Address:       Co-Op Supermarket, High Street, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, LU5 5QT

Temporary use of land as car park with minor works, temporary stationing of 2 no. portable buildings for ancillary use as security and shelter and temporary stationing of lighting.

Applicant:     Whitbread Group plc

The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/00077/FULL for the temporary use of land as a car park with minor works, temporary stationing of 2 no. portable buildings for ancillary use as security and shelter and temporary stationing of lighting at the Co-operative Supermarket, High Street, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, LU5 5QT.

No additional consultation/publicity responses, comments or additional/amended conditions were set out in the Late Sheet.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from the agent for the applicant under the public participation scheme.

A ward Member referred to the sensitivity regarding the site since the fire in 2005.  The Member stated that, whilst content to leave recommended condition 1 relating to the end date of the use of the site as a temporary car park unamended, she sought assurance from officers that if the Council needed to extend the period beyond the recommended end date, then consultation would take place with local Members, Houghton Regis Town Council and the local community.  The ward Member stated that she wished to see the matter be dealt with in as transparent manner as possible.  She also felt that any extension should not exceed one month.  The ward Member again referred to public scrutiny around the application and to the recommended condition that stated that the site would be returned to its pre-development condition.  However, a number of local residents had pointed out to her that this could not happen because a tree had already been felled on the site.  Whilst not a material planning issue she felt it worthy of note given the public interest in the site.

The planning officer responded to the points raised so far as follows:

·         Should an extension to the temporary use was sought a new application would be required to vary the condition.  Consultation would take place with relevant parties.  The Chairman queried whether, if the requirement was for, say, one month, it would fall within the officer’s authority to grant the extension without the need for a new application.  In response the planning officer referred to the content of the recommended condition which stated that the use of the site as a temporary car park would cease on 31 July in accordance with the proposed six month period.  He added that in view of the Independent Living Scheme for Older Persons (which was due to be built on the site) there would be a reluctance to extend the period.  However, if a request to extend the period was sought there would need to be a variation.  The Chairman assured the ward Member that the need for a new application would therefore arise and consultation would take place.

·         A Member stated that the recommended temporary use cessation date was a condition and the Committee could make that more open ended until such time that work was ready to commence on the Independent Living Scheme.  This would remove the need the matter to return to the Committee.

·         With regard to returning the site to its pre-development condition the Chairman referred to the removal of the tree and that this had to be regarded as a matter to be carried out as far as it was practical to do so.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         A Member sought an assurance that the recommended cessation date of 31 July was not exceeded so works could commence on the Independent Living Scheme.  In response the Chairman stated that an assurance could be given but the date might still not be achieved.  The Committee therefore needed to consider what would happen next given that the applicants could return with a further application for an extension.  Alternatively, the Committee could, as suggested, anticipate such a request and condition accordingly. 

·         Another Member reminded the meeting that weather conditions could lead to an extension in the time required the construction of the applicant’s decked car park (for use by the company’s employees at the applicant’s site at Houghton Hall Business Park).  However, any building project included a contingency period and it was hoped that such a period would not be exceeded.  The Member stressed, however, that delays did occur and he was sure that the applicant had a robust plan, checked by the Council’s officers, to deal with such delays.

·         In response to query by the legal officer regarding the need to clarify the point at which an application to extend the temporary car park use would need to be submitted, the planning officer stated that a practical approach was necessary and that a new application would not be expected if additional use was only expected to continue for up to a few weeks.  The Chairman commented that, given the time required to undertake enforcement action, the matter would be settled by then.

·         A Member felt that recommended condition 1 was suitable as it stood and that it should not be necessary for the applicant to submit a further application to the Committee if the agreed cessation time was exceeded.  The officers could consider time pressures regarding the building of the Independent Living Scheme and if there was a clash with an extended use of the site for car parking the officers would refuse a time extension.  He felt that the officers were capable of being left to deal with issues should they arise.

·         A Member commented that the Council (which owned the site) was attempting to assist a major local employer with a temporary car park and she was unable to understand why the application had generated such debate.

·         A Member referred to a delay which had arisen with regard to development within Houghton Regis but assured the meeting of the desire to proceed as quickly as possible with the construction of the Independent Living Scheme.  He stressed that the use of the Co-op site as a temporary car park would not delay it further.  The Member also referred to the objection to the application and criticised its relevance.  In response the Chairman stated that the site was Council owned land and there was an issue of public perception and transparency.  There was already comment within Houghton Regis that a decision in favour of the application had been, in effect, a forgone conclusion.  The Chairman stated, however, that good debate had taken place and the various reasons and issues had been considered.  Further an objection had been received, although he acknowledged it had not been completely relevant.

On being put to the vote 10 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/18/00077/FULL relating to the Co-Op Supermarket, High Street, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, LU5 5QT be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.