APPEAL BY TESCO AGAINST REFUSAL BY RBWM OF APPLICATION 08/01012
At the public meeting in St Michael's School on 7 August SPAE was invited to advise those wishing to oppose this development at the appeal stage, on the practicalities of doing so. As interest was shown in being able to view what was said at the meeting, SPAE agreed to arrange for a summary of that advice to be made available on the web.
If you wish to oppose this development at appeal it is important to keep in mind what it is the Borough has refused. They have not refused permission for a mini supermarket as such. The owner of 1-3 Sunninghill High Street could open a convenience store in the existing building, providing it was not extended, without the need for planning permission ,as this would not involve a change of use. What the Borough has refused is permission for the owners to extend the store and create a new vehicle delivery bay.
The first stage in the objection process is to send written comments to the Planning Inspectorate before 19 august 2008. In doing so it is important to bear in mind that the Inspector will give weight to objections which are factually based, but is likely to disregard those which are emotionally based. The Inspector will get some indication of the extent of local opposition, However, from the number of letters opposing the development that are sent. Letters should concentrate upon the reasons given by the appellant for contesting the Borough's grounds for refusal. these are:
In addition to expressing your objection to the proposal and refuting the appellant's grounds for refusal ideally your letter should include examples of the sort of parking and traffic problems which you have personally experienced.
With regard to parking, it could be sufficient just to say that you do not consider it would be safe for the Inspector to rely on the parking survey carried out for the appellant because this overstates the actual availability of parking spaces. Your letter would carry more weight, however, if you were able to give examples of how you have been personally affected by the shortage of parking spaces. Examples of this could be: -
With regard to highway safety, it would support the Borough's objection if you expressed concern at the limited room there appears to be for lorries to make deliveries to the new store because of the closeness of the School Road delivery bay to the High Street, the narrowness of the road and the frequency with which cars park in this area. if you have a child or children at the school, you could ask the Inspector to ensure that a sufficient margin of error has been allowed in the proposed paths of delivery lorries into and out of the delivery bay.
With regard to harm to neighbour amenity - if you live near to 1-3 Sunninghill High Street you should consider whether you are likely to be affected by the noise of reversing lorries with their warning signal and gear changes. Wherever you live in the village, if you are already affected by the noise of delivery vehicles making early or late deliveries to the existing shops you should let the inspector know.
There is concern that if part of the garden of 1 School Road is made into a delivery bay it would change and harm the residential character of the road at this point and would be unsightly. If you share that concern you should let the Inspector know.
In addition to the three grounds for objecting to the development, parking, safety and amenity, there is the opportunity at this letter stage to refer to other concerns you may have. These might include for example one or more of the following: -
The next stage after the 19 August deadline for written comment will be the inquiry itself which may not take place for some months. it will be important to have as many residents as possible attend the Inquiry to demonstrate to the Inspector the strength of local opposition to the development.
The Inspector will allow third parties to address the inquiry but would not want a succession of speakers saying more or less the same thing. To avoid this, it may be appropriate for one or two individuals to speak on behalf of others present, each concentrating on a particular point to avoid too much repetition. You may, therefore, like to think about who these spokespersons might be and what they need to concentrate upon with Peter Deason as the expert witness on the specifics of parking and highway safety.
It will be important at the Inquiry to concentrate upon the three main grounds for refusal as these are the strongest grounds for getting the Inspector to dismiss the appeal. Other concerns, eg about impact upon existing shops, are best left to be brought to the Inspector's attention in the written submissions due before 19 August. If anyone wishes to speak at some length at the inquiry it is helpful to give the Inspector a written copy of what you are going to say to avoid a lot of note taking (if you do this, three copies will be needed, one for the Inspector, one for the Borough's representative and one for the appellant).
Finally, remember that as far as the Inspector is concerned the Inquiry is into the refusal by the Borough to permit an extension to the present store and to the construction of a delivery bay. His decision will be based on whether this would or would not be contrary to existing Planning Guidance and whether the appellant can justify his grounds for contesting that refusal. His decision will not be influenced by who is making the application or who would run the store.
Peter Standley for the Society for the Protection of Ascot and Environs