08/1254 Ben Hodgson Bodyworks, Dalston Service Station – removal of existing garage buildings and erection of convenience store and two residential units.
It was resolved to seek an extension to the consultation period for submitting comments in order to hold a public meeting in Dalston regarding planning application 08/1254. The decision to hold a public meeting on 7th February 2009 and defer the submission of a formal consultation response until the next Parish Council meeting on February 10th 2009, was made following requests by a majority of the 28 members of the public present at the meeting. It was felt that the planning application had only been received on 8th January 2009 and, because of the short notice given, many residents were unaware that it was being considered. The Parish Council observed the small percentage attendance at the meeting in relation to the size of the electorate that it represented.
It was also resolved to ask for a site visit to be made by members of Carlisle City Council Development Control Committee in connection with this application.
A summary of comments made by residents and individual Parish Council members are as follows. These should not be seen as part of the formal Dalston Parish Council consultation response.
• In a Conservation Area did the Parish Council have any input? The Clerk responded that the Parish Design Statement, although produced in 2005 had not been adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document to date. Carlisle City Council was the planning authority that determined applications and the Parish Council was a consultee only.
• Concern was expressed about the position of the waste bins. As there were already recycling bins on the other side of the proposed development in Glave Hill car park, perhaps the new bins could be more sympathetically located elsewhere to the position indicated on the plan.
• Whether there were any energy efficiency measures, particularly in the residential units. This could be addressed by Building Control.
• The Transport Statement was thought to be flawed. Dalston was a village not a town. A one day parking survey carried out two weeks prior to Christmas was unrepresentative. There were issues with on site parking provision, especially at the road side of the building interspersed with large delivery vehicles – clearer segregation should be considered for customer parking. Potential for inconsiderate parking and blocking of accesses. Co-op delivery vehicles currently often arrived in tandem – concern about waiting and room for turning on and off the site. Glave Hill parking facility was privately owned by the Victory Hall and was not a public car park.
• The advisability of creating an access footway to the entrance of the retail area from the corner of the road junction as shown on the plan was questioned in terms of safety.
• More details required regarding lighting.
• Concern about the position of an external ATM.
• Assurance required regarding the use of the existing Co-op building if vacated in terms of duplication of use on two sites.
• A cross section plan of the site, a 3D computer generated model and street scene drawings would assist in visual interpretation of what was planned.
• The size of the site in relation to the proposed building was questioned. It was a large building, close to the road and a neighbouring listed property. However, an Environmental Impact Assessment was probably not required for a development of this size.
• The design of the building itself had been sympathetically thought about but the ancillary features required alteration.
• The proposed extended opening hours were not considered to be appropriate for Dalston.
• The proposed development could be an asset as a service provision to the community and preferable to a garage operation with overspill of parked vehicles off the site. There was scope for negotiation/alteration to the scheme with more research into the details.
