Blaby District Council Planning Committee

Date of Meeting 8 November 2016 Title of Report Applications for Determination Report Author Planning & Economic Development Group Manager

1. What is this report about?

1.1 To determine planning applications as listed in paragraph 3.2 below and detailed in the attached report.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the recommendations listed within paragraph 3.2 below and detailed in the attached report be approved.

3. Matters to consider

3.1 To avoid unnecessary delay in the processing of planning applications, the recommendations included in this list must often be prepared in advance of the closing date for the receipt of representations. This list was prepared on 31 October 2016 and information of representations received will be updated at your meeting. This updating will also cover any other information which may come to hand in the intervening period. Closing dates are given where they fall on or after the day of preparation of the list.

3.2 Application No. Page Address Recommendation No.

15/0577/FUL Everards Brewery and APPROVE Adjoining Land Everard Way Enderby

3.3 Appropriate Consultations

Details of organisations / persons consulted in relation to the applications are included in the reports for each individual application. Members will be aware that full copies of correspondence received are available to view on the respective planning file and through the planning portal https://w3.blaby.gov.uk/online-applications/

3.4 Resource Implications

There are no specific financial implications arising from the contents of this report.

4. Other options considered

These are included where appropriate as part of the reports relating to each individual application.

5. Background paper(s)

Background papers are contained in files held in the Planning Division for each application being considered and are available for public inspection.

6. Report author’s contact details Cat Hartley Planning & Economic Development Group Manager [email protected] 0116 272 7727

15/0577/FUL Registered Date Everards 28 May 2015

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a non-food shopping park (Class A1) and complementary A3, A4 and A5 uses together with access and servicing arrangements, car parking and landscaping and associated works including closure of Everard Way to create new pedestrian link into Fosse Shopping Park

Everards Brewery and Adjoining Land, Everard Way, Enderby

Report Author: Matt McConville, Major Schemes Officer

Contact Details: Council Offices. Tel: 0116 272 7730

RECOMMENDATION: THAT APPLICATION (15/0577/FUL) BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO REFERAL OF THE APPLICATION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (CONSULTATION) (ENGLAND) DIRECTION 2009 AND THE OWNER(S) OF THE LAND ENTERING INTO A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT TO SECURE THE FOLLOWING:

PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

1. Prior to commencement of development a contribution of £1.5 million shall be paid to Leicestershire County Council towards highway and transportation measures required for implementing SCOOT and MOVA traffic signalling operation at the A563 / B4114 Everards Roundabout and the A563 Soar Valley Way / Grove Way and if appropriate connecting into other existing systems.

2. Prior to occupation of any part of the Development a contribution of £1 million shall be paid to Leicestershire County Council towards the provision of a Sustainable Travel Strategy for the Development. The Sustainable Travel Strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with Leicestershire County Council and Leicester City Council as Local Highway Authorities prior to first occupation. The strategy should maximise the opportunities for travel by sustainable modes to the Application Site and Fosse Park for employees and customers, and include the following:-

 An updated travel plan to address the travel implications of the use of the Application Site and the existing Fosse Park Site, to minimise single occupancy vehicle use, increase the use of alternative transport modes including buses, cycling and walking and to manage the demand for parking within and in the vicinity of the Application Site. Such measures to consider the opportunities to improve sustainable travel opportunities and be linked to the measures identified below.  Appointment of a Framework Travel Plan Co-ordinator from first occupation and for a minimum five year period who will ensure regular travel behaviour and impact monitoring surveys together with a review of the plan targets.  The provision of a travel pack per employee to be provided from first employment.  A flexi card ticket to cover an area no greater than the flexi-ticket boundary for each new employee for one month.  A STARS monitoring fee to enable Leicestershire County Council to provide support to the appointed Travel Plan coordinator.  A bus strategy to consider the extension of existing services into the evening to help improve opportunities for employees to travel home from work by sustainable travel modes.

Justification. To comply with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework and in the interests of encouraging sustainable travel to and from the Application Site, achieving the modal shift targets, and reducing the car use, and promote sustainable travel to the Application Site.

1. A contribution towards the monitoring of nitrogen dioxide emissions – £25,000 commuted sum to provide a roadside Air Quality monitoring station.

2. Anchor Unit ‘keep open’ provisions – for regulating occupiers with Leicester City Centre representation within the Proposed Development for a period of 5 years. Any occupier of Unit 1 and/or Unit 2 of the Proposed Development already represented in Leicester City Centre must continue to operate within Leicester City Centre for a period of 5 years from the date that they commence operating from the Proposed Development.

3. Prior to commencement of development a contribution of £2.5 million shall be paid to Leicester City Council towards measures (identified below and by reference to plan received on the 21.10.16) to mitigate the retail impact evidenced upon Leicester City Centre, including contributions to fund public realm, signage, premises and gateway improvements or other activities to enhance the local connectivity of marginal streets in Leicester City Centre with better performing areas, to improve their vitality and viability through increased footfall and enhanced shopper experience.

Location Area Factors for Prioritisation Potential Measures Contribution Churchgate 2,600 Vacancy rates, adjacency to Pedestrianisation and £0.9m sqm Highcross, potential to link paving upgrade, signage Haymarket shopping centre and environment and bus station and upgrade Highcross. Poor quality of current environment and tenancies

Belgrave 4,500 Vacant sites and units. Pedestrianisation and £1.6m Gate/Haymarket sqm Adjacency to Highcross, paving upgrade, signage potential to link Haymarket and environment shopping centre and Bus upgrade Station and Highcross areas. Poor quality of current environment and tenancies.

4. Prior to commencement of development a contribution of £180,000 shall be paid to Leicester City Council towards a 3 year funding package to develop and implement a skills strategy to provide the following for Leicester City residents:

 access to work support (in association with transport support set out above);  basic and higher level skills development;  apprenticeships and other in-work training opportunities, both in terms of construction and operational retail phases.

The funding package would support an Employment and Skills Co-Ordinator to be based at Leicester City Council to work with Blaby District Council and contractors/retail operators on the above interventions.

5. First occupier of Unit 1 shall be Next PLC

6. First occupier of Unit 2 to be Debenhams PLC

7. Blaby District Council Monitoring Fee

8. Leicestershire County Council Monitoring Fee

Proposed Conditions

1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To prevent the unnecessary accumulation of unimplemented permissions, to encourage early implementation and to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the consent if a further application has been made.

2. The development hereby approved shall be built in strict accordance with the following approved plans and drawings:

14173-0302-16 Proposed Site Plan 14173-0303-01 Proposed Block Plan – Main Terrace 14173-0304-02 Proposed Block Plan – Unit 1 14173-0305-01 Proposed Block Plan – Anchor Store & A3 Units 14173-0306-01 Proposed Block Plan Linkway Mall 14173-0310-01 Proposed Elevations – Main Terrace 14173-0311-02 Proposed Elevations – Unit 1 14173-0312-00 Proposed Elevations – Anchor Unit 14173-0313-00 Proposed Elevations – Linkway Mall 14173-0314-01 Proposed Elevations A3 Square – East Building 14173-0330-01 Proposed Roof Plan – Main Terrace 14173-0331-02 Proposed Roof Plan – Unit 1 14173-0332-01 Proposed Roof Plan – Anchor Store & A3 Units 14173-0333-01 Proposed Roof Plan – Linkway Terrace 14173-0341-06 Proposed Site Security 14173-0342-00 Proposed Security Barrier Gate Details 14173-0343-00 Proposed Next Service Yard Gate Details 14173-0340-00 Proposed Elevations – Service Yard Wall

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the details considered as part of this application submission and for the avoidance of doubt. To ensure compliance with Core Strategy policies CS2, CS10, CS11, CS13, CS19, CS20, CS21, CS22, CS23 and CS24 as well as saved policies T1, T2, T3, T6, T8, T10, S5, S9, CE1, CE22, CE25 and Policy CE26 of the 1999 Local Plan.

3. No above ground construction shall take place until samples of the materials to be used on all external elevations of each building have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The materials shall be submitted displayed and labelled on a material palette board(s). The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the Local Planning Authority can exercise proper control over the materials used and the appearance of the development when completed, in the interest of visual amenity. To ensure compliance with Core Strategy policies CS2, and CS24.

4. The main retail terrace shown on plan 14173-0303-01 (Proposed Block Plan – Main Terrace) shall comprise of no more than 7 units, no individual Class A1 retail unit shall have a ground floor gross internal area of less than 393 square metres and no more than 3 units shall have a ground floor gross internal area of less 929sqm.

Reason: To protect the vitality and viability of nearby town centres and ensure that the impact of the development has been adequately assessed and considered. To ensure compliance with Core Strategy policies CS2, CS10, CS13 and CS24 as well as saved policies and T6, of the 1999 Local Plan.

5. Unit 1 and Unit 2 hereby approved shall not be amalgamated with other units or subdivided to create separate units.

Reason: The identified unit sizes are that which have been specifically assessed and have been found to have an acceptable retail impact subject to suitable planning conditions and other controls. Alternative unit sizes have not been considered by the Local Planning Authority. To ensure compliance with Core Strategy policies CS2, CS10, CS13 and CS24 as well as saved policies and T6, of the 1999 Local Plan.

6. The total gross external ground floor area of the main retail terrace shown on plan 14173-0303-01 (Proposed Block Plan – Main Terrace) shall not exceed 5,997 square metres in aggregate.

Reason: To ensure the development accords with that detailed and justified in the planning application.

7. Within the main retail terrace shown on plan 14173-0303-01 (Proposed Block Plan – Main Terrace) Class A1 mezzanine floorspace shall not exceed 4,302 square metres. Prior to the installation of any Class A1 mezzanine floorspace within the main retail terrace, a plan showing the size and location of the mezzanine shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details implemented thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the development accords with that detailed and justified in the planning application.

9. The net sales area of Unit 1 including the conservatory and garden centre shall not exceed 5,422 square metres.

Reason: In order to ensure that the uses within the development are appropriate, the parking level remains adequate and the overall retail impact on surrounding centres has been assessed in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS13 as well as saved policy T6 of the 1999 Local Plan.

10. The net sales area of Unit 2 shall not exceed 6,689 square metres.

Reason: In order to ensure that the uses within the development are appropriate, the parking level remains adequate and the overall retail impact on surrounding centres has been assessed in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS13 as well as saved policy T6 of the 1999 Local Plan.

11. Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any subsequent re-enactment with or without modification) the Class A1 retail floorspace hereby approved shall be restricted to non-food retail purposes only save that no more than 5% of any individual retail unit shall be used for the sale of ancillary food and drink for consumption off the premises. This restriction shall not apply to any in-store café or restaurant.

Reason: In order to ensure that the uses within the development are appropriate, the parking level remains adequate and the overall retail impact on surrounding centres has been assessed in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS13 as well as saved policy T6 of the 1999 Local Plan

12. The Class A3 floorspace hereby permitted shall not be used for any other purpose including any other purpose within Class A1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any subsequent re- enactment with or without modification).

Reason: In order to ensure that the uses within the development are appropriate, the parking level remains adequate and the overall retail impact on surrounding centres has been assessed in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS13 as well as saved policy T6 of the 1999 Local Plan.

13. The approved Class A1/A3 units shall not open for trade until a scheme demonstrating pedestrian connectivity to Fosse Park via the pedestrian link (as shown on plan 14173-0306-01Proposed Block Plan Linkway Mall) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation and maintained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Reason: In order to ensure that the two sites are adequately linked in the interests of sustainability, parking provision and to comply with the requirements of the flood risk assessment. To ensure compliance with Core Strategy policies CS2, CS10, CS13, CS22 and CS24 as well as saved policy T6, of the 1999 Local Plan.

Highways

14. Prior to first occupation a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide site access/egress arrangements from Grove Way, Everards Way, Soar Valley Way and Narborough Road South in general accordance with the submitted Access Arrangement Plan No JNY8880/01. It shall incorporate the provision / relocation of bus stops to include bus shelters, raised kerbs, and new poles and timetable cases. The site access/egress arrangements shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details (or as amended by Road Safety Audit or detailed design) prior to first occupation and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to provide adequate site access. To ensure compliance with Core Strategy policy CS24 and saved policies, T3 and T6, of the 1999 Local Plan.

15. Prior to first occupation of the development 5 No. variable message car parking management signs shall be implemented in accordance with precise details, including as to their locations, which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details should comply generally with the scheme shown indicatively in drawing No. JNY8880/SK01. The signs shall thereafter be retained in perpetuity..

Reason: To manage car parking within the development so as to minimise the impact of slow moving traffic on the highway network in order to meet the requirements of saved policy T6 and T10 of the 1999 Local Plan.

16. Prior to any works commencing on site including demolition a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall be prepared in line with the Chapter 6 of the Environmental Statement submitted with the application. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP.

Reason: To reduce the possibility of deleterious materials (mud, stones, etc) being deposited in the highway and becoming a hazard to road users, and to ensure that construction traffic associated with the development does not lead to on- street parking problems in the area.

17. Any vehicular access gates, barriers, bollards, chains or other such obstructions to the service yard are to be erected as shown on drawing JNY8880/01, and shall be hung so as not to open outwards. If any vehicular access gates, barriers, bollards, chains or other such obstructions are to be erected on the other vehicular accesses, they are to be set back a minimum distance of 5m behind the highway boundary and shall be hung so as not to open outwards.

Reason: To enable a vehicle to stand clear of the highway whilst the gates are opened/closed and protect the free and safe passage of traffic, including pedestrians, in the public highway in order to meet the requirements of saved policy T6 and T10 of the 1999 Local Plan.

LANDSCAPING

18. All landscape works shall be carried out in complete accordance with the details shown on plan 0721.001.E received on 28th October 2016. All tree planting shall be undertaken in accordance with the tree pit details shown on drawing 0721.002 A received on 26th September 2016. The cells shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidance prior to the car park surfacing. All tree supply and maintenance shall be in accordance with BS 8545:2014 Trees from Nursery to Independence. The soft landscaping works shall be completed within the first planting season immediately following completion of the development.

Reason: In the interests of good arboricultural practice and standard of workmanship and to maximise the impact of the landscaping scheme in enhancing the long term visual amenity of the area in order to comply with Core Strategy policies CS2, and CS24 as well as saved policy CE22 of the 1999 Local Plan.

19. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with a landscaping, planting and management scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and to a reasonable standard in accordance with the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standards or other recognised Codes of Good Practice. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs and to maximise the impact of the landscaping scheme in enhancing the long term visual amenity of the area in order to comply with Core Strategy policies CS2, and CS24 as well as saved policy CE22 of the 1999 Local Plan.

ENVIRONMENT

20. No development hereby approved shall take place until a remediation strategy that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority:

1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: - all previous uses - potential contaminants associated with those uses - a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors - potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure the protection of the underlying Secondary A aquifer and the River Soar to comply with Core Strategy policy C19 and CS22.

21. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the Local Planning Authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure the protection of the underlying Secondary A aquifer and the River Soar to comply with Core Strategy policy C19 and CS22.

DRAINAGE / FLOOD RISK

22. No development approved by this planning permission shall take place until such time as a scheme for the management of surface water drainage has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

 The scheme shall include utilisation of holding sustainable drainage techniques with the incorporation of sufficient treatment trains to maintain or improve the existing water quality; the limitation of surface water run-off to equivalent greenfield rates; the ability to accommodate surface water run-off on-site up to the critical 1 in 100 year event plus an appropriate allowance for climate change, based upon the submission of drainage calculations; and the responsibility for the future maintenance of drainage features.

 The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing and phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme.

 Full details for the drainage proposal should be supplied, including but not limited to, headwall details, pipe protection details (e.g. trash screens), long sections and full model scenario’s for the 1 in 1, 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 year + climate change. Where discharging into a sewer, this should be modelled as surcharged for all events above the 1 in 30 year, to account for the design standards of the public sewers.

Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and disposal of surface water from the site to comply with Core Strategy policy C19 and CS22.

23. No trees shall be located within 8m of the culverted watercourse without a detailed assessment of the impact and appropriate mitigation being identified in a report to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any above ground works take place. The agreed details shall be incorporated into the landscaping, management and planting scheme, implemented thereafter and retained in perpetuity.

Reason: To prevent increased flood risk and additional maintenance requirements on the culverted watercourse to comply with Core Strategy policy C19 and CS22 and Policy CE22 of the 1999 Local Plan.

24. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of foul sewage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use.

Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimise the risk of pollution.

ECOLOGY

25. No ground clearance works, tree felling or vegetation removal shall take place during the main bird breeding season (March to August inclusive) without a suitably qualified ecologist being present on site. The ecologist must carry out a comprehensive search of the area before any works commence. If active nests are found, ground clearance, tree felling, or vegetation clearance around the nest (including a buffer area determined by the ecologist), shall not be permitted until the breeding attempt has ended as confirmed by the ecologist in writing to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of species protected by law under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as well as policy CS19 of the Core Strategy.

LIGHTING

26. No external lighting shall be installed or operated until a lighting scheme has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme, which shall include details and cross sections of columns and luminaires as appropriate, final colour finish, proposed hours of operation and location will be completed prior to first occupation of any unit and be retained in perpetuity thereafter. The details should demonstrate compliance with relevant provisions of the “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light” GN01:2011 (Institution of Lighting Professionals).

Reason: To protect the appearance of the area, the environment and local residents from light pollution in accordance with Policy CE26 of the 1999 Local Plan.

NOTES TO COMMITTEE

The application was submitted alongside a Planning Performance Agreement (“PPA”) which has allowed extensions to the determination deadline. Extensions to the determination deadline have been agreed as this matter has progressed and the date for determination is currently agreed as 30 November 2016.

The PPA takes account of the need to consult the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 if the Planning Committee resolve to approve the Application. The Secretary of State will have 21 days to consider the Application following consultation and has the ability to call it in for final determination.

Relevant Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be dealt with in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The relevant provisions of the development plan are set out below. Paragraph 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) is clear that the NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point in decision making.

It is however necessary to consider the relevant provisions in the NPPF as a material consideration.

The NPPF sets out the planning policies for England and how they are expected to be applied. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that in relation to decision taking this means:

 Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay, and

 Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless:

o Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole; or o Specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted.

Paragraph 197 of the NPPF further states that when assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The framework indicates that sustainable development comprises of three dimensions which require the planning system to perform a number of mutually dependant roles: an economic role contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; a social role supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and an environmental role contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

These roles are underpinned by a number of core land use planning principles which should underpin both plan making and decision taking. The most relevant Core Principles which apply to this application are:

Building a strong, competitive economy

This section underlines the Government’s commitment to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity and places emphasis on ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support and encourage sustainable economic growth and not act as a barrier to it.

Ensuring the vitality and viability of town centres

This section encourages local planning authorities to plan positively to promote competitive town centres and proactively plan for their future growth within Local Plans. This includes recognising the important role town centres play in the heart of their communities and protecting their vitality and viability through the plan making process.

The NPPF sets out two key tests that should be applied when planning for town centre uses which are not in an existing town centre and which are not in accord with an up to date Local Plan – the sequential test and the impact test. The sequential test should be considered first as this may identify that there are preferable sites in town centres for accommodating main town centre uses. The sequential test will identify development that cannot be located in town centres, and which would then be subject to the impact test. If either is breached then the policy advises that permission should be refused, however the decision maker is also obliged to weigh into the balance all other factors when considering any application.

Para 24 of NPPF provides that local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale. The sequential test is intended to support the vitality and viability of town centres by placing existing town centres foremost in plan making and decision taking.

National Planning Practice Guidance (“NPPG”) provides that it is for the applicant to satisfy the sequential test. The application of the test should be proportionate and appropriate for the given proposal. The NPPG contains a checklist of considerations to be taken into account when considering whether the proposal complies with the sequential test, as follows:

 with due regard to the requirement to demonstrate flexibility, has the suitability of more central sites to accommodate the proposal been considered? Where the proposal would be located in an edge of centre or out of centre location, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Any associated reasoning should be set out clearly.

 is there scope for flexibility in the format and/or scale of the proposal? It is not necessary to demonstrate that a potential town centre or edge of centre site can accommodate precisely the scale and form of development being proposed, but rather to consider what contribution more central sites are able to make individually to accommodate the proposal.

 if there are no suitable sequentially preferable locations, the sequential test is passed.

The degree to which flexibility must be shown in sequential testing has been established by the Courts. It has shown that provided an applicant has demonstrated a reasonable flexibility in respect of format and scale, and the tested site is not suitable for the commercial requirements of the scheme proposed, then it is not a suitable site and does not have to be sequentially tested.

The NPPG further provides that use of the sequential test should recognise that certain main town centre uses have particular market and locational requirements which mean that they may only be accommodated in specific locations. Robust justification must be provided where this is the case, and land ownership does not provide such a justification. In accordance with paragraph 27 of the NPPF where a proposal fails to comply with the sequential test it should be refused.

Applications for large retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres should also be supported by an Impact Assessment if they are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan and the development is over a proportionate, locally set threshold (the impact test). Where there is no locally set threshold then the default threshold is 2,500 sq. m. The impact test determines whether there would be likely significant adverse impacts of locating main town centre development outside of existing town centres. The purpose of this test is to ensure that the impact of certain proposals over the relevant periods is not significantly adverse on existing town centres.

The NPPG is clear that it is important that the impact is assessed in relation to all town centres that may be affected, which are not necessarily just those closest to the proposal and may be in neighbouring authority areas.

Such assessments should include (NPPF, paragraph 26):

● the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and

● the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made.

The NPPG further provides that as a guiding principle impact should be assessed on a like-for-like basis in respect of that particular sector (e.g. it may not be appropriate to compare the impact of an out of centre DIY store with small scale town-centre stores as they would normally not compete directly). Retail uses tend to compete with their most comparable competitive facilities. Conditions may be attached to appropriately control the impact of a particular use.

Where wider town centre developments or investments are in progress, it will also be appropriate to assess the impact of relevant applications on that investment. Key considerations will include:

 the policy status of the investment (i.e. whether it is outlined in the Development Plan)

 the progress made towards securing the investment (for example if contracts are established)

 the extent to which an application is likely to undermine planned developments or investments based on the effects on current / forecast turnovers, operator demand and investor confidence

The NPPG sets out the following checklist when applying the impact test:

 establish the state of existing centres and the nature of current shopping patterns (base year)

 determine the appropriate time frame for assessing impact, focusing on impact in the first five years, as this is when most of the impact will occur

 examine the “no development” scenario (which should not necessarily be based on the assumption that all centres are likely to benefit from expenditure growth in convenience and comparison goods and reflect both changes in the market or role of centres, as well as changes in the environment such as new infrastructure);

 assess the proposal’s turnover and trade draw (drawing on information from comparable schemes, the operator’s benchmark turnover of convenience and comparison goods, and carefully considering likely catchments and trade draw)

 consider a range of plausible scenarios in assessing the impact of the proposal on existing centres and facilities (which may require breaking the study area down into a series of zones to gain a finer-grain analysis of anticipated impact)

 set out the likely impact of that proposal clearly, along with any associated assumptions or reasoning, including in respect of quantitative and qualitative issues

 any conclusions should be proportionate: for example, it may be sufficient to give a broad indication of the proportion of the proposal’s trade draw likely to be derived from different centres and facilities in the catchment area and the likely consequences to the viability and vitality of existing town centres

Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused.

Promoting sustainable transport

The NPPF recognises the important role the management of transport infrastructure has in facilitating sustainable development and encourages the use of solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.

NPPF paragraph 32 provides that plans and decisions should take account of whether:

 the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;

 safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and

 improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

Plans and decisions should ensure that developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised (NPPG, paragraph 34).

NPPF paragraph 35 states that plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. Therefore, developments should be located and designed where practical to:

 accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies;

 give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities;

 create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones;

 incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and

 consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.

All developments which generate a significant amount of movement require a Travel Plan to be submitted.

Requiring good design

The Government attaches great weight to the importance of the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people (NPPF, paragraph 56).

It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes (NPPF, paragraph 57).

Local and neighbourhood plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of development that will be expected for the area. Such policies should be based on stated objectives for the future of the area and an understanding and evaluation of its defining characteristics (NPPF, paragraph 58).

Planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments:

 will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development;

 establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit;

 optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments) and support local facilities and transport networks;

 respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation;

 create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and

 are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.

Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change

This area of the NPPF promotes the role of planning in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is viewed as central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development (NPPF, paragraph 93).

Paragraph 100 of the NPPF provides that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

The NPPF provides for the application of a Sequential Test and Exception Test in relation to flood risk.

Paragraph 101 of the NPPF provides that the aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment will provide the basis for applying this test. A sequential approach should be used in areas known to be at risk from any form of flooding.

Paragraph 102 of the NPPF states if, following application of the Sequential Test, it is not possible, consistent with wider sustainability objectives, for the development to be located in zones with a lower probability of flooding, the Exception Test can be applied if appropriate. For the Exception Test to be passed:

 it must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared; and

 a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

Both elements of the test will have to be passed for development to be allocated or permitted.

Paragraph 103 further provides that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment following the Sequential Test, and if required the Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that:

 within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; and

 development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely managed, including by emergency planning; and it gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems.

Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Natural and Local Environment

Paragraph 109 of the NPPF provides that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

 protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;

 recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;

 minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;

 preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and

 remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.

It encourages the re-use of previously developed land (brownfield land) that is not of high environmental value, and the protection of the best and most versatile agricultural land (NPPF, paragraphs 111 and 112).

The NPPF further states at paragraph 118 that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

 if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

 proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;

 development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted;

 opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged;

 planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss; and

 the following wildlife sites should be given the same protection as European sites:

o potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation;

o listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and

o sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites.

Land Contamination

To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner (NPPF, paragraph 120).

Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that:

 the site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions and land instability, including from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, pollution arising from previous uses and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation or impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation;

 after remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and

 adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented.

In doing so, local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. Local planning authorities should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Equally, where a planning decision has been made on a particular development, the planning issues should not be revisited through the permitting regimes operated by pollution control authorities (NPPF, paragraph 121 and 122).

Noise

Planning policies and decisions should aim to:

 avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development;

 mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions;

 recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and

 identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason (NPPF, paragraph 123).

Air Quality

Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan (NPPF, paragraph 24).

Light

By encouraging good design, planning policies and decisions should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation (NPPF, paragraph 25).

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

The protection and where possible enhancement of designated heritage assets such as Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Conservation Areas is an important consideration which is to be given great weight in the decision making. Applications which would cause substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset should be refused unless it is demonstrated that there are wider public benefits which outweigh its loss.

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document (February 2013) (“the Core Strategy”)

The Core Strategy was adopted in 2013. It contains at its heart the same Social, Economic and Environmental objectives which make up sustainable development, within the NPPF, with a more localised and focused aim. The Core Strategy replaced a number of the policies of the Blaby District Local Plan 1999 (“the 1999 Local Plan”), however a number of those policies were “saved”, and those that are relevant are set out below.

At part 3 of the Core Strategy, Spatial Portrait, it states that (paragraph 3.12) the area around Junction 21 of the M1 experiences severe traffic congestion at peak hours (particularly the southbound exit in the morning peak hour) and, as a result of this, air and noise pollution is an issue in this area. Five Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) have been designated (primarily resulting from vehicular emissions) two of which are in the M1 corridor.

Paragraph 3.14 relates to the Motorways Retail Area (“the MRA”) and states the District contains Fosse Park, one of the most successful out of town retail parks in the country (in terms of rental values and visitor numbers) attracting approximately 100,000 shoppers each week. Notwithstanding this, the economic success of Fosse Park introduces some challenges in terms of traffic generation / congestion, increased pollution and an impact on other retail centres.

Part 4 of the Core Strategy sets out the identified issues, problems and challenges facing theBlaby District. At paragraph 4.13 it states that “provision of, and demand for, employment land and premises has declined as a result of weakening economic conditions. However, prior to the economic downturn, Blaby District had only a limited choice of available employment sites. Various studies, including the Blaby Employment Land and Premises Study 2011, have indicated that the [Blaby] District does not have a balanced portfolio of employment sites and premises that would allow future economic growth requirements. The employment studies indicate that increased provision is required in the longer term to meet likely demands.”

Paragraph 4.17 goes on to state that “the District of Blaby is in a good strategic location in terms of transport. It is therefore attractive to a wide range of employers, including manufacturing and distribution but also large scale office based employers who seek out of town ‘campus’ style developments (such as those found at Carlton Park and Grove Park), however, the demand for such sites has decreased with the onset of the economic downturn. A key issue for the [Blaby] District is to meet the wide ranging employment needs of the [Blaby] District’s population and those who work in the [Blaby] District with highly skilled, well paid, employment. This should be achieved without undermining attempts to regenerate the core of Leicester City which is seeking to increase its office based employment offer.”

At paragraph 4.18 the Core Strategy states “one of the key obstacles affecting the economic success of the [Blaby] District is its transport network. Some of the [Blaby] District’s key employment and retail facilities are located close to junction 21 of the M1. The road network around junction 21 experiences severe congestion, particularly at peak times from traffic entering the City of Leicester from the motorway network, and those accessing the large employment and retail facilities at Grove Park and the Motorways Retail Area. Recent improvements to the motorway junction and traffic island have increased its capacity. Proposals to provide a direct link from the M1 to the M69 via a new ‘flyover’ are uncertain, it is not included in any committed transport programme and unlikely to be delivered during the plan period.”

At paragraph 4.20 it goes on to say “Fosse Park and the Motorways Retail Area (MRA) is located on the northern boundary of the [Blaby] District. It is a highly successful out of town retail park, and is the highest ranked centre in the [Blaby] District (355 in the UK index). Whilst the MRA is commercially successful, it has an impact on surrounding centres and is mainly accessed by car borne custom, thus contributing to traffic problems in the vicinity of junction 21.”

The Core Strategy goes on to consider environmental issues and at paragraph 4.25 highlights that the Blaby District has five Air Quality Management Areas, the majority of which are focused around the M1/M69 and A46.

The strategic objectives of the Core Strategy include:

 To improve the design quality of all new developments in the Blaby District including the need to design out crime.

 To protect the important areas of the Blaby District’s natural environment (species and habitats), landscape and geology and to improve bio-diversity, wildlife habitats and corridors through the design of new developments and the management of existing areas by working with partners

 To preserve and enhance the cultural heritage of the Blaby District, recognising its contribution to local distinctiveness and to seek design solutions which preserve and enhance heritage assets where they are impacted by development.

 To minimise the risk of flooding (and other hazards) to property, infrastructure and people.

