Item No 2.

Application No: P/05/1099/2

Application Full Date 28th April 2005 Type: Valid: Applicant: Aldi Stores Ltd Proposal: Erection of a food retail store (Use Class A1 - 1364sqm) with associated car parking. Location: 1169 Melton Road, , , , LE7 2JT Parish: Syston Ward: Syston East Ward Case Officer: Mr D Watson Tel No: 01509 634770

Description of the Application

The retail food store would have a gross floorspace of about 1300m2, 850m2 of which will be trading floorspace with the rest comprising storage, loading and ancillary office/staff areas. The building would be located on the southern half of the site with its front elevation to Melton Road set slightly back behind a landscaped area. Vehicle access from Melton Road would run to the north of the building with parking off it and to the rear of the building with a total of 63 spaces, including disabled and parent/child spaces. Deliveries would be to the rear section of the north side of the building. Cycle parking stands are proposed to the front of the store.

Landscaping, including tree planting around the edges of the car park, is proposed with a landscaped area on the site frontage retaining the existing established trees. Metal railings, that will incorporate public art to be agreed, would enclose the north boundary adjacent to the public footpath, with new close-board fencing along the south and east boundaries.

The building would be of a modern design with a shallow pitched, ‘wave’ shaped roof sloping up from the south elevation. External walls will be clad in grey and silver coloured panels (samples of which have been provided), and the front elevation would incorporate windows about 4m high with punched and glazed roller shutters built in. The main entrance would be at the end of the north facing elevation with a canopy over.

The proposed opening hours are Monday – Saturday 8.00am – 8.00pm and Sunday 10.00am – 4.00pm. It is suggested the store would employ about 10 people.

The application is accompanied by: an architects report; a transport statement and a supporting statement on retail and employment policy.

Since being submitted, it has also been supplemented by: an interim travel plan and a background noise survey.

28 The site is on the east side of Melton Road, Syston close to the centre of the town. Although not within, it is immediately adjacent to the Syston District Centre (DC) with the north boundary coterminous with that of the DC. Other than more recent buildings to the north of the site which are set back from the road, this part of Melton Road is generally characterised by two-storey buildings built up to the back edge of the footway.

The site is more or less flat and currently contains a vacant industrial building last occupied by Stuart Mensley Knitwear and set back from Melton Road with a parking area in front of it, but close to the other boundaries particularly the south. The front boundary to Melton Road is open with a grass strip containing some trees and planters. The building is brick and its main section comprises a series of bays with gable ends with pitched roofs. The front section is a more recent 2-storey office extension.

Syston British Legion and a Somerfield Supermarket are to the north, with a public footpath leading to Victoria Street/Cross Street running between them and the site. To the east are industrial premises and to the west on the opposite side of Melton Road there are two short terraces of Victorian properties in a mix of residential and professional office uses along with an opticians and dental surgery. There is a block of elderly person’s flats at 1182-1192 Melton Road that are set back from the road. The south boundary of the site adjoins the rear garden boundaries of No’s.1-11 and 19-23 Albert Street. The former are two-storey semi-detached houses of which No’s. 5, 7 and 11 have two-storey rear extensions. Their gardens are at a slightly higher level than the site with a timber fence about 1.8m high on the rear boundary, but that to the rear of No.11 is missing. Between No’s.11 and 19, there is a workshop building occupied by Syston Glass. The front part of the south boundary adjoins car parking to 1165 Melton Road, a large detached house in office use.

There are parking restrictions on the east side of Melton Road, but it is permitted on the opposite side. Pedestrian crossing facilities are just to the south of the site and about 75m to the north.

Development Plan Policies and other material considerations

• Development Plan Policies

The Leicestershire, Leicester and Structure Plan (adopted 7th March 2005)

Strategy Policy 10: Good Design – seeks to promote good design

Accessibility and Transport Policy 1: Development and the Transport System – requires developers to maximise the potential for access to and from new development by walking, cycling and public transport, and to take appropriate measures to minimise traffic generated by the development, including the formulation and implementation of travel plans.

29 Central Areas and Shopping Policy 3: Out of Centre Retailing – has a presumption against new retail development in an out of centre location unless, amongst other things, there is a clearly defined and agreed need for the proposed development, and no suitable sites are available in locations set out in Strategy Policy 2A or in district or local centres providing the development is consistent with the scale and function of that centre.

Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (adopted 12th January 2004)

EV/1: seeks to ensure a high standard of design in all new developments.

EV/17: aims to ensure development is designed to minimise the opportunity for, and fear of, crime.

EV/20: has a presumption in favour of development where a high standard of landscaping is to be provided.

EV/43: indicates the Council will seek to negotiate the provision of public works of art in places which can readily be seen by the public as an integral part of the design of major developments.

E/8: has a presumption against development for uses other than those falling within Class B, of land and buildings within Primarily Employment Areas unless 1 of 6 criteria can be met and provided the loss of the employment use would not result in a shortage in employment land and buildings in the short term or over the plan period.

CA/1: has a presumption against proposals for shops (Class A1) in locations outside designated centres unless the development is small scale and primarily intended to service a highly localised or rural community need. In all other cases proposals for shops on out of centre or edge of centre sites will only be permitted if: the need for additional facilities can be demonstrated; the site’s selection meets with the sequential approach; the development would not, either individually or cumulatively with other development, impact upon any nearby town or district centre seriously detrimental to its long term vitality and viability; the development would not undermine the development plan strategy; the development can be accessed conveniently by a choice of means of transport including frequent and reliable public transport and safe and direct provisions for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities; the development would ensure easier access to all customers, facilitate more linked trips and assist in reducing reliance on the car; the development would not cause serious injury to local visual or residential amenity by reason of its design, appearance or operational activities; and the scale of development is well related to the centre it seeks to serve.

TR/6: has a presumption against development where the impact of traffic generated by the proposal or the cumulative impact together with other committed and allocated development in the locality would either result in unsafe or unsatisfactory operation of the highway system or have a significant adverse impact on the environment unless measures are proposed to overcome any harmful effects. 30

TR/18: indicates permission will not be granted for development unless off-street parking for vehicles, including cycles, and servicing arrangements are included to secure highway safety and minimise harm to visual and local amenities.

