Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd AGENT

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. Overall, the assessment indicates that the proposed store could generate turnover of £3m per annum; however, I concur with the applicants that the adopted sales density is optimistic would therefore view this as a top end. The applicants have also carried out an assessment of the potential trade draw and whilst the assumptions regarding the sources of trade draw are inherently open to some subjectivity (for example, I would argue the Council’s evidence would suggest that balance of draw from “local residents carrying out more top-up trips rather than main shops” and from “top-ups at existing local facilities” would be greater given the dominance and overtrading of the Asda superstore in the immediate catchment compared to that from “local residents currently travelling outside the area for top up shopping”) there is overall no compelling evidence that there would be a “significant” adverse trade draw impact from existing local facilities such that permission should be refused in accordance with the NPPF. Additionally, I concur with the applicant’s assessment that there is no existing or planned retail investment in either Tadworth LC or Shelvers Way LC which could be prejudiced by the proposal. Given the conclusions on the issues of both the sequential test and retail impact, I am satisfied that the proposal would not be in conflict with Policy Sh14 of the Borough Local Plan 2005, the recently adopted Reigate & Banstead Core Strategy or the NPPF and accordingly raise no policy objection to the application.

Tadworth and Walton Residents Association: objects to the proposal on the following grounds:– Impact of the proposal on the existing local shopping centre: They argue that Tadworth suffered less retail leakage out of the village than other areas in the North of the Borough and that insufficient account had been taken of recent changes in retailers, e.g. Budgens and Shell garage. Objection was also raised on the basis of the impact test being inaccurate, by not taking account of the scale of the store relative to the village; over-estimating increased demand and the nature of the existing shops. Concern raised that majority of convenience floorspace need would be provided in the north of the Borough and that there is no justification for statement that the proposal would complement existing small and specialist retailers. Also stated that the sequential test was not relevant. Parking: Concern raised that 14 spaces in insufficient for size of store, pressure from staff and delivery vehicles. Raise the issue of existing parking issues in Tadworth. Impact on the highway network: Objection raised to traffic movement on local residential roads. Potential highway safety risks from congestion outside the site and no improvements made, as required by Policy.

Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU Representations:

Letters were sent to neighbouring properties on 09 July 2014 and a site notice was posted 10 July 2014. 206 objections have been received raising the following issues:

Issue Response Alternative location preferable The application can only be dealt with in the terms submitted; see also paragraph 6.5 Security fears See condition no. 5 Highway safety See paragraphs 6.15-6.18 and conditions nos. 3-7 incl Health concerns See condition no. 5 Inadequate parking See paragraphs 6.15-6.18 and conditions nos. 4 and 6 Loss of view Not a planning consideration No need for development See paragraphs 6.2-6.12 Noise and disturbance See condition nos. 5 and 9 Out of character with surrounding See paragraph 6.13 area Overdevelopment See paragraph 6.14 Overlooking See paragraph 6.14 Property devaluation Not a planning consideration Commercial detriment to existing See paragraphs 6.2-6.12 shops Overshadowing See paragraph 6.14

Flawed background research by applicant See paragraph 6.12

A petition objecting to the proposal was submitted with 810 residents’ signatures.

5 letters of support have also been received

1.0 Site and Character Appraisal

1.1 The site consists of the former MINI BMW car showroom of utilitarian appearance on a generally level site on the north side of The Avenue, at a point where the road bends sharply westwards. The site accommodates two buildings and a forecourt to the front where cars are displayed for sale. Parking areas are provided to the rear and along the eastern boundary. Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU

1.2 The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of residential, commercial and community uses. Opposite the site is the Catholic Church of St John, and immediately adjacent to the site is a Post Office sorting office, and Tadworth Train Station. The site is also adjacent to Tadworth Local Shopping Area, which is approximately 115 metres from the MINI forecourt. Farther afield to the north and west are predominantly residential properties in a neighbourhood which the Council's Local Distinctiveness Design Guide identifies as 1930s-1950s Suburbia, although this character has been diluted by more recent development.

2.0 Added Value

2.1 Improvements secured at the pre-application stage: at pre application stage the applicant was advised that key issues to be considered are the highway impact of the proposal; its impact on the local shopping centre; and the amenity of neighbouring properties.

