Agenda item

S73A Continuation application for Change of use of part of existing garden centre (Class E) to use Classes E, F1 & F2 – Retrospective – approved under H11-1210-25. Modification of Condition 2 to amend opening hours and days and modification of Condition 3 relating to garden centre buildings at Silverwood Garden Centre, St James Road, Sutton Crosses (report of the Development Manager enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Development Manager upon which the above application was to be determined, including their recommendations, copies of which had previously been circulated to all members.

Members debated the matter fully, with the following comments being raised:

• Concern was expressed that the proposal could have a similar impact on Long Sutton town centre to that experienced by Spalding following the development of Springfield, with reference made to previous visits to shopping centres in Bicester and Street where strong physical links existed between the town centres and retail developments. It was considered that the distance between the application site and Long Sutton town centre could adversely affect the vitality of the high street, and support was expressed for the concerns raised by Long Sutton Parish Council and local residents.
• It was noted that the proposed uses were ancillary to the existing garden centre and that the businesses subject to the application were already operating on the site without any significant issues having been identified.
• Concerns were raised regarding the highly restrictive opening hours proposed for the community use element of the development. It was suggested that the proposed hours appeared unnecessarily limited for a use unlikely to result in significant disturbance to neighbouring properties.
  • Officers advised that the Committee could only determine the application as submitted.
• Views were expressed that concerns regarding the future development of the site and comparisons with larger retail developments were exaggerated and that the site had operated successfully for several years with a mix of uses.
• Discussion took place regarding the wording of the proposed planning condition controlling the uses on site, particularly the use of the word “ancillary” and the potential for differing interpretations of that term. It was suggested that greater clarity could be achieved by amending the condition to specifically refer to the existing hairdresser, tanning salon and café rather than relying on broader ancillary-use wording.
• Concerns were raised that the reference to ancillary uses could create ambiguity in the future regarding the scale and nature of activities that may be permitted on site without further planning consent.
• Questions were raised regarding whether other businesses, including concessions operating from the site, were already present and whether a fuller understanding of all uses should be obtained before determining the application.
  • Officers advised that the current application before the Committee related only to the specified uses and that any additional uses may require separate investigation to establish whether they were lawful, required planning permission or would need to be regularised through a future application.
• Consideration was given to deferring the application to obtain further information regarding all businesses operating on the site.
  • Officers advised that even if further businesses were identified, they could not simply be added to the current application and would likely require separate applications or other planning processes.
• Following debate, support was expressed for a revised wording of the condition replacing references to “an ancillary hairdresser, tanning salon and café” with “the hairdresser, tanning salon and café as existing on site” to provide greater clarity.
• It was agreed that officers would investigate any other businesses operating from the site and consider whether further planning applications or other action might be required.

AGREED:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined at section 9.0 of the report, with an amendment to condition three to remove the word ancillary.

(Moved by Councillor Bingham, Seconded by Councillor Tennant)

Oral representations were received in respect of the above application in line with the Council’s scheme of public speaking at Planning Committee meetings:

Objector: David Wilson (Objector)