Food store and industrial units at Land to the West of New Courtwick Lane, Wick

What was proposed

The hybrid application sought a food store and two drive-through units, plus outline permission for approximately 8,800 square metres of industrial and storage space.

“(2) in dealing with an application for planning permission the authority shall have regard to - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (aza) a post examination draft neighbourhood development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations.”

“1)Full Application for Phase 1 (East of the Site) for a food store (Use Class E(a)), 2 No Drive-Thru food/beverage units (Sui Generis) with revised vehicular access, associated parking and landscaping; and…”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

Phase 1 occupied a vacant warehouse and hardstanding, while Phase 2 was overgrown and had previously been used as a horticultural nursery.

“The application site is located within the Built Up Area Boundary (BUAB). Phase 1, to the east of the site, is currently occupied by a warehouse and surrounding hardstanding whilst Phase 2 is currently overgrown but was previously a horticultural nursery.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the development did not demonstrate a viable, deliverable and policy-compliant surface water drainage strategy.

“However, Phase 1 fails to demonstrate that an adequate and policy-compliant drainage strategy can be achieved. Insufficient information has been provided to robustly confirm that surface water can be managed on-site without increasing flood risk elsewhere, contrary to the requirements of the NPPF and local plan policies relating to flood risk and sustainable drainage. This represents a fundamental technical constraint which weighs significantly against the proposal.”

“However, notwithstanding the acceptability of the development in principle, the proposal gives rise to fundamental concerns in respect of drainage. The submitted information fails to robustly demonstrate that a satisfactory surface water drainage strategy can be achieved without increasing flood risk on-site or elsewhere, and there remains insufficient evidence to confirm that the development can be adequately served by an appropriate and deliverable drainage solution.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Drainage consultees maintained objections, while highways, ecology, heritage, landscape and environmental health consultees raised no objection subject to matters being secured.

“Arun Council Leisure and Greenspace - Recommend no landscape objection to the details submitted subject to condition of submission of BNG appropriate proposals and full landscape detail to be submitted and approved.”

“Environmental Health - No objections provided all recommendations and mitigation in the air quality report are fully implemented. There is one area that needs amending in the acoustic report in respect of target levels from new plant/machinery for the proposed development. LU/72/25/OUT”

Officer report

What people said

Representations raised concerns about traffic, litter, biodiversity, noise, retail need and vacant units, while six people supported jobs and business expansion.

“-Increase in traffic -Increase in litter -Impact on biodiversity -Questioning the need for an additional supermarket -Increase in noise -Concerns the outline element is hiding elements of the scheme -No right to light surveys -Already units within Wick that are vacant and could be utilised…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward member supported redevelopment in principle but supported refusal, citing traffic, pedestrian safety, local character and community concerns.

What members debated

Members discussed drainage, retail effects in Wick, pedestrian safety across the A259, traffic on Courtwick Lane and whether further refusal reasons were justified.

“The Member also raised concerns regarding pedestrian accessibility and highway safety. It was noted that residents from nearby housing estates would need to cross the A259 to access the site and that the volume and speed of traffic on the road presented challenges for pedestrians.”

“The Chair sought clarification from officers as to whether the concerns raised by Members could be incorporated as additional reasons for refusal. Officers advised that Members were entitled to propose additional reasons for refusal but that any amendment would need to be formally proposed, seconded and voted upon by the Committee.”

Minutes

The vote

Members unanimously added two highway-related refusal reasons, then incorporated them into the substantive motion.

“A proposal by Councillor Bence was then formally made and seconded by Councillor Woodman to add two additional reasons for refusal to application LU/72/25/OUT. The additional reasons related to the impact of the development on highway safety, namely that the proposed pedestrian crossing arrangements were considered insufficient to mitigate highway danger for pedestrians crossing the A259, and that the proposed access arrangements to the site were unsafe.”

“Upon being put to the vote, the amendments to add the additional highway- related reasons for refusal were carried unanimously and were incorporated into the substantive motion before the Committee. The Chair then proceeded to the vote on the amended recommendation.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because of significant highway safety harm and unsafe access arrangements, in addition to the original drainage reasons.

“That the application be REFUSED due to the significant harm to highway safety and unsafe access arrangements, contrary to relevant development plan policies, in addition to the original drainage-related reasons for refusal.”

Minutes