2.2 Further improvements could be secured: Hours of use conditions would be applied to ensure no significant harm occurs to the amenity of neighbouring properties.

3.0 Relevant Planning and Enforcement History

3.1 00/0634/OUT Demolition of garage and car Refused showroom and construction of 12 07 July 2000 new flats Dismissed on appeal 08 March 2001

3.2 14/01343/ADV Proposed Advertisements Pending consideration

Note: The dismissal of the appeal on application, ref: 00/0634/OUT was due to loss of the suitably located commercial use of the site that would have occurred had it been developed for residential use. In all other regards the alternative residential development proposed would not have resulted in harm.

4.0 Proposal and Design Approach

4.1 This is an application for change of use of the existing car showroom. The MINI dealership that previously occupied the premises needed to relocate as the site no longer meet the latest franchise standards. The showroom has been relocated to BMW Banstead, which in turn is to be consolidated into other local BMW franchises.

Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU

4.2 It is proposed to convert part of the existing showroom (comprising part of the main building) from Sui Generis to A1 (retail). The application for change of use does not affect the rear of the building, the planning use class for which will remain the same as at present. It is proposed to demolish the stand alone showroom to the east and use this area for parking to support the retail unit. The area in front of the main showroom is also to be used for car parking.

4.3 In association with the proposed change of use, this application also seeks planning permission for the installation of a shopfront, ATM and plant machinery to facilitate the use of the building as an A1 (retail) use.

4.4 The applicant explains that the proposed retail unit would operate as a Sainsbury’s Local store. With a net sales area of 280sqm (412sq m gross internal floorspace), the store would provide Sainsbury’s Local’s full range of primarily top-up food items, including fresh fruit and vegetables, fresh meat and fish, bread baked on the premises as well as a range of every day convenience items. Customers would typically visit such stores to supplement larger weekly shops carried out at main food supermarkets.

4.5 The applicant justifies the proposal under the headings of Retail Use, Traffic & Parking, Deliveries and Design, as follows.

4.6 Retail Use The proposed use of the existing building as a Sainsbury’s Local ensures that a beneficial and economically active business remain on the site. The use will generate between 20-25 new jobs for the area and it ensures that the site does not fall vacant and into disrepair. The proposal raises few issues in respect of design or amenity as it primarily involves the re-use of an existing building with relatively little modification.

The proposed use of the existing building as a Sainsbury’s Local ensures that a beneficial and economically active business remain on the site. The use will generate between 20-25 new jobs for the area and it ensures that the site does not fall vacant and into disrepair. The proposal raises few issues in respect of design or amenity as it primarily involves the re-use of an existing building with relatively little modification. The proposed plant, necessary to support the retail operation of the store, is acceptable given that there are no noise- sensitive uses in close proximity to the site. The separate supporting retail statement considers the planning policy implications of the proposed use. Principally these relate to the change in use of the site to retail. In summary, the report concludes that the site is in an edge of centre location, being approximately 115m from the defined retail centre for Tadworth. Given the absence of any sequentially preferable sites within the centre itself, the site represents a good opportunity to improve the retail offer in Tadworth, improving local choice and competition for residents of the Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU

village whilst having no significant adverse impact on existing shopping facilities.

4.7 Traffic & Parking It is proposed that the store would be open from 7am until 11pm. We enclose a transport statement with the application that examines the traffic and parking implications of the proposed use during these hours. In summary, the statement concludes that the store will serve primarily the needs of a local population, many of which will walk or cycle to the store. Of those who choose to travel by car during the peak periods, most will already be on the road network, combining their visit with trips to other trips, such as school runs. The close proximity to the railway station means it is likely that a good proportion of the store’s trade will be conducted as part of a linked transport trip further afield. The proposed development will have a total of 14 car parking spaces dedicated to the retail unit. In Sainsbury’s experience of operating similar stores around the Country, this will be sufficient for the predicted need.

