Application No: Ward: Banbury Grimsbury Date Valid: 13.12.11 11/001870/F and Castle
Applicant: LXB RP (Banbury) and Prodrive Holdings Ltd
Site Address: Banbury Gateway, Acorn Way, Banbury
Proposal: Demolition of existing units. Construction of new retail units (Use Class A1), restaurants and cafes (Use Class A3), associated access, servicing and landscape works
1. Site Description and Proposal
1.1 The site is situated on the northern side of the Wildmere Industrial Estate on the very northern edge of Banbury. It is bounded by the River Cherwell to the north and north west, the M40 to the east, Wildmere Road to the south and neighbouring industrial buildings to the south west. The site largely consists of Prodrive’s existing buildings and operations however there is an undeveloped lawned area to the north and an area of separate grazing land, triangular in shape, situated between the M40 and the former route of the Daventry road which runs through the site to the east of the existing buildings, and along which a right of way still remains. These two undeveloped areas together with the area occupied by Prodrive’s buildings form the site for the proposed retail units. A lake and amenity area exist in the north western part of the site which would remain unchanged.
1.2 The proposal involves demolishing all of the existing buildings on the site and redeveloping it to create a retail park consisting of 10 retail units and three restaurant/café units. The proposed development would be expected to generate 340 jobs. The development would have a total floor area of 26,503sqm and would include an anchor store (unit 11) with a ground floor area of 4,647sqm and a secondary store with garden centre (unit 2) with a ground floor area of 2,790qm. The remainder of the retail units would have ground floor areas ranging from 465sqm to 929sqm. All retail units would have a mezzanine floor. The three smaller A3 units (units 3-5) would have ground floor areas ranging from 164sqm to 326sqm. The anchor store together with eight of the proposed units would be arranged on the north west side of the site, the anchor being closest to the motorway; the smaller units running towards Acorn Way. Two units (units 1 and 2) would back onto Wildmere Road and two further units (units 12 and 13) would be positioned in the south east corner of the site. All parking and manoeuvring areas would be positioned centrally amongst the buildings and include pedestrian walkways. The proposal would result in realigning the public right of way away from the former route of Daventry Road to the front of units 12 and 13 and then running parallel with the Motorway. The area of the A3 uses would include a covered walkway and seating area. New planting is proposed across the whole site. Servicing areas for deliveries would be situated to the south of units 1 and 2, fronting Wildmere Road, to the north of units 9 and 10 between the buildings and the amenity area and to the west of units 12 and 13.
1.3 With regard to the site’s constraints, The Council’s records indicate that the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, The River Cherwell flows through the site, a public right of way including cycle way crosses the site, there is evidence of water vole and green woodpecker in the vicinity and the site is also located on potentially contaminated land.
2. Application Publicity
2.1 The application has been advertised in the local press (on 29.12.11) and by way of three site notices positioned around the site, one at each existing vehicular access into the site and one adjacent to the public footpath at the northern end of the site. The application has been advertised as a major development, a departure from the development plan and as affecting a public right of way. The final date for comment was 19 January 2012. 29 representations have been received as a result of this publicity which include representations of behalf of Castle Quay, Banbury Cross Retail Park and by Local Councillors. These are summarised below (See Public Access for full responses)
2.2 Comments of Opposition § Proposal will directly compete with Banbury Town Centre contrary to National Planning Policy § No safeguards to control nature of goods sold § Likely to draw key retailers out of Castle Quay to the detriment of the town centre as a whole – suffering irreparable damage § Impact upon Banbury Town Centre significantly underestimated by the Retail Assessment § Overestimation of trade diversion from out of centre floorspace in Banbury § Lack of cumulative impact assessment as required by PPS4 § Sequentially preferable sites exist for elements of the proposal § Evidence of significant adverse impacts on Banbury Town Centre in direct conflict with EC16.1 and EC17 of PPS4 § Failure to comply with sequential approach in conflict with EC15 and EC17. § Concerned about any proposal being so accessible by private car § Runs contrary to established planning policy § Potential to draw trade from and adversely affect Banbury Town Centre § Holding objection (further time required to fully assess) application raises complex and strategic planning issues which affect not just Banbury but the wider sub-region. § Significant drop in customers over last 15 years - free parking in out of town centre seen as considerable advantage § If town centre shops close they wont be occupied by new retailers § Consider long reaching effects on Banbury § Banbury needs more than to shop, consider leisure centre instead (cinema/ice skating) § Don’t believe M&S would stay open in the town center § Banbury cannot support another out of town retail park § It wont attract new customers § Prodrive holding town to ransom (threat of moving) § Neither viable or necessary § Government advice is not to encourage out of town shopping § Job losses in the town centre § Good quality businesses need to be encouraged to exiting retail units § Large project wont solve the current problems § Independent retailers being brushed aside § Shoppers, customers, businesses losing confidence in economy § Examples of losses in Leamington Spa where retail park has been developed § Multi-million pound business rewarded whilst family businesses penalised. § Vital to town centre that proposals are quashed § Amenity of Banbury will be damaged § Industrial site more valuable to Banbury – providing work for citizens § Death sentence for Banbury – should never be allowed to go ahead § Many empty premises so why do we need more out of town shopping? § People can already shop out of town and get everything that they need § Approval would demonstrate that CDC is oblivious to the real world and the survival of retail in the heart of Banbury. § Represents significant comparisons goods in out of town locations § Must not adversely undermine nearby centres such as Banbury § Retail Impact and trade draw § Potential loss of significant retailers from town centre § If approved necessary to restrict type and scale of A1 use § Inadequate application of sequential approach and issues of disaggregation