CA/12: requires shop fronts in new buildings to be designed as an integral part of the overall frontage having regard to the style, materials and proportions of the building and to the overall character of the area.

• Other Policies

Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres: sets out the Government’s objectives for town centres and, amongst other things, advises that for proposals that relate to out-of or edge-of-centre sites, local planning authorities should require applicants to demonstrate: • The need for development; • That the development is of an appropriate scale; • That there are no more central sites for the development; • That there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres; and • That locations are accessible.

As a general rule, the development should satisfy all these considerations.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport

• Other Material Considerations

Central Leicestershire Retail Study (May 2003): provides an assessment of retail facilities within Central Leicestershire updating the previous study carried out in 1993. Amongst other things it provides an assessment of the need for additional comparison and convenience floorspace and, for the purposes of the CLRS, Syston falls within the Northeast Quadrant which includes parts of Leicester, Birstall, Thurmaston and Queniborough.

Relevant Planning History

None relevant to current proposal as previous applications relate to the employment use of the site.

Although not part of the history of the application site, an application by Lidl UK for a discount food store of a similar scale to that subject of this application on a site at 1340-1346 Melton Road, which similarly was close to but outside the District Centre, was refused and the subsequent appeal dismissed. (Ref P/00/0042/2).

31 Responses of Statutory Consultees

Syston Town Council: considers the provision of a supermarket on the site would benefit the town. However, it feels the building should be set further back into the site to ensure the building line/streetscene does not suffer in the view along Melton Road and trees at the front of the site including one planted by the TC are not directly affected. Comments are also made with regard to the travel plan and in terms of: • Traffic – there is an enormous increase and the TC asks if there are measures that could be put in place by the Highway Authority funded by the developer to mitigate the effect of this increase on the already heavily overloaded Melton Road. • Green Travel Plan – to be issued to employees consists of little more than information on buses and taxis. The car share scheme is no more than a suggestion with no staff incentives offered. If employees use the car park it affects the calculations made for the suitability of the car park for shoppers. • Assessment of the development after 15 years – it is merely stated the access will still be adequate. With an increase in usage problems associated with traffic will inevitably increase. • Justification for the parking provision – there is not ample alternative parking in Syston and if the store’s car park is full, this will lead to cars queuing on Melton Road to enter it. • Highway contributions – it is disappointing that the applicants refuse to contribute to improved cycle facilities in the town or to a Toucan crossing to upgrade the existing pedestrian crossing near the site.

The TC states that the travel plan does nothing to change its view that the application should not be approved and wishes its earlier comments below to be taken into account. Whilst not objecting in principle, it objects on the following grounds: • Unacceptable increase in traffic in an area already suffering the effects of excess traffic, and an increase in traffic noise; • Increased air pollution on Melton Road which already has declining air quality • Drastic reduction of green frontage on Melton Road; • Site is outside the main shopping centre and in close proximity to residential development; • Development of this scale is likely to jeopardise existing businesses and the long term viability of Syston as a shopping centre.

Leicestershire County Council (Highways): the additional information supporting the Transport Assessment is acceptable but considers the Green Travel Plan (GTP) requires further information/alteration. It is prepared to recommend approval subject to conditions one of which would be approval of the GTP.

32 Other Comments Received

Leicestershire County Council (Strategic Planning): Consideration of the application should be reached on a similar basis to that for the earlier application by Lidl UK and the supporting evidence for the current application depends significantly on the establishment of a different primary catchment area (PCA) as a basis for carrying out the retail impact assessment which is considered inappropriate. Reference is made to the fact that the Central Leicestershire Retail Study (CLRS) 2003 concludes there is no quantitative need for any further food store in the northeast quadrant which includes Syston. The assessment places significant emphasis on the qualitative need for the proposal which does not necessarily accord with guidance in PPS6. Although the CLRS identifies a geographical deficiency in the NE quadrant this need relates to a larger geographical area than the applicant’s PCA and, as such, any sequential assessment should be based on the NE quadrant.

The CLRS highlights recent investment and notable proportion of comparative floorspace in Syston and it is considered the proposal would not seem to have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the district centre. The application site represents an ‘edge of centre’ location on previously developed land and, if it were to be accepted that there is a proven ‘need’ for this store at Syston, then there does not appear to be a suitable site within the existing district centre.

In conclusion, it is felt that an independent expert view is needed to fully assess the quantitative need assessment so that the local planning authority can be satisfied that it has been clearly demonstrated; that the search for alternative sites extends to the northeast quadrant; and that further information is sought regarding the accessibility to and from the site. It is considered there is currently insufficient information to assess whether all the requirements of CASP3 can be met.

With regard to the loss of employment land, it is felt it is a matter for the local planning authority to decide whether or not the development would result in a shortage but it is noted that the availability of employment land depends on retention of existing sites as well as newly built and allocated sites. It is felt the applicant’s assessment against the criteria of policy E/8 is not particularly robust.

Neighbours: 10 letters of representation received from occupiers of properties on Albert Street, Wellington Street and Melton Road, raising objections on the following (summarised) grounds: • Need - existing supermarkets are adequate and will disappear if Aldi is opened. Will have a negative effect on local businesses and is not necessary as a community can only support so many; • Traffic - current heavy traffic on Melton Road will worsen. Syston is becoming overdeveloped and Melton Road has become overwhelmed. Area will be more dominated by traffic having road safety implications; • Air pollution - from cars and delivery lorries and effect on air quality; • Noise and disturbance - from traffic, including lorries making early morning deliveries. Will be opposite flats occupied by elderly residents;

33 • Parking - shoppers will fill the on-street parking spaces outside businesses on the opposite side of Melton Road • Impact on streetscene - building will come forward to the pavement such that the front canopy will reach its back edge.