4.8 Deliveries The applicant is aware of local concerns in respect of deliveries that take place to the existing car showroom with off-loading happening on the road. As a result, the site’s design is such that deliveries to the store take place from within the site. A Delivery & Servicing Plan included in the application seeks to demonstrate how the delivery vehicles access and exit the site with no vehicles needing to park on the public highway in order to service the site.

4.9 Design The site is not within a conservation area, or any other designated area of protection. The driving principle around the design of the premises has been to bring about as little change as possible. The existing building, although not exemplary, has developed a ‘settled’ existence in the street scene in this part of the village. The existing frontage of the main building is already substantially glazed to function as a car showroom. The proposed shopfront is also primarily glazed to allow maximum visibility into the trading space of the store. It is proposed to demolish the stand alone car showroom to the east of the entrance. This building is low in profile and is of no particular architectural merit. Its loss will not be damaging to the street scene.

4.10 The applicant concludes in justifying the proposal in the following terms.

4.11 The proposal represents a partial change of use of existing commercial premises for use as a Sainsbury’s Local convenience store. The supporting information submitted with this application demonstrates the following key planning points:  the development will not have a significant adverse impact on Tadworth Local Centre; Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU

 the store will facilitate improvements to local shopping choice and increase competition;  the site has been designed to accommodate 14 car parking spaces for the retail unit, which is sufficient;  deliveries to the store will take place from within the site;  the design of the store retains the majority of the fabric of the existing building;  no sensitive land uses (such as residential) are affected by the proposed plant.

4.12 In support of the submissions relating to traffic impact, the application includes a Transport Statement which concludes:

 the site can be accessed by modes of transport other than the private car;  the proposed development accords with the relevant planning policy objectives relating to transport, including parking standards;  The majority of vehicle trips to the store during the network peak will consist mostly of pass-by trips from vehicles already using the road and passing the site: these pass-by trips are likely to be currently taking place elsewhere on the wider network and the total overall number of shopping trips is likely to remain the same: the proposed level of parking is considered to have adequate capacity to meet parking demand.

4.13 Also forming part of the application is a Noise Data Report/Acoustic Mitigation Report inclusive of the findings of an environmental noise survey at the site to determine prevailing background noise levels that are representative of the nearest identified noise sensitive property on The Avenue. The results of the noise survey are adjudged reasonable by the applicant, given the location of the measurement position and the existing dominant nearby noise sources. External plant noise limits have been proposed based on the requirements of the Local Authority and BS 4142.

4.14 A Retail Statement accompanying the application argues that the proposed development is in accordance with the NPPF and the relevant provisions of the development plan in relation to retail development although the applicant points out that, owing to its minimal size and nature, it is not a policy requirement for a retail impact assessment to be submitted in support of the application. Therefore, the applicant continues, retail impact cannot be relied upon in determining the application proposal. Notwithstanding this, the applicant asserts that the assessment demonstrates that the proposal:  is located in line with the sequential approach and will be conveniently accessible by a choice of means of transport, including walking, cycling, public transport and the car; Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU

 will significantly improve the choice of high quality local top-up convenience shopping provision, to the benefit of residents and the attraction of the village for such purposes;  is likely to increase the level of expenditure retention in the locality through improving local choice and reducing the need to travel;  will not adversely impact on the trading position/turnover of Tadworth Local Centre (TLC) or Shelvers Way Local Centre (SWLC);  will not adversely impact on any existing, committed or planned public and private investment in TLC of SWLC;  will not adversely impact on the vitality and viability of TLC or SWLC: it will significantly increase the accessibility to a choice of small scale local convenience shopping services and facilities;  is of an appropriate and minimal scale in line with its function as a local convenience shop for the small scale everyday shopping needs of local residents;  has significant potential for linked trips and therefore positive spin off benefits between the store and TLC: whilst difficult to quantify, the potential spin off benefits may help offset forecast retail impact;  would create up to 25 full and part time jobs, whilst also safeguarding existing jobs by facilitating the successful relocation of the BMW garage in the locality.

4.15 A design and access statement should illustrate the process that has led to the development proposal, and justify the proposal in a structured way, by demonstrating the steps taken to appraise the context of the proposed development. It expects applicants to follow a four-stage design process comprising:  Assessment;  Involvement;  Evaluation; and  Design.