2.3 Comments of Support § Great benefit to Banbury as a whole and the local economy: secure/create jobs, secure investment, entice people off M40 § All towns are suffering in these tough economic times. Many high street shops have closed nationally (not just Banbury) § Due to tough times this development is essential § With the right marketing and encouragement people can also visit town centre § Viability of small businesses in town centre would be boosted by increased footfall § Shopping habits are changing. Out of town retail is a fact of life and Bnabury has to adapt § Cannot let opportunity pass by and to be built elsewhere § Support long term future § Desperate need to draw more people into town § Shops of this scale will never be built in town centre. If not built as proposed will go elsewhere taking jobs and customers with it. § Major bonus by motorway – no parking fees and putting Banbury back on the map § Will stop regular visits to Solihull, High Wycombe, Oxford and Milton Keynes § If not allowed Banbury will remain as small market town with no ambition/aspiration to grow § Shortsightedness must be overlooked § Dis-benefits of losing Prodrive and jobs (high profile, high technology business) § Will reduce traffic congestion in town § Only a small number of units proposed and all are large so unsuitable for most town centre shops § This will encourage big retail names providing more choice § Appreciate town centre fears but many examples of successful town centre and out of town retail in the same place § Much rather see colourful shops than another factory § Can see merits § Draw passing trade from M40 § Must retain high profile business in Banbury (Prodrive) § Times have changed/shopping habits have changed § Town centres and retail parks have to co-exist § Will make Banbury more desirable § People will travel many miles to visit § Keep Prodrive and money stays in Banbury § Council has to take into account the bigger picture § Could offer bigger shops that the town needs
2.4 Councillor Bonner as ward Member supports the application subject to mitigation measures to ensure the development does not give rise to increased pollution levels and would like confirmation as to the number of years the proposed shuttle bus would run for.
2.5 Marks and Spencer (the intended occupier of the anchor store on the application site) has written with supporting evidence stating the following: § They remain committed to their existing town centre store; it is profitable and has benefited from extensive refurbishment and significant investment. § The existing and proposed stores will fulfill differing needs designed to compliment each other and widen shopping options available (additional choice). § Full furniture range not available without travelling out of Banbury to a Regional Flagship Store. § In many cases catchment of stores overlap. § Gives customers opportunity to shop whenever convenient at any given time. § Constant programme of modernisation and refurbishment at existing store.
2.6 Next (the intended occupier of the second largest store on the application site) has confirmed that they would be willing to commit to the town centre until the expiry of their current lease (24/03/2016).
3. Consultations
3.1 Banbury Town Council raises no objections and supports the application on the following grounds: § Would provide flagship shopping park § Situated in an important gateway to the Town § Prime access from/to M40 § Opportunity for exemplary development § Replacement of existing outdated building stock § Exciting new facility for Banbury § Whilst conscious of need to guard against adverse impact upon viability of town centre Members are hopeful that additional footfall will be attracted to the area and the town centre would benefit accordingly. § Would offer additional employment generating opportunities over and above any warehouse/distribution use of the site.
3.2 Bourton Parish Council (CDC) has not commented on the application
3.3 Chacombe Parish Council (SNC) raises no objections however would have liked to have seen the proposal include a supermarket for the eastern side of Banbury
3.4 South Northamptonshire Council has offered a holding objection pending receipt and consideration of the following: § Assessment of potential impact upon Brackley town centre § A sequential test to include Brackley § Assessment of likely impact on the regeneration of Brackley with particular regard to Brackley Master Plan.
3.5 Head of Strategic Planning and the Economy (Planning Policy) considers the proposal to be contrary to planning policy (PPS4) for the following reasons:
§ Inappropriate location for major retail development § Loss of employment land § Arguments about disaggregation unacceptable in policy terms § No thorough, detailed examination of the availability and viability of the sequentially preferable sites. § Retained presence of Next and M&S in town centre not guaranteed § No restriction on sales proposed § Impact on Banbury Cross Retail Park not fully explored § Shuttle Bus does not integrate with existing development § Unsustainable location § BREEAM ‘very good’ only indicated on M&S – should be achieved across whole site § Site not located within knowledge driven, technology centers identified in Economic Development Strategy § Positive impacts on Banbury if site retained for employment use § Employment Land Review seeks to retain all existing B use class land § No evidence of marketing of site for employment use § Impact on investment – There is capacity in Banbury for comparison goods, Bolton Road could address some of this capacity
3.6 Head of Strategic Planning and the Economy (Urban Design) states that the proposal does not constitute high quality inclusive design as required by PPS1 and misses opportunities for the following reasons: § Inward looking environment/turns back on Wildmere Road § Servicing to perimeter § Buildings uncomfortably close to M40 § Lost opportunity to link to landscaped areas § Re-routed footpath should be better incorporated into site § Extent of hard surfacing together with inadequate planting § Unscreened and inactive elevations facing M40 § Food court separated from amenity area by service road (likely to become redundant) § Significantly larger than nearby buildings § Appearance of distribution warehouse rather than retail § Materials/colours/quality typical of industrial premises § Plant and machinery would be visible § Canopy – main eye catching element but tucked away § Lack of cohesiveness § Renewables/sustainability? § Public art should be integrated into the scheme § Lack of pedestrian circulation space
3.7 Head of Public Protection and Development Management (Anti Social Behaviour) states that noise from the site should not be an issue given the surrounding development (industrial and M40). Lighting details required.