 To provide the appropriate quantity, quality and mix of employment opportunities to meet the needs of the Blaby District’s current and future populations, and to meet strategic employment, education and training needs;

 To deliver the transport needs of the Blaby District and to encourage and develop the use of more sustainable forms of transport (including walking, cycling, other forms of non-motorised transport and public transport).

 To maintain, and where appropriate improve, the position of retail centres within the retail hierarchy. To make sure that the existing centres, primarily Blaby Town Centre, have opportunities to grow in order to enhance their vitality and viability and to prevent expansion of out of town centres (including the MRA) where this would result in an unacceptable impact on existing centres.

The final Strategic Objective specifically refers to the MRA. The supporting text to the objective states that Access to services and facilities forms a key part of the Blaby and Leicestershire SCS. Retail services are important to allow the successful functioning of communities within the [Blaby] District. The District of Blaby has: a large and successful out of town retail facility (Motorways Retail Area – including Fosse Park); a town centre (Blaby); and, numerous local retail centres. Seeking to balance the needs of these competing centres, whilst maintaining good service levels, is a key objective.

Part 6 of the Core Strategy includes the Spatial Strategy, which sets out how the key issues and Strategic Objectives (of which those of relevance to this application are set out above) will be addressed. Of relevance to the Application are:

Employment and the economy

The northern and central areas will be the focus for employment growth. The provision of new employment land will be focussed around the Principal Urban Area. These are the areas of greatest growth and have the greatest potential source of employees. A Strategic Employment Site (of some 30 hectares) has been granted planning permission around junction 21a of the M1. Other large scale employment sites are required to meet identified need. In order to be attractive to the market (and deliverable) they must have strong connections with the strategic road network. A Strategic Employment Site (SES) is proposed as part of the Strategic Growth Area at Lubbesthorpe (paragraph 6.11).

Transport

The strategic approach will be to seek to reduce travel. Where this is not possible opportunities to maximise more sustainable modes of transport will be sought. This approach helps to reduce the emission of CO2 and other pollutants and reduce negative impacts on air quality. New development should deliver the range of services and facilities that will minimise the need to travel. New development will be focussed in areas that have access to services and facilities and are well served by a range of transport alternatives (including public transport, walking and cycling) and are not wholly reliant on private cars. New development will be designed to give greater priority to pedestrians and cyclists over cars – whilst recognising that private transport will continue to play an important role. Contributions to improving the more sustainable transport choices will be sought where these are considered necessary to deliver a diverse transport offer (paragraph 6.13).

Retailing

The retail strategy for the District of Blaby is to focus new retail facilities on Blaby Town centre in accordance with the Blaby Town Centre Masterplan. Site assembly and public realm improvements will be pursued to improve both the quantity and quality of the retail offer. Small scale growth of lower order centres will be encouraged where they are of a scale that is appropriate to the existing centre (paragraph 6.15).

Growth of existing out of town retail facilities (mainly located at the Motorway’s Retail Area) will need to satisfy the tests of retail impact and the ‘sequential approach’, in order to protect the vitality and viability of existing centres (paragraph 6.17).

Climate Change

One of the key impacts of climate change is the increased incidence of flooding. The strategy will be to resist flood sensitive developments in locations that are likely to flood, or where development could increase the potential for flooding downstream. In particular, the River Sence and Soar valleys will be protected from developments that could result in on-site or downstream hazards. Other causes and impacts of climate change will be addressed in more detailed design matters (paragraph 6.23).

Core Strategy Policy Context:

Policy CS2 – Design of New Development:

This Policy seeks to ensure that a high quality environment is achieved in all new development proposals, respecting distinctive local character and contributing towards creating places of high architectural and urban design quality. It promotes the development of safe and inclusive places which are appropriate in their context and which take account of the needs of people with disabilities. It promotes the use of Building for Life 12 as a tool to encourage good design.

Policy CS6 – Employment:

Policy CS6 indicates that District Council will work with employers to ensure that the Blaby District has a range of employment opportunities and will promote the use of local labour agreements to enable local people to secure employment and skills development. The Policy is underpinned by the objective of providing an appropriate quantity, quality and mix of employment opportunities to meet the needs of current and future populations.

In particular Policy CS6 states that the Blaby District Council will seek to protect key employment sites (in accordance with the justification below) from non-employment uses (including piecemeal changes to non-employment use), unless it can be demonstrated that such a change of use:

 could be achieved without resulting in an under provision of employment land at a local and/or district level;

 would result in demonstrable ‘environmental’ benefits to the immediate area;

 would result in loss of land and or premises where an independent assessment has indicated that the site is no longer viable and attractive to the market for employment purposes.

The Policy also supports the provision of a number of large employment sites including the Strategic Employment Site at Enderby and Sustainable Urban Extension at Lubbesthorpe, and supports the development of smaller scale employment uses in other settlements determined by the needs of the area and ability to accommodate employment growth.

The application site has not been identified as a Key Employment Site and does not fall within the areas identified for large scale employment development. The other aims of the Policy relate to enabling new employment development when proposed and are not concerned with restricting development of non-key sites.

Policy CS10 – Transport Infrastructure

This Policy seeks to direct new development towards sites where people can access services and facilities without reliance on private motor vehicles in order to limit its impact on levels of vehicular movements, congestion and the environment. It supports this by encouraging the protection and enhancement of local services and facilities (including retail and employment) and promoting and prioritising sustainable transport modes.

Policy CS11 – Infrastructure and Facilities to Support Growth

This Policy requires new development to be supported by the required physical, social and environmental infrastructure at the appropriate time. Co-operation between the relevant providers will ensure the delivery of the necessary infrastructure, services and facilities to meet the needs of the community and mitigate any adverse impact of the development.

Policy CS12 – Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions

The aim of this Policy is to ensure that the impacts of development on infrastructure and services and facilities is sufficiently mitigated through planning obligations.

Policy CS12 states:

Where requirements for infrastructure, services and facilities arising from growth are identified through robust research and evidence, it is expected that developers will contribute toward their provision (and in some cases maintenance).

Planning obligations and developer contributions will be sought and guided by the Council’s latest Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions SPD and other evidence of need. Contributions should be made by providing the infrastructure (on or off-site) or by making financial contributions towards its provision and / or maintenance. Contributions will be phased or pooled to ensure the timely delivery of the necessary infrastructure, services and facilities.

Where appropriate, new development will be required to contribute to funding elements of the Infrastructure Plan either by means of planning obligations entered into at the time of granting planning permission or in due course through a combination of payment of Community Infrastructure Levy and planning obligations for site specific measures.

Policy CS13 – Retailing and Other Town Centre Uses

This Policy mirrors the sequential approach to site selection set out in the NPPF which requires main town centre uses to be located within town centres, then edge of centre locations and then, only if suitable sequentially preferable sites are not available, in out-of-centre locations.

The Policy contains the Blaby District Retail Hierarchy which sets out the sequential list of centres both inside and outside the Blaby District boundary but has a functional relationship to the Blaby District.

Leicester City Centre is placed on top of the retail hierarchy as this is the closest regional centre to Blaby District. The Policy describes Leicester City Centre as “a regional centre serving a wide catchment. The centre of Leicester is a major centre of employment. It is large, highly ranked (in a sub-regional context) and embraces a wide range of activities including retail, office, leisure, higher education, and health services. It offers many ‘higher order’ functions not provided in the smaller centres within the District of Blaby.” It stands alone as the only City Centre in the hierarchy.

The second tier in the hierarchy is made up of designated Town Centres. Only one of the 6 designated Town Centres, Blaby Town Centre, is sited within the Blaby District. The other designations are made up of Beaumont Leys, Hinckley, Wigston, Market Harborough and Lutterworth. The Policy indicates that Town Centres, including Blaby Town Centre, would be the focus of new retail development where it would accord with the Blaby Town Centre Master Plan and sustain or increase the vitality and viability of Blaby Town Centre. The important role the other centres play in providing shops, services and employment opportunities to their local communities is acknowledged. Further retail development in these areas is encouraged provided it is appropriate to the role, scale and character of the centre.

The third tier in the hierarchy comprises of designated District Centres. In addition to Enderby, Glenfield and Narborough within the Blaby District external designations include South Wigston, Oadby, Broughton Astley, Anstey and Narborough Road.

The Policy also makes specific reference to the MRA indicating that within this area (comprising of Fosse Park, ASDA, and the Grove Farm Triangle Retail Development) managed growth will be facilitated in a form which is complementary to the achievement of the Blaby Town Centre Master Plan. The Application Site does not fall within the MRA.

It is clear from the inclusion of the external centres within the hierarchy that the Policy offers protection to a number of areas outside of the Blaby District boundary including Leicester City Centre and the Narborough Road District Centre. This means that the impact of any application for applicable retail development on the vitality and viability of these external centres will have to be considered.

In relation to retail impact assessments Policy CS13 states:

New retail and leisure developments should not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the vitality and viability of any other existing centre. All applications for new retail and leisure developments in excess of 929 sq. m (10,000ft) gross and not within an existing town, district, rural, or local centre will be required to provide impact assessments.

Assessments will be required to demonstrate:

 The impact of the proposal on the vitality and viability of any centre, including local consumer choice and trade in the centres; and

 The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in any centre.

Whilst the Application Site does not fall within the MRA and as such that part of Policy CS13 does not apply, it is relevant to note, given the type and proximity of the Proposed Development to the MRA, that the explanatory text for Policy CS13 recognises that whilst there is some retailer demand for new units at Fosse Park it is acknowledged that this is not significant and that this could mostly be met by the churn of the units (established in the Blaby District Retail Study).

In order to manage impacts on existing centres, including Leicester City Centre, it suggests that any future growth of Fosse Park should not undermine the principles established in the original planning permission which sought to deter high street style development.

The importance of the MRA in meeting the needs of certain retailers in terms of floor space requirements is recognised as is the need to explore opportunities to make improvements to facilities and the environment within the area.

Policy CS19 – Bio Diversity and Geo Diversity

This Policy indicates that Blaby District Council will refuse planning permission for development that would impact upon sites of ecological or geological importance and will work with local and national wildlife organisations, local communities and landowners to preserve and enhance existing sites or where possible create new ones. Policy CS19 recognises that brownfield sites can offer significant biodiversity or geological interest and indicates that opportunities to build in enhancements will be explored.

Policy CS20 – Historic Environment and Culture

Policy CS20 sets out Blaby District Council’s positive approach to the conservation of heritage assets and the wider historic environment. These assets, which include Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and archaeological remains, will be preserved, protected and where possible enhanced.

Policy CS21 – Climate Change

Policy CS21 sets out the commitment to tackling climate change and flooding by focusing new development in the most sustainable locations, utilising sustainable design principles to minimise energy demand and using renewable low carbon technologies.

Policy CS22 – Flood Risk Management

Policy CS22 Indicates that Blaby District Council will ensure all development minimises vulnerability and provides resilience to flooding, taking into account climate change. This will be achieved by:

 Directing development to locations with the lowest risk of flooding;

 Using Sustainable Drainage Systems to manage and improve natural forms of drainage;

 Managing Surface Water Run Off;

 Closely Consulting the Environment Agency.

Policy CS23 – Waste

Blaby District Council will seek to encourage waste minimisation ensuring the design of proposals consider waste collection/management and new technologies and follows a hierarchy of waste management.

Policy CS24 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Policy CS24 reflects the principle of applying a presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF which should be seen as the golden thread running through the planning process. It states that when considering development proposals Blaby District Council will take a positive approach and will always work proactively with applicants to find solutions and secure improvements to the economic, social and environmental conditions in an area.

Blaby District Local Plan (BDLP) (1999) (“the 1999 Local Plan”)

Although the Core Strategy has been adopted, a number of Policies from the 1999 Local Plan continue to be saved. The following policies are of relevance to this proposal.

Employment Policy

Policy E1 – Primarily Employment Areas

This Policy is relevant because the Application Site is allocated as a Primary Employment Area on the 1999 adopted proposals map. The Policy states:-

Within Primarily Employment Areas identified on the proposals map planning permission will be granted for employment development only (business, general industrial and storage/distribution uses), except where the proposed development would:

 Have an unsatisfactory relationship with other nearby properties that would be significantly detrimental to the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of those properties, including considerations of vibration, emissions, hours of working, vehicular activity, privacy, light, noise disturbance and an overbearing effect; or

 Be significantly out of keeping with the character or appearance of the area; or

 Result in the over-development of the site due to factors including scale or mass; or

 Be of unsatisfactory layout, design or external appearance; or

 Be likely to prejudice the satisfactory or comprehensive development of a wider area.

Policy E4 – Protection of employment land or buildings

Indicates that the development of existing or planned employment land and buildings for other uses will only be granted if the development would not conflict with the sub clauses of Policy E1.

Transport Policy:

Policy T1 – Public Transport Provision to Serve Major New Development

Requires the internal road layout of a major new development to be designed to accommodate public transport where appropriate.

Policy T2 – Off Road Layby Provision for Public Transport

Suitable layby provision is required for a development which involves concentrated public activity to facilitate public transport use.

Policy T3 – New Highways Schemes

Development involving a new access, road scheme or improvement will only be granted if it incorporates appropriate facilities for pedestrians and cyclists and would not impact on the amenities of an area.

Policy T6 – Off-Street Parking Provision

Requires the provision of sufficient parking for the vehicles of employees, residents and visitors in accordance with Appendix 2 of the plan to Policy T6. Provision below the maximum standard may be acceptable where there is good access by public transport.

Policy T8 – Off Road Facilities for Loading, Unloading and Servicing

Acceptable development will provide safe and adequate off road facilities for loading, unloading, servicing and manoeuvring of goods and vehicles.

Policy T10 - Car Parking and Servicing Areas Design

Requires any new areas of car parking to be

 Appropriately surfaced, landscaped and illuminated,  Sesigned to maximise safety and  Enable surveillance in the interests of crime prevention.

Policy T12 – Access and Mobility Needs; Open Spaces

Development involving the creation of areas to which the public have access such as carparks must incorporate adequate provision for access by persons with restricted mobility.

Shopping Policy:

Policy S5 – Food and Drink Uses

Planning permission would not be granted for food and drink uses if it would unduly impact on the amenities of adjoining or nearby properties.

Policy S9 – Blaby Central Area

Development which would have a significant impact on, or affect the vitality or viability of, the central area of Blaby will only be granted permission if:

 It is in-keeping with the scale, character and role of the area  It would have good pedestrian links with the existing area  It would be significantly detrimental to the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

Policy S12 – Motorways Retail Area (MRA):

Within the MRA planning permission will only be granted for retail development and complementary and ancillary non-retail development providing that the development does not result in any of the following;

 A unit with a floor space contrary to the conditions placed on the original condition;  The creation of any new individual unit with a floor space less than 929 sq. m gross.

The explanatory text to this Policy explains that the conditions placed on the original permission were as a result of the impact assessment which considered its likely impact on the vitality and viability of the surrounding retail centres. Most of the conditions are still considered relevant and particular attention is drawn to the conditions controlling the balance of retail and non-retail uses and the floor space restrictions for individual units.

Conservation and Environment Policy:

Policy CE1 – Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites

Development which would adversely affect the preservation or setting of a SAM or other important archaeological site will be refused. All planning applications affecting such sites must be accompanied by the relevant appraisal.

Policy CE22 – Landscaping

Indicates that new development must take into account, and retain where appropriate, the value of the sites landscape, ecological and geological features and assimilate itself into the landscape.

Policy CE25 – Crime Prevention

This Policy requires the design of any scheme to incorporate design measures to reduce the likelihood of crime.

CE26 – Light Pollution

Requires new development which incorporates a new lighting scheme to avoid any undue impact on residential amenities, highways safety, limit the light spillage, or be significantly out of keeping with character and appearance of the area.

Other Documents:

Leicester City Adopted Core Strategy 2014 (“LCACS”)

Due regard has to be paid to the relevant LCACS Policies CS11 and CS12. It is considered that their aims of protecting existing centres and where possible enhancing their vitality and viability are given more protection in planning policy terms by Blaby Core Strategy Policy CS13 which places the Leicester City Centre top of the retail hierarchy and directs appropriate development towards it. Policy CS13 also recognises the importance of Beaumont Leys as a Town Centre and Narborough Road (Leicester) as a District Centre. It refers to the need to carry out a sequential test (for developments over 929 sq. m.)

LCACS Policy 11: Retail Hierarchy:

The Policy sets out the retail hierarchy for centres within Leicester City and places Leicester City Centre on top of the list of centres. One of the Policy’s aims is to ensure that Leicester City Centre continues to be a sub-regional centre by making the retail area the destination for the majority of new retail uses and new retail development. Below Leicester City Centre in the hierarchy is Beaumont Leys, Leicester City’s only Town Centre, below which are the District Centres (including Narborough Road) followed by Local Centres (including Aylestone Village).

The Policy seeks to protect and enhance retail centres as the most sustainable location for retail development by protecting them against proposals or uses which would detract from their vitality and viability and applying the sequential approach to new development and uses.

The Policy’s supporting text highlights the importance of the hierarchy in creating a balanced network of centres to achieve an even distribution of town centre uses which meet peoples everyday needs at a local level.

LCACS Policy 12: City Centre

The Policy states that “The Council will promote the growth of the [Leicester] City Centre as a sub-regional shopping, leisure, historic and cultural destination, as the most accessible and sustainable location for main town centre uses and as recognition of its central role in [Leicester] City’s economy and wider regeneration.” It sets out a strategy for achieving this aim which includes:

 Maintaining a compact and accessible town centre  Enriching the retail experience by protecting and enhancing the historic environment  Creating pedestrian routes and civic spaces to reconnect disparate and disconnected parts of Leicester City Centre by linking together Leicester City Centre’s key historic and cultural assets, facilities and venues and reducing the severance effect of the inner ring road  Developing an economically prosperous Leicester City Centre  Creating a safe and inclusive Leicester City Centre.  Supporting residential development  Making the Leicester City Centre the focus of public transport initiatives.

The supporting text to the policy highlights a number of opportunities to improve the attractiveness of Leicester City Centre through a number of investment opportunities and public realm improvements including improving the connection between Leicester City’s historic core and cultural assets.

Blaby Employment Land and Premises Study Refresh 2011

This study assesses the demand, supply and the need for employment land and premises in the Blaby District. It includes an assessment of Blaby District’s employment areas in order to provide guidance in terms of their continued protection for employment purposes. The study updates the Blaby Employment Land and Premises Study prepared in 2006 and identifies all ‘existing employment sites’ in the Blaby District (by reference to a plan) along with 16 Key Employment Sites. The Application Site is not identified in either category.

Blaby Retail Study Update (2012)

The study updates the Blaby Retail Study 2008 by, amongst other things, providing updated retail forecasts in line with the Core Strategy plan period taking account of the NPPF. It also considers changes to retailer representation and retail commitments and proposals.

Town Centre and Retail Study (2015)

The Town Centre and Retail Study 2015 was commissioned to, amongst other things, identify the quantitative and qualitative need for retail and other town centre uses up to 2031 for Leicester City and Blaby District. This will act as an evidence base to inform future development plan policy and provides baseline information to assist in determining planning applications for development.

Joint Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2014) (“SFRA”)

The SFRA provides the latest flood risk information from a range of sources for Blaby District. It is used to inform decision making and inform development plan policy.

The Blaby District Character Assessment (2008)

The study looks at the landscape and settlement character of Blaby District, identifies features and characteristics of the landscape and is used to aid development control decisions. It identifies how well the landscape character areas and settlements could adapt to change without severe detrimental effect on their character and integrity. Particular emphasis was placed on the edges of settlements and the transition into to the wider countryside.

The Blaby Town Centre Master Plan (2008)

This document was produced as an aid to guiding transformational change in Blaby Town Centre over the period 2008 to 2023. Its purpose was to:

 Provide a clear and robust urban design framework to guide future development;  Identify sites in Blaby Town Centre to accommodate a mixture of uses;  Improve linkages with Blaby Town Centre;  Address sustainable transport issues;  Provide clear practical advice on delivery and possible funding sources.

It was produced with local stakeholders to provide a shared vision for Blaby Town Centre. The impact of Fosse Park on Blaby Town Centre is recognized although the document indicates that “the existence of the high number of independent retailers and good base of local services provides excellent opportunities to develop a unique brand for Blaby Town Centre which seeks to counterbalance the offer provided by Fosse Park”. It considers that the attractiveness of Blaby Town Centre could be improved by, among other things, improving its car parking provision, footfall and retail offer.

Air Quality Management Plan May 2014:

The Blaby District Council Air Quality Management Plan (“AQMP”) sets out Blaby District Council’s objectives for managing air quality within the Blaby District. It sets out the policy context, actions in relation to monitoring air quality and a hierarchy of mitigation measures and strategies.

The (“AQMP”) recognises that “The planning process has a significant role to play in helping to integrate land-use and transport to encourage sustainable development, and to secure future improvements to air quality. Although development will usually have an incremental impact on emissions of air pollutants (largely through increased traffic flows and internal heating systems), sustainable schemes can also be a positive force for change, introducing sustainable transport choices not only for residents or users of the development, but for the wider community.

In order to ensure this happens, staff in environmental health services already work closely with colleagues in both development control and planning policy. Where necessary, air quality assessments are requested to be submitted with those planning applications that have potential impacts on air quality. In some cases, agreements have been reached with developers to fund monitoring and mitigation measures”.

It goes on to say that:

“Section 106 Agreements. Payments for air quality mitigation measures can be justified, particularly where development proposals are likely to give rise to, or contribute to, exceedences of air quality objectives. In these instances contributions can be sought, where permitted by legislation and policy.”

The AQMP declared 5 Air Quality Management Areas (“AQMA”) for nitrogen dioxide. These are made up of:

 AQMA 1: A5460 Narborough Road South  AQMA 2: M1 corridor in Enderby and Narborough  AQMA 3: M1 corridor between Thorpe Astley and Kirby Muxloe  AQMA 4B: Enderby Road, Whetstone  AQMA 5: Branting Hill, near to the A46

AQMA 1 is the area to the north and east of the Soar Valley Way (A563). In addition to the Application Site the area incorporates the existing Fosse Park, the Asda Superstore, and a substantial section of Narborough Road leading from the site north eastwards for approximately 2,200 metres.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (“the Habitats Regulations”)

These Habitats Regulations provide for the designation and protection of European sites, the protection of European protected species as well as the conservation of natural habitats and habitats of species and protected species themselves.

The Habitats Regulations also allow for the control of potentially damaging planning applications. Planning permission may only be granted once it has been shown through appropriate assessment that the proposed operation will not adversely affect any protected species or ecologically valuable sites. It requires the precautionary principle to be applied which means that consent cannot be given unless it is ascertained that there will be no adverse effect on habitats or species. The Habitats Regulations make it an offence to deliberately capture, kill, disturb, or trade in the animals or pick, collect, cut, uproot, destroy, or trade in the plants listed in the schedules to the Habitats Regulations.

The Application

The Application was made on 22 May 2015, accompanied by the following documents:

 Article 14 Notice and Covering Letter  Design and Access Statement  Planning Statement  Retail Assessment  Statement of Economic Benefits  Draft Section 106 Obligation Heads of Terms  Transport Assessment  Framework Travel Plan  Air Quality Assessment  Ecological Assessment  Arboricultural Implications Assessment  Flood Risk Assessment  Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation  Archaeological Evaluation Report  Statement of Community Engagement  Indicative Floorspace Schedule  Detailed Landscaping Scheme  Geo-Environmental Site Investigation and Risk Assessment  Environmental Statement – Non-Technical Summary  Environmental Statement

The Application was subsequently amended. The revised proposal was submitted on 11 April 2016. The following additional documentation accompanied the revised proposal.

 Supplemental Retail Assessment, dated April 2016  Design and Access Statement, dated April 2016  Proposed Site Plan (ref. 14173-0302 Rev 16)  Revised Drawings  Indicative Floorspace Schedule  Statement of Economic Benefits Addendum, dated April 2016  Landscape Proposals (ref. 0721.001.B)  Environmental Statement Addendum, dated April 2016

The narrative below explains the background to this Application and the Proposed Development that the members are asked to determine.

The Original Submission:

The original scheme proposed the creation of a fashion led retail park comprising of two 3 storey retail anchor stores either side of a retail terrace comprising of 7 Class A1 retail units. In addition to these main units the scheme proposed 13 smaller units which could be either Class A1 or A3 units and a 4 unit restaurant quarter located in the car park. Overall, including suggested mezzanine floor space, the scheme would have provided 29,891 sq. m of additional retail floorspace and 1,444 sq. m of Class A3 floorspace.

The original submission was amended following detailed discussions.

The Proposed Development

The Application proposes the demolition of the existing brewery buildings and the erection of a commercial shopping extension to Fosse Park with a gross internal area (new floor space) of approximately 28,329 sq. m. This would be split between 26,758 sq. m of retail and 1,571 sq. m of Class A3 food outlets. As with the existing Fosse Park, the extension would have a focus on fashion-led retail but would contain 6 units for Class A3 uses (restaurants and cafes) comprising Units 13, 14, 15 and 16 within the pedestrian link to the existing Fosse Park Site and 2 kiosks located in the car park. The reduction in floorspace also allowed parking provision to be increased by 50 no. spaces.

The Application proposes a layout which positions the new buildings along the north edge of the Application Site with a primary retail terrace bookended by two 3 storey anchor stores. The substantial anchor stores to either end of the main terrace of units would themselves have total gross internal floor areas of 8,361 sq. m each spread over 3 floors.

The first anchor store would be positioned in the north west corner of the Application Site along the boundary with Narborough Road South (Unit 1). It is intended that this will be occupied by Next as a flagship store within its chain selling both its fashion and home/garden ranges. This building would have had a depth of 68m, a width of 50m and a height of 11.4m. There would also be a garden section within a conservatory and outside area together measuring 527 sq. m.

The second anchor store (Unit 2) would be sited in the north east corner of the Application Site abutting Grove Way. This building is the largest of the proposed new units with a depth of 62m, a width of 46m and an overall height of 14.2m. The Applicant has advised that Heads of Terms have been agreed with Debenhams to occupy Unit 2. The Agreement for Lease was being prepared at the time of writing this report.

The eastern edge of Unit 1 would form the front edge of a 16m wide pedestrian footway that would provide a link from the Application Site to the existing Fosse Park Site facilities through the existing food court. The landscaped avenue would be bounded by 4 Class A3 units (Units 13, 14, 15 and 16) with gross internal areas ranging from approximately 218 sq. m to 372 sq. m. These units would be 9.45m high. Two additional smaller Class A3 kiosks would be sited within the carpark to the front of the retail terrace each with a gross external area of 168 sq. m.

Between the pedestrian link and Unit 2 is the proposed main terrace of non-food retail outlets comprising of 7 units of differing sizes. The unit sizes are indicative and are subject to change depending on tenant demand; the Applicant has sought this flexibility. The Proposed Site Layout as submitted shows 7 units which have gross internal ground floor areas of between 393 sq. m and 1,394 sq. m. The units would have depths ranging from 41m to 51m and widths between 28m and 12m.

A flexible approach to the floor areas is proposed with an open option for an additional 75% of mezzanine floorspace across the central retail terrace which could be introduced if necessary. This means that, when discounting Unit 1 and Unit 2 and the Class A3 units (the latter of which will have no mezzanine space), the remaining retail terrace would have a total gross external area of approximately 5,997 sq. m and up to 4,302 sq. m gross internal mezzanine floorspace.

In total the indicative gross internal floorspace areas are given as:

Table 1: Ground Floor Only (Indicative Line-up)

Unit Location Unit Number Use GEA GIA (square metres) (square metres) Anchor 1 1 A1 3,537 3,252 Anchor 2 2 A1 2,871 2,787

Retail Terrace 3/4 A1 1,130 1,068 5 A1 973 929 6 A1 1,435 1,394 7 A1 488 465 8/9 A1 973 929 10 A1 409 393 11 A1 589 557

Linkway 13 A3 417 372 14 A3 324 302 15 A3 235 218 16 A3 373 344

Kiosks 17 A3 175 168 18 A3 175 168

Total Class A1 - - 12,404 11,773 Total Class A3 - - 1,700 1,571 Total Class A1/A3 - - 14,104 13,344

The units would have a modern angular appearance incorporating stone tile cladding and facing brickwork and overhanging canopies. All of the units would have full height glazing to the south facing front elevations facing the car park and Soar Valley way with Unit 1 also having sections of full height glazing along the west elevation facing Narborough Road. The Proposed Development would incorporate energy efficiency and sustainability measures such as high performance building fabrics, low water and energy use fixtures, a sustainable drainage strategy and provision for waste segregation and recycling.

The creation of the pedestrian link to the existing food court requires the stopping up of Everard Way. If approved and implemented it will no longer be possible to access Fosse Park via Everard Way which would also aid the provision of an access to the service yard to the rear of the new units off the remaining section of the road. A stopping up order has been submitted to the National Transport Casework Team and is currently being considered. It cannot be determined until planning permission has been granted for the Proposed Development.

The highways scheme associated with the Proposed Development proposes the creation of 881 car parking spaces to the south of the new retail units (including disabled spaces), cycle parking and two new pedestrian crossings across Grove Way.

The new access to the Application Site would be sited off Grove Way approximately 60m north of the existing junction with Soar Valley Way. It is also proposed to create a new egress point directly from the south west corner of the parking area on to Soar Valley Way. The final access details had not been agreed at the time of writing the report. These details will be subject to a condition requiring the submission, approval and implementation prior to any above ground construction.

The Application also proposes the creation of a new ramped access to the service yard at the rear of a number of the existing retail units in Fosse Park North off Everard Way. The access would be created off Everard Way approximately 25m to the west of the internal roundabout with Grove Way. The ramp would extend down from the road into the existing service yard area which lies within Flood Zone 2. The ramp will be designed to allow flood water to pass under it.

The scale of the Proposed Development and the need to maximise car parking is such that the limited landscaping scheme comprises of a green strip around the east, south and west edges of the Application Site ranging in width from 2m along the east side to 12m around the south side and 8m along the west side. A number of trees would be retained within the frontage landscaping strip and additional tree planting would take place within the strip and car parking area.