4.16 Evidence of the applicant’s design approach is set out below:

Assessment The character of the surrounding area is assessed as mixed in terms of use with residential, commercial and community activities. These include the Catholic Church of St John, a Post Office and Tadworth Railway Station. Beyond the immediately surrounding mix of uses lies a large residential catchment (west, north, east and south) and Tadworth Local Shopping Centre (south). There are no residential uses immediately adjacent to the area of the site that is the subject of this application. No site features worthy of retention were identified. Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU

Involvement No community consultation took place. Evaluation The statement does not include any evidence of other development options being considered. Design The applicant’s reasons for choosing the proposal from the available options were that the proposed use of the existing building as a Sainsbury’s Local would ensure that a beneficial and economically active business remained on the site.

4.17 Further details of the development are as follows:

Existing use Sui Generis Proposed use A1 retail Existing parking spaces 14 Proposed parking spaces 14 Parking standard 14 (maximum)

5.0 Policy Context

5.1 Designation

Urban Area

5.2 Reigate and Banstead Core Strategy

CS5 (Valued People/Economic Development)

5.3 Reigate & Banstead Borough Local Plan 2005

Shopping Sh2, Sh14

5.4 Other Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Practice Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance A Parking Strategy for Surrey Parking Standards for Development Other Human Rights Act 1998

Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU

6.0 Assessment

6.1 The main issues to consider are:

 Retail impact  Impact on local character  Neighbour amenity  Access and parking  Other issues

Retail impact

6.2 The principle of the change of use for an alternative commercial use is acceptable in the urban area. It is however important to assess the potential impact of the proposed retail use. The assessment of the retail impact below is largely informed by the Council’s Policy section.

6.3 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.

6.4 The application 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 site 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.

6.5 In response to this context the applicant has 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 applicant considers the suitability of a range of sites within these centres. The alternative site have been reviewed and it is considered 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. On balance, therefore no objection in this specific instance to the out of centre location from a policy perspective is raised.

6.6 Turning to the issue of retail need, it is important to note that the proposal (at approximately 280sqm net/380sq m gross) falls significantly below the Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU

threshold 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, there is no policy obligation on the applicant to demonstrate retail impact in this case. Nonetheless, the applicant has provided an assessment in response to the original pre-application advice – the approach is considered to be proportionate to the application and broadly in line with established practice.

6.7 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 gain access to 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 (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.

6.8 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. Overall, the assessment indicates that the proposed store could generate turnover of £3m per annum; however, I concur with the applicant that the adopted sales density is optimistic would therefore view this as a top end. The applicant has also carried out an assessment of the potential trade draw and whilst the assumptions regarding the sources of trade draw are inherently open to some subjectivity (for example, I would argue the Council’s evidence suggests that balance of draw from “local residents carrying out more top-up trips rather than main shops” and from “top-ups at existing local facilities” would be greater given the dominance and overtrading of the Asda superstore in the immediate catchment compared to that from “local residents currently travelling outside the area for top up shopping”) there is overall no compelling evidence that there would be a “significant” adverse trade draw impact from existing local facilities such that permission should be refused in accordance with the NPPF. Additionally, I concur with the applicant’s assessment that there is no existing or planned retail investment in either Tadworth LC or Shelvers Way LC which could be prejudiced by the proposal.

Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU

6.9 Given the conclusions on the issues of both the sequential test and retail impact, I am satisfied that the proposal would not be in conflict with Policy Sh14 of the Borough Local Plan 2005, the recently adopted Reigate & Banstead Core Strategy or the NPPF and accordingly raise no policy objection to the application.

6.10 As the above policy comments make clear, the NPPF does not require a retail impact assessment where the floorspace of the proposal is less than 2500 sq m: in this case it is 380sq m. Hence the applicant is not obliged to submit this information but, in doing so, has demonstrated that the proposed development’s impact on existing shopping facilities is acceptable.

6.11 There appears to be no realistic prospect of another full supermarket being delivered in the Preston/Tadworth area such that it could form any material consideration in this application. At any rate, such a proposal would be sequentially less preferable as it would be further from Tadworth Local Centre and of such a scale that it would likely be highly detrimental to the health of the local centre.