3.8 Head of Public Protection and Development Management (Environmental Protection) § Proposals outlined in Geoenvironmental and Geotechnical Desktop Study for the next stage of investigation and risk assessment are acceptable regarding the potential risk from land contamination. § Further investigation of shallow soils required. § Development has potential to impact on air quality in the Air Quality Management Area on Hennef Way and potentially other areas being assessed to determine whether national air quality objectives are exceeded. § The level of impact should be determined and where necessary, mitigation measures proposed.
Conditions recommended relating to intrusive land contamination investigation and remediation details where necessary and an air quality assessment and subsequent mitigation.
3.9 Head of Environmental Services (Arboriculture) states that although a number of reasonable trees are to be removed significant replanting is proposed to mitigate for their removal. Tree protection must be installed prior to any construction or demolition work as per recommendations described in the eco urban limited report ref. 11234-AIA. Planting schedule required showing the proposed sizes and what species going where. Also planting pit details: dimensions and surfacing methods.
3.10 Head of Environmental Services (Landscape Services) makes the following comments
Landscape and Visual Impact § Little practical change to views from footpaths § Buildings will be visible from Daventry Road beyond the motorway § Site visible from the undeveloped land to the NW. Although there are no footpaths in this area at present part of it is likely to become a country park § Proposals include no additional screening on this side of the development § Concerns about the wall like appearance of the development compared with the existing arrangement of separate buildings which at least give a broken profile § Views out of site have been ignored § Turns back on the open countryside § Layout forms isolated enclave which could be anywhere § Increase in the built up area close to the motorway § Additional landscape impact on wider area will not be significant
Design The Design and Access Statement contains a desire for an exemplary development, this desire is not translated into reality for the following reasons. § Design completely ignores noise from M40 and does nothing to shield shoppers from it § As M40 embankment is approx 3-4m high pedestrians won't experience views out of the site. § The layout does nothing to incorporate the lake and existing landscape of pond and ornamental garden area into the design. It simply puts up a wall against it and cuts it off. § Further evidence required that alternative layout is not possible (due to service runs) § Approach taken is not conducive to a sympathetic quality scheme.
Planting Scheme § The amount of landscaping is very limited. There is no additional screening along the motorway boundary. The amount of planting proposed on site is minimal and simply fills the spaces left over. § The choice of plants is poor. No evidence of high quality in the landscape scheme. § The quality and type of hard landscape materials is nothing special, eg: concrete block paving and tarmac.
3.11 Head of Community Services (Safer Communities Manager) requires the provision of a CCTV scheme to be installed in association with the development and for that scheme to be monitored and controlled by Thames Valley Police.
3.12 Head of Community Services (Nature Conservation) is satisfied that no protected species were found on site. Nesting birds to be protected via condition in relation to hedge removal. A minimal amount of biodiversity enhancements are proposed given the scale of the scheme. Opportunities for enhancements on the ground are limited. Extensive green roofs would be an appropriate way of enhancing and increasing biodiversity in accordance with draft core strategy policies and PPS9. Biodiversity enhancements to include swift nesting boxes. Advice given re type of bat boxes. Further detail re creation and a management of wildflower meadow required. River Cherwell forms an important commuting and foraging route for bats, therefore no light spillage on the river should occur and external lighting to the rear should be kept to a minimum and the hours restricted.
3.13 Head of Community Services (Rights of Way) § If approved, proposal could not go ahead unless affected public rights of way have been diverted which may lead to objections and subsequently an inquiry. § The application contains insufficient detail with regard to the public rights of way. § The applicant has neither accommodated the existing line nor demonstrated that the circumstances justify not doing so. § Even if diversion justified the alternative is not satisfactory: conflict between shoppers and cyclists where the proposed route runs along the frontages of Units 12 and 13. § Potential for an alleyway to develop overtime where the proposed path runs tightly between the car park and the motorway embankment. Outside boundary hedge could lead to its maintenance being informally deprioritised and eventually neglected. § The continuing amenity of the route could be better protected if it was taken up Acorn Way and through the ornamental garden. § The applicant should submit a statement justifying and detailing the diversion and the proposed alternative with reference to CDC policy and section 7 of DEFRA circular 1/09.