Implementing the Proposed Development would require the demolition of the existing buildings on the Application Site and the supporting information estimates that the construction phase will take approximately 21 months. It breaks the construction programme down into 4 phases:

 Site Establishment - months 1 to 3  Demolition - months 1 to 3  Construction Base Build - months 4 to 21  Tenant Fit Out - months 15 to 21

The Application was supported by a Statement of Economic Benefits which was amended following the April 2016 scheme revisions. The Addendum outlines the estimated economic benefits of the Proposed Development. These include:

 £87.8m of construction and fit-out investment supporting an average of 230 jobs per month over two years.  £54m of Gross Value Added (“GVA”) to the economy over the construction period.  Up to 2,015 gross jobs (net uplift of 1,900 jobs taking into account existing employment on-site). This equates to around 1,000 Full Time Equivalent (“FTE”) Jobs.  These jobs could be accessible to local residents, including those from areas in Leicester and Blaby where there are relatively high concentrations of deprivation and unemployment.  2,015 jobs equate to 4.2% of the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership job growth target to 2020.  Up to 790 jobs could go to residents living within 5km of the Application Site - covering communities in both Blaby and Leicester.  Within 5km of the Application Site, there are 2,700 unemployed residents, with 50% of these specifically looking for retail sales, food and beverage service jobs.  The Proposed Development has the potential to provide jobs suitable for half of the job seekers living within 5km of the Application Site.  Jobs in a range of skill-levels, including those suitable for people with limited qualifications and experience: up to 59% of working age Blaby residents could be seeking entry level-type employment.  Opportunities for career development with 20% of new jobs in management positions, often held by people who have risen within the company.  Multiplier effects of wages and business rates into the local economy.  Total GVA generated by activity on-site of £29m every year during operation.  Estimated business rate revenue of £7.9m per annum of which £2.3m would be retained locally within Blaby and Leicestershire.  An estimated total wage bill of £16.3m annually, with reductions in the benefits bill for every new employee coming off benefits or income support.  Helping to ensure the continued strength and flexibility of Blaby’s retail offer to respond to the market’s trends and needs.  Strengthening the offer at the MRA as a whole.

Site and Surroundings:

The 6.95ha Application Site is located in a highly commercial area directly adjacent to the existing Fosse Park, with Fosse Park North being sited to the north across Everard Way and Fosse Park South sited to the east across Grove Way. It lies on the outside edge of the MRA, as designated in the 1999 Local Plan. The MRA includes Fosse Park North and Fosse Park South as well as the ASDA Supermarket to the north and the development in the Grove Triangle development to the northwest across Narborough Road South, which contains a number of units including a Sainsburys Supermarket. The 60ha Grove Park is located to the west of the Application Site and comprises of offices, production and distribution space together with a hotel. Meridian business park is also located in close proximity to the Application Site.

The Application Site lies approximately 4.5km to the south of the centre of Blaby Town, which contains Blaby District’s only designated town centre, and 6.5km north east of Leicester City Centre accessed via the main arterial routes of Soar Valley Way and Narborough Road South. It is also located within close proximity to the M1 and M69. The large scale of the neighbouring commercial units and proximity to popular transport links means the surrounding road network is highly trafficked, which has resulted in it being designated as an AQMA identified in the AQMP.

As well as being constrained to the north and east by the existing Fosse Park the Application Site is bordered by the duel carriageways of Soar Valley Way and Narborough Road to the south and west respectively. The closest open countryside is located to the east of Fosse Park South and on the opposite side of Soar Valley Way to the north. The closest ecologically sensitive sites comprise of Aylestone Meadows Local Nature Reserve 0.8km to the north east of the Application Site, Enderby Warren Quarry Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) located approximately 1.2km to the west and Narborough Bog SSSI sited approximately 2km south of the Application Site. The closest residential properties are approximately 550m to the north of the Application Site.

Elements of the existing Fosse Park North, including the closest sections of the existing service yards to the rear of the units, fall within Flood Zone 2. The creation of the new ramp to the existing service yard off Everard Way would involve development in Flood Zone 2 as the service yard lies in the flood zone at a lower level than the road. The new ramp would be the only element of the Proposed Development which falls within a flood zone.

The Application Site itself currently comprises of a number of large industrial buildings and associated landscaped areas which currently make up the Everards Brewery site. The on-site structures comprise of an office building, brewery building, storage area and retail shop which cover approximately 25% of the Application Site. The buildings have a gross external area of approximately 10,000 sq. m (with overhang on main building) with heights ranging from 3.5m and 9.15m. The Application Site currently supports approximately 118 jobs and it has been confirmed by Everards Brewery that all of these jobs will be transferred to the planned facility at Everards Meadows. This means there will be no net loss of employment. The protection and retention of these jobs is material to the determination of the Application.

The remainder of the Application Site is made up of a generous landscaped area to the south of the existing buildings and hardstanding to form the service and parking areas to the north.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

The Council issued a Screening Opinion on the 26 February 2015 which concluded:

“It is considered that the increased vehicular movements that will be generated by the provision of such a large amount of new, high quality, retail units would have potentially significant implications for the already congested road network around the site and, at the same time, lead to increased air pollution in an area already identified as having air quality issues. The highways implications and resultant air quality issues would be further compounded by the cumulative impact with other development including the Lubbesthorpe SUE comprising of 4,250 dwellings and associated infrastructure, the Glenfield Park which comprises of 250 dwellings and up to 30ha of employment land and the development of the new Everards brewery site on the opposite side of Soar Valley way which would comprise of up to 11,500sqm of new B1 and B2 development.

The creation of the new units would also have a potentially significant impact on the vitality and viability of surrounding local centres including Leicester City Centre. The provision of a large amount of additional out of centre floor space, above that which already exists in the wider commercial area, would reduce the number of visitors to the main centre which is prioritised by current planning guidance and legislation.

Taking these two potentially significant impacts into account, together with the selection criteria for screening Schedule 2 development set out in Schedule 3 of the Regulations, it is considered that the potential environmental impacts of the development are sufficient to request a formal Environmental Impact Assessment which will require the application to be accompanied by an Environmental Statement.”

On 29 April 2015 the Applicant submitted an EIA Scoping Report and requested a scoping opinion from Blaby District Council.

A Scoping Opinion was then issued by Blaby District Council on the 21 August 2015, following consultation with relevant parties, which indicated that:

“The submitted scoping report (a copy of which is enclosed with this scoping opinion) identifies two key impacts to be scoped into the environmental statement. These are;

 Air Quality implications  Transport/Highways implications.

The report also identifies a number of issues which were considered to be non- significant and should be scoped out of the EIA. These included:

 Noise  Ground Conditions and Contamination  Ecology  Archaeology  Landscape and Visual Impact  Microclimate

As stated above, the report has been subject to full consultation in accordance with the EIA Regulations. On the basis of the responses that have been received and in the light of the screening opinion, it is considered that the approach outlined in the scoping report is generally acceptable and appropriate to the scale and nature of the development as well as the location of the previously developed site. It is important to note however that the scoping out of the issues above does not mean that the development impacts on these areas will not have to be addressed as part of the planning application itself.”

The Proposed Development falls within the description at paragraph 10(b) of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. Taking into account the criteria in Schedule 3 to the 2011 Regulations, Blaby District Council considered that the Proposed Development would have the potential to cause significant harm to the environment in terms of the level of traffic generation and increased vehicular movements on the network and the related environmental impact given the Application Site’s location within an AQMA. It is considered that the scope of the Environmental Statement is sufficient to allow an assessment of all of the relevant material impacts of the Proposed Development.

Consultation Responses

Statutory Consultee Responses

Set out below is a summary of all of the responses from the statutory consultees in relation to the Application.

Blaby District Council Environmental Health

Land Contamination

Blaby District Council’s Environmental Health Department (“Environmental Health”) is generally satisfied with the contents of the combined phase 1 and phase 2 reports, and the conclusions reached.

Four of the five groundwater samples tested indicated elevated concentrations of phenol across the Application Site. Although little variation is present in the concentrations, an increasing trend from west to east was suggested by the results.

The report states that as there is no obvious on site source the concentration is assumed to be from an offsite source, although no offsite source has been suggested. It is considered that the existing brewery and industrial processes therein are a possible onsite source of such contamination.

Further investigation is required to prove that there is no unacceptable risk to controlled waters, or that a remediation strategy should be submitted for approval.

As it is suspected that the phenol contamination is related to the existing structures and ongoing uses, it would be prudent for the additional investigation to be undertaken after demolition has taken place. However, the Applicant should be made aware that the potential costs of remediation, if required, could be substantial and may add significant delays to the project.

Environmental Health considered the comments and conditions proposed by the Environment Agency and considered that they satisfactorily covered contamination in this regard.

Un-investigated areas

It is noted that no investigation has taken place in the northernmost extent of the Application Site. Therefore it is suggested that a discovery strategy be put in place whilst works are carried out in this area and if any evidence of contamination is observed then a member of Blaby District Council be contacted.

Underground Storage Tanks

All the underground storage tanks should be properly decommissioned, the tank and any affected soils removed, and a validation report submitted to Blaby District Council including waste disposal documents and chemical testing of unaffected soils.

Flood Risk

The comments from the Environment Agency and Leicestershire County Council (see below) were noted and no additional issues were raised by Environmental Health. However the potential complications between groundwater contamination and the proposed surface water drainage was noted and that appropriate conditions are likely to be required in this regard.

Air Quality

Consideration has been given to the submitted Air Quality Assessment (project ref. 70008385 dated 21/5/2015) and the relevant sections of the Environmental Statement, particularly Chapter 8. Environmental Health are generally satisfied with the contents of both reports, and the conclusions reached (page 24 of the Air Quality Assessment). Appropriately worded conditions should be used in respect of the construction phase. In terms of the operational phase, there is a small mistake in paragraph 5.2.3 on page 20 of the Air Quality Assessment when compared to the values shown in Appendix G. The predicted increase at R1 is then accurately referred to in the following paragraph (5.2.3). The Environmental Statement Addendum (reference Q50444, dated April 2016) includes Chapter 4 relating to Air Quality. The conclusion of this chapter is that the findings of the original Environmental Statement remain valid. This appears to be reasonable given the revisions that have been made to the Proposed Development. In order to seek to monitor the actual impact of the Proposed Development, it would be appropriate to undertake monitoring of nitrogen dioxide using an appropriate method at one or more suitable locations. A suitable Air Quality Monitoring Station could be purchased and operated by Blaby District Council, along with its existing network. A sum of £25,000 should be sufficient to facilitate this and Environmental Health request that this is sought as a commuted sum. In order to accurately monitor the impact of the Proposed Development, monitoring should commence as soon as possible should planning permission be granted. Environmental Health request that this is taken into account when determining the timetable for payments to be made. An invoice has been provided to establish the requested contribution amount.

Construction Management

The control of environmental effects from the construction phase is normally separate from a remediation scheme (this is for land contamination). The Environmental Statement, section 6.8 refers to a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Paragraph 6.16 states that the CEMP, including the elements stated, will be submitted to Blaby District Council for approval at least 3 months prior to commencement of the demolition/construction. This should form the basis for a suitable condition.

Lighting

Limited details of the proposed lighting scheme have been supplied with the Application. It has been agreed that a condition requiring the submission, approval and subsequent delivery of a lighting scheme prior to first occupation is considered appropriate in this regard.

It is considered that the details to be provided include isopleths in lux to show the distribution of light from the columns and luminaires, with a view to avoiding light spillage outside the development boundary. The details should demonstrate compliance with relevant provisions of the “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light” GN01:2011 (Institution of Lighting Professionals).

Blaby Parish Council

Blaby Parish Council initially responded on 25 June 2015 stating that they had no comments to make in relation to the Application. However a letter was subsequently provided by Blaby Parish Council from a company called Node Urban Design Ltd dated 28 January 2016. This letter was a fee proposal to Blaby Parish Council for the preparation of a town centre masterplan for Blaby. The fee estimate is in the sum of £60,000.00 and this amount was requested by way of Section 106 contribution.

Blaby Parish Council responded to the consultation in relation to the revised proposal by email dated 13 May 2016 attaching a letter of the same date. The letter noted that the draft Section 106 Heads of Terms made no reference to any remedial monies for Blaby. Further that the revised retail assessment does not adequately assess or mitigate the impact of the proposal on Blaby Town Centre. Blaby Parish Council is of the opinion that mitigation measures are required by way of developer contributions.

Blaby Parish Council requested that consideration be given to the following:

 Provision of monies for a reworking of the Blaby Masterplan to assist in regeneration of the Blaby Town Centre, estimated at £60,000. In addition contributions from the Applicant to ensure adequate economic development assistance to seek partners to implement the Masterplan.

 Provision of monies to offset proposed increases in car parking charges in Blaby which in view of the expanded free parking at Castle Acres will disadvantage Blaby more significantly.

 Provision of frequent bus links between Blaby and Fosse Park to promote a two centre experience. In addition, walking and cycling links between Blaby and Fosse Park. This is to ensure that the proposal is compliant with the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the NPPF.

 Highways/junction improvements to overcome the impacts of increased traffic congestion on the main routes to Blaby, namely;

o Soar Valley Way o Lutterworth Road o B582 Enderby Road.

Braunstone Parish Council

Similar comments have been made in relation to both the original proposal and the revised proposal. It is noted that retail impact assessments should be provided for all retail and leisure developments over 2,500m2 of gross floorspace, and states that the Local Plan Policy S12 requires that no individual shop unit should have a floorspace of less than 929 sq. m.

It goes on to say that Policy CS13 requires improvements to the wider transport network resulting from the Proposed Development and requests that mechanisms must be introduced to support the delivery of mitigation measures (both traffic and air pollution) through developer contributions. Any planning consent should be conditional on the Applicant providing funding for appropriate mitigation measures including:

 Mitigation measures on the wider highway network in the Junction 21 area  Green Travel Plan/Supporting Public Transport in improved links to Braunstone Town  Section 106 agreement including the purchase, installation, operation and maintenance of permanent air quality monitoring equipment to help assess the impact of the development on local Air Quality Management Areas.

In relation to the original proposal the Braunstone Parish Council also stated that the layout of the site needs amendment to lengthen the northern entrance road from Soar Valley Way into the car park, to avoid traffic queuing from the car park onto Soar Valley Way and onto the Narborough Road South Roundabout. This comment was not included in the representations in relation to the revised proposal.

Enderby Parish Council

No objection to the proposal.

Environment Agency

The Environment Agency objected to the original proposal on the basis of there being no evidence of the flood risk Sequential Test having been applied. The Environment Agency stated that the Application Site lies within Flood Zone 2 defined by the Environment Agency Flood Map/Strategic Flood Risk Assessment as having a medium probability of flooding. The Environment Agency referred to paragraph 101 of the NPPF.

The Environment Agency provided further comments in relation to the revised proposal, as follows:

Flood Risk

The Environment Agency has no objection to the Proposed Development provided that Blaby District Council deem that the Application Site has passed the Sequential Test. The Environment Agency commented that only the access ramp is within Flood Zone 2 and that none of the Application Site is within Flood Zone 3. In flood risk vulnerability terms the Proposed Development is no more vulnerable than the existing development and the Environment Agency therefore has no objection to the Application provided that the Sequential Test is deemed to have been passed.

Groundwater and Contaminated Land

Comments were made solely in relation to controlled waters, the River Soar being approximately 400m to the east of the Application Site, and the Application Site lying on a superficial alluvium and glacio-fluvial deposits.

The Environment Agency noted that a site investigation was undertaken in December 2014 and that whilst no significant contamination was identified in the majority of 16 soil samples analysed, there are some marginally elevated poly- aromatic hydrocarbons present in one of the samples in the made ground.

The Environment Agency also noted that elevated phenol was identified in four of the five groundwater samples obtained as part of the site investigation. The Environment Agency also comment that the method used to analyse for phenols shown on laboratory certificates provided is not accredited. Any future analysis for phenols should be accredited.

The report states that no phenol sources have been identified on the Application Site. Consideration should be given to whether any phenols have been used in disinfectant that may have been used as part of the brewery.

The report suggests that phenol contamination is likely to be subject to dilution and natural attenuation and is unlikely to have a discernible impact on the River Soar. This conclusion should be supported and demonstrated by a Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment.

The Environment Agency agree with the recommendation for further assessment of the areas around the existing structures on the Application Site that it was not practical to investigate. This should consist of intrusive site investigation in these areas. The Environment Agency strongly recommend that a Remediation Strategy is developed to remove the underground storage tanks on the Application Site and associated validation sampling to demonstrate that there is no contamination in these areas.

Planning permission can be granted for the Proposed Development provided that proposed conditions are included. The proposed conditions are included in the draft conditions set out in this report. The Environment Agency would object to the proposal in the absence of these conditions.

Fire and Rescue

Leicestershire Fire and Rescue have been consulted in relation to the Application twice. No comments have been received.

Glen Parva Parish Council

The following observations were made in relation to the original proposal;

 Serious implications for light pollution.  Need trees and hedgerows to be retained.  Lack of public transport provision for residents across Blaby District and Glen Parva to access Fosse Park.  The need for sufficient bicycle parking provision.  Concerns about reduced access to the site which will create additional traffic congestion.

One further observation was made in relation to the revised proposal:

 The road approaching the site should have multiple lanes in order to allow for two way traffic (four lanes) in order to ease congestion and help the flow of traffic.

Harborough District Council

Harborough District Council have been twice been consulted in relation to the Application. No comments have been received.

Highways England (Formerly Highways Agency)

Highways England originally objected to the Application on the basis of insufficient information having been provided in support of the Application to assess the impacts of the Proposed Development on the strategic road network. Highways England have been part of ongoing discussions relating to the issue of transport and highways impacts and now offer no objection to the Application. The impact on the strategic road network is considered unlikely to be significant.

Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council

No comments were provided in relation to the original proposal, and it was confirmed in relation to the revised proposal that Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council has no comments to make.

Leicester City Council Planning and Highways

Full copies of Leicester City Council’s consultation responses are appended to this report. The section below summarises the three letters which set out Leicester City Council’s position.

Retail Impact

Whilst Leicester City Council recognised that the amendments to the Proposed Development which included the removal of the smaller units was a significant and positive step forward, Leicester City Council expressed a number of concerns over the current scheme.

Leicester City Council considered that the Application Site’s location outside of the identified MRA boundary and its designation as a Primary Employment Area cause the proposal to conflict with 1999 Local Plan Policies as they do not support retail development of the scale proposed in the identified location. It was acknowledged that the Policy context may not be sufficient to make the Proposed Development unacceptable in its own right but the argument is made that, when combined with the additional perceived negative retail and highways impacts on the Leicester City Centre, particularly with regard to the retail impact, make the Proposed Development unacceptable in planning terms.

Leicester City Council expressed the view that the Application is premature in respect of the emerging Leicester City Local Plan which will address the requirements set out in the adopted Joint Retail Study and is an important factor in the determination of the Application. The Joint Retail Study sets out the capacity for new comparison and convenience floorspace in both local authority areas with a view to planning positively through the local plan process to address the identified need. Whilst it was recognised that there are no available sequentially preferable sites within or adjoining the Leicester City Centre, there was a view that level of retail impact that is predicted on the Leicester City Centre needs to be carefully considered.

The need to satisfy NPPF paragraph 24 requirements for a sequential test was considered important as the test seeks to ensure that the impact of a retail development on all centres within a given catchment area are fully and robustly considered. Leicester City Council expressed concern that the size and location of the Proposed Development will impact on the future development of Leicester City Centre as well as a number of local centres (Aylestone Village and Narborough Road) within the locality of the Application Site.

The requested contribution to offset the impact on the two closest local centres of Aylestone Village and Narborough Road is justified by Leicester City Council on the basis of the exacerbation of traffic and environmental impacts to which the local centres are already seen to be vulnerable. It is considered that the Proposed Development will worsen these conditions in a manner which will threaten their ongoing vitality and viability through drawing away custom and increased traffic and pollution levels as a result of increased vehicular movements to and from the Proposed Development. It is considered that these impacts will make the areas a less attractive place to shop. Leicester City Council suggested that this conclusion is supported by the Joint Retail Study which identifies the effect that traffic has on the environmental quality of Aylestone Village local centre as a weakness, and that some of the areas of the centre have poor aesthetic quality.

Leicester City Council also considered that the impact test should be applied to the Proposed Development and that multiple plausible scenarios should be tested (not just a single impact (referred to a solus impact in the technical discussions)) and include a cumulative impact assessment. It considers that the prevailing economic outlook, particularly that of high street retail, the future of the identified centres, including the Leicester City Centre, is more fragile than at the time the retail strategy concluded in 2015 and this needs to be robustly examined.

Concerns were also raised in respect of the scale of the perceived impacts set out in the Applicant’s retail impact assessment which suggests a solus sensitivity impact on Leicester City Centre of 7.5% at 2020 and a cumulative sensitivity impact of 11.1%. Leicester City Council considers that this projected level of impact on Leicester City Centre’s performance and investment (including more marginal shopping areas with high vacancy and turnover rates) can be considered significant. It concludes that the Proposed Development would have an unduly detrimental impact on the Leicester City Centre unless a substantive package of mitigation measures is put in place to help Leicester City Centre and the closest local centres respond to the anticipated level of retail impact caused by the trade draw from the Proposed Development.

A package of mitigation measures in the form of obligations (conditions, controls and financial contributions) has been put forward by Leicester City Council on the basis that they could, if accepted, potentially offset the retail impacts of the Proposed Development to a degree that could be considered acceptable. It is also made clear that, if Blaby District Council is not minded to support and secure the suggested obligations, then Leicester City Council’s consultation response should be registered as a formal objection.

Leicester City Council’s initial consultation responses set out a request of £5 million pounds, (based on comparable cost estimates from recent schemes) towards addressing the impact of the Proposed Development. The contribution would be put towards:

 measures to address the impact evidenced upon Leicester City Centre, including contributions to fund public realm, signage, premises and gateway improvements or other activities to enhance the local connectivity of marginal streets in the city centre with better performing areas, to improve their vitality and viability through increased footfall and enhanced shopper experience

 measures to address the environmental impacts of traffic and to improve the vitality and viability of Aylestone Village and Narborough Road local centres including public realm, signage, premises and gateway improvements to sustain and increase footfall and provide an enhanced shopper experience

A second financial contribution of £180,000 was requested. This would be put towards the funding of an employment and skills co-ordinator for 3 years.

Finally it proposed the concept of a keep open clause to be applied to any prospective tenant that is represented in the Leicester City Centre.

A final submission from Leicester City Council dated 14th September 2016 reiterated concern over the scale of the sensitivity retail impact, considered a response from the Applicant, and reconsidered the £5 million original request. The consultation response sets out more detailed evidence to support a request for a financial contribution to reduce the scale of the retail impact overall. It looks at the following areas:

Vacancy Rates

Data from the PROMIS Retail Report, which examines a tighter retail boundary than the Goad data used by Blaby District Council’s retail consultants in its retail appraisal, show that vacancies have increased from 13.8% in 2013 to 14.7% in 2015. This is a trend which is also recognised in the retail appraisal using the Goad data. Leicester City Council considers that the vacancy levels, which are higher than the national average, highlight the challenges the Leicester City Centre is facing. Whilst it is acknowledged that this has been a trend faced by many centres since 2008 it is considered that this has happened despite considerable investment in Leicester City Centre and it shows that the Leicester City Centre is sensitive to change. It considers that the increase in retailers, food outlets, free parking and longer hours proposed by the Application will detract trade from the Leicester City Centre.

Comparison Goods Levels

The evidence provided by the Applicant showing that the comparison goods offer within the Leicester City Centre has increased by 1 unit (302sqm) is not considered significant by Leicester City Council. Leicester City Council is of the view that the level of comparison goods within the Leicester City Centre is currently relatively stable and the Proposed Development will impact on this. It is stated later in the response that the comparison goods level is considered to have remained static following the closure of the BHS store.

Impact on Investment

The response points out that recent discussions over the 2014 consent for the Vaughan Way development suggest that a much reduced retail element focussing on convenience use will be coming forward.

Evidence of the impact of recent investment in Leicester City Centre

The above 3 points were raised to help understand the potential impacts and vulnerability of the Leicester City Centre when considering the impact of the Proposed Development. In assessing this it has been recognised that the Leicester City Centre has experienced 3 unprecedented years where it has not been out of the international spotlight as a result of the King Richard III Story, the 2015 Rugby World Cup and the Leicester City Football Club’s Premiership win. The PROMIS Report attributes a 3% increase in visitors to the Leicester City Centre since the King Richard Story in 2012.

The response identifies areas where further investment and/or intervention would help address current weakness. These areas include the Church Gate/Belgrave Gate area, Market Street, Gallowtree Gate and Granby Street.

In conclusion to the section of the response relating to the need for a contribution to help the Leicester City Centre enhance its attractiveness and reduce the retail impact of the Proposed Development Leicester City Council states:

“The Council is promoting initiatives to improve primary and secondary parts of the city centre by way of public realm works, shop frontage improvements, signage enhancements etc. In areas where investment has been made, new occupiers have been attracted and vacancy levels, tenant churn and quality of representation have improved. This is evident in the area around St Martin’s and Hotel Street where 8 vacant units have been let (which include Delilah’s, Middletons and 45 Degree West) following investment in the Cathedral Quarter and the public realm. It is expected that the £2.5m contribution will help the City council to secure similar results elsewhere in the city centre.

The intention is to enhance vulnerable secondary retail areas so they can attract a wider variety of operators and support independent retailers which are typically more vulnerable than national operators. Initiatives can better integrate the secondary and primary shopping areas through measures e.g. improved directional signage, paving lighting, shop frontages and pedestrianised areas.

These in turn can enhance integration across the city centre during the daytime and evening economies with increased footfall between different parts of the centre. Outcomes achieved will be fewer vacancies, improved quality of retail offer and less churn in terms of tenancies.

There is concern that the proposed Castle Acres scheme will impact on such initiatives with its enhanced offer. Whilst the proposal is retail led, new food and beverage units are proposed too. These provide the opportunity, which is currently limited at Fosse Park, for customer dwell time to increase within the retail park due to an increase in choice.”

Other Issues

Whilst Leicester City Council recognises that the failure of the BHS, Austin Reed and Morrison’s My Local may be a result of national performance it points out that this has implications for the Leicester City Centre. BHS is given as an example as it leaves 2,880 sq. m of vacant floor space (not including upper floors) on a prominent plot and it will not be an easy unit to re-occupy. The nature of the Proposed Development with free parking and later opening hours etc. will be attractive to retailers and will make it hard to achieve this.

Whilst Leicester City Centre currently trades well alongside Fosse Park the Proposed Development presents a very significant extension which will make it a much more attractive destination with greater choice, dwell times and free car parking. As the choice improves at Fosse Park, the City Centre is at real risk of losing retailers as a result of a shift in shopping patterns of existing customers from the city centre leading to a drop in footfall. The City Council is therefore of the opinion that it is important that mitigation measures of the right scale are agreed to respond to and minimise the impact on the centre.

Scale of contribution sought / proposed areas for investment

Leicester City Council state:

“The starting point for the areas of focus for mitigation are the primary and secondary retail frontages as recommended in the Joint Retail Study. Excluding the main shopping centres and arcades which are privately owned, the total area of public realm/highway in these areas equates to around 97,255sqm. (30,005 sqm of primary and 67,250 sqm secondary frontages – see Plan attached as Appendix B).

Based upon a Solus impact of 7.5% it is considered appropriate to consider a comparable and proportionate scale of investment in the retail core where demonstrably, mitigation through enhancement is required to address the impact that Castle Acres will have on the city centre.

The Council considers that sufficient funding should be provided to allow an upgrade of an area of around 7,000 sqm of the retail streets (This represents circa 7% of the total area of 97,000 sqm of public realm identified on the frontages plan attached). At a rate of £350 per sqm, considered to be a standard of enhancement necessary to achieve the required level of mitigation, this would equate to a financial contribution of £2.5m.

In order to ensure CIL Regulation compliance, the whole central retail area has been reviewed and specific areas assessed in terms of vulnerability to the evidenced retail impacts presented by the proposal. This is to ensure a direct linkage can be made between addressing the impacts from Castle Acres and the proposed mitigation focused on these areas.

This reflects the potential for the Castle Acres scheme to divert trade and expenditure away from the less well performing parts of the city centre primary and secondary streets through the increased floorspace, diversified retail offering and projected increases in shopper dwell time at the expanded Fosse Park.

The assessment was based upon the following factors: - Clusters of vacant units - Locations underperforming and vulnerable in retail terms ie quality of tenants/uses - Quality of the existing environment and public realm (ie potential for enhancement) - Locations considered to be best placed to benefit from increased investment confidence through improved and upgraded links into better performing areas of the City centre in terms of retail trading and pedestrian flows

The following table shows the resulting prioritised areas which will form the draft programme of schemes for inclusion in the s106 agreement totalling £2.5m. In terms of CIL Regulations we consider at this level the mitigation proposed would be proportionate and reasonably related to the development and would address vacancy rates, the quality of the environment and improve business confidence and attractiveness from a retail perspective, not only of the areas concerned but also across the wider city centre.

As the priority schemes will require statutory procedures and consultation to progress to implementation, which may lead to amendments in terms of design treatment, scope or extent, the City Council considers that a clause allowing potential substitution of the areas proposed to be treated be drawn from the reserve priority scheme category shown below would need to be incorporated in the proposed s.106 agreement.”

Priority schemes

Location Area Factors for Potential Contribution Prioritisation Measures Churchgate 2,600 sqm Vacancy Pedestrianisati £0.9m rates, on and paving adjacency to upgrade, Highcross, signage and potential to environment link upgrade Haymarket shopping centre and bus station and Highcross. Poor quality of current environment and tenancies

Belgrave 4,500 sqm Vacant sites Pedestrianisati £1.6m Gate/Haymark and units. on and paving et Adjacency to upgrade, Highcross, signage and potential to environment link upgrade Haymarket shopping centre and Bus Station and Highcross areas. Poor quality of current environment and tenancies. Total £2.5m

Reserve priority scheme options should consultations/statutory procedures require amendment or deletion of the above priority schemes.

Horsefair 4,525 sqm Vacancy Public realm £1.6m Street rates, close upgrade and to recently signage vacated BHS store, key linking route between retail core and the increased activity and footfall in Richard III and Cathedral area. Poor quality of current public realm

Pocklington’s 2,500 sqm Vacancy Public realm £0.9m Walk rates, key upgrade and linking route signage between Belvoir Street/ New Walk area with the increased activity and footfall in Richard III and Cathedral area

Charles 9,900 sqm Vacancy Pedestrian £3.5m Street area rates, priority connecting upgrade retail and work, public cultural realm quarter improvement attractions s and signage

Other contributions requested

Planning Obligation 2: Aylestone Village and Narborough Road Local Centres

These local centres are identified as being already vulnerable to traffic and environmental impacts and it is considered that the Proposal Development will exacerbate these conditions in a manner which will threaten their ongoing viability through drawing away custom, and increased traffic and pollution levels as a result of increased traffic accessing the Proposed Development; this increase in traffic will make the areas a less attractive place to shop visibly and in amenity terms and a case is therefore presented for mitigation measures to be put in place to safeguard their future vitality.