6.12 It is still the case that the vast majority of retail growth is being directed to Redhill town centre, both in terms of convenience and comparison floorspace. The scale of this proposal is not considered to contradict this aspect of the Core Strategy.

Impact on local character

6.13 The existing buildings on the site are of no particular architectural distinction and the proposal involves the demolition of the more easterly subsidiary one. The changes to the remaining building are cosmetic in terms of, for instance, alaterations to the shopfront and blocking in of openings with external materials to match existing. The retail unit’s scale and mass would be similar to the existing as the proposed use would be accommodated within what is now the main car showroom building. There is nothing in terms of this design approach which would have any adverse impact on the character of the locality, none of which is the subject of a “cherished” designation such as Conservation Area.

Neighbour amenity

6.14 The site is set amidst a neighbourhood of mixed uses with no residential properties adjoining the proposal. There are dwellings in Willowbank Gardens, to the north, but these are separated from the development by the rear workshop which does not form part of the proposal. Buildings abutting the site are in commercial use, for example the sorting office to the west and Tadworth railway station to the south. It is not considered that the activities generated by retail outlet, given it being set apart from residential properties Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU

and modest size, would have an undue impact on the living conditions of neighbouring dwellings. The proposed retail use is within the confines of the existing building and there would be no overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing effect. The shop’s opening hours would be restricted to between 0900 and 2300 hours.

Access and parking

6.15 The Highway Authority has assessed the proposal in terms of likely net additional traffic accommodation, access arrangements and parking provision. The Authority considers parking provision to be acceptable. However it recommends that an appropriate legal agreement be entered into, prior to any permission being granted, to secure the costs of the Highway Authority in pursuing a TRO to provide parking restrictions in the close proximity of the site; and to ensure design and implementation of such restrictions prior to the proposal’s occupation. This measure is necessary to prevent the potential for customers parking on or around the bend near the site and is usually capped at £2000. The Highway Authority also recommends conditions relating to pedestrian priority raised entry treatments, on-site car/cycle parking provision, Construction Transport Management Plan and servicing arrangements.

6.16 The applicant has been advised of the Highway Authority’s recommendations and, whilst appreciating the rationale for the Highway Authority’s recommendations, suggests that the matter, in accordance with National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), could be dealt with by way of a negatively worded condition to prohibit development authorised by the planning permission until a specified action has been taken (the NPPG gives as an example the entering into of a planning obligation requiring the payment of a financial contribution towards the provision of supporting infrastructure).

6.17 The Highway Authority in response confirms that the matter needs to be dealt with by way of a legal agreement and the applicant has been so advised.

6.18 The proposed development would broaden what is already a relatively wide crossover and in order to provide pedestrian priority, reduce speeds into and out of the site access and increase pedestrian safety a form of raised table would be required by the Highway Authority at the access points.

Other issues

6.19 There has been some local criticism of the data forming the background to the applicant’s retail assessment. The Policy Team has found the documentation submitted by the applicant to be sound and forming a persuasive case in favour of the proposal. Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU

CONDITIONS

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: P-85531-100, -102, -111, -201, -202, -203, -210, -300, 85531-GO1-1 Reason: To define the permission and ensure the development is carried out in accord with the approved plans and in accordance with National Planning Practice Guidance.

3. The development hereby permitted shall not be first opened for trading unless and until the proposed modified vehicular access points have been provided with pedestrian priority raised entry treatments in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved access arrangements shall then be constructed. Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users with regard to Reigate and Banstead Borough Local Plan 2005 policy Mo5.

4. The development hereby approved shall not first be opened for trading unless and until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans for vehicles to be parked, for the loading and unloading of vehicles and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. Thereafter the parking/loading and unloading/turning areas shall be retained exclusively for their designated purposes. Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users with regard to Reigate and Banstead Borough Local Plan 2005 policy Mo6.