3.14 Head of Recreation and Health (Arts and Tourism Manager) requires £265,300 towards public art
3.15 Head of Public Protection and Development Management (Building Control) provides comments on the application in relation to Part B and Part M of the building regulations
3.16 Head of Strategic Planning and the Economy (Economic Development) summarises as follows:
Whilst the growth of successful businesses and investment in Banbury is welcomed. The documentation presented as part of this application does not justify why policy should be over ridden to remove this established site for industrial/business use.
3.17 CBRE (instructed by HPPDM to provide retail planning advice in relation to the application) concludes that the sequential test has not been satisfied and although the direct impact on the town centre may not be significant it may put at risk the development of proposed investment at Bolton Road and, to a lesser extent, the Canalside site. Either would justify refusal of the application.
3.17.1 There is little doubt that there will be an adverse impact, but there may be some positive benefits including an extension of consumer choice albeit it in an out of centre location with little prospect of significant numbers of linked trips to the town centre. It is also recognised that new jobs would be created and that the proposal may cross subsidise the relocation of the Prodrive development.
3.18 Oxfordshire County Council supports the proposals subject to further clarification of the transport impacts and identification and securing necessary mitigation measures. The following comments have been received from individual officers:
3.18.1 OCC Economic Development: § Provision of new retail development on previously developed land § Increased retail offer would help sustain Banbury’s role as a major service centre § Development would provide 340 jobs assisting with deprivations (unemployment current above average) § CDC needs to consider retail consultant’s findings § If permitted, linked trips between site and town centre should be encouraged (improvements to walking/cycling routes and signage)
3.18.2 OCC Transport: § Traffic generation figures are reasonable. The development will have an impact on highway network, however this can be managed by off site works including CCTV and minor improvements to Hennef Way roundabout. § Robust travel plan required § Bus service acceptable in principle § Travel plan addresses justification for lower levels of parking for private vehicles and cycles
3.18.3 OCC Ecology: § Site contains no ecologically valuable habitats. Conditions re nesting birds, lighting and biodiversity required
3.18.4 OCC Archaeology: § Some potential for archaeological deposits on site to be dealt with via planning condition
3.18.5 OCC Local Member View: § In favour of proposals to enable Prodrive to relocate to new premises and sustain its presence in town
3.18.6 OCC (Footpaths) § Proposed diversion of public footpath raises safety issues. This needs to be resolved. The diversion is being sought under s247 of the Planning Act and secured through a condition to planning permission.
3.18.7 OCC (Drainage) § requires final design for drainage system. EA approval will be required to pipe/culvert existing ditches as well as filling in surplus ditches. Discharge rate needs to be agreed with Thames Water. 30% should be used for the climate change calculation and not 20%.
3.19 Highways Agency raises no objections
3.20 Thames Valley Police Architectural Liaison Officer with regard to Crime Prevention through environmental design, Thames Valley Policy states that recommendations made by them prior to the submission of the application have been incorporated into the design and layout of the development. Planning informatives recommended in relation to Secured by Design and Safer Parking.
3.21 RPS of behalf of Thames Valley Police states that the proposal requires effective and visible policing and therefore the site would require police presence in the form of two police community safety officers and a two desk office. Total requirement is £291,784.00 to provide the office and to fund two officers for four years.
3.22 Environment Agency raises no objections subject to conditions.
3.23 Thames Water provides advice in relation to public sewers, discharge of ground water, surface water drainage, fat traps and collection of waste oil (in relation to catering establishments), trade effluent consent and water pressure.
3.24 BBOWT raises no objections on biodiversity grounds and site is of limited ecological value at present. Comment from CDC Ecology Officer re the provision of swift nesting boxes is supported.
3.25 Ramblers Association/Oxford Fieldpaths Society/Open Spaces Society have not commented on the application.
4. Relevant Planning Policies
4.1 ADOPTED POLICY
4.1.1 National Planning Policy PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS Planning and Climate Change - Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 PPS 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG 13 Transport PPS 23 Planning and Pollution Control PPG 24 Planning and Noise PPS 25 Development and Flood Risk
4.1.2 South East Plan Policy SP3 Urban Focus and Urban Renaissance Policy CC1 Sustainable Development Policy CC2 Climate Change Policy CC3 Resource Use Policy CC4 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy CC6 Sustainable Communities and Character of the Environment Policy CC7 Infrastructure and Implementation Policy RE1 Contributing to the UK's Long Term Competitiveness Policy RE3 Employment and Land Provision Policy T1 Manage and Invest Policy T4 Parking Policy NRM1 Sustainable Water Resources and Groundwater Quality Policy NRM4 Sustainable Flood Risk Management Policy NRM5 Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity Policy NRM9 Air Quality Policy NRM10 Noise Policy NRM11 Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Policy C4 Landscape and Countryside Management Policy C5 Managing the Rural-Urban Fringe? Policy BE1 Management for an Urban Renaissance Policy TC1 Strategic Network of Town Centres Policy TC2 New Development and Redevelopment in Town Centres Policy TC3 Out of Centre Regional/Sub Regional Shopping Centres
4.1.3 Adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (Saved Policies) Policy EMP1 Allocation of Sites for Employment Generating Development Policy S10 Development in Banbury commercial areas Policy TR1 Transportation Funding Policy TR14 Formation of New Accesses to the inner relief road and Hennef Way Policy R7 Protection and enhancement of the recreational roles of the Oxford Canal and River Cherwell Policy C1 Protection of sites of nature conservation value Policy C2 Development affecting protected species Policy C4 Creation of new habitats Policy C7 Landscape conservation Policy C8 Sporadic development in the open countryside Policy C9 Scale of development compatible with a rural location Policy C17 Enhancement of the urban fringe through tree and woodland planting Policy C28 Standards of layout, design and external appearance) Policy ENV1 Development likely to cause detrimental levels of pollution Policy ENV7 Development affecting water quality Policy ENV12 Development on Contaminated Land
4.2 DRAFT POLICY
4.2.1 Draft Core Strategy Policy E1 Employment Development Policy E2 Supporting Urban Centres Policy SD5 Sustainable Construction Policy SD6 Sustainable Drainage Systems Policy SD8 Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity and the Natural Environment Policy SD13 The Built Environment Policy I1 Infrastructure Policy BAN7 Supporting Banbury Town Centre Policy BAN8 Land at Bolton Road Policy BAN9 Banbury Cultural Quarter
4.2.2 A Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has been published. This document retains the ‘town centre first’ principles of PPS4, however as a draft document carries very little weight. The finalised document is intended to be published within a month.
