· Tesco representatives have been invited to discuss the proposed development site plans.
· Planning Officers have been invited to explain the development control process, should a formal application on proposals be submitted to the Council by Tesco.
Minutes:
Councillor Potter reported she and Hamilton Residents Association representatives had met with Tesco representatives, and invited them to attend the community meeting to discuss the proposed development site plans, but Tesco representatives had sent their apologies for the meeting.
It was reported that the development would include one KFC, one public house and one restaurant. An outline application and map of the development was circulated at the meeting. Councillor Potter said that of immediate concern was the moving of community recycling facilities and the safety of the public walking across the car park to and from the development.
A discussion followed and residents voiced the following concerns:
· The development did not take into account the new housing development which would place greater pressure on the store, and increase local traffic which would require the use of all current car parking space.
· There were no fitness, community or youth facilities in the area.
· The buildings already in the perimeter that were boarded up should be maintained, and the businesses occupying other buildings in the perimeter be protected.
· Tesco did provide local services such as an opticians and pharmacy.
· The outline planning application was to test the waters prior to a detailed planning application being submitted.
· Through the planning process, residents, councillors and other interested parties would have the opportunity to put their case forward.
· Tesco had not honoured previous promises.
· Residents asked if the original planning application had a ‘subject to’ clause to provide community facilities, and was Tesco expected to include community facilities for the site.
· Residents believed that Spen Hill Developments Limited had not consulted widely enough with residents in the area on the proposed development, but were legally covered as the plan for development had been inside Tesco store for 28 days.
· A resident said only a small amount of questionnaires had been submitted.
· The food and alcohol on offer from all venues would mean they were competing against each other.
· A public house would be good for the community.
· Residents requested a gym be provided, to inspire generations to become sports people. They added that with proposed venues would inspire them to become fat and slovenly with the alcohol and food offer.
· It was noted that when Tesco originally opened, no one in the units could sell anything that was available in Tesco store, but now appeared to have changed their policies.
· Some residents were happy that a family public house was proposed, to enable them to socialise within walking distance from their homes.
· The meeting was informed the library was open for several hours in a Sunday. Library workers were concerned that people under the influence of alcohol would go into the library or that people would leave their children in the library while they visited the public house.
· A resident informed the meeting there was a doctor’s surgery in east Hamilton, but none in the west of the estate.
· A resident said the Sainsbury’s development on Troon Way and subsequent removal of the flyover on Belgrave Road had set a precedent for requests as part of a planning agreement.
· Residents believed that the new development, in particular KFC, would be a problem for Gateway College students.
The Chair said there was a planning procedure that would have to be followed by the developers, and was an opportunity for residents to push for a community facility from Tesco, for example a gym, or a community centre. She said the three additional venues would increase footfall, and would be driven by profit for Tesco. The meeting was informed Tesco owned the land inside the solid black line as outlined on the map circulated, and that an original application for a public house on green land was withdrawn.
An attendee suggested that Tesco did not own the car park land, but was owned by British Land who leased it back to the store. The Chair asked that the Planning Team look into the ownership of the land, and check if Tesco had honoured conditions, if any, on the previous planning application, and provide the information to the Ward Councillors.
Angie Patterson, Senior Planning Officer from Leicester City Council then outlined the planning procedure, and the process that would be followed when a planning application was submitted. She informed the meeting that once a planning application was received, residents in the immediate vicinity of the development would receive individual letters, and all residents and groups would have 21 days to submit their comments in writing to the planning team. She added that details would be included on site notices that would be placed in the area, on letters and an advert would be placed in the Leicester Mercury. The Officer informed the meeting that concerns raised and questions would then be submitted to Tesco agents for a response, and any amendments to the planning application would be made within two weeks, following which a report would be written with officer recommendations. The Officer said residents would have the opportunity to write to object to the application, and could speak at the Planning Committee, or nominate a spokesperson or councillor to speak on their behalf.
The Officer said she would attend a future meeting when Tesco representatives were present. She said there has been limited pre-application contact with Tesco and their agents, and there were stringent rules under planning legislation. Residents asked if information could be brought to the meeting on what Section 106 monies were spent in the ward following development of the Tesco store.
The Officer said the outline planning application would be the planning permission, and reserved matters would be included in the planning application, including details such as landscape and the size of buildings. She urged that Tesco representatives be invited to a meeting as soon as possible, and a consultation process be undertaken as many people had been omitted initially.
Councillors believed the development was too condensed for one area, and that safety for pedestrians, or potential congestion at the petrol station had not been addressed. It was also noted that a proposed application for a KFC at Thurmaston had been suspended pending an agreement for the proposed development on Hamilton. Residents were urged to write letters of objection against the development to the Planning Team, and include ward councillors in their correspondence.
The Chair summed up all that had been said. She suggested that Keith Vaz MP be informed of residents’ concerns with the proposed development. She asked for a special meeting to be arranged with Tesco, community groups and residents. She added it was important for planning officers to maintain contact, and that feedback of meetings would be fed back to planning. Angie Patterson informed residents of her contact details if they should wish to contact her after the meeting:
angie.patterson@leicester.gov.uk.
The Chair thanked the officer for her attendance.
RESOLVED:
1. That the planning team look into ownership of the land.
2. The planning team to check of Tesco had had ‘subject to’ clauses on the previous planning application, and if they had honoured conditions, the information to be supplied to ward councillors.
3. That residents and groups write, telephone or email the planning team with their objections to the proposed development.
4. That Tesco representatives be invited to a special meeting with ward councillors, residents and community groups, as soon as was practicable to arrange.
5. That further, wider consultation by Tesco agents be undertaken with residents and businesses in the area.
6. That Keith Vaz, MP be informed of the communities strength of feeling against the new development.
7. That a request be made to Tesco for a community facility as part of the planning agreement.
8. That information be brought to the next meeting on whether Section 106 money had been spent in the ward.