Four retail units at Land West Of Unit 18 Bishop Auckland Retail Park, St Helen Auckland

What was proposed

Four retail units with access, parking, servicing, landscaping and associated works were proposed as the second phase of the existing retail park.

“Phase 2 proposes the erection of four Class E(a) retail units with access; car parking; servicing; bin stores; sprinkler tanks; hard and soft landscaping and other associated works. A proposal for a petrol filling station was originally submitted a part of phase 2 but no longer forms part of this application.”

“The layout proposal has largely been dictated by the existing layout of the Phase 1 development of the Bishop Auckland Retail Park. This scheme would continue the development of retail units to the west of the existing site along the same layout principles i.e. retail units along the perimeter of the site with service and delivery access routes behind, and car parking and pedestrian access to the front.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 2.83-hectare site was undeveloped, enclosed land on the urban fringe, beside the existing retail park and near a public bridleway.

“The application site is a 2.83ha parcel of land site that lies to the south of the A688 and to the west of Bishop Auckland Retail Park. This retail park was is occupied by a mix of retail, restaurant and leisure businesses. Further to the east is a hotel and public house and the A6072 (West Auckland Road) at St Helen Auckland. To the south is open land which comprises a PROW (Bridleway no 28 Bishop Auckland) and further south land through which the River Gaunless runs.”

“The site lies on the urban fringe of the settlement of Bishop Auckland within the countryside and is unallocated for development in policy terms. The site itself does not contain any buildings or structures and comprises various raised mounds of vegetated deposited waste materials. The land is, however, predominantly grass covered and soft landscaped. The site is enclosed by fencing and hedging.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

An earlier outline permission covered both phases, but the phase-two permission expired; phase one was approved in 2018 and is operational.

“This application proposes the development of Phase 2 of the existing retail park. There was an earlier outline planning permission to develop both phase 1 and phase 2 (8/CMA/3/50) however in relation to phase 2 this has expired as a reserved matters application was not submitted for phase 2 within the required timeframe. Phase 1 reserved matters were submitted and approved in 2018 which has been varied by later applications and phase 1 has now built out and is operational.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the scheme generally complied with planning policies and its economic benefits outweighed limited identified harms.

“Policies 6, 9 and 10 of the CDP overarch a number of other topic areas that are specifically further policy assessed, such amenity, design, locational sustainability/active travel, highway safety, ecological impacts and impacts to climate change such a flooding.”

“The benefits of the scheme are considered to clearly outweigh the minor harms to the vitality and viability of Bishop Auckland and other centres and to the local landscape and in respect of conflict with policy 21. The proposals are considered generally complaint with the Policies of the County Durham Plan and the Framework.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s representative supported the scheme, highlighting investment, jobs, national retailers, accessibility, design and technical mitigation.

What members discussed

Members discussed pedestrian access and cycling infrastructure; officers said the cycling policy conflict was not sufficient reason to refuse.

“In response to a question from the Chair, the Traffic and Infrastructure Manager confirmed that the Council were exploring safe pedestrian access under a long term investment plan along the A688 corridor. He could not confirm the exact details at this point, however there was a substantial package of work which would aid crossing of the road to the site.”

“In response to a question from Councillor Elmer, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that no Active Travel Audit had been submitted, therefore the application had been assessed by Officers. Concerns had been raised by the Active Travel Officer regarding the local cycling infrastructure however the site itself was well served.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillor Bellingham moved approval and Councillor Elmer seconded it; the committee then approved the application.

“Councillor Bellingham supported the application, noting that there had been no objections from occupiers of the town centre. She moved the recommendation for approval which was seconded by Councillor Elmer.”

“That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in the report and completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation to secure the following:”

Minutes