor well if the application was approved.

Ms J Fryer, agent, noted the proposal was good news for Somerton as it wasn’t often that small market towns had applications coming forward for new retail units. The proposal would tidy up a little used area, and the scheme was supported by conservation officers and other consultees.

Ward member, Councillor Stephen Page, noted that although there were empty shops in the town they were probably in the wrong location for the proposed tenant and so understood the business case. Concerns were acknowledged about market competition with other shops selling similar products. He expressed disappointment regarding the design and was concerned about the impact on the local vernacular.

During the ensuing discussion mixed opinions were raised by members including:

·         Content with principle of a new unit, but concerned about the design

·         Wood cladding won’t add anything to the street scene

·         Is the type of wood specified – oak would weather to a greyish colour similar to Blue Lias

·         Too much wood - some local stone should be included.

In response to other comments made the Area Lead and Planning Officer clarified that:

·         Specific detail for the wood could be included in a materials condition.

·         The three dimensional diagrams in the presentation were slightly misleading as it was only a very small unit.

·         The proposal was for a stone plinth with vertical timber boards above.

The Area Lead advised that members needed to consider the design and location of the proposal. If it was felt to be acceptable then officers clearly noted the comments and desires regarding materials and rainwater goods, which would be conditioned. He noted that the detail of rainwater goods could be added as an additional point ‘e’ in condition 3.

It was proposed to approve the application, as per the officer recommendation, and subject to an additional point in condition 3 for detail of rainwater goods. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried 7 in favour, 4 against with no abstentions.

(Voting: 7 in favour, 4 against, 0 abstentions)