Agenda item

Development of a Supermarket, together with associated parking, access servicing and landscaping.

Description

Development of a Supermarket, together with associated parking, access servicing and landscaping.

Decision

Planning permission is REFUSED for the following reasons:

(1)            The proposed development’s car parking provision is considered to be insufficient to accommodate the demands of the staff and customers of the store which is considered to result in queuing on both the A24 London Road and A240 Ewell By-Pass (North and South), as customers wait for space to become available in the car park, causing severe congestion at this very busy junction which would result in a highways safety issue contrary to the NPPF (2019) and Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy 2007.

(2)            It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County Highway Authority, that pedestrian and cycling movements to and from the store have been adequately catered for, causing detriment to the safety and convenience of pedestrians and cyclists in the local neighbourhood who may be discouraged from walking to the store because of the lack of crossing facilities, minimal footway widths and car focused access to the store and on the A24 London Road particularly at the traffic signals resulting in a highways safety issue contrary to the NPPF (2018) and Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy 2007.

(3)            The internal car parking and servicing layout would cause a conflict of traffic movements at the entrance to the store close to A24 London Road causing severe safety concerns. The approach to servicing in terms of access to enter and exit would increase queuing and congestion at the very busy A24 London Road/A240 Ewell By-Pass junction resulting in a highways safety issue contrary to the NPPF (2018) and Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy.

(4)            The additional traffic movements associated with the proposed development at the signalised junction of A24 and A240 will increase queuing and congestion on both roads and as a result, will have a severe adverse impact on the safety, and efficiency of traffic on the surrounding highway network contrary to the NPPF (2018) and Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy 2007.

(5)            The proposed building by reason of its unacceptable and generic design would fail to contribute to the character and local distinctiveness of the immediate area and would have a detrimental impact on the street scene, contrary to the NPPF (2018) and Policy DM9 and DM10 of the Development Management Policies Document 2015, and in accordance with para 130 of the NPPF

(6)            The proposed development’s landscaping scheme is inadequate and would fail to contribute to the character and local distinctiveness of the immediate area and would have a detrimental impact on the street scene, contrary to the NPPF (2018) and Policies DM5, DM9 and DM10 of the Development Management Policies Document 2015.

(7)            The unacceptable design, landscaping and impact on the transport network of the proposed development ensures that the proposed development would not represent sustainable development and thereby by contrary to the NPPF (2018) and Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy 2007.

Informative:

(1)            In line with the requirements of paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reasons for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

The Committee noted verbal representations from an objector and the applicant for the application.  Letters of representation had been published on Council’s website and were available to the public and members of the Committee in advance of the meeting.

Note:  In the interests of openness and transparency, it was noted that Councillors Beckett, Reeve and Teasdale were known to the applicant through their involvement with the Residents Association.  However, it was not considered that it could be regarded as sufficiently close an association as to affect their consideration of this item.