A financial contribution is required to provide measures to mitigate retail impacts of lost footfall and investment concerns due to the worsened environmental impacts of traffic and to improve the vitality and viability of Aylestone Village local and Narborough Road District centre.

Cost: The requested contribution is based on similar projects undertaken elsewhere in the City that have addressed the environmental quality of the shopping centre. An example is Belgrave Road District shopping centre which received £250,000 of funding. The main focus of the funding was to concentrate activities in the area to show the greatest visual impact, and funded:

 Shopfront/upper floor improvements  Environmental improvements (bollards, street furniture, banners, trees, shrubs, lighting, graffiti removal, etc)  Addressing vacant shops

Based upon the comparable size and scale of the two centres involved, the overall contribution to Aylestone village local centre and Narborough Road District Centre Improvements which is considered justifiable is £250,000 in total.

Planning Obligation 3: Employment and Skills

The Employment & Skills element will maximise employment opportunities, linked to the Proposed Development, for local people in the most deprived wards within the City/adjacent areas and in particular those nearest to the Application Site.

A dedicated support officer post will be put into place to work with the developers, contractors and retail operators to develop a local Employment & Skills Plan intended to support people into new employment and training opportunities. This will form a key project linked to Leicester City Council’s Constructing Leicester project which has delivered similar objectives on major development schemes. The project will involve appropriate targeted training, employment advice and programmes for individuals to secure employment opportunities connected with the Proposed Development.

An Employment & Skills plan will be initially agreed between Leicester City Council and the Applicants. Following this agreement, the officer will help to oversee activity both through the construction phase but also with the end users of the Proposed Development.

This will enable:

 Co-ordinated engagement activities with employers, at both the strategic and operational levels, to address their labour needs;  Address the supply side barriers that prevent residents in disadvantaged areas from seeking, competing for, and obtaining employment;  Bring job opportunities into disadvantaged communities by providing a comprehensive multi-agency service to address barriers to work amongst those groups that are furthest from the labour market;  Ensure that residents obtain sustainable employment and are able to progress within the work-place by providing in-work support to employers and workers, and by ensuring that best employment practices are shared.

Cost: Cost for officer over 3 years is £50,000p.a = £150k plus £30k operating budget to deal with one off set up, training and promotional activity.

Planning Obligation 4

In respect of Units 1 and 2 Leicester City Council requires ‘keep open’ clauses to be applied in respect of any prospective tenant that is represented in Leicester City Centre.

Highways Impact (Leicester City Highways Authority)

In its second response dated the 4 August 2016 the City Highways Authority confirmed that it has been liaising with the County Highways Authority over shared matters. It confirmed that the County Highways Authority as lead Highway Authority will be responding to issues relating to the trade draw, car parking provision, Paramics modelling report (a traffic simulation model more fully explained within Leicestershire County Council Highway response) and the SCOOT/MOVA contribution (which is an adaptive system for managing and controlling a group of traffic systems). The response also confirmed agreement to the principle of conditions securing a SCOOT/MOVA system, and the principle of conditions requiring a reviewed travel plan, a travel plan co-ordinator and a bus strategy to be removed and these elements being secured through a Section 106 obligation.

Further comments were made in respect of the bus strategy:

The Applicants are required to submit a fully costed bus strategy. Where this proposes additional services this should include commitment from bus operators and projected patronage income to demonstrate that improvements to services could become commercial after the agreed period of funding. The wording for the flexi- tickets needs to be amended to refer to the 'Flexi-ticket boundary' rather than 'no greater than 10 miles'. The description of the bus strategy is currently too narrow and needs to refer to the provision of services on Sundays and Bank Holidays, and to the improvements becoming commercial by the end of the subsidised period.

No further comments were added in respect to car parking provision and the retention of the link.

In the initial consultation response Leicester City Council confirmed agreement with the general methodology which underpinned the final Transport Assessment as amended:

 The trip generation methodology – Scenario 2  The identified peak periods  The 45% trade draw figure  The 35% pass by/diverted  The peak periods assessed

Traffic Impact

Leicester City Council made reference to the fact that whilst the highways network immediately surrounding the Application Site is the responsibility of the County Highways Authority, the first major junction east of the Application Site is the A563 Soar Valley Way/A426 Lutterworth Road and is within the City Highways Authority network. A LINSIG assessment (the industry standard for modelling traffic signal junctions) presented by the Applicants showed that this junction would be operating over capacity on the Friday 2026 PM Peak of 29.4% and this would rise to 30.9% over capacity as a result of the Proposed Development. Leicester City Council acknowledged that whilst it was concerned over the pressure put on the junction by development traffic it acknowledged that the results of the LINSIG model indicates that this would not be at a level which can be considered significantly adverse.

The Paramics model commissioned by the County Highways Authority also shows an increase in weekday flows at the A426/A563 Leicester City Junction of 2.5% as a result of additional development traffic. This figure would be expected to rise if the model included weekend peak retail times as observed traffic flows through the junction are higher on a Saturday than during the Friday PM peak and the development trip generation is higher. The City Highways Authority is concerned that the predicted increase in traffic flows will have a detrimental effect on queue lengths, journey time and air quality around the junction.

It is noted that the Paramics model suggests that the contribution towards a SCOOT/MOVA system as proposed in the Applicant’s Transport Assessment would be an appropriate form of mitigation as it would maximise signal timings to deal with the fluctuations in vehicle flows at the junctions. Such a scheme, to be secured through a condition or legal agreement, should be agreed with the City and County Highways Authorities.

The potential for the proposed scheme to offer employment, leisure and shopping opportunities for residents in Leicester City (particularly in the south west part) was recognised. It was considered imperative that the sustainable travel choices such as walking cycling and public transport are facilitated through a travel plan on the basis that Leicester’s strategic road network is operating at capacity in this area and Leicester’s Air Quality Management Area is centred on Leicester City Centre and major arterial routes such as the A426 running adjacent to the Application Site.

Leicester City Council also considered that;

The accepted Travel Plan was continually reviewed with liaison with both the County and City Highways Authorities and that the appointed Travel Plan Co-ordinator (a post to be secured through a Section 106 obligation) works closely with Leicester City Council’s Travel Plans officer to maximise sustainable travel opportunities to and from Leicester City and adjacent areas.

That the City and County Highways Authorities along with Blaby District Council and the Applicant should discuss the development of a Public Transport Strategy which would explore options with bus operators for service enhancements including increasing the limited provision to the Proposed Development after 7:00pm.

The Applicant’s suggested initiatives for the Travel Plan Co-ordinator which include discussing the possibility of sending discount leaflets and providing free taster tickets is insufficient. It suggests that incentives for employees should include the provision of One Card Flexi Tickets pre-loaded with a minimum of 4 weekly bus tickets per new staff member. It should be possible for these tickets to be used on multiple operators and support staff that would travel in further from the Application Site and need to change services during their journey.

The proposal to widen the footway fronting the Application Site to provide for pedestrian and cycle use is welcomed but City Highways Authority considers further promotion of walking and cycling is necessary. This should be implemented through the Travel Plan.

The City Highways Authority did not raise any objections subject to securing the requested planning conditions and contributions relating to the provision of the SCOOT/MOVA system and the package of sustainable transport measures.

No further comments were added in respect to car parking provision and the retention of the link between the Application Site and Fosse Park.

Leicestershire County Council Arborist

Concern was raised with regard to the initial landscaping scheme that there was inadequate new tree planting. In addition the County Arborist also raised concerns over the method of tree planting noting that in relation to the existing Fosse Park no underground provision was made for root development resulting in trees being stunted or dying. A mature tree requires 15m3 of rooting volume.

“Construction methods exist to accommodate rooting requirements which should be designed in from the outset and constructed for each tree position as part of the setting out works of the car park before surfacing proceeds. Presumably some form of porous surfacing would be desirable.”

These design requirements should be made a condition of any consent, and details of appropriate systems were provided by the County Arborist.

Following detailed discussions with the Applicant the landscaping scheme was amended to include additional parking and tree pits with 10m3 rooting volume which was considered appropriate by the County Arborist.

Leicestershire County Council Archaeology

The County Archaeologist considers it unlikely that the Proposed Development will impact on significant archaeological remains. They are satisfied that no further archaeological investigation is necessary in relation to the Proposed Development.

The issue of archaeology has been the subject of dialogue between the Applicant and the County Archaeologist and is considered further in the discussion below.

Leicestershire County Council Ecologist

The County Ecologist considered that the ecology report was satisfactory and no habitats or species of importance were found. There is no need for further survey or specific ecological mitigation. In relation to the revised proposal the County Ecologist confirmed that they have no comments or objections.

Leicestershire County Council Highways Department

Full copies of Leicestershire County Council’s responses are appended to this report.

Leicestershire County Council’s responses have considered all of the highways submissions to date and concluded that:

The trade draw figure of 45% adopted in the Transport Assessment is robust. It was accepted on the grounds of the supporting information which underpinned the figure which included surveys of the existing Fosse Park site. The term ‘trade draw’ means the trade draw from the existing Fosse Park and represents the level of linked and transferred trips – i.e. those assumed to be an extension of trips from Fosse Park or a transfer of trips from Fosse Park rather than brand new trips on the network.

Consideration was also given to the sensitivity tested figure used in the Retail Assessment (35.8%) to ensure that both the transport study and retail study do not conflict with each other. It was found that the sensitivity tested figure would result in approximately 100 additional trips during both the Friday and the Saturday peak periods which was not considered a significant rise.

In establishing the trade draw figure the lower trip generating characteristics of the mezzanine floors space was accepted and a figure of one third was applied in accordance with industry standard.

The trade draw figure is significant in the Transport Assessment as it is used to calculate one of the trip types which make up the full trip generation predicted for the Proposed Development. The three trip types are:

- Pass-by/Diverted Trips: Trips which are currently on the network within the study area which do not currently visit the Application Site, but will do so (en- route) as a result of the Proposed Development

- Linked/Transferred Trips: Trips which are currently on the network (visiting Fosse Park) and which, as a result of the Proposed Development, will either extend their trip into the Proposed Development, or choose to visit the Proposed Development instead of Fosse Park. As a result of the proximity between the Application Site and the Fosse Park site and the proposals for the pedestrian link, this is considered to be the trade draw from the existing Fosse Park site and it has been assumed that these trips will not create any new movements in the study area.

- New Trips: Trips which are currently not on the network within the study area and which will be brand new trips into the study area as a result of the Proposed Development.

It has been assumed, in line with industry standard levels, that pass-by/diverted trips represent approximately 35% of all trips. The remaining 65% is split between linked trips and new trips.

Leicestershire County Council accepted that the 45% trade draw figure set out in the Applicant’s Transport Assessment was robust and the figures established were:

 45% Trade Draw  20% New Trips  35% Pass-by / Diverted.

In response to a disagreement between Leicestershire County Council and the Applicant’s transport consultant in respect of signal timings, queue lengths and operation at key junctions Leicestershire County Council undertook its own Paramics model, which is a computerised simulation that predicts the effect of new development on transport infrastructure. It models the behaviour of individual vehicles on the highway network and the interaction between them. The model offers a more dynamic approach to predicting the impacts than the Applicant’s manual approach to assigning the Proposed Development traffic on the network, which was considered to be incorrect.

The model has indicated that changes to signal timings can reduce the level of queuing around some of the main junctions in the network. This has led to the Applicant and Leicestershire County Council working together to refine the Paramics model and investigate the practicalities of a SCOOT/MOVA scheme. Leicestershire County Council considers that the installation of such a scheme would be necessary to offset the highways impact of the Proposed Development and it forms one of their requested planning obligations. A contribution of £1.5 million is sought for these improvements.

The principle of the site access was considered acceptable although further technical amendments are required before the Proposed Development can be formally approved. This work includes the location of street furniture, the length of storage lanes, lane widths and lane designation. This can be controlled via a planning condition.

The car parking levels, calculated in accordance with the 6Cs Design Guide, give a maximum provision, without any factoring for trade draw, of 1,416 spaces. The current proposed level of parking is 881 spaces. When factoring in the trade draw assumption of 45% the parking requirement reduces to 779 spaces and if a sensitivity trade draw figure is assessed the requirement reduces to 909 spaces which shows a marginal overflow (30 spaces). The level of parking within the Proposed Development is therefore considered acceptable particularly when taking into account the over-provision in the existing Fosse Park which could be utilised if the overflow was necessary. It has been made clear that in accepting the overflow argument Leicestershire County Council has assumed that the two sites would be run together and the pedestrian link would be provided. If access between the two sites was ever hindered the Applicant would be expected to provide sufficient car parking to accommodate the Proposed Development. This would be aided by the use of variable message signs which would help with the movement of vehicles by directing drivers to areas where there are spaces. These are to be secured via planning condition.

Leicestershire County Council also considers that contributions towards an enhancement of the public transport opportunities around the Application Site are necessary to offset the impact of the Proposed Development (a Sustainable Travel Strategy). It considers that there is a need to provide an ongoing review of the Travel Plan to ensure that its effectiveness is maximised and it can take account of any changes in circumstances or new sustainable travel options which may become available. The monitoring and review of the Travel Plan would be supported by an appointment of a Travel Plan co-ordinator for 5 years who will also be responsible for overseeing a bus strategy for the same period. The bus strategy itself would consider the routes which are available (and their destination), routes/improvements being proposed by the Applicant (and their destinations), the frequency of services, hours of operation and the upgrading of infrastructure such a bus stops/shelters and real time displays.

Leicestershire County Council considers that a contribution of £1 million is required to implement the Sustainable Travel Strategy which would be secured by Section 106 obligation. The strategy should maximise the opportunities for travel by sustainable modes to Fosse Park for employees and customers, and include the following:

- An updated Travel Plan to address the travel implications of the use of the Application Site and the Fosse Park site, to reduce the single occupancy vehicle use, increase the use of alternative transport modes including buses, cycling and walking and to manage the demand for parking within and in the vicinity of the Application Site and Fosse Park site. Such measures to consider the opportunities to improve sustainable travel opportunities and be linked to the measures identified below. - Appointment of a Framework Travel Plan Co-ordinator from first occupation and for a minimum five year period who will ensure regular travel behaviour and impact monitoring surveys together with a review of the plan targets. - The provision of one travel pack per employee to be provided from first employment. - A flexi card ticket to cover an area no greater than the flexi-ticket boundary for each new employee for one month. - A STARS monitoring fee to enable Leicestershire County Council to provide support to the appointed Travel Plan Co-ordinator. - A bus strategy to consider the extension of existing services into the evening to help improve opportunities for employees to travel home from work by sustainable travel modes.

In summary, the Section 106 contributions proposed by Leicestershire City Council, which have been agreed by the Applicant, comprise £1.5 million towards the provision of a SCOOT/MOVA system and £1 million towards the implementation of the Sustainable Travel Strategy. Assessment of these proposed contributions with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (“the CIL Regulations”) will be covered later within this report.

Leicestershire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority (“LLFA”)

No objections subject to conditions controlling the provision of a surface water sustainable drainage scheme. The Applicant and the LLFA have engaged in dialogue as to the requirements of such a scheme.

The LLFA has also suggested a condition requiring that no trees are planted within 8m of the culverted watercourse due to the potential impact on flood risk. The condition requiring the submission and approval of a landscaping plan will require the culvert and planting to be included. This can then be assessed by the LLFA and amended, if necessary, before approval.

Leicestershire County Council Minerals and Waste

No objection to the proposed redevelopment on minerals safeguarding grounds.

Leicestershire County Council Planning Obligations

No obligations towards Library Services, Education or Civic Amenities have been requested on the grounds that the Proposed Development is not residential development. There is no requirement for a contribution towards landscaping/environmental improvements.

Planning obligations relating to highways are considered separately in this report.

Leicestershire County Council – Public Transport

Comments have been provided by Leicestershire County Council jointly with Leicester City Council in relation to public transport as follows:

Enderby Park and Ride – there is no opportunity to divert this service into the Application Site.

Bus Service Provisions within Fosse Park – there are no indications that any additional bus service infrastructure will be provided to promote the use of public transport by staff and customers. The bus stops on Fosse Park Avenue are too far away to be a viable alternative to anyone with access to a car and there are no new bus stops proposed either on Grove Way or Narborough Road South that offer convenient access between the Application Site and public transport facilities.

Road Network within Fosse Park – The Proposed Development will place additional demands on the internal road network in Fosse Park, and congestion within Fosse Park already impacts on the punctuality of Service 40. This is the only service to use Fosse Park South. Any increase in congestion makes continued use of Fosse Park South by buses questionable.

Bus Service Provision – Discussion has taken place about extending services 10 and 52 later into the evenings. However it is necessary to make bus services available to cover staff journeying on Sundays as well as during the evenings. Consideration should also be given to significantly improving public transport links between Fosse Park and South Leicester to provide additional employment opportunities for residents as well as encouraging use of public transport alternatives by shoppers.

Road Network outside Fosse Park – concern is raised that the additional traffic generated by the Proposed Development will impact on traffic flows on Soar Valley Way and Narborough Road South, and therefore the bus services that use those roads. Peak time congestion already affects Park and Ride services. Highway capacity improvements and/or bus priority measures may be required.

Coach Parking – Large retail outlets usually promote themselves to the group travel market and offer coach pick up/drop off and parking facilities. There is no mention in relation to the Proposed Development and this is a serious omission. Fosse Park is already used on an ad hoc basis by coach operators to the detriment of bus stops on Fosse Park Avenue.

Section 106 contributions should be considered as follows:

 Funding to enhance the evening and Sunday link to Braunstone using service 104.  Funding to improve service 40 between Fosse Park and Oadby by increasing the daytime frequency and extending the service into weekday evenings and Sunday daytime.  Provide a segregated bus facility into and within Fosse Park that links bus stops at Fosse Park Avenue and the Application Site enabling terminating and through services to serve both parts of the development, without being delayed by car traffic.  Appropriate bus shelters with real time information.  Coach parking and drop off facilities.

The Applicants have been in detailed discussions with Leicestershire County Council over the provision of a contribution towards a sustainable transport package which includes a bus strategy, the appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator and the provision of flexi tickets to employees. These will be secured in the Section 106 Agreement.

Leicestershire Police

Confirmation has been provided that Leicestershire Police will not be making any requests in relation to planning obligations against this application.

Narborough Parish Council

No objection has been raised in principle however significant concerns have been raised in relation to proposed traffic flows/management and the impact the Proposed Development will have on the existing peak time major congestion on Soar Valley Way and its back-up to Junction 21 of the M1.

The Narborough Parish Council also considers that a more imaginative landscaping scheme should be sought.

National Planning Casework Unit

No comments have been made by this consultee in relation to the original or revised proposal.

Natural England

No objection has been raised and no conditions are required.

Natural England (“NE”) noted that the Application Site is in close proximity to Narborough Bog Site of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSI”). NE is satisfied that the Proposed Development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the Application will not damage or destroy the interest features of that SSSI. The SSSI does not represent a constraint in terms of the Application.

The above comments were made in relation to the original proposal.

NE further commented in relation to the revised proposal and again raised no objection. NE assessed the proposal using the Impact Risk Zones data and is satisfied that the Proposal Development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the Application will not damage or destroy interest features in the SSSI.

NHS England

Make no comment with regard to this Application.

Oadby and Wigston Borough Council Planning

Oadby and Wigston Borough Council considered that there were no reasonably available sites in the Borough of that size that would be sequentially preferable.

Reference was made to the Oadby and Wigston Town Centres Area Action Plan which does contain proposals for regeneration and investment in Oadby and Wigston town centres. This is a relevant consideration although there are no specific proposals advanced to a stage that they would be prejudiced by the Proposed Development.

Severn Trent Water

No objection subject to a condition requiring the approval of a foul and surface water drainage scheme.

Third Party Representations

Objections:

Detailed responses/holding objections/objections have been received from and on behalf of the following stakeholders with interests in Leicester City Centre:

 Hammerson plc – owners of the High Cross Shopping Centre in Leicester City Centre

 Haymarket Property Limited – interests in the Haymarket Shopping Centre in Leicester City Centre

 Rockspring Property Investment Managers LLP – investment managers for Cheshire West and Chester Council who own retail property in Leicester City Centre

 Sowden Group – has a number of interests in Leicester City Centre

These objectors all raise similar issues and in particular in relation to the following matters:

 Employment  Retail  Highways

The representations are summarised below and full copies are appended to this report.

Employment

Objections have been raised on the basis that the proposed Application Site is an allocated employment site in the Blaby District Local Plan and that no evidence has been provided to justify the loss of employment land. The designation of the Application Site as a Primarily Employment Area remains relevant to the Application Site.

The Application Site lies within the “Golden Triangle”. It benefits from a choice of two excellent road links to Junction 21, which provides access to both the M1 and M69, and also to the east via the A563 which links the A6 with the A47.

There is a shortage of employment land supply in this location.

The Application Site remains exceptionally well suited for employment use due to its location, topography, size, road links and nature of surrounding uses which do not put any constraints on operating hours. It is capable of more intensive employment development than at present and the policy designation remains relevant and up to date.

The Application is contrary to the policies contained in the Core Strategy and the saved policies of the Local Plan. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan consists of the saved policies of the 1999 Local Plan and the Core Strategy. The development plan proposals map allocated the Application Site as a Primarily Employment Area to which Policy E1 applies. The Application Site is outside the MRA.

Policy E1 indicates that in these areas permission will only be granted for business, general industrial and storage/distribution uses. The written justification for policy E4 indicates Blaby District Council’s support of Structure Plan Policy 5 which stated that the change of use of existing or planned employment land or building to other use will not normally be permitted unless the change would not result in a shortage of employment land in the area; or the land/buildings were unfit for employment purposes; or the proposed use is complementary and ancillary to an employment use. Policy E4 needs to be read in this context.

Core Strategy Policy CS6 also seeks to protect key employment sites, the Application Site being one of these.

The Blaby District Employment Land and Premises Study identifies a requirement for additional employment land in Blaby District, including the need for a Strategic Employment Site. Land has been allocated for this purpose in Blaby but development has not yet come on stream and this does not overcome the immediate shortage.

The Application Site contributes towards the existing supply of employment land and remains ideally suited to employment use.

The Applicant’s assertion that planning permission has already been granted for re- location of the Everard’s brewery is not a material consideration, nor does it satisfactorily address Core Strategy Policy CS6.

The Applicant has not provided evidence that would demonstrate that the loss of the Everard’s brewery site from employment use would not result in under-provision of employment land at District/local level, and has not provided an independent assessment to indicate that the Application Site is no longer viable or attractive to the market for a range of employment purposes.

In the absence of evidence of demand for B1, B2, B8 and/or other employment uses, or evidence of an available supply of alternative sites to meet long term employment needs, the Application will remain contrary to Policy CS6 and paragraphs 21 and 22 of the NPPF.

Retail

Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy addresses retail matters. The MRA is defined as being out of centre. Blaby Town Centre is identified as the focus for new retail development where it would sustain or enhance its viability.

Within the MRA managed growth will be facilitated, however the Proposed Development is situated outside of the MRA. Managed growth applies to facilities within the MRA and is not intended to support the physical expansion of the MRA over adjacent sites. It seeks improvements such as architectural improvements and greater connectivity, which cannot be delivered by development of adjacent sites, and good integration with the existing facilities which also cannot be achieved on the Application Site.

A change in land use such as this and any plans to extend the use of the MRA boundary should be given due consideration through the development plan making process, not via a planning application. A development of this scale should be planned from a policy driven perspective taking account of the retail expenditure available over the short, medium and long term. Given the clear conflict with policy and potential impact the Proposed Development could have, the Application should not be determined until the evidence base that will inform the general direction of retail policy for both Leicester and Blaby Councils has been finalised. The NPPF is clear that authorities should first understand their needs. It cannot be correct to direct all, or a significant portion of all expenditure available to an out-of-centre location before an independent analysis of the suitability and availability of sites within locations higher in the defined retail hierarchy has been undertaken.

In accordance with the NPPF the Proposed Development is required to demonstrate compliance with the sequential and impact tests.

The scale of the Proposed Development will lead to Fosse Park becoming a regional centre for fashion shopping which will impact on the vitality and viability of Leicester City Centre, as well as the ambitions for Leicester City Centre outlined in the Mayor’s Leicester Economic Action Plan and the Connecting Leicester Strategy. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 7.13.11 to 7.13.14 of the Core Strategy which acknowledge the long-standing concerns previously identified in the East Midlands Regional Plan over expansion of a regional scale, out of town, retail park. The regional plan has been abolished but the town centres first approach remains pertinent to this Application.

There is already duplication between the retailers at Fosse Park and Leicester City Centre and there will be further occurrence of duplication.

The Applicant’s sequential test fails to meet the requirements of the NPPF. There is no independent assessment of Leicester City Centre or edge-of-centre sites and the Applicant has not demonstrated flexibility on scale and format. The Applicant’s response to the sequential test is based solely on commercial demand.

Leicester City Centre is particularly vulnerable as a result of significant levels of vacancy and lack of retail growth. It is important to protect the centre from further impact at this vulnerable time. It suggested that the Applicant has not considered existing yields or rental levels achieved when considering the health of Leicester City Centre. These indicators are said to be at odds with the strong sales densities applied by the Applicant in respect of Leicester City Centre.

Concerns are raised in relation to the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Development. It is suggested that the long term retail impact upon Leicester City Centre is underestimated. Whilst any initial impact will relate to the MRA as tenants occupying units within the MRA move to the Proposed Development, the vacant units within the MRA may then be re-occupied by fashion retailers. This will in turn significantly increase the impact upon Leicester City Centre which is the only other directly competing centre with Fosse Park. An estimate of an additional impact upon the Leicester City Centre of £21.7m is provided.

The objectors are critical of the sales density applied by the Applicant, arguing that the same benchmark sales densities for Leicester City Centre and MRA should not be used. Actual sales densities recently achieved should be used. The average sales density achieved at the MRA is significantly greater than that achieved in Leicester City Centre. To apply the same average sales density assumes a far greater turnover in Leicester City Centre than actually achieved. In addition the low sales density applied to the proposed floorspace is also questioned. The figure used by the Applicant is said to be below to benchmark used in relation to the MRA and Leicester City Centre. It is stated that the Applicant has grossly misled the Council with the figures provided that wholly underestimate the impact of the Proposed Development.

Finally the objectors raise concern at the flexible use proposed in relation to 13 of the units noting that the Application is presented as a retail fashion destination and not a wider town centre offer. A broader range of Class A3 uses has the potential to have far greater impact on Leicester City Centre.

Highways

Concerns are raised as to the impact upon both the local and strategic highway network.

The MRA attracts mainly car borne custom and contributes to the traffic problems within the vicinity of Junction 21. The Applicant has not prepared a full and robust assessment of M1 Junction 21 which is already heavily congested.

The comments of Highways England in relation to further assessment being required are noted.

The assumptions by the Applicant all have implications as to the reliability of the retail assessment, and it is suggested that the retail assessment should be reviewed once the highways assumptions have been settled.

Concern is also raised as to potential knock on effects on the operation of Junction 21 and that these have not been properly addressed. The area within which the Application Site is located is important to the continued prosperity of Leicester and in turn the health of Leicester City centre.

Coventry City Council

The objections are summarised below and full copies are appended to this report.

Coventry City Council states that it is not satisfied that the Applicant has fully assessed the impact of the Proposed Development on designated centres in Coventry. It notes the Arena Shopping Park on the northern edge of the authority’s boundary. Nor has impact been assessed against the wider Coventry City centre and the planned redevelopment project known as Coventry City Centre South.

Coventry City Council considers that the Coventry City shopping catchment extends to the North and East into neighbouring areas such as Nuneaton, Bedworth and Hinckley and Bosworth. The Proposed Development will be of some detriment to this catchment area. This is particularly so given the planned infrastructure investments in the M69 corridor as part of Midlands Connect. It is also concerned as to the negative impact on future schemes within Coventry, most notably the Coventry City Centre South regeneration scheme, which they state will see significant retail and leisure floorspace expansion in coming years. In its view there is insufficient evidence currently available to demonstrate that the Proposed Development will not undermine such a scheme.

In relation to the revised proposal Coventry City Council further stated that it is in the process of appointing development partners to deliver the City Centre South development, which is also an allocation in their emerging City Centre Area Action Plan and a key priority of that. It fully expects to see the delivery of the development within the next five years. The City Centre South development should be considered as part of the sequential assessment as being a reasonably available, viable and suitable alternative to the Proposed Development.

6 Letters of objection from local residents have been received raising the following concerns:

 No need for more shops  Fosse Park already generates enough traffic  Narborough Road is already/busy polluted enough  Reliable and regular low/no emission public transport should be required  Should be about providing further jobs not just allowing private firms to make further profit  Application Site should be turned into a green space or leisure facility  25 new shops will benefit few people  Need to consider wildlife  Fosse Park is already the right size  Should not be seeking to expand out of town shopping which increases car movements and fuels the neglect of town centres  Parking provision will be wholly inadequate – difficult to find spaces already particularly at peak times and this will cause traffic to back up.  Increased pollution  Prices of goods and services will rise  Construction traffic will double given existing construction in LFE  Original Next site will become a ghost area  A compensation package for Thorpe Astley should be provided

4 letters making comments have been received:

 Whilst the flow of traffic from Braunstone Town towards Fosse Park has been greatly improved by recent highways improvements there is always a problem a busy times due to lack of markings on island and cars blocking route. The proposal will make the problem worse. Can this be addressed?  There is a need to assess the impact of additional traffic on rat runs through from Braunstone Lane to the Kingsway and Narborough Road slip road to avoid back up of traffic. Traffic has increased significantly along the residential streets since the introduction of traffic lights.  Essential mature trees and vegetation are planted to create a pleasant green space not just a large car park  Electric scooters should still be allowed?

Support:

84 Letters of support have been received making the following comments:

 It will develop the area  It will create more job opportunities  It will bring more people to the area to support existing businesses  I would like to work there  Should have been carried out earlier  Parking should still be free  It will benefit the local community and economy  It will improve the existing site – useful regeneration  It will complement existing outlets  Fosse Park has become tired  Preferred to City Shopping  Less stressful venue than traveling into town with children  Support improvements to efficient but under used park and ride service  Should consider diagonal parking spaces as they are easier to use

Relevant History

The following history does not relate to the Application Site its self but to the adjacent MRA with particular reference to Fosse Park and provides a background to the growth of the adjacent retail area to which the Application will be linked.