4.3 NON STATUTORY POLICY
4.3.1 Non-Statutory Cherwell Local Plan The non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan is not part of the statutory development plan but it has been approved as interim planning policy for development control purposes.
5. Appraisal
5.1 Background
5.1.1 Prodrive is a world leading motorsport and automotive technology business. The company’s existing headquarters is situated on the site adjacent to the M40 and comprises thirteen separate units that have been acquired and developed during the time that Prodrive has occupied the site (in excess of 25 years). The Banbury site employs almost 398 people and there are two other branches at Warwick and Milton Keynes which employ 52 and 68 staff respectively. Prodrive plans to expand its business and employ more people, however the piecemeal fashion in which the Banbury site has developed no longer meets Prodrive’s needs; the layout of the buildings is inefficient and it is claimed that the existing site could not accommodate the planned expansion.
5.1.2 An alternative site at the former Hella factory, situated off Southam Road to the north of Banbury, has recently been identified as a suitable single building to accommodate Prodrive, offering almost twice the space that is available at the existing site and with room to expand in the future. Moving Prodrive’s operations to the former Hella site would allow the company to consolidate all three branches to one.
5.1.3 Planning permission has recently been granted under delegated authority for alterations to, and the refurbishment of, the existing building on the Hella site together with alterations to the parking provision to suit Prodrive’s needs (application reference 11/01868/F). In order to finance the refurbishment of the building and the alterations, Prodrive states that it is necessary to sell its existing site for retail development, hence the application currently under consideration.
5.2 Relevant Planning History
5.2.1 Over the 25 years that Prodrive has occupied this site there have been a significant number of planning applications approved as the site has expanded and developed. None of this planning history is of any major implication in relation to the proposal currently under consideration.
5.2.2 More recently and of significance to flood risk in and around Banbury are a number of flood alleviation applications which have been approved along the River Cherwell corridor and largely completed on site. Prodrive has been a stakeholder of these applications due to some of the work being carried out on land owned by them (application 11/00092/F refers).
5.2.3 An application has recently been submitted by the Council for the change of use of the land immediately to the north of the River Cherwell and west and east of the M40 to a country park (application 12/00302/CDC refers).
5.2.4 In association with this particular proposal an application for a Screening Opinion (application 11/00019/SO refers) was made last year which was assessed by the Council. It was concluded that it was not necessary for an Environmental Impact Assessment to accompany the application now under consideration.
5.3 Key Issues
5.3.1 The application stands to be assessed against the following key issues: § Principle − Loss of Employment Land − Change of Use to Retail § Sequential Assessment and Retail Impact § Transport Impact § Landscape Impact/Design/Layout § Public Footpath Impact § Sustainability § Public Safety § Flood Risk/Drainage § Contaminated Land § Air Quality § Noise § Biodiversity/Ecology § Trees § Archaeology
5.4 PRINCIPLE
5.4.1 Loss of Existing Employment Use
The overarching objective of PPS4 is sustainable economic growth and in terms of development management the document states that applications to secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably. PPS4 classes economic development as all of the B Class uses, public, community and main town centre uses. The objectives to secure sustainable economic growth include (amongst other criteria); reducing the need to travel, promoting the vitality and viability of town centres, focusing new growth on town centers and enhancing competition.
5.4.2 The South East Plan reflects the content of PPS4 and more locally seeks to facilitate a flexible supply of land to meet the varying needs of economic sectors (Policy RE3).
5.4.3 The adopted Cherwell Local Plan identifies the undeveloped parts of the application site as committed sites for employment generating development. The introduction to the employment chapter of this Plan states that its content relates to employment generating development other than retail development.