The occupiers of 1 Albert Street consider they would be one of the worst affected residents. The existing factory car park is immediately beyond their garden fence and they would be disrupted by the amount of traffic coming through and the general noise associated with the supermarket which, unlike at present, is unlikely to quieten down in the evenings. The development would block out all natural light to the living rooms at the rear of the property. Another store is not required and rats could be a problem due to rubbish and food waste. The value of the house could be affected.

The occupier of 5 Albert Street raises similar objections re loss of light, increased noise pollution from cars and deliveries, traffic congestion and air pollution. Limited parking will mean people park on Albert Street if the car park is full. Building will be an eyesore due to its size and proposed materials, and will be the only view they will have from the rear of their property. They are also concerned about possible crime from gangs of youths that gather around supermarkets and refer to problems with others in the town, and loss of property value.

The occupier of 3 Albert Street objects on ground of noise disturbance and loss of light which will be caused by the new building.

In addition, 19 pro-forma letters have been received, mainly from residents of Albert Street and Wellington Street similarly objecting on grounds relating to increased traffic, noise, air pollution and a reduction in road safety.

There is a letter of support from a resident of Wellington Street who considers there will be no implications for Wellington Street or Albert Street; with all the new housing, a new supermarket is required and people of Syston should benefit from a cheaper supermarket.

Environmental Health – recommend that a detailed noise assessment report is submitted in support of the application, identifying potential noise sources, the likely effect on neighbouring residential properties and if necessary noise mitigation measures to prevent any disturbance. A noise survey has now been submitted and, although it is felt there is potential for some disturbance from delivery vehicles, given the amount of traffic on Melton Road, it is unlikely it will cause a nuisance. A condition restricting delivery times is suggested along with one requiring the acoustical details of any plant or similar equipment.

Due to the former industrial/commercial use of the building, there is potential for contamination and a phase 1 risk assessment is recommended. The use of the site for retail purposes may significantly increase traffic and cause deterioration in air quality. As this is a material planning consideration, proof is required that air pollution levels will be below NAQ objectives and it is recommended that a detailed

34 review and assessment of air quality on the site be undertaken by the applicants followed by a mitigation plan if proved to be necessary.

Syston Chamber of Trade consider the proposal would be a benefit to the community and the town will benefit from a better retail mix; the car park would be better positioned at the front of the site to afford better public and police observation when store is closed. Visitors would also feel more inclined to walk to other facilities in the town; the need to be assured that safe access and egress to the site is considered, perhaps with a mini roundabout; and would wish to see tree planting as improving the streetscene is one of the their objectives.

Leicestershire County Council (Rights of Way): public footpath J38 runs along the east boundary of the site and, provided the works do not affect it in any way, there is no objection.

Leicestershire County Council (Archaeology): no archaeological implications as site is outside historic settlement core and previously disturbed.

Consideration of the Planning Issues

These are whether the development: • Meets the criteria set out in PPS6 for proposals in an edge of centre location with regard to need, scale, the sequential approach, impact on existing centres and accessibility; • Would result in an unacceptable loss of employment land; • Would be harmful to the living conditions of nearby residents; • Would worsen existing highway conditions on Melton Road and provide an adequate level of parking; • Would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

Need

PPS6 advises that need must be demonstrated, for a use such as that proposed in an edge of centre location, and sets out specific considerations to be used in assessing need. Need must be assessed in both quantitative and qualitative terms and the PPS advises local planning authorities should place greater weight on the quantitative need for additional floorspace.

Quantitative need

PPS 6 advises that this assessment should, where possible, be based on the assessment carried out for the development plan document. To date, no work as to the need for additional floorspace within the Syston District Centre (DC) has been carried out as part of the preparation of the LDF. Therefore, the most up to date ‘independent’ information available to the local planning authority is the CLRS referred to above which suggests there is no capacity for further convenience goods floorspace at 2006 or at 2011 in light of the (then) extant permission for Asda at Thurmaston.

35

The assessment provided on behalf of the applicant comes to a different conclusion but uses a different Primary Catchment Area (PCA) to that used by Lidl previously, as noted by County Council as the strategic planning authority, and is smaller than the NE quadrant used in the CLRS. However, PPS6 advises that the catchment area that is used to assess future need should be realistic and well related to the size and function of the proposed development and taking account of competing centres. Therefore, there is no specific requirement for the PCA to be the same as for the Lidl proposal and the CLRS suggests there is little evidence to indicate the catchment or trade draw characteristics of discount stores.

The PCA used in the current application assessment is what the applicants consider reflects the PCA of the DC. It is based on a 10 minute drive time from Syston, but it rules out the areas to the south of Syston beyond 5 minutes drive time as it is felt it is unlikely people would drive past Asda at Thurmaston or other convenience stores on the edge of Leicester e.g. Tesco at Hamilton. It is considered that this a reasonable assumption. Weight should also be attached to the fact the assessment is based on what is suggested to be the most up to date data available for things such as population levels (e.g. census information) and forecasts of customer expenditure. The supporting information has also not been questioned by the existing main foodstore operators within Syston, i.e. the Co-op and Somerfield. It should be noted that the Co-op strongly opposed the Lidl application at the public inquiry into the appeal.

The assessment suggests that only about 42% of the total convenience good expenditure generated by the PCA is absorbed by the existing convenience retail floorspace and, as such, 48% is available, which is assumed to ‘leak’ elsewhere such as to Asda at Thurmaston and other large convenience stores in the vicinity. Using this and sales density estimate for the proposed store (based on Aldi averages), the assessment suggests there is a potential floorspace capacity within the PCA well in excess of that of the proposed store. It acknowledges that there will always be a degree of leakage to other nearby larger centres due to the attractiveness of their qualitative offer. The justification for the floorspace capacity is consequently adjusted and based upon a retention of 80% of expenditure capacity within the PCA. While this is considered optimistic, even if there was less retention of expenditure, on the basis of the information provided, there is still capacity for the proposal.

Finally, if it is accepted that there is a substantial quantitative need, as suggested, while any future similar proposals would need to be assessed on their own merits in terms of the criteria noted above, the principle of the need for them would be difficult to resist.