5. No development shall commence on site until a Construction Transport Management Plan, to include details of: (a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors; (b) loading and unloading of plant and materials; (c) storage of plant and materials; (d) programme of works (including measures for traffic management); Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU

(e) provision of boundary hoarding behind any visibility splays; and (f) A communication plan to ensure that nearby residents and businesses are given advance notice of the construction programme, including any unusual deliveries, and are able to take up any issues that may arise with a nominated site manager has been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction of the development. Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to nearby occupiers or other highway users with regard to Reigate and Banstead Borough Local Plan 2005 policies Sh2 and Mo7.

6. No new development shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide secure cycle parking, to be thereafter permanently maintained. Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users with regard to Reigate and Banstead Borough Local Plan 2005 policy Mo7.

7. The proposed development shall be serviced in accordance with the 'Deliveries & Servicing Plan' dated June 2014. Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users with regard to Reigate and Banstead Borough Local Plan 2005 policy Mo6.

8. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out using only the materials specified in the application and no others without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development hereby permitted is only constructed using the appropriate external facing materials or suitable alternatives in the interest of the visual amenities of the area with regard to Reigate and Banstead Borough Local Plan 2005 policy Sh2.

9. The use hereby permitted shall only be carried out between 09.00hrs and 23.00hrs. Reason: To control activity in the interests of neighbouring residential amenities with regard to Reigate and Banstead Borough Local Plan 2005 policy Sh2.

Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU

INFORMATIVES

1. Your attention is drawn to the safety benefits of installing sprinkler systems as an integral part of new development. Further information is available at www.firesprinklers.info.

2. The applicant is encouraged to provide renewable technology within the development hereby permitted in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Your attention is drawn to the fact that this permission is subject to a legal agreement the provisions of which should be complied with in full. A payment of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) contribution is required and there is a requirement to notify the Council in advance of commencement of development. Payment of £…….. then becomes due.

On commencement of development, notice should be sent to the Planning Authority in writing or email to [email protected] advising that works have started. The sum described above is payable within a period of 28 days from commencement of development.

The development, once started, will be monitored by my enforcement staff to ensure compliance with the legal agreement and the conditions. Failure to pay the agreed TRO contribution will result in legal action being taken against the developer and/or owner of the land for default of the relevant agreement.

4. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out any works on the highway. The applicant is advised that prior approval must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, or verge to form a vehicle crossover or to install dropped kerbs. Please see www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-permits-and- licences/vehicle-crossovers-or-dropped-kerbs.

5. All works on the highway will require a permit and an application will need to submitted to the County Council's Street Works Team up to 3 months in advance of the intended start date, depending on the scale of the works proposed and the classification of the road. Please see http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-permits-and- licences/the-traffic-management-permit-scheme. The applicant is also advised that Consent may be required under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. Please see www.surreycc.gov.uk/people-and- community/emergency-planning-and-community-safety/flooding-advice.

6. You are advised that the Council will expect the following measures to be taken during any building operations to control noise, pollution and parking: Planning Committee Agenda Item: 7 29 October 2014 14/01344/CU

(a) Work that is audible beyond the site boundary should only be carried out between 08:00hrs to 18:00hrs Monday to Friday, 08:00hrs to 13:00hrs Saturday and not at all on Sundays or any Public and/or Bank Holidays; (b) The quietest available items of plant and machinery should be used on site. Where permanently sited equipment such as generators are necessary, they should be enclosed to reduce noise levels; (c) Deliveries should only be received within the hours detailed in (a) above; (d) Adequate steps should be taken to prevent dust-causing nuisance beyond the site boundary. Such uses include the use of hoses to damp down stockpiles of materials, which are likely to generate airborne dust, to damp down during stone/slab cutting; and the use of bowsers and wheel washes; (e) There should be no burning on site; (f) Only minimal security lighting should be used outside the hours stated above; and (g) Building materials and machinery should not be stored on the highway and contractors’ vehicles should be parked with care so as not to cause an obstruction or block visibility on the highway. Further details of these noise and pollution measures can be obtained from the Council’s Environmental Health Services Unit. In order to meet these requirements and to promote good neighbourliness, the Council recommends that this site is registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme - www.ccscheme.org.uk/index.php/site-registration.

REASON FOR PERMISSION

The development hereby permitted has been assessed against development plan policies CS4, Sh2 and Sh14 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development is in accordance with the development plan and there are no material considerations that justify refusal in the public interest.