5.4.4 The non-statutory Cherwell Local Plan allocates the land to the north of the Prodrive Buildings for B1 and B2 uses, stating that the site is close to the M40 and it is reasonable to expect a high standard of design that will help to improve the quality of this view of the town. This is most likely to be achieved through a B1 development or a high quality B2 design such as the adjoining Prodrive building.
5.4.5 The same plan allocates the triangular shaped land to the east of the site and adjacent to the M40 for B1/B2/B8 uses stating that the site is prominent at the approach to Banbury from the M40 and it is important that a high quality development is achieved that gives a positive image for the town to those arriving by the M40.
5.4.6 The Draft Core Strategy makes no specific reference to the site or the two site allocations referred to above. However Policy E1 (Employment Development) states that the Council will, as a general principle, continue to protect existing employment land and buildings for employment (B class) uses.
5.4.7 The Council’s Economic Development Strategy sets out the direction to be taken to ensure that the economy and society of the District is prosperous and resilient.
5.4.8 The Cherwell District Council Employment Land Review (prepared for the Council as part of the LDF preparation) recommends that the undeveloped element of the site adjacent to the M40 should be reserved for B8 development as it has excellent connections to the M40 and would supplement the existing uses on the adjacent sites. The Review also states that future development in Banbury Business Park should be strictly limited to employment use . . . to provide a good quality cluster offering a range of premises to accommodate all uses including B8 to take advantage of existing demand for B8 space and the cluster’s strategic, edge-of-town location.
5.4.9 The key findings of the Annual Monitoring Review in relation to business development and town centers refer to overall employment land availability, the extent of employment land lost to other uses and completed town centre uses. This review has led to recommended actions including maintaining up to date information on employment land availability, the consideration of developing a policy to protect employment land and closely monitoring loss of employment land.
5.4.10 Taking the above policy references, the supplementary evidence and guidance into account, together with the varying status of each and the weight that should be afforded to them it is clear that strategically, sustainable economic growth should be supported.
5.4.11 The site is an established employment generator and those parts of the site that remain undeveloped are identified in the development plan as committed sites for employment generating development and whilst guidance suggests that each site should be reviewed for the purposes of the next plan period, the non- statutory Cherwell Local Plan although not adopted, continues to identify the undeveloped land for B class uses, uses which the Draft Core Strategy, as a general principle will continue to protect.
5.4.12 The Council’s Economic Development Officer advises that employment land in Banbury is already limited and evidence of business expansion is clear (current proposals on allocated sites). He considers that it is important to retain land affordable and available and that in this case, the existing buildings on the site could be marketed and occupied, particularly for business such as those in the advanced engineering sector who could make use of the buildings as they exist with very little change. There is also likely to be a demand for smaller employment generating units as a result of businesses relocating from Canalside, which could be provided by the buildings being vacated by Prodrive. It should be noted that Banbury’s expansion for employment generating development is restricted by geographical and physical boundaries and therefore, as a major employment centre, the maintenance of industrial sites to the north east of Banbury is critical.
5.4.13 The proposed development would result in the loss of employment generating land (not including retail land), which, based on current figures of Banbury’s whole offer, would be approximately 2.6%. Whilst this figure may appear to represent a minor loss, all evidence and emerging policy points to the critical requirement to protect a flexible supply of employment land. It is noted that there are currently real commitments for significant employment generating development in other parts of Banbury (in excess of what has been accounted for by development plan allocations), however it is recognised that such development may not provide the opportunities for smaller businesses that the current accommodation at Prodrive could.
5.4.14 It is HPPDM’s view that the indicated loss of employment generating land would cause harm to the overriding objectives of sustainable economic growth. However it must be recognised that the Council currently has no adopted policy which protects such land from changes of use. Therefore the overall judgement that must be made in this case is whether the Council could sustain a reason for refusal based on a 2.6% loss of employment land in Banbury. As the proposal, in this case, involves, a very minor representation of Banbury’s total offer, HPPDM concludes that a reason for refusal could not be sustained.
5.4.15 Proposed Retail Use
Independent from the conclusions drawn in relation to the loss of employment land, the proposed use of the site for retail development must be considered. The principle of such a use in this location is considered here, however the specific details in relation to sequential testing and town centre impact of the proposed development are set out from para 5.5.
5.4.16 Whilst PPS4 identifies economic development as, amongst others, ‘main town centre uses’, by this very definition, such development should be situated within the town centre. The principle of retail development on this out of town centre site is not considered to be in accordance with this objective.
5.4.17 Policy TC3 of the South East Plan clearly states that no need has been identified for any further out-of-centre regional or sub-regional shopping centres.
5.4.18 Policy E2 of the Draft Core Strategy states that retail and other town centre uses will be directed towards the three urban centres of Banbury, Bicester and Kidlington.
5.4.19 The objective behind these policies is primarily to protect the vitality and viability of the town centre and whilst there is scope for developers to attempt to demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable sites and that the proposal would not cause harm to a town centre, the principle of retail development outside of a town centre is not supported.
5.4.20 It is interesting to note at this stage that the Council’s Economic Development Officer points out that consultation carried out as part of the preparation of the Strategy did not reveal a strategic desire for an out of town retail development. However, the importance of Cherwell’s town centres was repeatedly expressed with a wish that they become more vibrant through increased investment.