Qualitative need

This issue is clearer in principle, as the CLRS suggests that there is a qualitative justification for further provision, identified in accordance with the sequential approach, to meet an apparent geographical need in the NE quadrant. The applicant, Aldi, is a limited line deep discount retailer and its stores are different from those operated by the better-known ’mainstream’ retailers. In brief, it sells own-label 36 groceries at heavily discounted prices; primarily those most regularly bought items within a family bulk food shop consisting mainly of canned and bottled products. It does not, for example, sell magazines, have an in-store bakery or deli counter or similar facilities found in mainstream supermarkets.

It is, therefore, considered that the proposal will enhance the attractiveness of the DC by adding to the range and choice of shopping facilities available within it, as the proposed store is clearly different to the existing convenience provision in the DC. There are also potential benefits in terms of a reduction in travel distance, as people within the PCA who currently choose to travel to similar discount stores elsewhere would not need to travel so far. Similarly, those who wish to take advantage of discounted prices but are currently unable to for whatever reason, will have greater access. This concurs with one of the Government’s objectives set out in PPS6 as the proposal would allow genuine choice to meet the needs of the entire community, and particularly socially excluded groups.

Appropriateness of the scale of development

The scale of the development is considered appropriate in terms of its net floorspace, the likely catchment area it will serve and the role and function of the DC. The proposed store could not reasonably described as large to the extent that it would dominate the DC, and would have a slightly smaller floorspace than the Co- op and Somerfield supermarkets. There is also no scope for it to be extended in the near future due to the constrained nature of the site.

Sequential approach

Vacancy levels within the DC are generally very low and currently the only vacant site is the, as yet, unfinished development at 1249 Melton Road. This site would not be suitable for the specific type of retail use proposed in terms of the size of the site, and the need for parking and delivery facilities for example. In the absence of any suitable site within the DC, there is not a more sequentially preferable site than that proposed as it abuts the DC boundary, and is better related to it than the Lidl appeal site being at the end of the existing main concentration of shops along Melton Road and next to the Somerfield supermarket forming a logical extension to it.

Impact on other centres/trading effects

The likely impact of the development on the trade/turnover and the vitality and viability of the DC is arguably the key issue for consideration, assuming need have been established. PPS6 advises that, in assessing impact, identification of need does not necessarily indicate that there will be no negative impact and that there can be positive impacts such as ‘clawback’ of expenditure elsewhere.

Inevitably, comparisons will be drawn with the dismissed appeal referred to above which was for a very similar proposal by Lidl, also a deep-discount, limited line retailer, on a site on the edge of the DC. In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector felt that, in the absence of any quantitative need, the majority of Lidl store’s trade would be drawn from the DC, in particular the existing supermarkets. Such an impact 37 would mean less people would visit the supermarkets, which in turn would have an effect on linked trips to other businesses in the DC with the overall negative effect on the vitality and viability of the DC.

Comparing the current proposal with the Lidl proposal, there are two main differences. Firstly, it is considered a need both in quantitative and qualitative terms has been demonstrated, as noted above. Secondly, although an edge of centre site like the Lidl site, the proposed site has a better relationship with the DC. The Inspector felt that the Lidl site was separated from the main focus of activity by a substantial residential property and the health centre which would prevent the store becoming fully integrated into the DC and, as such, its turnover should not be added to that of the DC. He felt the main concentration of activity was along Melton Road from the junction of High Street to the Somerfield store. Therefore there is a far greater likelihood that the proposed store being virtually next door to Somerfield will integrate far more satisfactorily and operate as part of the DC.

The assessment suggests the proposal will draw about 55% of its trade from existing retailers in the DC as follows: 20% (£0.7m) from the Co-op; 25% (£0.9m) from Somerfield and 5 % £0.2m) from other retailers in the DC. This represents a reduction in turnover of about 8% for Somerfield and 7% for the Co-Op which is not considered to be significant. The remaining 5% (£0.2m) will come from within the PCA but outside the DC and 45% (£1.6m) will come from outside the PCA, for example from Asda.

Whilst these are all assumptions, albeit based on up-to-date data, the latter is the most difficult to assess. The applicants argue that shoppers seeking to purchase discount goods have to travel to shops outside the PCA or the wider NE quadrant, due to the lack of provision within them, and those who are not prepared to travel for whatever reason will choose to carry out their main convince shopping at Adsa or Tesco for example in Leicester. However, if the trade draw from outside the PCA is not as great as estimated, there is a chance that more would be drawn from the existing foodstores in Syston. The estimates put forward in the assessment are similar to that for Lidl, but the appeal Inspector felt that the trade drawn back from Tesco at Hamilton, for example, would be less as, although lower prices are one reason why people shop there, they are also attracted by the extensive range of goods sold.

Conversely, there is also an argument that the proposal would help to maintain the vitality and viability of Syston District Centre given the likely competition from the new development at Thurmaston, the impact of which as yet is unknown, by increasing its attraction and range of shops. The proposal, as well as clawing back some trade to the DC, could complement the existing facilities by being well related to it and adding to the DC’s retail offer and attractiveness and help to retain convenience spending within it, combined with potential for linked trips to other foodstores in Syston, given Aldi’s limited product range, as well as other retailers in the DC.

38 Leicestershire County Council, as the strategic planning authority, considers the proposal will not harm the vitality and viability of the DC and in the absence of any representations from the existing convenience store retailers about the impact on their turnover, (in the Lidl appeal for example, the local planning authority relied on the evidence put forward on behalf of the Midlands Co-op), it is difficult to draw an alternative conclusion. Both the Syston Chamber of Trade and, to a lesser extent, the TC are supportive of the principle of the development, although the TC clearly have concerns about certain aspects of it.

Syston is currently a buoyant centre, which the CLRS suggests is performing well against the indicators of vitality and viability. Vacancies are very low and the only vacant unit is the as yet unfinished development at 1249 Melton Road. In terms of other centres both within the PCA and wider NE quadrant in the CLRS, it is considered the proposal will not result in any significant impacts.