Proactive and Positive Statements

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development where possible, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes: Do not scale from this drawing. Contractors shall be responsible for the checking of all stated dimensions, with any anomalies being identified to the originator prior to any construction or fabrication works commencing.

EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 1:100@A3 1:50@A1

0 1 2 3 4 5m

SCALE 1:50 SIGNAGE ZONE 0 5 10m

SCALE 1:100

- - -

Rev. Date Description PROPOSED HIT AND MISS TIMBER FENCING architects TO ENCLOSE PLANT project managers AREA. cost consultants The Leathermarket Unit 13.1.1 Weston Street Bermondsey London SE1 3ER tel: 020 7440 8640

ROLLER DOOR TO BE NEW MEANS OF PROPOSED NEW ATM AND PROPOSED NEW SHOPFRONT PROPOSED NEW ALUMINIUM Status REMOVED. ESCAPE DOOR TO MEET BOLLARDS GLAZING WINDOWS. COLOUR SLIDING ENTRANCE DOOR. PLANNING WALL TO BE BRICKED BUILDING REGULATION COATED FRAMEWORK IN RAL 7022 UP AND FINISHED TO REQUIREMENTS (SLATE GREY). Project Title MATCH EXTERIOR SAINSBURY'S LOCAL SURFACE. TADWORTH THE AVENUE KT20 5AA

Drawing Title EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATIONS 1:100@A3 1:50@A1 Project Number Drawing Number Revision P-85531 202 -

Drawn Checked Scale Date TS VA 1:100@A1 27.06.14

The content of this drawing is the property of JLA Chartered Architects and may not be copied in whole or part without formal consent. Notes: Do not scale from this drawing. Contractors shall be responsible for the checking of all stated dimensions, with any anomalies being identified to the originator prior to any construction or fabrication works commencing.

EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 1:100@A3 1:50@A1

0 1 2 3 4 5m

SCALE 1:50 0 5 10m

SCALE 1:100

- - -

Rev. Date Description architects project managers cost consultants The Leathermarket Unit 13.1.1 Weston Street Bermondsey London SE1 3ER tel: 020 7440 8640

WINDOW COVERED BY SOLID WINDOW COVERED BY SOLID COLOUR Status COLOUR VINYL ADHESIVE ON VINYL ADHESIVE ON PLYWOOD PLANNING PLYWOOD BACKING. BACKING. Project Title SAINSBURY'S LOCAL WINDOW TO BE REMOVED. WINDOW TO BE REMOVED. TADWORTH WALL TO BE BRICKED UP AND FINISHED TO WALL TO BE BRICKED UP AND FINISHED TO MATCH EXTERIOR SURFACE. MATCH EXTERIOR SURFACE. THE AVENUE KT20 5AA

Drawing Title EXISTING AND PROPOSED WEST ELEVATIONS

Project Number Drawing Number Revision PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION P-85531 203 - 1:100@A3 1:50@A1 Drawn Checked Scale Date TS VA 1:100@A1 27.06.14

EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 1:100@A3 1:50@A1

0 1 2 3 4 5m

SCALE 1:50 0 5 10m

SCALE 1:100

- - -

Rev. Date Description architects project managers cost consultants The Leathermarket Unit 13.1.1 Weston Street Bermondsey London SE1 3ER tel: 020 7440 8640

Status PLANNING

Project Title SAINSBURY'S LOCAL ROLLER DOOR TO BE REMOVED. WINDOW TO BE REMOVED. INTERNALLY APPLIED 3M FROSTED INTERNALLY APPLIED 3M FROSTED WALL TO BE BRICKED UP AND FINISHED WALL TO BE BRICKED UP AND FINISHED TO TADWORTH CRYSTAL 7725324 BACKED IN 720 GREY. CRYSTAL 7725324 BACKED IN 720 GREY . TO MATCH EXTERIOR SURFACE. MATCH EXTERIOR SURFACE. THE AVENUE KT20 5AA

Drawing Title EXISTING AND PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONS

Project Number Drawing Number Revision PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION P-85531 201 - 1:100@A3 1:50@A1 Drawn Checked Scale Date TS VA 1:100@A1 27.06.14

The content of this drawing is the property of JLA Chartered Architects and may not be copied in whole or part without formal consent.