There are no relevant applications relating to the Application Site itself.

ASDA

74/1152/1/P The first application for a superstore with associated car parking was submitted in 1974. Following the refusal of 2 applications planning permission was granted in December 1978. There are no conditions attached to the planning permission restricting the type of goods that can be sold. The store was completed in 1980 and planning permission was granted for a 2,206 sq. m extension in May 1987 (87/0145/1/PX).

Fosse Park

86/1429/1/OX An outline application for a retail park was submitted in October 1986 which was subsequently called in by the Secretary of State for the Environment. Planning permission for a retail park and garden centre was granted subject to conditions in 1988.

The conditions were:

1. Approval of details – siting, design, external materials and access 2. Submission of reserved matters application within 3 years 3. Commencement of development within 5 years of the application or two years from the date of the last reserved matters approval – whichever is the later. 4. Submission of landscaping scheme. 5. Submission and approval of access details, carpark details (for at least 1280 cars), drainage of an existing pond and culverting watercourses and managing underground springs. 6. Buildings not occupied until the internal access and internal roads provided. 7. Buildings not occupied until external highways alterations have been achieved. 8. Buildings not occupied until internal road drainage provided. 9. No outside storage of waste materials. 10. Bunding and drainage around any oil installation. 11. Only uncontaminated water to be discharged into any water course 12. Any development below 60.78 AOD within the washlands area shall be limited to car parking. 13. No raising of ground levels within washland area. 14. Floor levels not less than 60.70 AOD 15. The gross retail floor space of the development hereby permitted shall not exceed 265,000 sq. ft exclusive of any garden centre, restaurant or petrol filling station. 16. The development hereby permitted shall include at least 2 units of more than 35,000 sq. ft gross floor space and without the prior written consent of the District Planning Authority no individual unit will be less than 10,000 sq ft gross. 17. No buildings shall be used for the sale of food other than confectionary and such food that may be sold within ancillary snack bars, restaurants and coffee shops other than those specified in condition18. 18. Not more than 20,000 sq. ft shall be used for the sale of food other than those specified in condition 17. 19. Access roads to allow access to the Severn Trent Water Authority pumping station and possible gravel deposits in the river valley.

88/1498/1/MX

A detailed reserved matters application was then submitted and approved by Blaby District Council in October 1988. The reserved matters approval contained the following 3 conditions:

 Details of outstanding reserved matters to be submitted by 30 June 1991.  Development to commence by the 30 June 1993 or no later than 2 years after the approval of the final reserved matters whichever is the later.  Compliance with outstanding outline conditions.

Work started in May 1989 and the park commenced trading in 1989.

APP 96/1304/1/VX

Application to develop land without complying with the condition to limit the floor space to 265,000 sq. ft exclusive of any garden centre, restaurant or petrol filling station. It proposed 237 sq. m mezzanine floor space at the Sports Division unit (Unit 9). It was granted consent in the knowledge that extensions were proposed (Burton had submitted a Mezzanine proposal & M&S had submitted a proposal for an extension) and upcoming (Next and ASDA).

The subsequent planning history of the Fosse Park retail area is extensive and has included a number of applications since the original approval for increases to the size of units through physical external additions, the incorporation of neighbouring units in whole or part or the creation of mezzanines. The most relevant applications are set out below:

Fosse Park South: 93/1340/1/OX Outline app for Fosse Park South called in by the Secretary of State who granted permission (June 1995) for non-food retail development subject to conditions. These included minimum size criteria of 929 sq. m and that the premises shall not be used for the sale of food (other than confectionary), clothing, shoes, toys or fashion accessories.

06/0412/1/VX

Variation of Condition 5 of application 98/0531 to allow extension of mezzanine floor by 630 sq. m. The application approved an additional 237 sq. m of mezzanine with the condition that it was used for retail purposes. A condition was attached which required the mezzanine area to be used for sale of bulky sports goods only (in accordance with a list to be agreed). This was on the basis that an equivalent space within the store is used for this already. The decision was issued on the 12 May 2008.

06/0725/1/UY

Certificate of Lawful Development relating to interpretation of condition (xv) on the original outline approval (86/1429) which read:

The gross retail floor space of the development hereby permitted shall not exceed 265,000sqft [approx. 24,600sqm] exclusive of any garden centre, restaurant or petrol filling station.

Also relating to the assertion by the applicants that this condition only governed the scope of the reserved matters application and was of no continuing effect.

The decision was issued on the 6 October 2006 after it had been accepted that the wording only applied to the reserved matters application. This allowed the principle of future expansion of the retail park.

06/0729/1/UY

Certificate of Lawful Development relating to condition (xvi) on the original outline approval (86/1429) which read:

The development hereby permitted shall include at least 2 units of more than 35,000sqft (approx. 3,550sqm) gross floor space and without the consent of the local planning authority no individual unit shall be less than 10,000sqft gross.

Also relating to the assertion by the applicants that this condition only governed the scope of the reserved matter application and was of no continuing effect.

It was accepted that the first limb of the condition requiring the minimum of two units of at least 35,000 sq. ft did only apply to the reserved matters application.

It was not accepted that this was the case with the second limb (no unit less than 10,000 sq. ft (approx. 929 sq. m)) as this element did not engage upon the reference to “the development hereby permitted”. The element of the proposal relating to the first limb of the condition was agreed on the 7 October 2006.

06/1029/1/UY

Certificate of Lawful Development relating to condition (xvi) on the original outline approval (86/1429) which read:

The development hereby permitted shall include at least 2 units of more than 35,000sqft gross floor space and without the consent of the local planning authority no individual unit shall be less than 10,000sqft gross.

Also relating to the assertion by the applicants that this condition only governed the scope of the reserved matter application and was of no continuing effect

Advice from Counsel was sought on both sides and reached different conclusions. As seen with 06/0729 Blaby District Council did not agree with the assertion that the second limb had no continuing effect.

Prior to the determination of application 06/1029 application 08/0833 was submitted which proposed a compromise. App 06/1029 was withdrawn on the 2 March after expiry of the Judicial Review period following approval of the 2008 application (see below).

08/0833/1/VY

Variation of condition xvi of planning permission 86/1429 to allow the subdivision of specified units to create up to 6 smaller units of less than 929 sq. m (10,000 sq. ft).

The application proposed new controls over units 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, 5, 6, 7a, 7b, 9, 10 and 20 (shown as yellow on plan 06/191A/P21(7)). Unit 11 (BHS), Unit 8 (JJB), 1A (Sports World) and the food court are controlled by their own separate consents.

It was put forward as a result of the disagreement between Counsel representing Blaby District Council and the applicant respectively over the 2006 application to remove the size restriction on individual units (06/1029). It appears that unit 3 had already been split at this time and both units were below the threshold. No planning permission appears to have been sought for this. The application was approved on the 20 November 2008.

12/0997/1/VY

Removal of conditions 2 (A list of the bulky sports goods equipment to be displayed and sold from the unit), 3 (Floor plan showing the area/areas to be used for the sale of the bulky sports goods) and 4 (no additional mezzanine floor space shall be used for the sale and display of retail goods) attached to planning permission 06/0412/1/VX to be replaced by a single condition “The floor space hereby permitted shall not be used for the sale or display of food, other than as an ancillary use.”

The application was approved on the 25 March 2013 subject to the following conditions:

1 The mezzanine floorspace hereby permitted shall not be used for the sale or display of food, other than as an ancillary use and not involving more than 10% of the retail sales area.

2 Within 90 days of the date of this permission, a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall include:

i. Proposals to reduce car dependence and vehicle emissions and to establish and encourage the use of alternative transport modes for journeys to and from the development

ii. Measures to secure increases in car sharing, public transport use, cycling and walking and details of on-site facilities to promote alternative modes of travel to and from the site

iii. Details of how the Travel Plan will be monitored and kept under review. The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented and subsequently reviewed in accordance with the approved details and timescales for implementation and review.

The reason behind the decision related firstly to the fact that there had been a number of consents which had approved elements of the mezzanine subject to less restrictions, secondly legal advice indicating that the conditions were not enforceable, and thirdly the business had closed and there were only a limited number of sporting goods shops selling bulky sports equipment that could now use the unit.

14/0667/1/PX

External alterations, reallocation of existing mezzanine floorspace and addition of new mezzanine floorspace, installation of sprinkler tank and pump house, reconfiguration and provision of additional car parking spaces and enhancement of public realm.

This application proposed external and internal alterations to unit 8 (former BHS) and unit 11 (former JJB) to create a Primark store. It included the incorporation of a large section of the rear of unit 11 into unit 8 at first and mezzanine level as well as the splitting of the remainder of unit 11 into 2 small units below the 929 sq. m threshold and providing additional mezzanine floor space of around 1,886 sq. m. It was subject to a Section 106 obligation which controlled the provision of the small units if the approved scheme were delayed and other approved applications for smaller units below the threshold had been implemented. The application was approved on the 18 November 2014. At the time of writing this report the development had commenced. It created the 3rd and 4th of the 6 smaller units allowed by planning permission 08/0833.

15/1137/FUL

Refurbishment of front, side and part of the rear elevations, alterations and improvements to the public realm including hard and soft landscaping and alterations to vehicular and pedestrian routing and other ancillary works. Approved on 23rd October 2015

Food Court

99/0664/1/PX

The application proposed the redevelopment of part of Unit 1 and the former garden centre to provide Food Court (Class A3) and Retail Unit (Class A1) together with alterations to existing servicing and staff car parking and new landscaping to Everard Way. The decision was issued on 14 January 2000.

00/0163/1/PX

Revision to the scheme approved by application 99/0664/1/PX. The application was approved on 17 August 2000.

Other Relevant Applications

New Everards Brewery and Ancillary Uses

12/0865/1/OX - Outline application for construction of brewery, visitor centre and ancillary uses, brewery tap, restaurants and outdoor sport and recreation facilities, erection of footbridge over River Soar, provision for erection of temporary marquee (approx 5 times per year), construction of food & drink preparation units (with ancillary retail trade counters) associated parking & landscaping, pedestrian access and detailed proposals for vehicular access from Soar Valley Way (A563) & Narborough Road South (B4114). Approved on 22 June 2015

15/0888/VAR - Variation of conditions 4, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 32 attached to planning permission 12/0865/1/OX to include revised access and highway details, updated flood management details, changes to land uses and floor areas, positioning of marquees and over flow parking areas. Approved on 27 November 2015.

15/1524/RM - Reserved Matters application (relating to application 15/0888/VAR) for construction of brewery, visitor centre and ancillary uses, brewery tap, restaurants and cycle hire facility, erection of footbridge over River Soar, provision for erection of temporary marquee (approx 5 times per year), construction of food & drink preparation units (with ancillary retail trade counters) associated parking & landscaping, pedestrian access and vehicular access from Soar Valley Way (A563) & Narborough Road South (B4114) – Phase 1. Approved on 8 April 2014.

NOTE: This development is being enabled by the sale of the Application Site to facilitate the Proposed Development.

Lubbesthorpe Sustainable Urban Extension

Application 11/0100/1/OX - Outline application for 4,250 dwellings, a mixed use district centre and two mixed use local centres featuring a supermarket, retail, commercial, employment, leisure, health, community and residential uses, non- residential institutions including a secondary school, primary schools and nurseries, an employment site of 21 hectares, open spaces, woodlands, new access points and associated facilities and infrastructure, and detailed proposals for two new road bridges over the M1 motorway and M69 motorway, and two road access points from Beggars Lane and new accesses from Meridian Way, Chapel Green/Baines Lane and Leicester LaneThe Lubbesthorpe Sustainable Urban Extension of 4250 dwellings and associated infrastructure. Approved 14th January 2014

15/0745/RM - Phase one - infrastructure roads and drainage / SUDS. Approved on 19th May 2016.

15/0799/RM - Reserved Matters Application for the construction of 317 dwellings associated highways and public open space. Approved on 18 December 2015.

15/0873/RM - Landscaping proposals for phase 1 of the development permitted by 11/0100/1/OX including layout of park to northern boundary including the provison of playing fields, layout of other parks, details of tree and other planting. Approved on 18 December 2015.

15/0832/RM - Reserved matters application for the erection of 248 dwellings associated highways and public open space. Approved on 18 December 2015.

Glenfield Park

Application 10/0118/1/OX - Outline application for employment development (B1, B2 and B8) (maximum 30ha), residential development (maximum 250 dwellings), provision of a local retail / community facility (maximum 1400 sq m), associated landscaping, open space and infrastructure with vehicular accesses off Kirby Road and Ratby Lane. Approved on appeal 17th May 2010.

12/0798/1/MX - Residential development of 250 dwellings with associated public open space and landscaping, materials, boundary treatments and infrastructure (Reserved Matters). Approved on 20 December 2012.

14/0797/1/MX - Infrastructure and site preparation works to include central estate road, drainage works, balancing lagoons and creation of development plateaux and Phase 1 landscaping provisions, earth bunding/earth works and cycleway/footway provision. Approved on 17 October 2014.

14/1062/1/PX - Erection of two industrial/warehouse units (B1(c)/B2/B8) including ancillary facilities, gatehouses, service yards, car and cycle parking, substations, landscaping and other infrastructure works. Approved on 17 February 2015.

Each of these three substantial additional proposals are located within close proximity to the Application Site and would increase the demands on the existing highways network around the Application Aite and adjacent motorway access.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Principle of the Development

The Application Site contains the existing Everards Brewery complex and is considered to be previously developed land. It is located close to arterial roads with access to public transport and local facilities and would be sited immediately adjacent to and physically linked to an existing facility where the principle of the comparison retail use is already established. The assessment which follows considers the Proposed Development’s performance against the 3 dimensions of sustainable development; economic, social and environmental. However, the starting point in the assessment is an analysis of the Proposed Development’s compliance with relevant policies of the Development Plan.

The Council’s duties are contained within Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”), and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”). Regard is to be had to the provisions of the Development Plan, insofar as they are material to the Application, and, if regard is to be had to the Development Plan then the determination must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Therefore the starting point has to be an assessment of what the Development Plan says and if the Proposed Development is in accord with the plan when judged as a whole. The following land use considerations are relevant:

a) Appropriate Uses on the Application Site

b) Loss of employment land

c) The requirement for retail uses in Blaby District

d) The sequential approach and

e) The impact assessment.

Therefore the purpose of this section of the report is to seek to identify how the Proposed Development sits in relation to these matters of principle within the Development Plan and then whether there are other material considerations which may lead to a contrary determination.

The Development Plan comprises the Core Strategy and the saved policies of the 1999 Local Plan (a number of the policies in the latter were “saved” as part of transitional procedures towards a new Development Plan system). The Core Strategy identified those saved policies which were superseded through its Appendix A. It did not identify that any saved employment or retail policies were superseded (for example, by the new policies CS6 and CS13).

Section 38(5) of the 2004 Act provides that if to any extent a policy contained in a Development Plan for an area conflicts with another policy in the Development Plan the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last document to become part of the Development Plan. Consequently part of the process in this determination is to understand if such conflicts exist between the saved policies of the 1999 Local Plan and the Core Strategy.

Also of relevance is paragraph 12 of the NPPF which says “This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place.”

Paragraph 215 of the NPPF goes on to say that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF (the closer the policies in the Development Plan to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given).

Accordingly, it may be appropriate for Blaby District Council to give considerably less weight to out of date policies, which, in the context of the NPPF, means policies that do not accord with the NPPF.

Development Plan policies of neighbouring (or indeed distant) planning authorities are not part of Blaby District Council’s Development Plan. However they may be material considerations (for example, in respect of retail impact and indeed have been taken into account within the report of White Young Green in advising Blaby District Council on retail impact).

Finally work is underway on Blaby District Council’s Delivery Development Plan Document Site Allocations, Designations and Development Management (“Delivery DPD”). Whilst evidence is being collected in relation to this, such evidence is not part of the Development Plan and has no bearing on the issue of whether there is compliance or conflict with the Development Plan. It nevertheless may be a material consideration.

a) Appropriate Uses on Site

The Core Strategy Key Diagram does not identify any particular policy designation for the Application Site. The land immediately around the Application Site is identified in the Key Diagram as the MRA.

The 1999 Local Plan Proposals Map identifies the Application Site as a Primarily Employment Area. The 1999 Local Plan Policy E1 offers protection to these sites by restricting their development to employment uses only. It forms part of a suite of saved employment policies including E1, E2 and E4. The origins of these policies was the Leicestershire Structure Plan policy (Policy 5) which sought to protect all employment land and buildings but in fact had different criteria for allowing a change of use, including there being no shortage of employment land and the land and buildings being unfit for employment purposes. Whilst Policy E4 also deals with the development of employment land it is considered that the designation of the Application Site as a Primarily Employment Area is the restrictive policy of application in this case. Policy E1 and therefore Policy E4 are both considered to be out of date for the following reasons. They are both founded on an evidence base which is nearly 20 years old and in line with paragraph 22 of the NPPF Blaby District Council has reviewed its employment land supply. The Blaby District Employment Land and Premises Study (BELPS) was refreshed in 2011. It identified 16 Key Employment Sites and other existing employment sites. The Application Site was not identified in either category. Insofar as the Proposed Development does not comprise an employment use, it is clear that there would be a conflict with Local Plan Policy E1.

Policy CS6 of the Core Strategy Strategy seeks to protect £Key Employment Sites” from non-employment uses (subject to certain criteria being met). Whilst the plan does not expressly identify these sites, (and it is intended that ultimately they will be identified in the Delivery DPD), the supporting text to CS6 says that the Blaby Employment Land Study 2011 (“BELPS”) identified 16 Key Employment Sites (referred to in BELPS as the Blaby Employment Areas).

The Application Site is not identified as one of these 16 Key Employment Sites, and as such, the Proposed Development does not conflict with Policy CS6. Policy CS6 is considered to offer a more up to date interpretation of the need for the protection of employment premises, is more in-keeping with the less restrictive nature of the NPPF than policy E1, and is a policy which has been adopted since the introduction of the NPPF.

Whilst the designations of the Primary Employment Areas and Key Employment Sites are different (the Key Employment Sites did not supersede Primary Employment Areas) it is considered that the Core Strategy Policy is more reflective of the NPPF which encourages a more flexible and considered approach in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development promoted by the NPPF. b) Loss of Employment Land

The 1999 Local Plan policies are concerned with protecting employment land and buildings.

The Core Strategy is a more focussed exercise of protection which is directed towards a number of new large scale sites and Key Employment Sites. It also promotes the growth of existing businesses and employment opportunities in general. One of the key benefits arising from the Proposed Development is the jobs and investment that will be secured following Everards relocation to their planned development of Everards Meadows. Planning permission has been granted for a brewery, visitor centre, brewery tap, restaurants and outdoor sport and recreation facilities at Soar Valley Way/Narborough Road South. The existing jobs at the Application Site will all be transferred to the new facility which is material in the assessment of the Proposed Development.

The protected and retained jobs at the existing brewery will be in addition to the 1,000 new full time equivalent jobs that will be created by the Proposed Development as well as construction jobs averaging out at 230 over the 2 year construction period. There is also the potential for indirect benefits by creating opportunities for local business to supply to, and support, services. Fosse Park is also a destination that attracts visitors from a wide catchment and improving its offer, subject to the Proposed Development not significantly impacting on other centres, may also be of benefit to the local economy.

In addition, NPPF (at paragraph 22) sets out a more flexible approach to employment development and actively discourages retaining employment land where the prospects for employment use are poor. Insofar as Policy E1 does not reflect that more flexible approach, Local Plan Policy E1 is out of date.

In summary, whilst the proposals generate conflict with Policy E1 of the 1999 Local Plan, given the more recent policy context contained within the Core Strategy and NPPF, that conflict carries limited weight. There is no departure from the more up to date Policy CS6 and indeed the employment generation would appear to positively accord with Policy CS6 which places an emphasis on protecting “Key Employment Sites”.

In terms of material considerations relevant to the issue of employment land, the Blaby Employment Land Availability Study April 2015 to March 2016 indicates that a total of 61.06 hectares have planning permission or are allocated. As a result, there is an outstanding requirement for 6.64 hectares for the plan period to 2029. Blaby District Council is therefore on track to meeting the requirement. It is intended that the final amount will be allocated through the second part of the Local Plan as part of the Delivery DPD.

In terms of losses, there have been 13.59 hectares of losses to existing employment land and premises. Therefore in total, 20.53 hectares of employment land will need to be allocated in the Delivery DPD. This does not take account of the potential loss of 6.95 hectares of the Application Site.

Blaby District Council is seeking to allocate land for employment purposes, by preparing a Delivery DPD. This is will address the shortfall between the current land supply and the employment land requirement set out in the Core Strategy. Policy CS6 is also about creating a range of employment opportunities. The Proposed Development is a retail and leisure development that will bring economic benefits for Blaby District and the wider area. For example, the Application indicates that about 1,000 new full time equivalent jobs will be created by the Proposed Development as well as construction jobs averaging out at 230 over the 2 year construction period.

c) The requirement for retail uses in Blaby District

The Core Strategy through Policy CS13 does not identify a specific requirement for an increase in retail floorspace in Blaby District (neither do saved policies in the 1999 Local Plan). However, the supporting text at paragraph 7.13.2 indicates that the Blaby Retail Update Study (2012) identifies the retail floorspace requirements for Blaby District at the time the plan was adopted and these are presented in the table at paragraph 7.13.3 as set out below:

Blaby District Retail Floorspace Requirements 2012-2029 (Sq. Metres Net)

Year Comparison Goods Convenience Goods 2012 -2,588 - 959* to -2,205** 2013 -2,432 - 869* to -1,998** 2014 -2,065 - 780* to -1,793** 2019 529 - 157* to - 361** 2024 3,708 755* to 1,738** 2029 6,972 1,598* to 3,675**

Notes: Floorspace requirements based on existing retention rates * “Top Four” foodstore ** “Discounter” foodstore

Set against this, the Proposed Development includes Class A1 shops of a net tradeable area of 20,139 sq. m and Class A3 restaurants/cafes of 1,571 sq. m. Thus the quantitative assessment underpinning the Core Strategy indicates that there is not a need for comparison goods floorspace of the scale set out in the Application within the plan period.

However there is no express limit to retail development within Policy CS13 and therefore proposals for development in excess of that set out in the table are not necessarily a departure from the Development Plan. Such proposals require assessment under other parts of the Policy.

The identification of need can be a material consideration in addressing matters such as retail impact. Furthermore the Blaby Retail Update Study has now been superseded by a Joint Retail Study completed in 2015 for the Leicester and Blaby areas, prepared by consultants appointed jointly by the respective Authorities under the duty to cooperate. Therefore little weight can now be given in 2016 to forecasts prepared in 2012. There are more recent forecasts.

The Joint Retail Study makes no specific floorspace or other scale of growth recommendations for commercial, leisure and restaurant uses. For comparison goods, the Joint Retail Study considers two approaches to assessing the future need for additional floorspace:

(a) based on the continuation of the current market share.

(b) based on the town centres first principle – redistribution of future Fosse Park surplus to Leicester.

For each approach, the quantitative need for comparison goods floorspace is set out below for Blaby and for Leicester:

BLABY Year Continuation of Current Market Town Centres First – Share Redistribution of Fosse Park Surplus to Leicester Min Max Min Max 2015 -2,000 -4,100 -1,500 -2,900 2020 1,900 3,800 -1,200 -2,300 2025 9,400 18,900 -600 -1,200 2030 17,500 35,100 0 100 2031 19,300 38,600 200 300

LEICESTER Year Continuation of Current Market Town Centres First – Share Redistribution of Fosse Park Surplus to Leicester Min Max Min Max 2015 -5400 -10800 -6000 -12000 2020 2000 4000 5100 10100 2025 16100 32200 26100 52300 2030 31200 62500 48200 97500 2031 34500 69100 53700 107300

The assessment, based on the continuation of the current market share, assumes that the future need is apportioned in the same way as in the current situation. Fosse Park is a significant location for comparison goods retail and so the forecasts for future need take account of this and apportions a level of growth to Blaby in line with the market share that Fosse Park current accounts for. For this approach, the Study identifies a future need of between 1,900 and 3,800 sq. m of comparison goods net floorspace in the Blaby administrative area at 2020, increasing to a requirement for between 19,300 and 38,600 sq. m of comparison goods floorspace at 2031.

The Joint Retail Study points out that the approach, whereby the current market share is maintained, effectively provides for the growth of Fosse Park as this is the principal comparison goods offer in Blaby District. However, Leicester City Centre and Blaby District serve similar catchments and the Joint Retail Study recommends that it is pertinent to consider an approach where the future need for floorspace should instead be provided for within or in proximity to Leicester City Centre in the first instance. This would be in line with the town centre first approach set out in local and national policy.

Under the town centre first approach, the future need which could occur at Fosse Park (based on the continuation of its current market share) would instead be ‘reapportioned’ to Leicester City Centre, as the sub-regional centre. For this to occur in practice, it will be necessary for Leicester City Council to identify appropriate sites which could not only provide large format floorspace, but which would also be attractive to retailers and shoppers.

On the basis of future Fosse Park growth being “reapportioned” to Leicester City Centre, the Joint Retail Study estimates that there will be a requirement for only a very limited quantum of additional comparison goods floorspace in Blaby District over the longer term. Indeed, the study estimates that this revised future need in Blaby District would equate to between 200 and 300sq. m at 2031.

For, Leicester City Centre, the Joint Retail Study identifies future needs at 2031 of between 34,500 and 69,100 sq. m for the continuation of market share approach and between 53,700 and 107,300 sq. m if Blaby District’s growth is diverted on a town centre first principle to Leicester City Centre.

As Leicester City Centre and Blaby District serve similar catchments it is appropriate to consider the overall level of future need for comparison goods floorspace in Leicester and Blaby. When the overall level of future need is considered, there is a scale of need within the plan period that is of the size of the Proposed Development. The Joint Retail Study recommends that future retail growth should be directed to Leicester City Centre in line with the town centre first principle. Whether this recommendation can be fulfilled is subject to suitable sites being identified within or in proximity to Leicester City Centre to accommodate the growth which could occur at Fosse Park. Leicester City Council have confirmed that there are currently no identified sites within Leicester City Council’s administrative area which would be suitable for the development.

The Joint Retail Study indicates that Leicester City Centre and Blaby District have a future need for comparison goods floorspace. The Joint Retail Study indicates that this should be done by allocating sites through the plan-making process where a sequential approach to selecting sites will be undertaken.

The level of future retail need is a material consideration. Whilst ideally the need should be addressed through the plan-making process, the Application is one that is likely to be considered in advance of this process. Whilst the NPPF does not set a test of need for determining planning applications the scale of need is material to the assessment of retail impact associated with the scheme.

c) Sequential Approach

The Core Strategy Policy CS13 sets out a hierarchy of retail centres in the District of Blaby (and some centres outside the Blaby District boundary having a functional relationship with Blaby District). This includes Leicester City Centre as a City Centre and Blaby town as a Town Centre. Blaby town is the principal centre in the District of Blaby. The MRA is identified as out of centre. Policy CS13 indicates that proposals for retail, leisure and other town centre uses will be subject to a sequential test. Such proposals should be located within town centres, then edge of centre and then, only if suitable sequentially preferable sites are not available, in out-of-centre locations. This is in line with national policy.

In order to be in accord with Policy CS13 the Applicant will need to demonstrate that there are no suitable sites available within sequentially preferable locations. This should include consideration of locations within a suitable catchment area that includes Leicester City Centre, within close proximity to Leicester City Centre and within and adjoining Blaby Town Centre.

Further discussion concerning the sequential assessment is contained within the following section within this report, but the main conclusion is that there are no sequentially preferable sites. Therefore there is no departure from the Development Plan or national policy in this respect.

d) Impact Assessment

Core Strategy Policy CS13 indicates that new retail and leisure developments should not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the vitality and viability of any other existing centre. Impact assessments are required for all new retail and leisure developments in excess of a locally set threshold of 929 sq. m gross and not within an existing town, district, rural or local centre. This is in line with national policy.

The Applicant will need to demonstrate that the Proposed Development does not have an unacceptable adverse impact as set out in Policy CS13 and NPPF para 26.

It is also noted that the various adjoining local planning authorities all have plans with retail policies which promote a town centre first approach and outline their own proposals for retail development in their areas. Where relevant, these policies and the Proposed Development’s performance against them comprises a material consideration.

RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

Blaby District Council has employed a retail consultant to advise on the impact of the Proposed Development on other centres. The following conclusions have been taken from their report. Full copies of the consultant’s reports assessing retail impact are appended to this report.

The Application was supported by a Retail Assessment which addresses the key retail policy requirements set out in both National and Local Policy including the Sequential Test and Impact Test. It sets out certain parameters across which the retail impact of the Proposed Development was assessed including:

The Evidence Base

The evidence base which underpinned the assessment was discussed and preliminarily agreed prior to the submission of the Application. The scope included:

 The household surveys (which underpin the Joint Retail Study) would be utilised to understand current shopping patterns within the sub region and trading performance of existing retail facilities.

 The assumption that the existing MRA does not compete directly with existing centres within Blaby District and its main competition is Leicester City Centre. This was equally applicable to the Proposed Development.

 The base year should be 2015 and test years for assessing impact should be 2020 and 2015.

 All prices in line with the Joint Retail Study

 Population and expenditure data for each zone in the study area would be included.

 Growth in retail expenditure per year shall be forecast.

 Special forms of trading such as on line shopping shall be factored in.

 An allowance for 10% of the Proposed Development’s turnover being derived from outside the study area.

 Trade draw assessments on a one to one basis

 Health checks undertaken of Leicester City Centre, Blaby Town Centre, Wigston Town Centre, Hinckley Town Centre, Beumont Leys Town Centre, Narborough Road District Centre and Oadby District.

 It was not necessary to assess the potential impact of the Class A3/A4/A5 elements of the Proposed Development given their ancillary nature.

Catchment Area

The catchment area for the Proposed Deveopment has been derived from the study area contained in the Joint Retail Study which is based on 16 zones across Leicestershire and beyond which cover a number of retail destinations including:  Leicester City Centre  The MRA  St George’s Retail Park, Leicester  Hinckley Town Centre  Beaumont Leys Town Centre  Thurmaston District Centre  Abbey Retail Park, Leicester  Wigston Town Centre  Oadby Town Centre  Blaby Town Centre.