Accessibility

While it is likely that most customers would visit the site by car, particularly if the purpose is for a main bulk purchase food shop, the site is accessible by a choice of means of transport. The site is within 10-15 minutes walking time of nearby residential areas within Syston and is similarly easily accessible by cycle to a larger population with parking facilities to be provided at the site. A main bus route passes the site with a frequency of about 10 minutes during the day with the bus routes providing about 11 buses per hour in each direction, and there are bus stops just to the north and south of the site. Syston railway station is about 500m to the south of the site. The level of car parking including disabled parking proposed, which does not exceed the maximum standards in PPG3, is considered appropriate given the site’s location and its accessibility by other modes.

On balance and the basis of the evidence available, it is considered the proposal satisfies the considerations set out in PPS6 and the relevant criteria in Policies CA/1 and CASP3 of the Structure Plan.

Employment Land

The existing building is a relatively large former knitwear factory with associated offices which, although having been vacant for about a year, appears to be in reasonable condition, with no evidence of vandalism for example.

The site is identified as a Primarily Employment Area and Policy E/8 seeks to safeguard land and buildings within such areas indicating development for other uses will not be permitted unless a number of criteria can be met and provided the development would not result in a shortage of employment land. There is no evidence of the building or site having been marketed for employment use but the policy does not require this, and with regard to the policy’s criteria, the present servicing arrangements are poor, the building does not contribute to the streetscene or the public footpath and some potential employment uses may not be compatible with the nearby residential uses.

39 The proposal would also meet an identified quantitative and qualitative need for a discount food store in the vicinity. Furthermore if the District Centre is to expand, this is realistically the only area into which it could spread and the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land uses. Up to 10 jobs will be created as a result of the development although it must be acknowledged that they will not be within Class B.

During the current local plan period there has been a loss of employment land mainly to residential uses, which if continued would be likely to result in an inadequate supply in employment land. However, currently there is little direct evidence of a shortage. The Council has commissioned a survey by consultants as part of the LDF process but, to date, there are no conclusions. Part of the survey work will also identify whether existing ‘protected’ employment sites should remain so. The supporting information submitted on behalf of the application also suggests (as at July 2005) that there was a good supply of employment sites/buildings both within the surrounding area and the Borough. The proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of Policy E/8.

Living conditions

The potential impact on living conditions is from the relationship of the building with the residential properties on Albert Street, in terms of possible overshadowing, loss of light and dominance. The rear boundaries to the gardens of No’s.1 and 3 currently adjoin the car park to the front of the building with views across it from their upper floors. The proposed building would be sited closer to Melton Road and as such would sit adjacent to No’s.1 and 3’s rear boundaries, but set back about 4m from it. The eaves height of the building at this point would be about 5m, which is similar to that of a two-storey house. Applying the space standard for residential development as set out in ‘Leading in Design’ this requires a separation distance of 12.5m where habitable rooms in a dwelling would face a windowless flank wall to avoid over dominance. The relevant distance in this case would be about 19.5m, well in excess of that standard. The use of light-coloured materials to both the walls and roof of the building will further minimise any impact.

With regard to No’s. 5-11 and 19 Albert Street, the existing building sits back about 1m from the rear gardens whereas the new building would be between 1.5 - 4.0m back. The gable ends of the existing building are higher than the eaves level of the proposed building, although the valley sections will be slightly lower. Overall however, taking into account this existing relationship, the relationship of the new building would be similar and no worse than the existing in terms of its visual impact and potential dominance. The relationship with 21 and 23 Albert Street will be an improvement over the existing situation. Taking into account the overall height of the proposed building and the fact that it would sit more or less to the north of the Albert Street properties, the development would be unlikely to lead to any material loss of sunlight or daylight to these properties.

The other potential impact on living conditions would be noise from deliveries and customers’ cars. The delivery bay and vehicle access would be on the north side of the building away from the houses on Albert Street. Only one main delivery per day 40 is envisaged, with up to three smaller deliveries and, provided these take place at reasonable hours which can be secured by condition, the development is unlikely to result in undue disturbance.

Concerns have been raised by the occupiers of the elderly person’s flats on the opposite side of Melton Road almost opposite the access, about noise from deliveries and customer cars. Whilst it is acknowledged there will be more comings and goings throughout the day, noise from deliveries is unlikely to be worse than when the building was in active employment use. General background noise during the day, primarily from traffic on Melton Road, is also such that any noise generated would not cause harm and the opening hours proposed concur with the recommendations of Environmental Health.

The customer parking areas would be to the north and east (rear) of the building, the latter of which would extend up to the rear garden boundaries of 21 and 23 Albert Street with three parking spaces adjacent to the boundary. A narrow landscape strip would be provided and new fencing would be erected along this boundary. Whilst the greatest amount of activity is likely to take place in the spaces closest to the entrance which are well away from houses on Albert Street, with the building between, during very busy periods the spaces next to the boundary are likely to be used, with potential noise from car doors and boots being closed, car manoeuvring and general vehicle noise. Provided the fence along this section of the boundary is an acoustic fence, the details of which can be secured by condition, the proposal is unlikely to result in noise and disturbance that would be harmful to living conditions or spoil the enjoyment of the gardens of No’s.19 or 21. Weight must also be attached to the fact that use of the building at present is not restricted by planning conditions e.g. relating to hours or type of use, so there is potential for it to be occupied by a nosier business than previously. It is considered the proposal is in accordance with policy EV/1 and the relevant criteria of Policy CA/1.

Traffic and highway issues

Concerns about congestion and high volumes of traffic using Melton Road are acknowledged as this has been raised with regard to other recent large development proposals in Syston, such as the residential scheme off Barkby Road, and the proposal is likely to generate more comings and goings of cars throughout the day and at weekends.