S=1220 H=1425 SSL13 SSL12

S=1225 H=1400 SSL11

RWP 1050 1050 SSL10

SSL9 800 1340 SSL8 550

PROPOSED A/C DETAILS SVP 1:25@A1, 1:50@A3

SSL6 2405

RWP 2550

REMOVABLE BOLLARD REMOVABLE BOLLARD 0 1 2 SSL 5 REMOVABLE BOLLARD

REMOVABLE BOLLARD SCALE 1:25

REMOVABLE 0 1 2 3 4 TP BOLLARD

REMOVABLE BOLLARD SCALE 1:50 SSL 4 CROSSOVER WIDENING 0 5 SUBJECT TO MEASURED SCALE 1:100 SURVEY

SSL 3 560 - - - STREET PAVING LOW (TARMACADAM) WALL Rev. Date Description

architects project managers

SSL 2 1560 cost consultants The Leathermarket Unit 13.1.1 Weston Street Bermondsey 1000 LP London SE1 3ER tel: 020 7440 8640

SSL 1 Status PLANNING

Project Title CROSSOVER WIDENING PROPOSED CONDENSER DETAILS SAINSBURY'S LOCAL SUBJECT TO MEASURED 1:25@A1, 1:50@A3 TADWORTH SURVEY THE AVENUE KT20 5AA

TARMACADAM Drawing Title

FENCE GRASS PROPOSED PLANT

Project Number Drawing Number Revision S- 85531 300 -

PROPOSED PLANT/AC LOCATION PLAN Drawn Checked Scale Date 1:100@A1, 1:200@A3 AS VA AS NOTED 17.04.14 @A1

The content of this drawing is the property of JLA Chartered Architects and may not be copied in whole or part without formal consent.

TURNING AREA SSL 14 SSL

EXISTING RAMP

TO BE REMOVED SSL 13 SSL AND TO BE LEVELLED ACCORDINGLY WITH CAR PARK

AREA SSL 12 SSL

EXISTING GARAGE DOOR TO BE REMOVED AND INFILLED WITH 11 SSL BRICKWORK TO MATCH EXISTING REVISION OF CAR

PARK LAYOUT

SSL 10 SSL

SSL 9 SSL SSL 8 SSL

PROPOSED NEW ENCLOSING

CAVITY WALL SSL 7 SSL WINDOW TO BE REMOVED AND INFILLED TO MATCH EXISTING WALL FINISH

WINDOW TO BE 6 SSL REMOVED AND INFILLED TO MATCH EXISTING WALL FINISH

PROPOSED HIT & MISS TIMBER FENCE

MAT

PROPOSED 4 No. PROPOSED NEW ATM NEW SHOPFRONT NEW ALUMINIUM PROPOSED CYCLE STAND AND BOLLARDS WINDOWS SLIDING DOOR SHOP FRONT FOR 8 BIKES ENTRANCE WINDOW 0 5

SCALE 1:100

- - -

Rev. Date Description

architects SSL 5 project managers cost consultants EXISTING The Leathermarket SHOWROOM TO Unit 13.1.1 Weston Street BE ENTIRELY Bermondsey DEMOLISHED London SE1 3ER SSL 4 CROSSOVER WIDENING tel: 020 7440 8640 Status SUBJECT TO MEASURED PLANNING SURVEY Project Title SSL 3 SAINSBURY'S LOCAL TADWORTH REVISION OF CAR PARK LAYOUT THE AVENUE KT20 5AA

SSL 2 Drawing Title

EXISTING GROUND FLOOR PLAN & ELEVATIONS

SSL 1

Project Number Drawing Number Revision EXISTING GROUND FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN P-85531 102 - 1:200@A3 1:100@A1 1:200@A3 1:100@A1 CROSSOVER WIDENING Drawn Checked Scale Date SUBJECT TO MEASURED AS VA 1:100@A1 17-04-14 SURVEY The content of this drawing is the property of JLA Chartered Architects and may not be copied in whole or part without formal consent.