5.4.21 The proposal for retail development on the site in question, at face value, does not focus on the town centre and furthermore it has the potential to undermine the vitality and viability of Banbury Town Centre. For this reason it is considered that the change of use of the land to a retail use does not accord with planning principles.
5.4.22 Departure Procedures
Given the fact that the proposed development is in conflict with the land use allocations set out in the adopted Cherwell Local Plan it is considered to be a departure from the development plan. Furthermore as the application proposes retail development in an out of town centre location, the Council is directed to consult the Secretary of State in the event that members resolve to approve the application. For both reasons, should Members resolve to approve the application it would be sent to the Secretary of State who would decide whether to make the ultimate decision in relation to the application or to allow the Local Authority to do so.
5.5 SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT AND RETAIL IMPACT
5.5.1 Due to the fact that the site is in an out of town centre location and is not a site that is allocated for retail development through local adopted policies, PPS4 requires the applicant to demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable sites that are available, suitable and viable and, that there would be no significant adverse impacts, in terms of the impact on centres and in terms of wider environmental, economic and regeneration impacts. The applicant has produced a Retail Assessment and an addendum to that Assessment to address these matters. These are available to view via the Council’s website.
5.5.2 Given the scale and importance of the application, the Council instructed retail planning consultants CBRE to provide a critique of the submitted Retail Assessment. A copy of CBRE’s original critique together with an updated critique responding to the Retail Addendum are attached at appendices A and B respectively. The key issues raised by CBRE are set out below:
5.5.3 Geographical Scope
5.5.3.i WYG had identified only Banbury sites in their original Retail Assessment however CBRE felt that town centres such as Bicester and Kidlington should have been included in the search. WYG in their addendum considers that the scale of the development would be inappropriate for these centres in the light of the hierarchy of centres within the district, at the top of which is Banbury. CBRE is content with this explanation assuming there is no scope for disaggregation which is discussed below. WYG claims the same for Brackley. It is known that South Northamptonshire Officers have concerns about the impact upon Brackley and its development opportunities which needs further research in their view.
5.5.4 Flexibility and Scope for Disaggregation
5.5.4.i WYG argues that a ‘critical mass’ of development is needed to meet commercial requirements, however CBRE points out that this assertion is not supported in the CLG Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach as an argument for promoting development in less central locations (see para. 6 of Appendix B). A ‘critical mass’ has the likelihood of developing into a standalone retail destination, particularly given the provision of A3 units alongside substantial A1 units which would have implications for the town centre given the likelihood of reduced linked trips (See para. 7 of Appendix B). HPPDM agrees with this position, noting that there is scope to locate some of the smaller retail units on sequentially preferable sites.
5.5.4.ii CBRE does however agree with WYG that although sequentially preferable sites and/or units are available and suitable for the A3 units, the disaggregation of the A3 units from the rest of the development is not, on its own, a sound reason to dismiss the whole development.
5.5.4.iii If it is considered reasonable to disaggregate some of the units (not just the A3 units) which is discussed below, CBRE considers that there is a case for widening the search area to, for example, Bicester and Kidlington. This has not been undertaken.
5.5.5 Assessment of Alternative Sites
5.5.5.i CBRE is satisfied that the smaller sequentially preferable sites referred to in WYG’s sequential test are neither available nor suitable, however they required further information in relation to whether the Bolton Road and Canalside sites were sequentially preferable. Availability (which is defined as whether a site is available now or within a reasonable time) is one of the criteria for assessment and WYG claims that given the level of retail leakage from Banbury that they have identified, availability should be assessed over a [short] three to five year period and therefore neither of the sites are considered to be available.
5.5.5.ii CBRE does not accept that [Banbury’s] market share must be urgently improved as other centres within the study area quite reasonably catch some of the available expenditure (see para. 12 of Appendix B). There is therefore considered to be no compelling case made by the applicant for urgently providing the amount of floorspace proposed. It cannot therefore be reasonable to search only for sites which might come forward in the next three to five years.
5.5.5.iii Bolton Road In terms of availability, CBRE states that the Bolton Road site is likely to be available in the long term and therefore it cannot be discounted (based on conclusions made in relation to market share) (see para. 16 of Appendix B). They identify that there is not an immediate need to provide the total amount of floorspace proposed at Banbury Gateway and as such, Bolton Road would be available in an appropriate timescale. CBRE therefore concludes that the site is available.
5.5.5.iv With regard to suitability WYG argues that the Bolton Road site cannot accommodate the proposed development as a whole, which is acknowledged based on the size of the site, however their arguments made in relation to disaggregation are not accepted by CBRE. Furthermore, whilst WYG considers that a foodstore would be the most appropriate use on the site, CBRE considers that the site could support both an element of comparison retail and a food store (both of which are referred to in the Council’s SPD for Bolton Road). Lastly it is not considered that matters of land ownership could not be overcome. For these three reasons, it is concluded that WYG on behalf of the applicant has not done enough to render the site unsuitable for consideration. CBRE therefore concludes that the site is suitable.
