Agenda item

Moordown Ward

7-2023-1927-BT 

Redevelopment of retail park by erecting a foodstore (Use Class E(a) with associated access, parking, and landscaping works, involving demolition of existing 4 x units. 

Moordown Ward

7-2023-1927-BT 

Redevelopment of retail park by erecting a foodstore (Use Class E(a) with associated access, parking, and landscaping works, involving demolition of existing 4 x units. 

Public Representations

Objectors

v  Richard Goslin

v  Saul Trewern

Applicant/Supporters

v  James Mitchell, on behalf of the applicant

Ward Councillors

v  Cllr Joe Salmon, objecting

Resolved to REFUSE permission contrary to the recommendation set out in the officer’s report as updated in the Committee Addendum dated 22.1.25 for the following reasons, with power delegated to the Head of Planning Operations in consultation with the Chair to determine the final wording of these reasons:

• The failure to provide the land necessary to support the delivery of a high-quality walking and cycling network in accordance with national policy and best practice would fail to support the uptake of active travel and as such, fails to fully mitigate the impact of the proposed development. The proposal is considered poor design and is contrary to policies CS14, CS18 and CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: Core Strategy (Adopted October 2012). The development is also considered to be contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) [now 2024] which requires opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued adequately.
• The scheme would fail to make efficient use of land by not bringing forward a mixed use scheme and is therefore contrary to Paragraph 11 and Chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
• The failure to make necessary contributions to mitigate the impact of the proposal would not support sustainable form of development for future occupiers in terms of limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.

Voting: For – 5, Against – 3, Abstain – 0

Note: Prior to the vote to refuse, a move to grant the application was seconded but was not carried: Voting:  For – 3, Against – 4, Abstain – 1