The Transport Assessment considers the impact of the development on the High Street/Melton Road junction and the site access junction. This suggests as a worst case assessment there would be a maximum vehicle flow of 90 arrivals/departures per hour at weekday evening and Saturday lunchtime periods which takes into account, amongst other things, the average duration of a shopping trip and the capacity of the car park. It goes on to suggest that traffic associated with the development will not be significant and can be accommodated within the existing highway network. For example, the assessment suggests the development would result in about 35 additional cars using the High Street junction during peak periods and, overall, the development would not result in a significant worsening of existing traffic conditions. 41

Clearly such assessments are based on a number of assumptions but the Highway Authority does not raise issues regarding either these or the assessment’s conclusions. They also consider that as it has been demonstrated that traffic generation is unlikely to be significant, there would be no justification for any measures on Melton Road to be put in place on Melton Road, funded by the developer.

There are also highway gains associated with the proposal as, currently, HGVs would have to either reverse into or out of the site from Melton Road as there is insufficient space for such vehicles to turn within the site, which is undesirable both in terms of highway safety and the free flow of traffic along Melton Road.

The level of parking proposed falls below the standard set out in the Local Plan which would require 113 spaces. This ‘standard’ has, however, been superseded by the advice in PPG13 which advises there should be no minimum standards and advocating former minimal levels as maximum levels, which the development does not exceed.

A balanced view is therefore required, taking into account the fact that the site is in an accessible location on the edge of the DC, the size of the store and the fact the Highway Authority has not raised any objections. The applicants have also indicated that the use of the car park will not be limited solely to people shopping at the store and, as such, it will provide additional parking for the DC. An interim green travel plan aimed at encouraging employees to use alternatives to the private car to travel to work has also been submitted to support the application, and implementation of this can be secured by conditions. Little weight can be attached to the possibility of some customers parking in the permitted areas on street along Melton Road as raised in the representations, as these are for general public use. It is considered the proposal complies with Policies TR/6 and TR/18.

Character and appearance

This part of Syston contains a mix of building styles but, other than the area immediately to the north, is characterised by buildings on or close to the back edge of the footway. The proposed building would have a narrower frontage than the existing but would be sited closer to the back edge of the footway and will give better enclosure and definition to the street, while still being set back far enough back to allow a landscaped area and the retention of the existing trees on the frontage which contribute to the streetscene.

In terms of its scale and height the lowest part of the roof will be next to the domestic scale buildings to the south while the highest part is adjacent to the more commercial scale development to the north. The roof shape and proposed use of light-coloured cladding materials will also help to reduce the building’s mass in the streetscene.

42 Currently, the main view of the site from the north along Melton Road is of the factory car park. The side elevation and front corner of the proposed building where the main entrance would be located, would sit further forward and this is considered to be an enhancement of this view. The existing trees in front of the British Legion would also provide some ‘filtering’ of the building in this view. The existing building is fairly utilitarian contributing little, if anything, to the character and appearance of the streetscene. The design of the building is obviously modern and different to others in the vicinity, but with the use of the external materials as proposed, it should have a crisp, lightweight appearance that will sit comfortably within the streetscene and is acceptable in the context of Policy EV/1.

The development will create a more open feel to the public footpath to the north of the site. The building and railings, which will incorporate artwork as required by Policy EV/43, combined with tree planting along this boundary as part of the landscaping proposals, will enhance the appearance of what currently is a fairly poor space. Activity from the car park and development in general will provide more casual surveillance of the footpath than at present.

Other issues

A number of neighbours have referred to the potential loss of value to their properties. Whether or not this will occur, this is not a material planning consideration.

Concerns have been raised about youths for example gathering in the area of the car park to the rear of the site and causing disturbance such as anti-social behaviour or driving cars around this area when the store was closed. Retractable bollards are proposed across the vehicle access to prevent vehicles entering the site when the store is closed and, in addition, the applicants have offered to make a contribution to the full costs of a CCTV camera to be located in the north east corner of the site which would be linked into the CCTV system in Syston. This would provide both coverage of the car park and the public footpath to the north of the site which currently does not benefit from any casual supervision or CCTV coverage. The contribution that has been offered will also meet the estimated annual running costs for a 10-year period, as well as the capital cost for the initial provision and can be secured through a planning obligation. As such it is considered the proposal complies with the aims of policy EV/17.

With regard to the comments from Environmental Health about a deterioration in air quality which can be a material planning consideration, it would appear that this is only likely to be an issue in the event that the development would result in a significant increase in traffic. However, with regard to the likely impact on traffic conditions on Melton Road, the conclusion of the supporting transport assessment is that there will not be a significant increase in traffic and this has been accepted by the highway authority. As such, it would be difficult to argue that the development would result in a material worsening of air quality.

43 Despite the concerns raised in the representations regarding rubbish and associated vermin problems, there is nothing to suggest that the applicants would not manage the store properly as, otherwise, it would detract from the image and public perception of their business.

Conclusion

The proposal is acceptable in terms of the criteria set out in PPS6 and the relevant criteria in Policy CA/1 and is unlikely to be detrimental to the vitality and viability of the District Centre. It will result in the loss of a safeguarded employment site but there are advantages with the scheme which outweigh this loss, which is also not significant. No material harm to the living conditions of neighbours is likely to occur and the development is unlikely to generate levels of traffic that would materially worsen existing conditions within Syston. The development will also improve the appearance of the streetscene on Melton Road.

RECOMMENDATION A

That authority be given for entering into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, relating to the following matters, the terms to be finalised by the Director of Development and the Director of Risk Management:

• A contribution of £26,000 for the provision of a CCTV camera in the northwest corner of the site to link into the existing system within Syston and its monitoring over a 10 year period.

RECOMMENDATION B

That authority be given to the Director of Development to issue a planning permission following the completion of the Section 106 agreement and subject to the imposition of the following conditions:

1 - The development, hereby permitted, shall be begun not later than 5 years from the date of this permission. REASON: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.

2 - Only those materials specified in the application shall be used in carrying out the development hereby permitted unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the local planning authority. REASON: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development.