It was estimated that the retail destinations included in the study area retain approximately 86% of the comparison retail expenditure generated. It was also recognised that there were other centres outside the study area such as Loughborough town centre, Nuneaton town centre and Market Harborough which had a market share of between 2.8% and 1%. Coventry City Centre was not included in the catchment area. Blaby District Council’s retail consultants estimated that Everards Brewery is located approximately 27 kilometres from Arena Park and approximately 30 kilometres from Coventry City Centre (both ‘as the crow flies’). It was concluded that, whilst there will be some (relatively limited) overlap between the Fosse Park catchment and that of large scale retail facilities in Coventry, for the most part different catchments are served.

From the assessment of the retail capacity within the study area it was possible to define a primary catchment area from which 72% of the Proposed Development’s turnover will be derived.

Sequential Test

The sequential test involves a sequential site analysis of alternative sites which may be considered to be in a preferable location because of their relationship to existing centres. It is aimed at ensuring that all possible site alternatives are considered before an application is permitted in a less desirable location and is used to support a ‘town centre first’ policy which promotes the provision of developments providing main town centre uses in town centres on a hierarchical basis. It ensures that, where possible such proposals will complement existing centres rather than resulting in developments which will compete with, and draw trade from them.

The requirement for the sequential testing of retail applications is set out in the NPPF.

Paragraph 24 of the NPPF states that:

Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre.

The sequential hierarchy of Blaby District’s retail centres has been set out in the Retail Hierarchy Table which forms part of Policy CS13 as presented earlier in this report. Any retail sequential assessment must consider the hierarchy and carry out a sequential approach to site selection which focusses on placing new town centre uses as high up the list as possible. The hierarchy includes both existing centres within Blaby District itself as well as centres outside of Blaby District but which have a functional relationship with Blaby District. The hierarchy sets out the preferred location for new development ranging from Leicester City Centre as the primary location to Town Centres to District Centres to Rural Centres then Local Centres and finally out of centre locations.

When agreeing the parameters of the sequential test relating to the Proposed Development it was concluded that:

 The assessment should be proportionate and appropriate for the given proposal.  There is no longer a policy requirement to demonstrate that disaggregation has been considered.  A flexible approach to the test is required and a minimum size criteria of 3 hectares should be considered.  It is only necessary to consider alternative sites within and at the edge of centres within the identified primary catchment area.

In assessing the suitability of sites it is established through the courts that the sequential test must be applied in the ‘real world’. The Secretary of State endorsed appeal decision at Rushden Lakes also confirms that there is no policy requirement to demonstrate that disaggregation has been considered. Moreover, the Rushden Lakes decision confirms that if a site is not suitable for the commercial requirements of the developer in question then it is not a suitable site for the purposes of the sequential approach. Whilst the Applicant must demonstrate flexibility it is not the purpose of the sequential test to suggest sites that alter the Proposed Development. Provided that the Applicant has demonstrated flexibility with regards to format and scale, the question is whether the alternative site is suitable for the Proposed Development, not whether the Proposed Development could be altered or reduced so that it can be made to fit the alternative site

In assessing suitable and available alternative sites the views of neighbouring authorities was sought. Comments were received from Leicester City Council, Oadby and Wigston Borough Council, and Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council. The authority’s responses in respect of available alternative sites were as follows.

Leicester City Council confirmed that there were no available sequentially preferable sites within its administrative area.

Hinckley and Bosworth confirmed that whilst there are no sequentially preferable sites within the authority’s area, there were two sites identified in the Adopted Hinckley Town Centre Area Action Plan which may be affected by the Proposed Development. The two sites were the redevelopment of the Bus Station site which is currently under construction and the redevelopment of the Britannia Centre which has not advanced.

Oadby and Wigston Borough Council also drew attention to the Oadby and Wigston Adopted Town Centres Area Action Plan as a relevant consideration and confirmed that there were no specific proposals which have been advanced to a stage where they would be prejudiced by the Proposed Development.

On the basis of these comments and the established parameters including the size threshold the submitted sequential test has identified 3 sites within the agreed catchment area which are suitably comparable and capable of meeting the requirements of the Proposed Development. These were:

 Railway Triangle, Bennett Way, South Wigston  Wilson Road, South Wigston  Corah Works, Leicester

It is considered that the Railway Triangle and Wilson Road Sites are ‘out of centre’ in retail planning policy terms (albeit they are reasonably close to South Wigston centre) and the Corah Works Site is ‘edge of centre (in respect of Leicester City Centre.

The Railway Triangle, Bennett Way, South Wigston (“the Railway Triangle Site”)

A 6.4 hectare triangular site bounded on all 3 sides by railway tracks located to the north of the Oadby and Wigston District Centre. The Railway Triangle Site is currently undeveloped open green space which has been designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. The Railway Triangle Site is identified in the South Wigston Regeneration Master Plan which concludes that it could be environmentally improved to maximise its biodiversity value. It indicates that the redevelopment for other uses has not been pursued through the master plan as the costs and practicalities involved in providing infrastructure to cross the live railway line is likely to make other uses unviable and unachievable.

The Masterplan goes on to say that should a proposal come forward which could adequately overcome the accessibility issues a sensitive employment use would be most appropriate and it is considered unsuitable for retail development given its detachment from the town centre.

As well as the above mentioned protective designation by the saved Policy E5 of the Oadby and Wigston Local Plan 1999 and paragraph 3.33 of the Oadby and Wigston Core Strategy it is noted that the Railway Triangle Site is irregular in shape, difficult to access and requires substantial infrastructure works in order for appropriate access to be secured. The Railway Triangle Site is not particularly visible from nearby highways and is not considered particularly accessible in respect of the wider road network.

As a consequence of the above it is considered that the Railway Triangle Site is not suitable to accommodate the Proposed Development even allowing for some degree of flexibility on the part of the Applicant.

Given the constraints of the Railway Triangle Site which include the access difficulties, the need to respect the designation as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and the detached location of the site which the controlling authority considers unsuitable for retail, the conclusion in the retail assessment that the Railway Triangle Site is not suitable or viable for the Proposed Development is accepted.

Wilson Road, South Wigston (“the Wilson Road Site”)

This 4.8 hectare employment site is also identified in the South Wigston Regeneration Master Plan as a significant gateway site to the west of town. The plan considers the Wilson Road Site to be well suited to employment development and supports its retention and limited expansion to strengthen its existing offer and provide additional employment opportunities. The established employment use in a suitable location means that the redevelopment of the Wilson Road Site for residential purposes was not pursued in the document.

The established use of the Wilson Road Site and the importance the Council attaches to protecting and enhancing the existing offer means that the sequential assessment’s conclusion that this site is not an available, suitable or viable alternative is considered reasonable.

Corah Works, Leicester (“the Corah Works Site”)

This 9 hectare mixed use site comprises of car showrooms, offices and employment uses. Planning permission for a mixed use development has been granted on approximately 3.1 hectares of the Corah Works Site. The five year consent period expired on the 29th November 2015. The permission included residential (in addition to a hotel, leisure and office uses the proposal included approximately 6,500 sq. m of Class A1 retail development much of which was to be provided as a large food store).

The sequential assessment considers that the Corah Works Site would not be a suitable or viable alternative on the grounds that:

 The site is currently within a wide range of land ownerships and a number of businesses are currently in active use.  The site is located on the periphery of the Leicester City Centre and the limited commercial frontage available would impact on the commercial viability of the scheme.  Whilst the site is situated within walking distance of the Centre it is separated by Burleys Way.

The retail assessment also suggested that if the Proposed Development were sited in this edge of centre location it would not meet the same need that the Proposed Development intends to meet. The Corah Works Site is located outside of the Primary Catchment Area of the Proposed Developmentl and locating the Proposed Development on the edge of Leicester City Centre would not provide a commercially viable option. It is argued that locating the Proposed Development at the edge of Leicester City Centre would result in the duplication of the Leicester City Centre offer. It is likely that retailers would not want to be represented in locations within such close proximity of their existing offer.

The household survey commissioned by Blaby District Council and Leicester City Council to guide the preparation of the Joint Retail Study confirmed that Leicester City Centre is the most popular clothing and footware retail venue for central and eastern parts of Leicester City’s conurbation and that Fosse Park is the most popular venue for retailing in some western parts of the conurbation. This is partly as a result of the geographic separation between the two venues and the catchments they serve.

The same degree of separation does not exist between the Corah Works Site and Leicester City Centre and it is considered that the same broad type of development on the Corah Works Site could not meet the same needs as the Application Site. The unsuitable nature of the Corah Works Site is further supported by the siting of Corah Works Site outside of the established Primary Catchment Area as defined in the Applicant’s Retail Assessment and broadly agreed by Blaby District Council’s retail consultants.

Furthermore, whilst it is acknowledged that the Corah Works Site received planning permission in the past for a mixed use development, including retail, there is currently no indication that the Corah Works Site is available to accommodate the format of development proposed by the Application, or similar. The previous consent lapsed in November 2015 and although the Corah Works Site was recently being marketed, no scheme/proposal has come forward to date and there is currently no indication that this site is available. Nevertheless, even if the Corah Works Site was shown to be available it would still be considered unsuitable to accommodate the Proposed Development by virtue of its location. The need that the Proposed Development intends to serve is different to the need that retail development in the Corah Works Site location would serve.

In conclusion, it is not considered that any of the three sites comprises both a suitable and available site for the purposes of sequential assessment.

In addition to the three sites considered in the sequential test which fall within the identified catchment area comments were also received from Coventry City Council which expresses a view that the Coventry City Centre South regeneration scheme should be considered as a sequential alternative to the Proposed Development. The Coventry City Centre South site is not only located outside of the agreed Primary Catchment Area but located outside of the wider Joint Retail Study area itself. It is therefore considered that the Coventry City Centre South opportunity will serve a very different catchment area and is not a site which is capable of meeting the same needs as the those of the Proposed Development. The Coventry City Centre South site is not considered to be suitable to accommodate the Proposed Development.

At the time of writing the report no additional sequentially preferable sites which offer any genuine potential to accommodate the Proposed Development in addition to the three explored above have been identified. In the absence of any available, suitable and viable alternatives within Blaby, Hinckley and Bosworth, Leicester City Centre and Oadby and Wigston it is considered that the Proposed Development would accord with the sequential test set out in paragraph 24 of the NPPF.

Impact Test

Paragraph 27 of the NPPF indicates that application proposals for retail, leisure and office development may be refused planning permission where a significant adverse impact is likely to arise from development. The key consideration is clearly not whether there is an impact as a result of the development but whether that impact is deemed to be significant adverse.

Planning Practice Guidance Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres states, “A judgement as to whether the likely adverse impacts are significant can only be reached in the light of local circumstances. For example, in areas where there are high levels of vacancy and limited retailer demand, even very modest trade diversion from a new development may lead to significant adverse impact.”

The two areas of potential impact identified by paragraph 26 of the NPPF are:

1. The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private sector investment in a sector or centres in the catchment area of the proposal. 2. The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in a town centre and wider area, up to 5 years from the time the application is made.

For impacts to be unacceptable in policy terms they need to be significantly adverse and such impacts need to be demonstrable.

These are addressed in turn below.

The impact on existing, committed and planned public and private sector investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the Proposed Development

The Applicant’s Retail Assessment that supported the proposal identified five areas which merit consideration;

 Blaby Master Plan  The Crescent, Hinckley  Britania Centre, Hinckley  Oadby and Wigston Town Centres Action Plan  Leicester City Centre

Blaby Master Plan

Core Strategy Policy CS13 indicates that any managed growth of the MRA should complement the aspirations of the Blaby Town Centre Masterplan. The 2008 document identifies 3 sites as having the potential to accommodate additional retail floorspace through redevelopment.

 British Legion, Sycamore Street and the George car park  Johns Court  Police Station/Leicester Road

It is considered that each of these sites and Blaby Town Centre meet somewhat different shopping needs to that of the large retail outlets offered by the Proposed Development. As such the Proposed Development is unlikely to prejudice future development of those sites. In addition, Blaby District Council officers are unaware of any definite plans which are being actively progressed to bring forward any of the above opportunities. It is therefore concluded that the Proposed Development would not lead to a significant adverse impact upon planned or committed investment into Blaby Town Centre.

The Crescent, Hinckley (“the Crescent Site”)

Planning permission was granted for the redevelopment of a former bus station and adjacent land for the development of a food superstore, non-food retail units, a cinema and office floor space in outline form in 2010. The reserved matters application was then approved in 2013. The permission has now been implemented and there are confirmed lettings to a number of major retailers which have taken up all but 5 of the 23 potential A1 units. The successful progression of this scheme, including in the period following submission of this Application, is an indication that it has not been materially affected by the principle of the Proposed Development. This may be reflective of the fact that the Crescent Site and the Application Site are 15km from each other. It is therefore considered that the Proposed Development would not have a significant adverse impact on this project.

Britania Centre, Hinckley (“the Britania Centre Site”)

The Britania Centre Site is identified as being a key site within the primary shopping area of the of the town centre within the Hinckley Town Centre Area Action Plan. Despite this there is no evidence, at the time of writing this report, that any scheme is being progressed in respect of the Britania Centre Site. Furthermore Hinckley and Bosworth’s consultation response did not raise any objections to the Application or question the impact on any of the schemes identified in the Area Action Plan. On this basis it was again concluded that the Proposed Development would not have a significant adverse impact upon planned or committed investment at the Britania Centre.

Oadby and Wigston Town Centres Area Action Plan

This document sets out masterplans to assist in the future development of the two town centres. The action plan for each area identifies large scale redevelopment of the town centres which includes a substantial amount of retail and office floor space and public realm enhancements.

Development identified in the Wigston Area Action Plan includes: 9,000sq.m of new office floor space including a new health centre 11,800sq.m new retail floor space (gross) 150 new residential units 500 carparking spaces

Development identified in the Oadby Area Action Plan includes: 9,000sq.m of new office floor space including a new health centre 11,800sq.m new retail floor space (gross) 75 new residential units No loss of carparking spaces

The document sets out the strategic direction for the future development of the two areas. In the initial consultation response Oadby and Wigston Borough Council confirmed that it did not have any sites in the Borough of that size that would be sequentially preferable. It made reference to the Oadby and Wigston Town Centres Area Action Plan which it confirmed contained proposals for regeneration and investment in Oadby and Wigston town centres. This is a relevant consideration although there are no specific proposals advanced to a stage that they would be prejudiced by the Proposed Development.

In the latest consultation response relating to the revised proposal Oadby and Wigston Borough Council made the following comments:

“Oadby and Wigston Borough Council request that any planning permission granted is subject to conditions that restrict the use of the floorspace to the sale of non-food goods (i.e. not food goods sales) and restricts the total sales area to 20,139 sq. m; the net sales area quoted in the most recent retail assessment submitted, in order to ensure that the proposed development does not have a detrimental impact upon retail centres in the Borough.”

Accordingly, it has been concluded that the scheme would not have a significant adverse impact on the redevelopment of either Oadby or Wigston Town Centres.

Leicester City Centre

In the response dated 8 July 2016 Leicester City Council acknowledged that there were no available sequentially preferable sites in Leicester City Centre. That fact is relevant to the question of whether or not the Proposed Development would impact on existing, committed or planned investment in Leicester City Centre. Leicester City Council’s Leicester Waterside Scheme was considered but this would provide substantially different retail needs and it is considered that the Proposed Development would not have a significant adverse impact on committed or planned investment into Leicester City Centre.

Given the above it is concluded that the impact on existing, committed and planned public and private sector investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the Proposed Development would not be significant adverse.

The Impact of the Proposal on Town Centre Vitality and Viability, Including Local Consumer Choice and Trade in the Town Centre and Wider Area

The Applicant’s Retail Assessment has been assessed by Blaby District Council’s retail consultants. The appraisal of the Retail Assessment began with a review of the methodology which underpinned the findings to establish whether it was robust and could be considered to provide an acceptable basis upon which the trade diversion impact arising from the Proposed Development could be determined.

It was established from the outset that the Class A3 floor space will principally meet the needs arising from the retail element of the Proposed Development and the key driver for the majority of the trips to the Proposed Development would be retail floor space. The appraisal therefore focusses on this element of the Proposed Development.

The following elements of the methodology were considered:

Baseline Position:

It was considered that the Applicant’s approach to providing the most accurate position in respect of existing comparison goods trading patterns and the population and expenditure data provided an appropriate basis on which to consider the Proposed Development. Blaby District Council’s retail consultant considered that the sales densities used were appropriate and raised no concerns with this element despite the concerns raised by stakeholders.

Catchment Area:

The Applicant’s catchment area was derived from the study area set out in the Joint Retail Study which is based on 16 zones across the Leicester conurbation and beyond. It is accepted that this is an appropriate catchment area and the identified Primary Catchment Area which is made up of 6 of these zones will provide the majority of the turnover of the proposal. Collectively, it is identified that approximately 72% of the Proposed Development’s turnover would be derived from the Primary Catchment Area.

Assessment Period:

The Applicant’s Retail Assessment has set out the assessment of potential impact of the Proposed Development on existing retail provision at the test years of 2020 and 2025. The NPPF indicates that the impact of a proposal on town centre vitality and viability should generally be assessed up to 5 years from the time the application is made. It goes on to say that the design year for impact testing should be the year that the proposal has achieved a mature trading pattern which is taken to be the second full year of trading. Given that it is considered that the development could commence trading before the end of 2018 the 2020 test year is of greatest relevance and the appraisal proceeds on this basis.

Turnover of the Application Proposal:

The Applicant undertook two scenarios to consider the potential turnover of the Proposed Development. These were based on an indicative tenant line up provided by the Applicant. The first uses average benchmark sales densities derived from Mintel rankings 2015 and the second applies a 35% uplift to the benchmark sales densities to account for Fosse Park’s strong trading patterns. The uplift has been supported by confirmation that the existing Next store trades at this level above the benchmark figure.

In considering the trading performance of the proposed retail floorspace it is recognised that:

 The proposed floor space will act to dilute the sales density achieved at the existing Fosse Park floor space as a consequence of the diversion of trade from these stores; and   The Proposed Development incorporates a relatively significant amount of mezzanine floor space which can sometimes secure a lesser sales density than ground floor sales areas.

It was considered that the trading scenario with the 35% uplift to the benchmark trading figures of the indicative tenants list (the Sensitivity Test) provides a realistic estimated turnover of the Proposed Development for the purposes of assessing impact.

Commitments:

The updated list of committed developments considered to be of relevance in the Applicant’s Retail Assessment are considered acceptable as is the approach with regard to the turnover of both comparison and convenience commitments.

Trade Draw of the Proposed Development:

The Applicant’s Retail Assessment details the assumed trade draw across the 16 zones identified in the catchment area. In estimating this, consideration was given to the current market share of comparison goods expenditure in each zone secured by facilities in the MRA and the proportion of the MRA turnover which is drawn from each zone. It is considered that the update’s assumptions in respect of trade draw are robust for the purposes of the assessment.

Trade Diversion Assumptions and Identified Impact of the Proposed Developments: The likely solus trade diversion to the Proposed Development from each of the 16 zones within the identified catchment area has been estimated. This is then summarised to provide an estimate for the study area as a whole. This considers the existing shopping patterns within each zone and the likely influence of the Proposed Development’s trade diversion based on the existing shopping patterns.

Blaby District Council’s retail consultants considered the identified levels of trade diversion from Blaby Town Centre, Leicester City Centre and the MRA to be of particular relevance. The testing indicated that the Proposed Development would draw 0.1% of its turnover from Blaby Town Centre, 50% from Leicester City Centre and 35.8% from the existing comparison facilities within the MRA. In monetary terms this equates to trade diversions of £55.4m from Leicester City Centre and £39.7m from the MRA at 2020.

It was considered that the figures indicate that the Proposed Development could draw a reasonably significant proportion of its trade from existing retailers in the MRA and that that the Proposed Development would likely trade as one single destination with the existing comparison goods offer at Fosse Park and that this would be capable of competing directly with Leicester City Centre. The final solus trade diversion impacts were assessed by Blaby District Council’s retail consultants and assessed to be :

 1.3% reduction in trade to Blaby Town Centre  7.7% reduction in trade to Leicester City Centre and  14.4% increase to the combined venue of the proposal and the existing Fosse Park comparison goods offer.

Cumulative Impact:

The cumulative assessment looks at the diversion of other committed development on the basis of the entire catchment area rather than on a zonal basis as with the solus impact. The trade diversion impact of the Proposed Development is then factored into the assessment. Taking account of 9 identified commitments set out in the Applicants Retail Assessment the most notable comparison goods cumulative retail impact are:

 3.7% reduction in trade to Blaby Town Centre  7.2% reduction in trade to Beaumont Leys Town Centre  11.2% reduction in trade to the city centre and  8.9% increase in trade to the MRA.

The Magnitude and Acceptability of Identified Trade Diversion Impacts:

Appropriate consideration has been given to the impact of the Proposed Development on the most relevant centres within the Blaby and Leicestershire administrative area, including Blaby Town Centre and Beaumont Leys Town Centre, as well as Coventry City Centre following the receipt of the objection from Coventry City Council. It has been determined that, by virtue of such centres’ role or location the impact that will arise as a consequence of the Proposed Development will be relatively limited and below the level which could be deemed to be ‘significant adverse’ even when considered in the context of the cumulative position. It is therefore evident that the only centre on which the retail impact of the Proposed Development needs to be considered in more detail is Leicester City Centre.

Relevant to the vitality and viability of Leicester City Centre is the fact that between November 2014 and March 2016 Leicester City Centre has experienced an increase in the number of vacant units and a decrease in the number of comparison goods units and comparison goods floor space. At March 2016, 15.3% of units and 15.5% of floor space was vacant in Leicester City Centre which compares unfavourably to the respective national averages of 11.2% and 9%. These figures give cause for concern particularly in respect of floor space and these local circumstances need to be taken into account when assessing the significance of the Proposed Development’s impact. These figures need to be considered alongside the significant trade diversion identified earlier in the report which equates to a significant monetary diversion of £81 million at 2020 (cumulative impact).

The Joint Retail Study identifies Leicester City Centre as the Single most popular destination for clothes shopping in the Study Area attracting almost half of such trips (48.5%) which originate in the study area. The City Centre secures more than four in every 10 trips to purchase clothing and footwear which originate in 10 of the 16 zones and is the most popular destination for such shopping in 13 of the 16 zones. Fosse Park secures more than 3 out of 10 clothing and footwear trips and secures an overall market share of 25.6% of such trips which originate in the study area.

It is clear that the Proposed Development will significantly increase the percentage of clothing and footwear expenditure claimed by what will effectively be an expanded Fosse Park which will reduce that claimed by Leicester City Centre. The sensitivity test suggests that this percentage will increase to a degree whereby the combined attraction of Fosse Park and the Proposed Development would have a broadly similar market share of the clothing and footwear sector to that of Leicester City Centre.

Leicester City Centre’s clothing and footwear offer is considered to be an important driver of trips to Leicester City Centre. As a consequence of the identified impact it is considered that the Proposed Development would likely have a reduction in the comparison goods turnover of Leicester City Centre at 2020, a related decrease in the strength of Leicester City Centre’s comparison goods offer, a weakening in operator demand for floor space, a related increase in the vacancy rate and a consequent reduction in Leicester City Centre’s general attractiveness to shoppers. Given the magnitude of the identified impacts that would arise at Leicester City Centre, it is considered that the Proposed Development would likely have a ‘significant adverse’ impact on the vitality and viability of Leicester City Centre at the test year of 2020. The Proposed Development therefore conflicts with paragraph 26 of the NPPF and Policy CS13 of the Adopted Blaby Core Strategy 2013. Paragraph 27 of NPPF would advise that permission should not be granted in such circumstances. However it has been clearly established in the courts that in such circumstances a local planning authority must weigh all factors in the planning balance (including the Secretary of State’s guidance in Paragraph 27 of NPPF) and may nonetheless still grant permission if other positive factors outweigh that conflict with policy, noting that significant weight should be afforded to a clear breach of national retail policy.

The Retail Impact Balance:

Section 70(2) of the 1990 Act and section 38(6) of the 2004 Act require the determining authority to determine the Application in accordance with the Development Plan unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise. This means that a decision must weigh the policy context of the Development Plan with the thrust of national guidance and any other material considerations which arise to make a judgement in the overall ‘planning balance’.

Other material considerations which need to be weighed into the balance against the conflict with paras 26 and 27 of the NPPF and before determining this Application include:

 The significant level of job creation and associated training opportunities that the Proposed Development would bring - the equivalent of approximately 1,000 new full time equivalent jobs not including those during the construction period. These will be available to residents of Leicester administrative area.  The facilitation of the Everards Meadow scheme on the opposite side of Soar Valley Way which included a replacement modern brewery facility, a public house, restaurants, artisan food units as well as enhancements to the public right of way network. The Everards Meadow development would also offer its own additional employment and training opportunities, along with the retention of approximately 118 jobs which will all be transferred from the existing brewery to the new site.  Considerable local investment including £87.8m of construction and fit out investment supporting 230 jobs per month over the 2 year build period.  Substantial mitigation measures to offset the negative impacts.

Whilst all material considerations will be weighed into the balance later in the report it is possible to explore the retail impact in more detail at this stage and reach a conclusion as to whether the material considerations could be considered to outweigh the conflict with policy.

There are considerable economic benefits of the Proposed Development (as set out above) which include the creation of up to 1,900 additional jobs (1,000 full time equivalent) and the facilitation of the Everards Meadow Development which would provide its own economic benefits. Whilst the identified economic benefits are substantial, they may not however, on their own, be sufficient to outweigh the perceived ‘significant adverse’ impact on the closest regional shopping destination and the conflict with the NPPF and Core Strategy Policy CS13 but they can be afforded significant weight in the planning balance.

Further the degree of impact on Leicester City Centre could be reduced further in one of two ways.

1. The scale of the Proposed Development and the amount retail floor space could be reduced further. 2. Mitigation measures are put in place via either planning conditions and/or a Section 106 agreement which would be used to offset the overall impact of the Proposed Development.

City Council Views:

Leicester City Council is of the firm view that the Proposed Development is unacceptable in its own right unless a substantive package of mitigation measures is put in place to help Leicester City Centre and the closest local centres respond to the anticipated level of retail impact caused by the trade draw by the Proposed Development.

A package of mitigation measures in the form of obligations (conditions, controls and financial contributions) has been put forward by Leicester City Council on the basis that they could, if accepted, potentially reduce the impacts to a level which could be considered as less than significant adverse. This recognised that there would still be a retail impact but this would be reduced to a degree that would not conflict with local and national planning policy. It was also made clear that if Blaby District Council is not minded to support and secure the suggested obligations then Leicester City Council’s consultation response should be registered as a formal objection.

Leicester City Council’s consultation response set out a raft of planning obligations and conditions which it believes would reduce the retail impact of the Proposed Development on Leicester City Centre to a degree which is less than significant adverse. This acknowledges the fact that there would still be a negative impact.

It can be seen that the comments of Leicester City Council with regard to the significance of impact are broadly in line with those expressed by Blaby District Council’s retail consultants. Leicester City Council considers that the level of impact could be reduced to a degree that would not be considered ‘significantly adverse’ by securing a package of mitigation measures. Blaby District Council’s officers see no reason to disagree with this stance but as the determining authority Blaby District Council must be sure that the request has been adequately justified. The original consultation response from Leicester City Council which referenced the payment of £5 million was not considered adequately justified so as to accord with the tests set out in Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations.

Leicester City Council has since provided detailed evidence to support a request for a financial contribution of £2.5 million in respect of mitigation of the retail impact on Leicester City Centre. This is based on an assessment of the retail area, set measurements of identified streets and evidence from previous projects to enhance the public realm in other locations. The areas identified for intervention include the Church Gate/Belgrave Gate area, Market Street, Gallowtree Gate and Granby Street.

Leicester City Council’s justification of the scale of the contribution is as follows;

The Council considers that sufficient funding should be provided to allow an upgrade of an area of around 7,000 sqm of the retail streets (This represents circa 7% of the total area of 97,000 sqm of public realm identified on the frontages plan attached). At a rate of £350 per sqm considered to be a standard of enhancement necessary to achieve the required level of mitigation, this would equate to a financial contribution of £2.5m.

The contribution was to be put towards public realm upgrade along the Churchgate and Belgrave Gate areas of Leicester City Centre alongside a number of secondary schemes to allow flexibility.

Leicester City Council has also requested a further £250,000 is secured to offset the environmental impacts on Aylestone Road Local Centre and Narborough Road District Centre / West End.

A further financial contribution of £180,000 has been requested towards the funding for 3 years of an employment and skills co-ordinator who will develop and implement a skills strategy to improve access to work, education and skills development and development of apprenticeships and other training opportunities.

The compliance with Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulationsof these contributions are considered below.

Conclusion on Retail Issues

The Proposed Development would accord with the sequential test. There were no identified sites which offer the genuine potential (i.e. are suitable and available) to accommodate the Proposed Development and there is no conflict with the first key retail test within the NPPF in this respect.

The Proposed Development was also subject to an impact test. The impact test, which is the second key retail test set out in the NPPF, comprised of two elements, both of which have been considered.

The first consideration examined the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the Proposed Development. Five areas were identified as requiring further consideration as to the Proposed Development’s potential impact. Each area was examined individually to establish the level of potential investment opportunities (existing, committed and planned) and the impact of the Proposed Development upon them. In each case it was concluded that the Proposed Development would not have a significant adverse impact on any existing, planned or committed investment. The Proposed Development was therefore considered to accord with the first impact test set out in the NPPF.

The second part of the impact test requires the assessment of the impact of the Proposed Development on town centre vitality and viability. This considered the impact of the Proposed Development on all of the relevant centres within the identified catchment area and concluded that, by virtue of such centres’ role or location, the impact that will arise as a result of the Proposed Development on the majority of the centres would be relatively limited and below the level which could be considered significant adverse. This took account of the cumulative position which was considered by Blaby District Council, Leicester City Council and Leicestershire County Council to be the most robust test. Blaby District Council’s retail consultants concluded that the impact on Leicester City Centre would be 11.2% as opposed to the perceived solus impact of 7.7%. The most notable comparison goods cumulative retail impact related to:

 3.7% reduction in trade to Blaby Town Centre  7.2% reduction in trade to Beaumont Leys Town Centre  11.2% reduction in trade to the city centre and  8.9% increase in trade to the MRA.

