Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd AGENT
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU TO: PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 29 October 2014 REPORT OF: DEVELOPMENT QUALITY MANAGER AUTHOR: John Ford TELEPHONE: 01737 276 5 EMAIL: [email protected] AGENDA ITEM: 7 WARD: Tadworth and Walton APPLICATION NUMBER: 14/01344/CU VALID: 07 July 2014 APPLICANT: Sainsbury’s Supermarkets AGENT: WYG Planning and Ltd Environment LOCATION: CITYGATE MINI DEALERSHIP, 90 THE AVENUE, TADWORTH, SURREY DESCRIPTION: Change of use of part of existing showroom (sui generis) to class A1 (retail), installation of new shopfront, atm and plant enclosure. Demolition of existing showroom on eastern edge of site, creation of car parking and servicing area in association with retail unit All plans in this report have been reproduced, are not to scale, and are for illustrative purposes only. The original plans should be viewed/referenced for detail. This application is referred to Committee by Cllr Vivona in accordance with the Constitution for the reason that the application has generated extensive public interest. SUMMARY This application relates to a car showroom on the north side of The Avenue, at a point where the road bends sharply westwards. The site’s immediate environs are of mixed uses, with to the east of the site a railway line and Tadworth railway station to the south, to the west a postal sorting office and to the south-east, on the other side of The Avenue, St John's Roman Catholic Church. Immediately to the north is a commercial garage. Residential development is to be found farther to the north and west. The site is not within a defined shopping area but approximately 100m to the south lies the Tadworth local shopping centre extending along Station Approach and Cross Road; and the Shelvers Way local shopping centre is some 0.5km to the north. The proposal involves the adaptation of the front part of the car dealership building on the frontage of The Avenue with part of the garage use being retained to the rear. Between the site and more far flung residential development is an area of mixed uses of commercial and other properties. It is considered that the proposal’s impact would not be such so as to result in harm as to justify refusal. Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU On the question of retail need, the proposal (at approximately 280sqm net/380sq m gross) falls significantly below the threshold (of 2500sq m) for a retail impact test as set out in the NPPF and no lower threshold exists in the Borough Local Plan 2005 or Core Strategy policies. In this regard, therefore there is no policy obligation on the applicant to demonstrate retail impact in this case. Nonetheless, the applicant has provided a retail assessment which is adjudged to be sound and leading to the conclusion that there is no policy objection that can be levelled at the proposal in terms of retail impact/need. The concern about the retail impact of the proposed change of use is acknowledged however given the scale of the proposal and its location it is not considered that it would result in harm so to justify the refusal of permission. As regards highway safety implications the proposed parking provision of 14 spaces is within the Council’s and the Highway Authority’s parking standards and adequate to meet the needs of the development. At times of peak demand there are also opportunities to park on street in time restricted bays. However in order to prevent the potential for customers parking on or around the bend near the site, the Highway Authority would like the parking restrictions extended via an amended Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The Highway Authority recommends that this measure be implemented by way of an appropriate legal document such as a Unilateral Undertaking. The applicant has indicated that the agreement is being drawn up. RECOMMENDATION Planning permission is GRANTED subject to conditions. Subject to the completion of all documentation required to create a planning obligation/unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure: (i) the reasonable costs of the County Highway Authority of pursuing a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to provide parking restrictions in the close proximity of the site, including in between the two access points outside the site on The Avenue with such payment to be made within 28 days of request; and (ii) the design and implementation of the proposed parking restrictions on The Avenue which will be on the ground and enforceable prior to any occupation of the proposed development. Planning permission is GRANTED subject to conditions. Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU In the event that a satisfactorily completed obligation is not received by 31 January 2015 or such longer period as may be agreed, the Development Quality Manger be authorised to refuse permission for the following reason: The proposal fails to provide a contribution towards the provision and improvement of local infrastructure and is therefore contrary to policies Mo4 of the Reigate and Banstead Borough Local Plan 2005 and policy CS5 of the Core Strategy 2014. Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU Consultations: Highway Authority: requires that the applicant enter into an appropriate legal agreement regarding a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for parking restrictions in the vicinity of the site and recommends conditions relating to pedestrian priority raised entry treatments, on-site car/cycle parking provision, Construction Transport Management Plan and servicing arrangements. RBBC Planning Policy team: First and foremost, it is important to recognise that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Practice Guidance no longer impose a requirement upon applicants to demonstrate a specific need for out of town proposals: this is established in recent appeal decisions. As set out in the views expressed at pre-application stage, the proposal site is not located within of any of the borough’s designated town or local centres and therefore must be considered as an out of centre in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 24 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to apply a sequential approach to planning applications for main town centre uses – one of which is convenience food retail - requiring them to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only where sites are not available should out of centre locations be considered. In response to this, the applicants have submitted a retail statement which contains a sequential test to demonstrate the above. The applicants adopt approximately a 500m catchment and therefore consider sites within both the Tadworth Local Centre and Shelvers Way Local Centre: taking account of the scale of the proposal and the character of the area, this is considered to be an appropriate approach. From this, the applicants consider the suitability of a range of sites within these centres – including one specifically at my request. Having reviewed the sites considered and conclusions reached, I am satisfied that there is no compelling evidence that the type of provision anticipated could be delivered on a sequentially preferable site within either of these locations – even allowing for a reasonable and realistic degree of flexibility in line with the NPPF and well rehearsed appeal decisions and judgements (most notably the Tesco v Dundee Supreme Court judgement). On balance, I therefore raise no objection in this specific instance to the out of centre location from a policy perspective. Turning to the issue of retail need, it is important to note that the proposal (at approximately 280sqm net/380 sqm gross) falls significantly below the threshold for a retail impact test as set out in the NPPF and no lower threshold exists in our Borough Local Plan 2005 or Core Strategy policies. In this regard, there is no policy obligation on the applicants to demonstrate retail impact in this case. Nonetheless, the applicants have provided an assessment in response to the original pre-application advice – the approach for which I consider to be proportionate to the application and broadly in line with established practice – and I provide some policy observations on it below to inform your determination. Although at a larger geographic scale, the Council’s own evidence in the Retail and Leisure Needs Assessment does indicate that there is leakage of convenience expenditure from the catchment in the north-west of the borough to surrounding areas. Whilst this may in part be driven by trade in Lower Kingswood “leaking” towards Reigate and trade from northern parts of Zone 6 towards Epsom, it is also likely to be relevant to the Tadworth area given the dominance of Asda and the inevitable desire of some residents to access wider choice/alternative retailers (e.g. Waitrose in Banstead/Sainsburys at Kiln Lane Epsom). In addition, the high level of overtrading identified in that study at the Asda supermarket Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU (which was more than £15m above benchmark), is unlikely to have been anywhere near rebalanced by these recent new/expanded but relatively small scale facilities in the locality of Tadworth and Walton on the Hill (such as the new Budgens in Walton on the Hill and the modest expansion of the One Stop Shop). The overall conclusions of “leakage” and overtrading in the local catchment are therefore considered to remain relevant. Clearly, existing facilities will inevitably face increased competition; however, this is not in itself sufficient justification for refusal: the key issue is trade draw and impact upon viability.