3 - No development shall take place until details of a scheme of public art to be incorporated with the railings to the north boundary of the site, as indicated on drawing No.M03A127/3EL/002E, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall have been implemented in accordance with the approved details before the first use of the building. REASON: To ensure a scheme of public art is secured in accordance with policy EV/37 of the Local Plan. 44

4 - No works shall begin on the site until such time as a detailed site survey to establish the degree of contamination of the site, together with a scheme of necessary remedial measures to render the site suitable and safe for development and to protect the locality, have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. REASON: To make sure that the site, when developed is free from contamination, in the interests of public health and safety.

5 - No part of the development shall be brought into use until such time as the agreed remedial works (including any further measures for monitoring the level of contamination and/or the effectiveness of the remedial works), have been implemented in accordance with a timetable of events, previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority. REASON: To make sure that the site, when developed is free from contamination, in the interests of public health and safety.

6 - No development, including site works, shall begin until a landscaping scheme, to include those details specified below, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority: i) full details of tree planting; ii) planting schedules, noting the species, sizes, numbers and densities of plants; iii) finished levels or contours; iv) functional services above and below ground; and v) all existing trees, hedges and other landscape features, indicating clearly those to be removed. REASON: To make sure that a satisfactory landscaping scheme for the development is agreed.

7 - The landscaping scheme shall be fully completed, in accordance with the details agreed under the terms of the above condition, in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first use of the building or in accordance with a programme previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Any trees or plants removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased, within 5 years of planting shall be replaced in the following planting season by trees or plants of a size and species similar to those originally required to be planted. REASON: To make sure that the appearance of the completed development is satisfactory and to help assimilate the development into its surroundings.

8 - The building shall not be occupied until a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The agreed landscape management plan shall then be fully implemented. REASON: To make sure that the appearance of the completed development is satisfactory and to help assimilate the development into its surroundings.

45 9 - No development, including site works, shall begin until the trees along the site frontage to Melton Road shown to be retained on the approved plan have been protected, in a manner previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Each tree shall be protected in the agreed manner for the duration of building operations on the application site. Within the areas agreed to be protected, the existing ground level shall be neither raised nor lowered, and no materials or temporary building or surplus soil of any kind shall be placed or stored thereon. If any trenches for services are required in the protected areas, they shall be excavated and back-filled by hand and any tree roots encountered with a diameter of 5cm or more shall be left unsevered. REASON: The trees are important features in the streetscene and this condition is imposed to make sure that they are properly protected while building works take place on the site.

10 - The building shall not be used until such time as the cycle parking facilities shown on drawing No.M03A127/3EL/002E have been provided and are available for use. Once provided the cycle parking facilities shall be kept available for use as such at all times thereafter. REASON: To ensure that adequate cycle parking facilities are provided and maintained to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport.

11 - Notwithstanding the details submitted in the 'Initial Travel Plan' the building shall be not be used until details of a Green Commuter Plan containing a travel to work, car use and car parking management strategy for the store has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall comprise proposals to reduce car dependence and vehicle emissions and to establish and encourage the use of alternative transport modes for journeys to and from work and during working hours. Details of the proposals shall include measures to secure increases in car sharing, public transport use, cycling and walking, proposals for car parking restrictions and controls and details of on-site facilities to promote alternative modes of travel to the site. The plan shall make provision for relevant surveys, review and monitoring mechanisms, targets, timescales, phasing programmes and on-site management responsibilities. It shall be implemented and subject to regular review in accordance with the above approved details. REASON: To ensure that adequate steps are taken to provide a choice in mode of travel to and from the site in the interests of sustainability.

12 - For the period of the construction of the development, vehicle wheel cleansing facilities shall be provided within the site and all vehicles exiting the site shall have all tyres and wheels cleaned, as may be necessary, before entering the highway. REASON: To reduce the possibility of deleterious material (mud, stones, etc.) being deposited in the highway and becoming a hazard for road users.

13 - Before first use of the building, drainage shall have been provided within the site such that surface water does not drain into the public highway and thereafter shall be so maintained. REASON: To reduce the possibility of surface water from the site being deposited in the highway causing dangers to road users.

46 14 - Before any building services, plant or machinery, including air handling units, power supply units, extract fans, refrigeration units, public address or similar systems are used in conjunction with the foodstore hereby permitted, they shall have been located in such positions and have been enclosed with sound insulating material or acoustically attenuated in accordance with a scheme which shall have previously been agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The scheme shall include measures to ensure that noise level generated by such equipment will not exceed background noise levels as measured as an LA90 (1 hour), by more than 3dB(A) at any time, as measured at the boundaries of the site. REASON: To ensure that the use of this type of equipment does not generate noise that would be harmful to the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers.

15 - The building shall not be used until such time as as the retractable bollards across the vehicle access indicated on drawing No.M03A127/3EL/002E have been installed. Once installed, the bollards shall be kept in an upright position at all times when the store is unstaffed. No other gates, barriers, bollards, chains or other such obstruction shall be erected unless they are set back a minimum distance of 20 metres behind the highway boundary and shall be hung so as to open inwards only. REASON: To prevent the rear part of the car park being used when the building is unoccupied which could result in noise and disturbance to nearby residents and to enable vehicles to stand clear of the highway to protect the free flow of traffic and pedestrians in the public highway.

16 - No storage of any description shall take place on the open land within the curtilage of the site. REASON: To make sure that the site does not fall into an untidy condition and spoils the appearance of the area.

17 - No customers shall be admitted to the premises after 8.00pm Mondays to Saturdays, before 8.00am Mondays to Saturdays, and after 4.00pm or before 10.00am on Sundays or recognised Bank Holidays. REASON: The premises are close to residential property. A limit on the hours of opening is needed to make sure the use does not cause noise and disturbance at unsocial hours.

18 - The building shall not be used until such time as, notwithstanding the details shown on the application drawings, acoustic fencing has been erected along that part of the south boundary of the site that adjoins the rears of 21 and 23 Albert Street, in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. REASON: To prevent noise from cars using the car park causing disturbance that would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of these properties.