The majority of the centres considered in this test were of a size and nature that was not directly comparable to the offer presented by the Proposed Development. Within the identified catchment area the only centre deemed to be comparable was the regionally significant Leicester City Centre. It has been concluded that the predicted comparison cumulative impact of 11.2% would have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Leicester City Centre. The NPPF is clear that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on at least one of the two elements of the impact test, the application should be refused. The courts have confirmed that in such circumstances a local planning authority must weigh all factors in the planning balance and may nonetheless still grant permission if other factors outweigh that conflict with policy (which should attract significant weight).

Whilst it is in principle considered that other material considerations may exist which could be taken to outweigh this significant breach of national policy it is also appropriate to consider whether mitigation measures could be used to offset the degree of the impact on Leicester City Centre. Leicester City Council has reached a conclusion that there is a significant adverse impact on Leicester City Centre but it has also taken a pragmatic approach in its representation which considers that mitigation measures would minimise such impact to a point at which Leicester City Council are able to conclude that the impact on the vitality and viability of Leicester City Centre would not be significantly adverse.

In considering whether the planning obligations proposed by Leicester City Council are acceptable in planning terms it is essential that they are considered in the context of the relevant legislation. Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations states:

“A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is:

. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

. directly related to the development; and

. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.”

In view of this very clear legal framework Blaby District Council officers consider that the following contributions and planning obligations, as suggested Leicester City Council, are necessary to make the Proposed Development acceptable in planning terms, are directly related to the Proposed Development, and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the Proposed development, for the clear reasons set out below.

The contributions comprise of:

 Leicester City Centre improvements – in view of the anticipated trading effects of the Proposed Development it is considered to be necessary to expect the Applicant to contribute towards Leicester City Centre improvement. A significant amount of trade will be drawn away from Leicester City Centre so to mitigate this a sum of £2.5 million pounds is considered to be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the Proposed Development. As the Authority responsible for management of Leicester City Centre it is considered that Leicester City Council is well placed to assess the perceived impact of the Proposed Development, and what steps are needed to proportionately offset any impacts in a manner which is policy compliant. The funds should be used to support improvements to enhance the local connectivity of marginal streets in Leicester City Centre with better performing areas, to improve their vitality and viability through increased footfall and enhanced shopper experience. This could be in the form of public realm, signage, premises and gateway improvements, or other such improvements to address the impact of the Proposed Development on its more vulnerable areas within Leicester City Centre. The contribution would be put towards measures to address the impact evidenced upon Leicester City Centre and is therefore clearly related to the Proposed Development. The scale of contribution has been calculated based on the upgrading of 7,000 sq. m of the retail streets at a rate of £350 per sq. m. This scale of contribution relates fairly and reasonable to the Proposed Development.

 Employment and skills coordinator – in view of the significant number of new employment opportunities created (2,015 flexible jobs) and the fact that the majority of these jobs will be secured by residents in Leicester’s administrative area given its size and proximity to the Application Site.

 A financial contribution of £180,000 towards the funding of an employment and skills co-ordinator for 3 years is considered to be necessary to make the development acceptable. One of the key aims that the new post will have is the responsibility for developing and implementing a skills strategy to improve access to work, education and skill development and development of apprenticeships and other training opportunities. It is considered to be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the Proposed Development, and directly related to the Proposed Development.

 Land use control - the inclusion within a Section 106 Agreement of a clause that would prevent a retailer trading from Leicester City Centre to occupy an anchor unit within the Proposed Development and close its existing store in Leicester City Centre is considered to be necessary to make the Proposed Development acceptable in planning terms. It is also directly related to the Proposed Development. The obligation is intended to bind the Proposed Development for a period of 5 years which is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the Proposed Development.

As the authority responsible for management of Leicester City centre it is considered that Leicester City Council is well placed to assess the perceived impact of the Proposed Development. The justification for the requests provided by Leicester City Council has been considered in detail and, with the exception of the requests towards Narborough Road and Aylestone Village Centres, is considered to comply with the 3 tests set out in Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations.

It is acknowledged that it is difficult to quantify a reduction in retail impact by reference to a financial contribution for mitigation measures. Inevitably, the question of whether or not the impact falls below the threshold of significant adverse is one of judgment. Blaby District Council’s retail consultants considered the identified levels of trade diversion from Leicester City Centre. It indicated that the Proposed Development would draw 50% of its turnover from Leicester City Centre. In monetary terms this equated to a trade diversion of £55.4m from Leicester City Centre at 2020. Given the extent of this impact, it is considered that the requested contributions towards offsetting the retail impact on Leicester City Centre are;

 necessary to reduce the impact to a degree below the threshold of significant adverse;  directly related to the development (to adequately offset the identified impacts of the development on the vitality and viability of the city centre); and  fairly and reasonably related to the development in scale and kind.

It is not however considered that the justification provided by Leicester City Council in relation to the perceived impacts on the two local centres is robust. The contribution request related to the impact on the attractiveness of these centres as a result of increased traffic arising from the Proposed Development but provided limited information to back this up. The limited justification has been recognised by the Leicester City Council in its response:

The City Council recognises that retail impact is difficult to empirically evidence at the Aylestone Road / Narborough Road centres. However we maintain that environmental impacts as set out in our previous letter will be significant and the applicant is requested to consider a contribution at the level indicated below to off- set these impacts and explore potential investment mechanisms with the City Council in this regard.

The lack of a robust justification means that this element of the contribution request cannot be considered to comply with the three Regulation 122 tests and this element of Leicester City Council’s requests is not supported.

Leicester City Council also requested conditions controlling various elements of the Proposed Development. The conditions as set out above represent the closest set of reasonable controls over the Proposed Development that were considered reasonable and necessary.

The level of mitigation and its implications for the retail impact has been considered by Blaby District Council’s retail consultants and they advise that:

Accordingly, we are satisfied from the information provided by LCC that the measures supported by the proposed £2.5m would be of some material benefit to the areas identified and, as such, would also have some positive impact on the city centre as a whole. In particular, we believe that a renewed and improved public realm at Churchgate and Belgrave/Haymarket would likely make these streets more attractive to current and prospective operators, and also to shoppers. In doing so, they could help reduce vacancies, encourage footfall and generally make these streets more attractive places to visit. Accordingly, the proposed measures would likely mitigate the impacts arising from the centre in part.

They go on to conclude:

“We believe that the proposed package of mitigation measures for Leicester city centre appear compliant with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations, such that BDC can take them into consideration in determining the application. However, we believe that measures will only mitigate the impacts of the development in part and do not believe there is currently any persuasive evidence to suggest that the mitigation will result in the identified significant adverse impact being reduced such that it is merely an adverse impact. It will be for BDC to attribute appropriate weight to the measures in undertaking a ‘planning balance’ exercise in determining the application.

If BDC were minded to grant planning permission, we believe it will likely be necessary to attach a condition to retain control over the future sub-division and scale of units in order that the development remains broadly similar to that which has been assessed. Otherwise, additional impacts would likely arise as a consequence of the development.”

It is therefore necessary to consider, as part of the planning balance, whether it could be the case that the benefits of the Proposed Development (including the additional employment which would be supported, the regeneration of the previously developed Brewery site and the mitigation measures which would be secured for Leicester City Centre) are such that they outweigh any failure to comply with the impact test (as articulated by paragraph 26 and 27 of the NPPF and Policy CS13 of the Blaby Core Strategy).

If it can be established that the benefits of the Proposed Development outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan it is considered important that a condition controlling the number and size of units is attached to any planning permission to avoid in the future the Proposed Development evolving to a point where it would start to provide accommodation which would appeal to retailers who may not have a requirement to locate at both Fosse Park and Leicester City Centre. Without a condition relating to sub-division and minimum unit size, the nature of the Everard’s Brewery scheme could evolve such that one of Leicester City Centre’s key differentiators – i.e. it provides a range of different types of shops, including relatively small and specialist retailers – is diluted. It is considered that the conditions set out above achieves this.

HIGHWAYS IMPLICATIONS

The County Highways Authority has considered all of the highways submissions received in respect of the Proposed Development in detail and undertook its own Paramics modelling. The model allows the impact of the Proposed Development on the local highways network to be simulated. Such modelling can help predict future travel pattern behaviour that results from a change in traffic volume and allows the benefits of highways mitigation measures to be assessed to identify the infrastructure improvements which offer the most benefits. The highways department has accepted a number of baseline parameters including:

 Trade Draw Figures - including a reduction in the trade draw for mezzanine in accordance with industry standard;  The principle of the access to the Application Site - although further amendments to the submitted scheme will be required;  Car Parking provision – it was found that there would be an under provision of approximately 30 spaces (cumulative impact) which could be absorbed by parking within the existing retail park. This acceptance was based on the Proposed Development and the existing retail park operating as a single retail destination with the proposed link provided.

The County Highways Authority response also estimated that the Proposed Development would result in additional vehicle movements to and from the Proposed Development during the peak times of 17:00 to 18:00 Friday and 13:00 to 14:00 Saturdays of 1056 and 1435 respectively. Of these peak movements 45% was considered to be trade draw, 20% would be new trips and 35% pass by / diverted. The impact of the increased movements on the highways network was considered in the light of the existing congestion caused by, amongst other things, the amount of traffic and the impact of traffic control infrastructure.

The traffic signal timings contained in the Applicant’s updated transport submission were not accepted as they were considered to be incorrect and further work was required to better understand the operation of the key junctions in the network. The submitted Transport Assessment took a manual approach to assigning the Proposed Development traffic to the network between the Application Site and the destinations/origins to/from the north to go through the existing Fosse Park. This methodology was not accepted as the timings given conflicted with the dynamic route choices shown in the Paramics model undertaken by the County Highways Authority. The County Highways Authority’s Paramics model represents dynamic route choices and shows that traffic arising as a result of the Proposed Development is likely to have a significant impact on queuing in the west bound direction on Soar Valley Way. This is partly a result of current signal timings. The Paramics model shows that adjustments to signal timings can reduce the level of queuing around some of the main junctions in the network. The County Highways Authority considers that the installation of a SCOOT/MOVA scheme would be necessary to mitigate some of the negative impacts on the road network and it forms one of their requested planning obligations.

The County Highways Authority considered that the Proposed Development would have an unduly detrimental impact on the highways network and would be unacceptable in its own right. It was considered that the impact of the Proposed Development would have to be adequately mitigated through the provision of a number of planning obligations and conditions. These are:

 The installation of a SCOOT/MOVA scheme would be necessary to ensure that changes to signal timings do not have a detrimental impact on operation and it forms one of their requested planning obligations;

 The use of variable message signs would help with the movement of vehicles within the Proposed Development by directing drivers to areas where there are spaces. These variable message car parking management signs also form part of the County Highway Authority’s planning obligation requests;

 A need to provide an ongoing review of the Travel Plan to ensure that its effectiveness is maximised and it can take account of any changes in circumstances or new sustainable travel options which may become available. This should include a provision which encourages liaison with Fosse Park Management;

 The appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator for 5 years who will also be responsible for overseeing a bus strategy and travel plan;

 A contribution towards the extension of bus services to the Application Site;

 A bus strategy which would consider the routes which are available (and their destination) routes/improvements being proposed by the Applicant (and their destinations), the frequency of services, hours of operation and the upgrading of infrastructure such a bus stops/shelters and real time displays;

 The submission of a Construction Management Plan;

 Controls over vehicular access barriers;

 One Travel Pack per employee;

 A one month One Card Flexi-Ticket to be provided for each new employee;

 A monitoring fee.

In addition to the SCOOT/MOVA system the obligations also include a number of provisions to enhance the level of service and increase the use of sustainable transport which is a goal of both local and national policy and could have benefits for both the local environmental and the highways network.

Highways Conclusion

The County Highways Authority has assessed the impact of the proposal in a considerable amount of detail. Following concern over the accuracy of the supporting highways information submitted by the Applicant it undertook its own Paramics model to ensure the most accurate highways impact predictions of the implications for the surrounding highways network. The model showed that management of signal timings could reduce the level of queuing around a number of the junctions and is considered necessary to mitigate the impact of the Proposed Development on the highways network.

The various requests which form the sustainable transport package are also considered to be an important element of the Proposed Development as they will encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport (reducing vehicular trips) and are in accordance with the sustainability aims and objectives of both local and national policy.

It is considered that, on the basis of the consultation responses received from the County Highways Authority the requested contribution towards SCOOT/MOVA and the elements contained in the Sustainable Travel Plan are required to mitigate the highways impact of the Proposed Development. The County Highways Authority’s justification of the requests is considered robust and it is concluded that they are Regulation 122 compliant.

The Section 106 obligations and the suggested highways conditions have been the subject of discussions between the County Highways Authority. City Highways Authority (incorporating the Public Transport) and the Applicant. These obligations have been agreed by all parties and will form part of any approval. The Proposed Development is therefore considered to comply with Policies CS10 and CS11 of the adopted Core Strategy and Policies T3, T6 and T10 of the Adopted Local Plan 1999.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Air Quality

The Applicant submitted an Air Quality Impact Assessment with the original proposal. Air quality is also a matter that was scoped into the Environmental Impact Assessment and has been considered in both the Environmental Statement (“ES”) submitted with the original proposal and the Addendum to the Environmental Statement (April 2016) (“Addendum ES”) submitted with the revised proposal.

The Core Strategy states at paragraph 3.12 that “the area around Junction 21 of the M1 experiences sever traffic congestion at peak hours (particularly the southbound exit in the morning peak hour) and, as a result of this, air and noise pollution is an issue in this area. Five Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) have been designated (primarily resulting from vehicular emissions) two of which are in the M1 corridor”.

Further at paragraph 4.25 it states that “the District currently has five Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) where pollution levels are considered to be an environmental problem. The majority of AQMAs are focussed around the M1 / M69 and A46, some of these areas are adjacent to the Principal Urban Area which will be the focus for new growth. Balancing the need for growth with the impact that this will have on new and existing residents (in terms of air quality) will be a key issue. There is a strong reliance on cars within the District, with 72% of people travelling to work by car (2001 census) – this figure is reduced in those Parishes which abut the City. High volumes of vehicle movements are recorded on key radial routes into the City of Leicester and around junction 21 of the M1. In addition high volumes of Heavy Goods Vehicle movements are recorded on the B4114 through Sharnford”.

The Proposed Development is situated in AQMA 1.

The Air Quality Impact Assessment considered the construction phase and operational phase, mitigation measures and residual effects of the Proposed Development. It concluded that in relation to the construction phase, through good site practice and the implementation of suitable mitigation measures, the air quality effects would be reduced, and that the residual effects are considered to be negligible. In relation to the operational phase it concludes that the Proposed Development would bring about a negligible increase in nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter concentrations at existing sensitive receptors.

The ES considered the relevant policies and guidance documents applicable to air quality in relation to the Application Site. The ES considered the construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development. As per the Air Quality Impact Assessment the effects are considered to be negligible in relation to the construction phase, provided that recommended mitigation is implemented, and that the residual effect of the proposed development once operational will be a direct, permanent effect of negligible significance. The Addendum ES confirmed these conclusions.

As part of the consultation process in relation to the original proposal Environmental Health considered the Air Quality Impact Assessment and the ESent. Environmental Health were generally satisfied with the contents and conclusions in relation to both of these documents.

In order to monitor the actual impact of the Proposed Development, it was considered appropriate to undertake monitoring of nitrogen dioxide using an appropriate method at one or more suitable locations. A suitable Air Quality Monitoring Station could be purchased and operated by Blaby District Council, along with its existing network. A commuted sum of £25,000 should be sufficient to facilitate this. In order to accurately monitor the impact of the Proposed Development, monitoring should commence as soon as possible should planning permission be granted and this should be taken into account when determining the timetable for payments to be made. An invoice has been provided to establish the requested contribution amount. Mitigation of the air quality and dust impacts during the construction phase will be delivered through a Construction Environmental Management Plan (“CEMP”).

The Applicant has agreed to the commuted sum of £25,000 in order to allow the impact of the Proposed Development to be accurately monitored and, where possible, managed thereafter. The contribution will fund the provision of the roadside air quality monitoring station. This is considered to be necessary to make the Proposed Development acceptable in planning terms, related to the Proposed Development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. Noise & Vibration

Paragraph 3.12, as stated above, identifies noise pollution as an issue in the area of the Proposed Development.

Potential environmental effects relating to noise and vibration include:

 Increased road noise levels from vehicles  Increased noise levels from plant and piling activities  Damage to geographical, geo-morphological and archaeological sites  Damage to nearby structures and buildings

Mitigation of these effects will be delivered through a CEMP during the construction phase of the Proposed Development.

During the consultation in relation to the Scoping Opinion in respect of the Environmental Statement Environmental Health provided the following response:

“In essence, my reasoning as to why Noise (both from the Construction and Operational Phases) of the proposed development falls under the category of non-significant issues follows that which is contained in table 6.1 (pages 25/26) of the Scoping Report. This refers to the fact that the existing local road network already carries significant traffic flows, and the addition of the predicted traffic from the proposed development is unlikely to increase existing ambient noise levels. In addition to this, the nearest noise sensitive properties lie at a considerable distance from the site, and are therefore unlikely to be affected by any additional traffic noise from the proposal. Point noise sources, such as air conditioning plant and extraction fans can be dealt with by planning conditions.”

The Scoping Report (April 2015) submitted by the Applicant when requesting a Scoping Opinion which was accepted by Environmental Health stated as follows:

“There is likely to be increased noise during the construction works, including noise resulting from construction vehicles.

Standard measures commonly employed in a CEMP will be adopted during the construction phase, such as the selection of appropriate construction techniques and site hoardings, therefore the proposals are not expected to result in significant effects.

In terms of traffic-noise, with reference to the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Annex 5 notes that a change of 1 dB(A) in noise level can be related to ‘…an increase of 25% or a decrease in traffic flow of 20% (assuming no change in speed).’ The guidance states that a change of 1dB(A) is generally considered to be noticeable only when a person is deliberately listening for a change and that such a change would be considered insignificant. Traffic generated by the proposals is not expected to give a material increase to traffic over and above the existing base line scenario (< 2% increase in AADT flows), therefore significant traffic-related noise impacts are not expected. Furthermore, the proposed development would not significantly alter the character of the Site and the overall Motorway Retail Area. The nearest sensitive residential receptors are also located at a significant distance from the Site (600 – 700m).”

Environmental Health have raised no objections to the proposal on noise grounds.

Light Pollution:

Limited information has been submitted in relation to the schemes external lighting scheme. This will be adequately controlled via a condition requiring the submission approval and later installation of the external lighting scheme prior to first occupation. Environmental Health has suggested that the details to be provided in support of this condition include isopleths in lux to show the distribution of light from the columns and luminaires, with a view to avoiding light spillage outside the development boundary. The details should demonstrate compliance with relevant provisions of the “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light” GN01:2011 (Institution of Lighting Professionals).

This has been addressed in the relevant planning condition as set out in the Recommendation. Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

The control of environmental effects from the construction phase is normally dealt with through a CEMP. The potential environmental effects during the construction of the Proposed Development which should be considered in any such plan will include:

 Air quality and dust  Noise and vibration  Site drainage and protection of watercourses  Development traffic  Waste management

The Applicant’s Environmental Statement states:

“The CEMP will be a tool for implementing the mitigation measures identified within the ES and the conditions of the planning application. During the demolition and construction phase this will become a live and controlled document used on site and will be maintained by the environmental manager to include all relevant environmental data, such as planning conditions, permits and approvals, resource management records, environmental monitoring records, environmental risk assessments, and nonconformances. The mitigation matrix within the CEMP will serve as a tool for identifying which planned activities are likely to result in an impact and ensuring that the team are aware of the required mitigation measures and that they are implemented.

Mitigation of all the effects would be delivered through a CEMP. The CEMP would include the following main items that would be developed by the appointed Contractor for the development, and be submitted to BDC for prior approval.

 A description of the detailed methods for the construction in terms of basement excavations, substructures, piling etc. with the relevant duration of activities;  A detailed construction programme to state the main activities and associated time periods;  Plans to show the areas for construction and associated works. This would include plans for site accommodation for workers and vehicles/deliveries, etc.;  Procedures for liaison with the local community, registration of complaints and response to any complaints;  Details of Access routes to the site and any works involving interference with the public highway or footpaths; and  Consideration of the potential environmental impacts identified resulting from the detailed construction methods.

The CEMP would also set out the strategy, standards, control measures and monitoring.”

It is considered that requiring the submission, approval and implementation of a CEMP via a planning condition will adequately control the environmental impact of the Proposed Development during the construction phase.

Conclusion on Environmental Issues

It is considered that the environmental impact of the Proposed Development can be controlled through the imposition of conditions including the provision of a CEMP, the submission of a lighting scheme and the Environment Agency’s condition to control the potential impact on controlled waters. The extent of the additional vehicle movements that will arise as a result of the Proposed Development is also considered to justify the requirement for a contribution towards additional air quality monitoring equipment. Accordingly, it is not considered that the Proposed Development would have any unduly detrimental environmental impacts which would warrant the refusal of the Application. This element of the Proposed Development is therefore considered to comply with Policy CE26 of the 1999 Local Plan.

Flood Risk

The Proposed Development includes the creation of a ramp to form an access between the new service road along the north side of the Application Site and an existing service yard located at the rear of a number of existing Fosse Park units. The existing service area is at a lower level to Everard Way and lies within Flood Zone 2. Extending the ramp into this area therefore results in a small section of the Application Site (approximately 0.5%) falling within Flood Zone 2.

The need for the ramp has been created as a result of the provision of the pedestrian link (requiring the stopping up of Everard Way) which is considered to be an important element of the Proposed Development as it will bring the two retail destinations together and allow shoppers to visit the two areas without the need to drive from one to the other. The small incursion into the flood zone is therefore as a direct result of the provision of what the Applicant considers to be an important and intrinsic element of the Proposed Development. The Applicant has stated that to remove the pedestrian link to negate the need for the ramp would damage the cohesion of the Proposed Development as a whole and harm its effectiveness as a shopping destination. The requirement for the ramp to enter Flood Zone 2 arises directly from the provision of the pedestrian link and the need to continue to service existing retailers on Fosse Park.

Policy CS22 of the Core Strategy indicates that Blaby District Council will ensure all development minimises vulnerability and provides resilience to flooding, including by directing development to locations with the lowest risk of flooding, and close consulting with the Environment Agency.

This small incursion into the Flood Zone resulted in the following objection from the Environment Agency dated 7 July 2015:

“We object to this application in the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that the flood risk Sequential Test has been applied. We recommend that until then the application should not be determined for the following reasons:

The application site outlined in red lies within Flood Zone 2 defined by the Environment Agency Flood Map / Strategic Flood Risk Assessment as having a medium probability of flooding. Paragraph 101 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires decision-makers to steer new development to areas at the lowest probability of flooding by applying a ‘Sequential Test’. In this instance no evidence has been provided to indicate that this test has been carried out.

Overcoming Our Objection:

You can overcome our objection by providing evidence that the Sequential Test has been completed and demonstrates that there are no reasonably available alternative sites in areas with a lower probability of flooding that would be appropriate for the type of development proposed.”

Prior to submitting this objection the Environment Agency had indicated that it would object if the sequential test were not complied with, without at that time formally responding to the consultation.

The sequential test is a requirement of the NPPF and is something that has specifically been raised by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency requires confirmation from Blaby District Council that the sequential test has been deemed to be passed. If this information is not provided to the Environment Agency then the objection would be maintained on these grounds. It is therefore a matter for Blaby District Council to determine whether the test has been passed and then notify the Environment Agency of this fact.

Paragraph 101 of the NPPF states that the aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. It goes on to say that:

“Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The Strategic Flood risk Assessment will provide the Basis for applying this test.”

Paragraph 103 of the NPPF goes on to say that:

“When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where informed by a site specific flood risk assessment.”

Further guidance is given in the NPPG which indicates that:

“For individual planning applications where there has been no sequential testing of the allocations in the development plan, or where the use of the site being proposed is not in accordance with the development plan, the area to apply the Sequential Test across will be defined by local circumstances relating to the catchment area for the type of development proposed. For some developments this may be clear, for example, the catchment area for a school. In other cases it may be identified from other Local Plan policies, such as the need for affordable housing within a town centre, or a specific area identified for regeneration. For example, where there are large areas in Flood Zones 2 and 3 (medium to high probability of flooding) and development is needed in those areas to sustain the existing community, sites outside them are unlikely to provide reasonable alternatives.

When applying the Sequential Test, a pragmatic approach on the availability of alternatives should be taken. For example, in considering planning applications for extensions to existing business premises it might be impractical to suggest that there are more suitable alternative locations for that development elsewhere. For nationally or regionally important infrastructure the area of search to which the Sequential Test could be applied will be wider than the local planning authority boundary.”

Clarification was sought from the Environment Agency as to their proposed objection on the basis of the limited extent of the Application Site within Flood Zone 2. The Environment Agency responded referring to Appeal Decision APP/W3005/A/09/2115230 which stated at paragraphs 5 and 6:

5. Although, the appellant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment and has applied the sequential approach to locating the development on the site, no sequential test has been undertaken of the appeal site itself as required by PPS 25. The appellant accepts that as the site covers all flood zones the development would need to be sequentially preferable. However, no such test has been undertaken and this is a significant omission.

6. The fact that the appellant has indicated that no habitable accommodation would be located within Flood Zone 1, or the fact that they have identified a possible safe means of escape in the event of an exceptional flood event does not negate the need to undertake a Sequential Test for the appeal site.

Further detailed representations were requested from the Applicant in relation to the sequential test and received on 24 September 2015. These representations highlighted that only 0.5% of the Application Site falls within Flood Zone 2, that the amendment to the existing service yard came about as a result of the need to stop up Everard Way to allow the pedestrian link between the existing and proposed retail destinations, and that there is no built floor space in the area. The flood risk is not increased nor the vulnerability of users.

The Applicant referred to the Joint Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (JSFRA) published in October 2014 by three authorities including the District Council. Paragraph 6.5.1 of the JSFRA states that, “a pragmatic approach should be taken when applying the sequential test”.

The site itself is not specifically assessed within the JSFRA although it is shown as being within a 1:1000 year extent for surface water flooding or as having a 50%-75% susceptibility to ground water flooding. The JSFRA supports the principle set out in the NPPG of taking a pragmatic approach to applying the sequential test.

The Applicant stated that a pragmatic approach to site selection and the sequential test should be applied in this matter. The Proposed Development will deliver a pedestrian link between the Proposed Development and the existing Fosse Park which is integral to the scheme and will deliver significant benefits by allowing shoppers to visit both destinations without driving between the two. Requiring the sequential test to be applied does not represent a pragmatic approach and fundamentally impacts on the Proposed Development.

Bearing all of those matters in mind:

 A pragmatic approach to applying sequential tests should be taken.  Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the Proposed Development in areas with a lower probability of flooding.  When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where informed by a site specific flood risk assessment  Where the use of the site being proposed is not in accordance with the development plan, the area to apply the Sequential Test across will be defined by local circumstances relating to the catchment area for the type of development proposed.

The section of Flood Zone 2 into which the proposed ramp would extend is already a hard surfaced service yard. As such it is considered that this would have a limited impact on the flood zone and would cause no material increase on the flood risk elsewhere. This is indicated in the Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment that accompanied the Application which indicates that there will be no alterations to the existing flood zone routes as a result of the ramp. In addition, the nature of the Proposed Development as a whole, the Application Site’s relationship to the existing Fosse Retail Park/surrounding highways infrastructure and the overall quantum of development are such that it would be difficult to find more reasonably available sites which are appropriate for the Proposed Development. Whilst there may be sites within open countryside which are large enough to house the Proposed Aevelopment within an area less susceptible to flooding such a site is unlikely to be considered appropriate for the Proposed Development. A second isolated out of centre retail park in a separate location with poorer quality transport links is likely to be a less desirable proposition.

Taking a pragmatic approach to applying the sequential test, in the light of the above information and local circumstances, which include:

 the scale of the development and the limited availability of appropriate alternative sites;  the limited impact on the flood zone routes;  the importance of the link (which has resulted in the need for the ramp) in the overall operation of the scheme;  the fact that the ramp is not considered to be vulnerable development; it is considered that the Proposed Development complies with the principles of the sequential test.

The Environment Agency provided further comments in relation to the revised proposal, as follows:

The Environment Agency has no objection to the Proposed Development provided that Blaby District Council deem that the Application Site has passed the Sequential Test. The Environment Agency commented that only the access ramp is within Flood Zone 2 and that none of the site is within Flood Zone 3. In flood risk vulnerability terms the Proposed Development is no more vulnerable than the existing development and the Environment Agency therefore has no objection to the Proposed Development provided that the Sequential Test is deemed to have been passed. The initial objection has been withdrawn

Given that the sequential test has been passed, it is considered that the Application is acceptable in flood risk terms and complies with the requirements of the NPPF and Policy CS22 of the Adopted Blaby Core Strategy.

Ground Contamination

The Application was accompanied by a Geo Technical Site Investigation and Risk Assessment Report. The assessment included a preliminary risk assessment, Site Investigation Geotechnical Assessment, Soil/Groundwater/Ground Gas Analysis, Ground Water Analysis, Ground Gas Assessment and an Environmental Risk Assessment. This included a site inspection, a review of the historical land uses, consultation with regulatory authorities, bore holes, trial pits and gas monitoring wells.

This issue was scoped out of the Environment Statement. The Scoping Report stated that:

“Ground investigation works have been undertaken and preliminary analysis of the results has confirmed that the there [sic] is no significant contamination across the site.

On completion of the proposed development, the majority of the Site will be covered in hard standing or structures which will form a physical barrier between shallow soil contaminants and human health receptors, thereby significantly reducing the potential for exposure. Based on the limited presence of shallow soil contamination and the post development reduction of exposure due to the presence of surface cover, the risk to human health receptors is considered to be low.

A Geotechnical Site Investigation & Risk Assessment Report will be submitted as part of the planning application, which will report the findings of the intrusive investigations.”

In response to the consultation in relation to the original proposal the Environment Agency raised no issue regarding contamination. However they did provide comment in relation to the revised proposal and suggested a detailed condition to control contamination. Environmental Health commented on this issue in relation to both the original proposal and requested the implementation of conditions requiring further monitoring which they have since concluded are covered by the detailed condition put forward by the Environment Agency.

Five groundwater samples were obtained as part of the Applicant’s site investigations. Four of the five groundwater samples tested indicated elevated concentrations of phenol. Elevated concentrations of phenol are present across the site. Although little variation is present in the concentrations measured, an increasing trend from the west to the east is suggested by the results. In one groundwater sample recovered from the southwest of the site, from WS10, no phenol was detected.

