Cllr Kelly continued by saying that when it was a garage it did have a HGV once a day to deliver petrol. However this was a different situation to a petrol forecourt. In making the sweep it would be hard not to mount the pavement leading to broken flags. An experienced HGV driver would want the pavement clear. From parts of his ward people would arrive at the health centre by bus, walking along this stretch of pavement to and from the bus stop. These pedestrians would be in conflict with the HGV driver three times a day and there would be broken flags.
Back to planning reasons the loss of the Post Office satisfied R08D (a standard reason) relating to unneighbourly development and loss of amenity. The second reason was there was no servicing provision within the site (standard reason R07C). He said the vehicle movements would be dangerous and would hold water on appeal.
The Chair asked for other councillors to have the opportunity to comment. Cllr Mitchell asked for clarification on the points Cllr Kelly had made regarding amenity and what it meant. He said the comments Cllr Foulkes had made regarding proposed legislation caused difficulty as the plans had to be dealt with according to current planning legislation. Two things that came out were the sequential process, other areas close to the site and Cllr Kelly’s point about the unadopted highway. How was it managed and was it within the remit of the landowner, if so who?
The Chair asked for comments on Cllr Mitchell’s points. He asked them to discuss the sequential test and elaborate briefly. He said they can’t take into account legislation that might or might not pass as it would be overturned on appeal.