19 - The building shall not be used until such time as fencing as indicated on drawing No.M03A127/3EL/002E has been erected to the east boundary and that part of the south boundary of the site not covered by the above condition. REASON: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory and to provide adequate screening between it and adjoining land.

47 20 - No development shall take place until, notwithstanding the details shown on drawing No.M03A127/3EL/002E, a drawing to the scale of 1:200 or 1:100 showing details of the proposed vehicle access to the site, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall show the following: i) a minimum width of the access of 7.3 metres and ii) a 10 metre radius on entry and 12 metre radius on exit. The access shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details before the first use of the building and thereafter shall be permanently so maintained. REASON: To ensure the access is designed and laid out so as to maximise highway safety and to protect the free and safe passage of traffic in the public highway.

21 - Before first use of the development hereby permitted, visibility splays shall be provided across the site frontage of 4.5 metres by 90 metres out of the access on to Melton Road. These shall be in accordance with the standards contained in the current County Council design guide and shall be so maintained in perpetuity. Nothing shall be allowed to grow above a height of 0.9 metres above ground level within the visibility splays. REASON: To afford adequate visibility at the access/junction to cater for the expected volume of traffic joining the existing highway network and in the interests of highway safety.

22 - Notwithstanding the details submitted, the existing footway on the site frontage shall be widened to a minimum width of 2.0 metres before the development is brought into use. REASON: To cater for the possible increase in pedestrian flows resulting from the development in the interests of pedestrian safety.

23 - The building shall not be used until the car parking and servicing facilities shown within the site on drawing No.M03A127/3EL/002E have been provided, hard surfaced, marked out and made available for use and shall thereafter be permanently so maintained. REASON: To ensure that adequate off-street parking provision is made to reduce the possibilities of the proposed development leading to on-street parking problems in the area.

Informatives 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES RELEVANT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT - Policies EV/1, EV/17, EV/20, EV/43, E/8, CA/1, TR/6, TR/18 and CA/12 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (adopted 12th January 2004) have been taken into account in the determination of this application. The proposed development complies with the requirements of these Local Plan policies and there are no other material considerations which are of significant weight in reaching a decision on this application.

48 2 Planning permission has been granted for this development because the Council has determined that, although representations have been received against the proposal, it is generally in accord with the terms of the above-mentioned policies and, otherwise, no harm would arise such as to warrant the refusal of planning permission.

3 Please contact Mr Buckingham, the Council's Landscape Officer, on 01509 634766 about compliance with condition 9.

4 The Highway Authority advise that: i) All works within the limits of the Highway with regard to the access shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Northern Area Manager - (telephone 01509 412316); ii) A public footpath abuts the site and this must not be obstructed or diverted without obtaining separate consent from Leicestershire County Council; iii) Any street furniture that requires relocation shall be moved entirely at the expense of the applicant, who shall first obtain the separate consent of the relevant authority; and iv) The Developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the Highway Authority under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 for works within the highway and detailed plans shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Highway Authority. The Section 278 Agreement must be signed and all fees paid and surety set in place before the Highway works are commenced.

5 Care should be taken during site works to make sure that hours of operation, methods of work, dust and disposal of waste do not unduly disturb nearby residents.

6 This decision relates to the following drawings: M03A127-3EL-031; 002E; 001; 020A; 030A; 040A; 005 and 359 (telescopic bollard detail).

7 This decision notice includes a condition or conditions which require something to be done before any work starts on site. Unless such conditions are fully complied with, the development carried out may be unlawful and could be the subject of enforcement action. Anyone implementing this permission should pay special attention to such conditions and make sure that there is full compliance with their requirements before any development starts on site.

8 In view of the possibility of contamination of the land you are advised to take guidance from the Council's Building Control Officer (01509 634751) and the Council's Environmental Services Section (Tel 01509 634636/01509 634753).

49 9 When submitting details in relation to condition 10 relating to cycle facilities, you should refer to the Department for Transport's Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/02 - Key Elements of Cycle Parking Provision. This is available on the Department's Web-Site at http://www.dft.gov.uk/. It is recommended that "Sheffield" racks are used and that these are provided under cover and close to the entrance to the building. Further advice can be obtained from the Council's Transport Policy Co-ordinator on 01509 634762.

10 The demolition of the existing building should be carried out in such a way as to ensure that any asbestos contained within the structure is removed and/or dismantled in a safe manner. Precautions should be taken to ensure that any asbestos is removed by an authorised contractor and disposed of at a Licensed Waste Management Facility. Before any works commence the developer is advised to contact the Health & Safety Executive, tel no 01604 738300 for further information.

50

This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Licence No: 100023558 This copy has been produced specifically for Council purposes only. No further copies may be made.

Application No: P/05/1099/2 Location: 1169 Melton Road, Syston, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE7 2JT Scale: 1:1250

I 1 I 23 8 G I GGG GG

ts W

s G 1

o 1 I or P G 8 ks

Central Park I GG I 1 GGG I I GG I entral Park R I I 8 1 E I 1 2 12 16 53.1m

0 y I 9 d 1 B 1 2 I 9 rd 6 1 a 8 1 W 1 8 1 8 Tennis 1 D I 2 1 A 8 O 1 4 Court 1 8 R 1 N 1 O T L Y E I M 0 8 1 Tennis Court I 1 I I Club I R I I I I 2 I I 7 1 Y 1 R I

I 68 War Meml 1 I I 1 I

I I 4 5 1 Works I 1 I I I 8

4

1 1 I

1

1 1

1 6

6 5 I 5 I k n A I a I T LB I

E 1

1 R

I 1 T I 6 3 I I ST RE I

ET

1 I I

1 I

6 I 1 I I 11

I 2 I

I I2 I 1 I I I I I 9 I I I 2 Works I I 3 I

I I 6

I I I 1 I I I I I A I I LB I ER I T S 33 t I I TR o I E p I ET e I I D I I G I

TO I I I Works 0 N 3 S 7 I I TR I I I

EE I I 2 T 9 I I I 3

9a I 2 I I I

11 I I I

I 8 I 3

I I I

1 2 8 5 I I 4 51