The Environment Agency noted that the method for analysing phenols used by the Applicant is not accredited, and recommend that any future analysis for phenols is accredited.

The report states that as there is no obvious on site source the concentration is assumed to be from an offsite source, although no offsite source has been suggested. It is considered that the existing brewery and industrial processes therein are a possible on site source of such contamination. The phenols may have been used in disinfectant products that may have been used as part of the brewery.

It is not considered that the data presented in the report is indicative of a plume of contamination migrating on to site from an off site source. Phenol contamination has been found across the site, not confined to one peripheral area, and considering a north/north easterly groundwater flow direction WS10 is upgradient of the existing warehouse building, whereas the offending boreholes are either located to the north or east i.e. down gradient of the potential source.

Further investigation is required to prove that there is no unacceptable risk to controlled waters, or a remediation strategy should be submitted for approval. Any conclusion should be supported and demonstrated by a Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment.

Due to the presence of phenol contamination, appropriate protection of underground services is required.

As it is suspected that the phenol contamination is related to the existing structures and on-going uses, it would be prudent for the additional investigation to be undertaken after demolition has taken place which can be controlled through a condition. It has not been practical to investigate areas around existing structures on site prior to demolition. However, the Applicant has been made aware that the potential costs of remediation, if required, could be substantial and may add significant delays to the project. Planning conditions are needed in order to require further investigation and assessment to prove that the risk to controlled waters is acceptable, with submission of a report to Blaby District Council, prior to the commencement of any above ground construction on site.

Both the Environment Agency and Environmental Health have suggested that any consent be appropriately conditioned to take account of the issue of potential phenol contamination. Appropriate conditions have been included above, which have been considered and approved by both the Environment Agency and Environmental Health.

Un-investigated Areas

It is noted by Environmental Health that no investigation has taken place in the northernmost extent of the Application Site, the Fosse Shopping service yard. However considering the history of this area as undeveloped until the early 1990s, and that this area has been predominately covered in concrete hard-standing, there is not considered a significant risk of soil contamination. However, there is potential for there to be soil contamination in this area and Environmental Health have suggested that a discovery strategy be put in place during the construction phase.

Underground Storage Tanks

There are a number of underground storage tanks on the Application Site used by the existing brewery.

It is acknowledged by Environmental Health that the samples of soil and groundwater tested from the area of the underground storage tanks did not indicate any significant hydrocarbon contamination. However all the underground storage tanks should be properly decommissioned, the tank and any affected soils removed, and a validation report submitted to Blaby District Council including waste disposal documents and chemical testing of unaffected soils. The Environment Agency also suggested that a remediation strategy is developed to remove the underground storage tanks on site, and that associated validation sampling is conducted to demonstrate that there is no contamination in the relevant areas.

In conclusion, it is considered that further work is required to establish the extent of the phenol contamination and the risk to controlled waters. Given that the phenol contamination may have arisen as a result of the buildings the testing will need to take place following their demolition but prior to the commencement of any above ground construction. This can be best secured through the implementation of appropriately worded conditions.

Ecology

An analysis of the Proposed Development’s impact on the ecological interest of the Application Site and its surroundings has been undertaken and the results set out in the ecological assessment which accompanied the application. The document assesses the importance of the habitats within the Application Site with reference to the guidance published by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.

The initial survey of the site comprised of 3 elements:

1. A desk study which compiled background information gathered from the Leicestershire and Rutland Environmental Records Centre and other multi agency geographic information held by bodies such as Natural England.

2. A Habitat Survey, carried out in November 2014, to ascertain the general ecological value of the site and to identify the main habitats and associated plant species. The survey identified and assessed the following habitat and vegetation types:

o Buildings; o Hardstanding; o Amenity Grassland; o Amenity Planting; o Hedgerow; o Trees; o Wet Ditch/Rough Grassland; o Scrub; and o Tall Ruderal Vegetation

This element of the survey concludes that the habitats present on site are of negligible ecological interest and their loss to the development would be of no significance. The report recognises the open wet ditch, the associated rough grassland banks and developing scrub are of some interest although as this is limited by the culverting of sections of the ditch and the lack of connectivity to any off site areas of ecological value it will not constitute a constraint to the development. It is acknowledged that the proposal would result in the loss of some nesting and foraging impact which should be offset by any new landscape planting incorporating native species of known wildlife value.

The survey indicates that there are no statutory designated sites within or adjacent to the Application Site. The report recognises the presence of:

 Aylestone Meadows Local Nature Reserve (LNR) approx. 0.8km north east of the site which is considered to be one of the Soar Valley’s most important wildlife sites which supports a variety of habitats and species such as Otter and White-clawed Crayfish. The report concludes that the proposed development is not likely to have any significant direct or indirect effects on the LNR.

 Enderby Warren Quarry SSSI 1.2km west of the site is designated for geological reasons. The report concludes that the proposed development is not likely to have any significant direct or indirect effects on the SSSI.

 Narborough Bog SSSI 2km south of the site is designated as it contains one of the largest reed beds in Leicestershire together with areas of wet woodland and meadow. The site falls within an identified impact risk zone for the Narborough Bog which indicates that the development would have the potential to impact on this area. The supporting ecological assessment concludes “Given the scale of the proposals and their isolated nature (being largely buffered from the SSSI by developed and agricultural lane), it is not considered likely that any direct or indirect impact effects would occur to the interest features of the SSSI. None the less appropriate engineering safeguards should be adopted during the construction phase of the proposals to limit any unlikely impact occurring.“

3. A Faunal Survey recording activity by birds or mammals observed visually or by call during the course of the surveys. Particular attention was paid to the potential use of the site by protected species, priority species or other notable species. Additional specific surveys for Badgers and Bats were also undertaken which, where necessary, extended beyond the Application Site.

The badger survey considered that whilst there was sub optimal foraging and dispersal habitat is present on site, there was no evidence of any badgers recorded during the surveys. The part of the Application Site closest to more optimal foraging habitat is the southern boundary which is separated from these areas by the southern carriageway of the A653. The report concludes that the proposal is not likely to impact open any locally present social group of badgers.

The bat survey found no evidence that the buildings were being used for roosting by bats. This was thought to be partly as a result of the construction, design and fabric of the buildings and their continued use would discourage their use as a roost. The report considers that the site does provide some foraging opportunities offered by the ditch, associated scrub and trees and that any works should not detrimentally impact on any bats that may be using the onsite habitat and lighting should be minimised. The use of native landscaping in the scheme would help reduce the possible impact on any locally present bat species.

The bird survey indicates that whilst the trees, scrub, hedgerows and amenity planting currently present on site offer some nesting and foraging opportunities there is no evidence to suggest that any notable species would be present on or close to the site. It acknowledges the fact that the proposal would result in a decrease in bird foraging and nesting opportunities and suggests that this is offset by native planting, including species rich hedgerows.

A summary of the above was included in the Scoping Report provided by the Applicant when seeking a Scoping Opinion in relation to the original proposal. Ecology was scoped out of the Environmental Statement on this basis.

Natural England have considered the impact of the Proposed Development including the revised proposal on the Narborough Bog SSSI and raised no objections or suggested any conditions. The comments indicate that they are satisfied that the scheme as proposed will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified and that the SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining the Application. The advice from Natural England suggests that the impact of the Proposed Development on locally designated sites should be considered as well as the impact on protected species and the potential for biodiversity enhancements.

The Proposed Development has also been considered at a local level by the Leicestershire County Council’s Ecology Department which confirmed that there were no objections to the Proposed Development. The submitted ecology report was considered satisfactory and the conclusion that no habitats or species of significance were found was accepted. This was confirmed in relation to the revised proposal.

It is therefore concluded that the Application as proposed would not impact upon a site of ecological or geological importance in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS19, and the grant of planning permission would be in accordance with NPPF paragraph 118 and the The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

Historic Environment and Archaeology (Heritage Assets)

Site Specific:

The Archaeological Evaluation Report submitted in support of the Application recognises the archaeological potential of the Application Site as a result of its proximity to a number of known archaeological sites. These include:

 The Fosse Way Roman Road sited close to the west side of the site which appears to have been the focus for both Roman and Iron Age activity.  The southern side of Soar Valley Way on which Iron Age and Roman archaeological remains were identified.  The Grove Park development west of the site on which Iron Age settlement was recorded in advance of the development.  The park and ride site to the south of the development on which Iron Age roundhouses, ditch systems and associated burials were also found.  Documentary reference to the general area from both early medieval and medieval periods.

The Application Site was the subject of trial trenching to establish the archaeological potential. This comprised four 50m trenches in the southern grassed area and a 22m trench in the north east grassed area. The site evaluation produced a very small quantity of finds made up of post medieval pottery, clay tobacco pipe and ceramic building material. Finds also included an undated linear feature thought to be the remnants of a hedgerow and dateable linear features thought to represent a contemporary field system or drainage.

The archaeological assessment submitted with the original proposal was assessed by the County Council’s Archaeology Department during the consultation in relation to the Scoping Opinion. The Senior Planning Archaeologist referred to disagreement between them and the Applicant as to some findings on the Application Site and that they had requested further investigation.

Following the submission of an amended report by the Applicant’s archaeologist, the County Council’s Archaeology Department confirmed that:

“In light of the evidence for previous truncation of the application site during the construction of the current brewery, in conjunction with the potential for post-medieval quarrying activity to have extended into the site and the absence of finds or features pre-dating the post-medieval period identified during the evaluation trenching, we feel it is unlikely that the proposed development will impact on significant archaeological remains. In this case we are satisfied that no further archaeological investigation is necessary in relation to the proposed development.”

The Proposed Development is not one which would adversely affect the preservation or setting of an important archaeological site, in accordance with saved Policy CE1 of the Local Plan.

Surrounding Heritage Assets:

Conservation Area:  Grand Union Canal Conservation Area approximately 750m to the east of the site  Aylestone Conservation Area approximately 1150m to the north east of the site  Enderby Conservation Area approximately 1500m to the west of the site

Listed Buildings:  Aylestone Listed Building approximately 1700m to the north east of the site  Church of St John the Baptist in Enderby Conservation Area approximately 1800m to the west of the site

Scheduled Ancient Monuments:  Site of St Johns Church approximately 900m to the south of the site  Lubbesthorpe Medieval Settlement at Abbey Farm approximately 1300m to the north west of the site  Packhorse Bridge approximately Aylestone 1350m to the north east of the site

Other:

 Historic Parkland important to the setting of the Enderby Conservation Area approximately 1000m to the west.

The closest heritage asset is the Application Site of St Johns Church Scheduled Ancient Monument sited approximately 900m away from the Application Site at its closest point. This separation distance added to the presence of other buildings between the monument and the Application Site reduce the impact of the Proposed Development on this important area to a degree that would not be considered unduly detrimental. This is also the case with the Enderby Conservation Area (and associated listed buildings within it) and the Lubbesthorpe Medieval Settlement which are also sited further away from the Application Site.

Consideration needs to be given to the impact of the Proposed Development on the Aylestone Conservation Area and Packhorse Bridge Scheduled Ancient Monument given the rise in the land towards the Aylestone settlement and the openness of the western sections of the heritage asset which include the Scheduled Ancient Monument. The Application Site is screened from this area by the existing built development of Fosse Park and Fosse Park South. The Proposed Development itself would include units of similar heights to the existing commercial buildings with the exception of Unit 2 which would have a height of approximately 14.4 metres which us approximately 3m greater than the existing units. Given the distance between the Application Site and the conservation area coupled with the relatively modest increase in height of Unit 2 compared to the existing buildings on and adjoining the Application Site, the Proposed Development will not unduly harm the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The Proposed Development would not harm the significance of any heritage assets and is therefore considered to comply with the requirements of Core Strategy Policy CS20 and the NPPF in this respect.

Arboricultural Implications

The Application proposes the removal of a number of trees currently present on the Application Site to make way for the built development. The submitted landscaping scheme proposes to partially offset the loss with additional planting around the Application Site and within the car park itself. The proposed scheme has been assessed by the County Council’s Arborist.

Concern was originally raised by the County Council’s Arborist in relation to the original proposal that insufficient trees were retained on the Application Site, there was inadequate new tree planting, and that sufficient rooting volume must be provided as previous experience with the existing Fosse Park had led to trees being stunted or dying due to lack of root space under the car park. They advised that the design requirements providing for sufficient rooting volume should be made a condition of any consent.

The County Council’s Arborist has raised no objections to the latest landscape submission provided the planting method for the trees is agreed to ensure that it incorporates a planting system which will support the growth of the trees and provide space for the growth of the roots.

Given that the type and scale of the Proposed Development within the Application Site provides limited options for providing significant landscaping it is considered important to ensure that the proposed planting scheme utilises all measures possible to maximise its visual impact within the scheme. Supporting the growth of the trees through the use of the planting system could be ensured through a condition. The Applicant has raised no objections to this and a planting system with 10m3 has been agreed. These systems are included on the landscaping plan required by condition.

A revised landscaping scheme has been received which provides details of the agreed planting system. The plans also demonstrate that there will be no tree planting within 8 metres of the culvert. It is therefore considered that the landscaping proposals are acceptable and the Proposed Development would accord with Policy CS19 of the Adopted Core Strategy 2013 and Policy CE2 of the Adopted Local Plan 1999.

Landscape and Visual Impact

Saved Policy CE22 of the Local Plan requires new development to take into account and retain where appropriate the value of the site’s landscape, ecological and geological features and assimilate itself into the landscape.

The Application Site is closely related to the highly active commercial area comprising of the existing Fosse Park units which border the Application Site to the north (beyond which is an ASDA supermarket) and east, the commercial development which includes a Sainsbury’s supermarket to the west and the Grove Park development further to the east. The Fosse Park Area, Sainsbury’s site and Grove Park are dissected by the highly trafficked dual carriageways of Soar Valley Way and Narborough Road.

The Application Site currently lies on the south edge of this commercial area and lies adjacent to an open area of undeveloped Green Wedge sited on the opposite side of Soar Valley Way. The closest section of Green Wedge located between the site and the Leicestershire Constabulary Headquarters further to the south is the subject of an Outline Planning for construction of brewery, visitor centre and ancillary uses, brewery tap, restaurants and outdoor sport and recreation facilities, erection of footbridge over River Soar, provision for erection of temporary marquee (approx 5 times per year), construction of food & drink preparation units (with ancillary retail trade counters) associated parking & landscaping, pedestrian access and detailed proposals for vehicular access. At the time of writing the Reserved Matters application for the first phase of this development had been approved. The elements of the outline scheme which were included within this initial phase one are:

Buildings:

 The Everards building which includes the new brewery and office accommodation along with the associated offices retail and service yard.  The Pub/Café Bar which will include a bar, dining areas (including terraces), tourist information, public toilets, a park ranger office and other food and drink outlets.  The Cycle Centre  The Restaurant; and  The car parking and servicing associated with each building.

Infrastructure:  The foot bridge over the River Soar  The permissive paths for cyclists and pedestrians linking the site to the new bridge.  Maintenance access to the new bridge  Maintenance work to the existing meadow land and hedgerows to enhance biodiversity  Arboricultural work to safeguard the retained trees.  Managed improvements to permanent grasslands including a flower meadow  An exhibition meadow for temporary events

Once this area is developed the Applcation Site would be surrounded on all sides by large scale commercial development. It should be noted that there are areas of Green Wedge located directly to the east of Fosse Park South as well as the land to the south of Soar Valley Way. This area of Green Wedge also encompasses a number of heritage assests including the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area and Packhorse Bridge Scheduled Ancient Monument.

The Blaby District Character Assessment identifies the surrounding undeveloped areas as falling within the Sence and Soar Flood Plain. This area is defined as being “located within the western urban fringes of Leicester including the settlements of Enderby, Blaby, Glen Parva, Narborough, Littlethorpe and Braunstone Town. The area is characterised by the flood plain associated with the Rivers Soar and Sense which flow south-north through the central part of the character area.” The assessment also acknowledges the importance of this land in preventing coalescence between settlements through its designation as a Green wedge.

The assessment recognises the importance of the Narborough Bog SSSI and the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area within the landscape and states that:

 “Land use includes a mix of both farmland and pockets of open space generally located adjacent to the urban frindge. Agriculture tends to be dominated by rough grazing and horse paddocks.”  “There are relatively few public routes through the area and these tend to link settlements.”  “Views are generally limited to short distances and are restricted by mature vegetation along the rivers and at the field margins. This creates a strong sense of enclosure and, although in close proximity to urban fringes, the majority of the area retains a rural character.”

In reference to built development within this identified character area the report indicates that “urban development is generally well screened from the area through woodland vegetation along its edges”. Its only reference to the impact of Fosse Park suggests that it is “a prominent but localised feature of the urban edge bordering the northern part of the character area”.

The creation of the new commercial area would increase the extent and scale of the built development in this area which would be visible from a limited number of locations within the identified Green Wedge. It would however be seen in the context of the existing commercial area and would be screened from much of the area to the east of Fosse Park South by the existing buildings.

The main views of the Proposed Development from the character area are likely be gained from the area to the south east across Soar Valley Way although much of this will be effectively screened by the extensive mature landscaped boundaries with the existing rural area at the Soar Valley Way Boundary. In addition, its position outside of the character area itself means that the Proposed Development would not physically harm the important rural area directly and would not materially affect any of the key pressures on the area which are set out on the Landscape Character Assessment of the Sense and Soar Floodplain.

In addition, the use of high quality materials and extensive glazing would create an attractive retail area which screens the rear of the existing units when viewed from the south. Whilst the proposal would result in the reduction of landscaping currently fronting Soar Valley Way it is considered that, when considering the character of the existing area, the overall impact on the environment would not be unacceptably harmful.

It is therefore considered that the Proposed Development is acceptable in relation to any landscape or visual impact resulting from the development and the proposal would accord with Core Strategy Policies CS2 and CS21 of the Adopted Core Strategy and Policy CE22 of the Local Plan 1999.

Microclimate

The Application Site is located in a commercial area surrounded by the existing Fosse Park to the north, Fosse Park South to the east, Narborough Road lies directly to the west beyond which is the Grove Park Triangle. To the south east is the Grove Park commercial site. Directly to the south of the site is Soar Valley Way beyond which is an agricultural field on which outline approval has been given for a mixed use development which includes a brewery, visitor centre and ancillary uses, brewery tap, restaurants and outdoor sport and recreation facilities and food & drink preparation units (with ancillary retail trade counters). The closest residential properties are located about 550m away at their closest point.

The large extent of existing commercial development which surrounds the Application Site to the north, east and west has been built up around the surrounding heavily trafficked road network which provides access to the M1 and M69 from Leicester to the east and north and Blaby District to the west. The Proposed Development would not appear out of keeping with the size and scale of the existing buildings within the surrounding area and would not have an unduly prominent visual impact. The Proposed Development would incorporate energy efficiency and sustainably measures which would reduce the impact on the local environment and the use of conditions to control elements such as external lighting would further ensure any effects are minimised.

It is considered that the Proposed Development would have a minimal impact on the surrounding highways network through overshadowing. The orientation of the Application Site in relation to the path of the sun and the proximity of Unit 1 to Narborough Road may result in some overshadowing of the road in the mornings. The Proposed Development’s impact on Soar Valley Way would be minimised by its set back position on the Application Site.

The main impacts of the Proposed Development would be related to the operational area within the Proposed Development itself and Fosse Park, mainly the service area to the rear of both the new and existing units. Unit 2 would have some overshadowing impact on Grove Way. The orientation of the Application Site and open aspect to the south across the proposed car park would not cause any undue impact to the operational area utilised by shoppers. The overall impact of the Proposed Development is therefore not considered to be unduly detrimental to the microclimate in the area given the existing usage / development and would not be materially above that which could reasonably be expected of a development of this type.

Taking into account the impact on air quality considered elsewhere in this report it is not considered that the Proposed Development would cause unacceptable micro- scale environmental issues such as overshadowing, light pollution, air quality, wind and daylight provision. It is therefore concluded that the proposal complies with the NPPF in this regard.

Residential Amenities

The closest residential properties are sited approximately 550 away from the Application Site to the north of the site. The properties located 600m to the east of Fosse Park South which itself is sited to the east of the Application Site are situated at a higher ground level and are likely the dwellings which will have the greatest view of the Proposed Development. Whilst the proposed new units would be slightly higher than the existing retail units within Fosse Park itself it is not considered that the overall impact would be unduly detrimental on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties given the substantial separation distance and the impact of the exiting commercial area. The Proposed Development is therefore considered to comply with Policy CS2 of the adopted Core Strategy 2013.

Other Material Considerations Outside of the Scope of the EIA

Economic Benefits

The submitted Statement of Economic Benefits confirms that the site currently supports approximately 118 jobs, which will be transferred to the new brewery site in the event of the planned relocation. The relocation is contingent on planning permission being secured for the Proposed Development.

The Proposed Development will therefore facilitate the development of a proposal for the construction of a new brewery, visitor centre and ancillary uses, brewery tap, restaurants and outdoor sport and recreation facilities, a footbridge over River Soar, provision for erection of temporary marquee, construction of food and drink preparation units, associated parking and landscaping on the adjacent side of Soar Valley Way. This scheme has outline approval with the Phase 1 reserved matters also approved. This Proposed Development would support a local employer in creating a modern brewery and associated offices which meets its current needs. The Everards Meadows scheme also offers additional benefits arising from the associated development of the visitor centre, food and drink preparation units, restaurants and a cycle facility that will complement the rights of way improvements which also form part of these proposals. The benefits associated with the protection of existing jobs and potential creation of further jobs is material to the assessment of the Application.

In addition, it is estimated that once completed the Proposed Development would create approximately 1,000 Full Time Equivalent jobs. This equates to up to 2,015 gross flexible jobs (which is a net uplift of 1,900 jobs taking into account existing employment on-site). This job creation alone is a very significant benefit, but the submitted Statement of Economic Benefits Addendum (April 2016) summarises the full economic headlines as follows.

£87.8m of construction and fit-out investment supporting an average of 230 jobs per month over two years.

 £54m of GVA in the economy over the construction period.  Up to 2,015 gross jobs (net uplift of 1,900 jobs taking into account existing employment on-site). This equates to around 1,000 Full Time Equivalent Jobs.  These jobs could be accessible to local residents, including those from areas in Leicester and Blaby where there are relatively high concentrations of deprivation and unemployment.  2,015 jobs equate to 4.2% of the LLEP job growth target to 2020.  Up to 790 jobs could go to residents within 5km - covering communities in both Blaby and Leicester.  Within 5km of the Application Site, there are 2,700 unemployed residents, with 50% of these specifically looking for retail sales, food and beverage service jobs.  The Proposed Development has the potential to provide jobs suitable for half of the job seekers living within 5km of the Application Site.  Jobs in a range of skill-levels, including those suitable for people with limited qualifications and experience: up to 59% of working age Blaby residents could be seeking entry level-type employment.  Opportunities for career development with 20% of new jobs in management positions, often held by people who have risen within the company.  Multiplier effects of wages and business rates into the local economy.  Total GVA generated by activity on-site of £29m every year during operation.  Estimated business rate revenue of £7.9m per annum of which £2.3m would be retained locally within Blaby and Leicestershire.  An estimated total wage bill of £16.3m annually, with reductions in the benefits bill for every new employee coming off benefits or income support.  Helping to ensure the continued strength and flexibility of Blaby’s retail offer to respond to the market’s trends and needs.  Strengthening the offer at the MRA as a whole.

It is clear from these economic headlines that the Proposed Development would offer considerable benefits to the area. These benefits will weigh heavily in the planning balance when considering the socio-impact of the Proposed Development. Whilst it is recognised that there is a degree of conflict with the employment policies contained in the 1999 Local Plan, Policy E1 and Policy E4 are out of date. Moreover, it is considered that the Proposed Development would have wide ranging positive benefits in terms of employment which will extend beyond the Blaby District boundaries. These benefits which include supporting the growth of local businesses, which in this case is both Next and Everards, are also supported by Core Strategy Policy CS6. Significantly the Proposed Development will facilitate the creation of a purpose built brewery facility and in doing so more than 100 jobs will be protected.

In conclusion the Proposed Development will bring considerable economic benefits to the area and the extent of these are such that they will be afforded significant weight in the planning balance.

Statement of Community Involvement

Blaby District Council’s Statement of Community Involvement sets out how local communities, businesses and other organisations with an interest in planning issues can engage with the planning system. The document highlights Blaby District Council’s commitment to involving the local community in planning for its area and to engage as many people as possible and sets out the ways in which this will be done in relation to decisions on both Planning Policy and Planning Applications.

This Application has been presented to the public at various points throughout its lifetime including a public exhibition, press notices and consultation by both the applicant (at pre-application stage) and the District Council (2 consultations during the life of the application).

At the heart of its aims for community involvement are the three priorities for the District as set out in the Blaby Plan 2015. These are:

 Economy and Skills – a vibrant local economy and job market  Health and Wellbeing – residents are healthy, fulfilled and confident for their future  Homes and Communities – safe, strong and happy local communities.

It is considered that the decision making process that has led to the recommendations set out in this report has complied with the aims of the Statement of Community Involvement 2015.

Conclusion

It can be seen that the Application has been subject to considerable detailed discussion between a wide variety of consultees and stakeholders over the last 18 months since the Application was received. These discussions have resulted in major amendments to the Application and the submission of a significant amount of additional detailed supporting information. This has led to the development of an Application which has evolved in response to perceived impacts that have arisen through consultation, analysis and the close working with all relevant consultees and stakeholders.

The Proposed Development would offer a number of considerable benefits including the creation 1,000 (FTE) jobs available to employees within and outside the Blaby District, public transport enhancements and the redevelopment of a currently underused site. In addition, it would offer the current occupier of the existing building the opportunity to implement the existing planning permission for new premises with associated access and additional recreational enhancements to the wider public. The economic and socio economic benefits of the Proposed Development are considered to be extensive and will be given significant weight in the planning balance.

The highways implications of the Proposed Development have been explored in detail over the life of the Application and have reached a point at which it is considered that the implementation of planning obligations would adequately mitigate the negative impacts of the scheme in highways terms. This has been agreed by the County Highways Authority and the City Highways Authority.

It is also not considered that the Proposed Development would have unduly detrimental impacts on the following development management considerations as set out above:

 Environment;  Historic Environment;  Biodiversity;  Contamination; and  Flood risk.

The redevelopment of the Application Site is considered to be in broad accordance with the thrust of the up to date employment policy contained within the Development Plan.

Whilst the provision of such a degree of retail development in an out of centre location would ideally come forward as part of the plan making process and hierarchical site identification, this background work has not progressed to a stage at which it becomes material to the decision and the Application has to be considered on its own merits.

The Proposed Development has to be considered against the sequential and impact tests set out in Policy CS13 and the NPPF. The Proposed Development is considered to accord with the sequential test and the first strand of the impact test assessing the impact on existing, committed and planned, public and private in- centre investment.

The retail impact of the Proposed Development on Leicester City Centre would however conflict with the second strand of the impact test set out in the NPPF and Policy CS13 of the Blaby Core Strategy and would therefore be contrary to national retail policy. The Proposed Development is considered to result in a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Leicester City Centre which warrants the refusal of permission unless outweighed by other material considerations. There are however significant benefits and other material considerations which weigh heavily in favour of the Proposed Development.

Leicester City Council has assessed the Proposed Development and put forward a package of mitigation measures which it considers will offset the retail impact of the Proposed Development on Leicester City Centre (the contribution towards the two local centres is not considered necessary). Leicester City Council has therefore concluded that the Application complies with paragraph 26 of the NPPF, subject to the proposed mitigation being secured. As the authority responsible for management of Leicester City Centre it is considered that Leicester City Council is well placed to assess the perceived impact of the Proposed Development, and what steps are needed to proportionately offset any impacts in a manner which is policy compliant. The justification for the planning obligations proposed by Leicester City Council has been considered in detail and all obligations are considered to comply with the 3 tests set out in Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations.

The exceptions to this however are the planning obligations proposed for improvements to Narborough Road and Aylestone Village Centres which are not necessary based on an acknowledged absence of empirical evidence to support the contention that the planning obligations are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the Proposed Development.

The obligations requested by Blaby Parish Council were not considered to be compliant given the nature and size of the requests when balanced against the identified retail impact. Braunstone Parish Council’s requests were considered reasonable and have, where possible, been covered by the obligations secured.

All other planning obligations referenced within this report are considered to comply with the requirements of the CIL Regulations and accord with Policy CS12 of the Core Strategy.

Whilst it is accepted that the package of measures submitted by Leicester City Council would mitigate a degree of the identified harm to Leicester City Centre arising from the Proposed Development, it is recognised that it is difficult to make an informed judgment as to precisely what extent the measures would mitigate the identified retail impacts of the Proposed Development. Blaby District Council officers are unable to conclude that the mitigation proposed will prevent a significant adverse impact on Leicester City Centres’ vitality and viability. However, the fact that the authority responsible for Leicester City Centre has put forward the planning obligations to offset the impact is considered to be an important guide in this respect. It is also material to the assessment of the Application that Leicester City Council is not objecting to the Application subject to the securing of the relevant mitigation. This includes strict controls over the sizes of the units to ensure that those in the retail terrace continue to be in line with the large retail units which are a feature of such retail parks and have been considered as part of this Application. This is considered to be a reasonable proposal and this limitation has been applied in condition 4 which is intended to prevent an increase in smaller units within the Proposed Development than has been assessed as part of the Application whilst allowing flexibility in the specific size of each unit.

As set out above, the Proposed Development is considered to be in broad accordance with the Policies contained within both the Development Plan and NPPF with the exception of conflict with paragraph 26 and the significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Leicester City Centre. A balanced judgement therefore has to be made as to whether the wider benefits and other material considerations are sufficient to outweigh the conflict with national policy, given that paragraph 27 of NPPF would advise that permission should be withheld in those circumstances. The weight to be attributed to these material considerations is a matter for the determining Local Planning Authority.

Taking into account the stance of Leicester City Council, the package of planning obligations that will be secured along with the significant socio-economic benefits arising directly from the Proposed Development and the consequential benefits arising from Everards relocation, Blaby District Council officers consider that, on balance, these material considerations outweigh the conflict with paragraph 26 of the NPPF and Policy CS13 of the Development Plan.

In conclusion the Proposed Development complies with the three dimensions of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF (social, economic and environmental) and there should therefore be a presumption in favour of it, given that material considerations outweigh the conflict with paragraph 26 of the NPPF and Policy CS13 of the Development Plan. The Application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the stated conditions, completion of a Section 106 Agreement and referral to the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.

______