5.5.5.v Turning to the viability of the Bolton Road site, whilst it is accepted that it is not WYG’s role to undertake a detailed viability appraisal, it is noted that they agree that the development would be viable if supported by a food store. CBRE therefore sees no reason why some of the proposed floor space might be developed alongside a food store. CBRE therefore concludes that the site is viable.
5.5.5.vi CBRE concludes that Bolton Road is available, suitable and viable and as such they are not satisfied that the site is not sequentially preferable, i.e. capable of taking some of the development proposed at the application site, which is considered by HPPDM to be a desirable option.
5.5.5.vii Policy EC17 of PPS4 states that planning applications for main town centre uses which do not demonstrate compliance with the sequential approach should be refused. CBRE states that the application should be refused solely on this basis given the conclusions in relation to the Bolton Road site. This is agreed by HPPDM.
5.5.5.viii Canalside The same conclusions relating to Bolton Road apply to the Canalside site in that its availability in the long term cannot be discounted. However, whilst the site is considered to be available, a number of factors have a bearing on the viability and suitability of the site, including approximately 75 different land ownerships, utility constraints which would involve negotiating easements and diversions with the relevant authorities, ground conditions which would require significant and costly remediation together with other issues that would affect deliverability such as a public right of way diversion and the presence of listed buildings on the site. These constraints lead CBRE to conclude that the site is not sequentially preferable.
5.6 TOWN CENTRE IMPACTS
5.6.1 Progressing to the assessment of impact is only required to be done where it is concluded that the sequential approach has been acceptable, which is not the case in this instance.
5.6.2 PPS4 states that if it is considered that the proposed development would have a significant adverse retail impact the application must be refused. If however it is considered that the impacts would not be significant, the application must be determined taking account of the positive and negative impacts and any other material considerations. For Members information, in their original Retail Planning Assessment, WYG estimates that the impact of the proposed retail floorspace on all major stores, centres and shopping facilities in the town centre only would be -3.4% at 2016.
5.6.3 Policy EC16 of PPS4 sets out the criteria to be assessed when considering impact (see para 25 of Appendix B). CBRE highlights the assessment of the impact of the proposal on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area. To consider this, CBRE required more information from WYG on the types of retailer that the development might seek to attract. Whilst the end user can never be guaranteed very little information was forthcoming which is inconsistent with WYG’s assertion that there is an urgent need to improve market share.
5.6.4 Impact of the proposal on in centre trade/turnover
5.6.4.i CBRE accepts that some comparison goods shopping trips are likely to be diverted from, for example, Oxford and Milton Keynes, although the retail offer at both of these destinations is of a different order than the proposal. It is also noted that M&S and Next will have a substantial draw. However CBRE considers that the impact of the proposal upon some of the town centres in the study area has been underestimated (see para. 29 of Appendix B where CBRE is critical of WYG’s claim that 44% will be diverted from centres/locations outside of the study area). If the trade is not drawn from outside of the area, the implication is that more will come from within, i.e. the town centre (see para 30 of Appendix B).
5.6.4.ii CBRE also raises concerns about the analysis of convenience goods trade diversion (see para 31 of Appendix B)
5.6.5 Impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability
5.6.5.i Based on CBRE’s own assessment of retail draw, the most significant diversions of trade would be from out of centre locations and do not immediately suggest a significant impact upon overall vitality and viability of the town centres given their current health.
5.6.5.ii However CBRE states that, the long term future of M&S and Next in the town centre cannot be assured. It is indicated that Next is prepared to commit to the town centre until 2016 and M&S has provided a letter of comfort that they will remain in the town centre. At this stage, there is no formal obligation for either presence to remain in the town centre and as both are important anchors, CBRE states that their loss could have a significant impact upon the town centre.
5.6.5.iii CBRE also considers that the proposed M&S foodhall at Banbury Gateway would provide shoppers with a greater opportunity to do all their shopping at the same site thus discouraging trips to the town centre.
5.6.6 Impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planning public and private investment
5.6.6.i WYG does not consider that the impact of the proposal upon Bolton Road would be significant for the reasons stated at para 35 of Appendix B, however CBRE sets out that the Bolton Road site SPD specifically refers to larger retail units to compliment the smaller units in the town centre and therefore the Banbury Gateway proposals could put this element of the Bolton Road proposals at risk.
5.6.6.ii CBRE also finds it hard to see how investor confidence in the town centre would be encouraged by out of town retail particularly if the future of the town centre M&S and next stores is uncertain.
5.6.6.iii Furthermore, even if considerable comparison goods capacity does remain, Banbury Gateway would only serve to delay implementation of the scheme at Bolton Road and in addition to this WYG has been unable to identify likely occupiers for the proposed development which does not prove a ‘strong demand for retail floorspace’
5.6.6.iv The implications for the Canalside site are the same, however CBRE considers these to be less significant given the longer timetable.
5.6.6.v CBRE concludes that there is a strong possibility the proposal will hinder the delivery of a scheme at Bolton Road.
5.6.7 Wider Impacts
5.6.7.i CBRE states that no account has been taken of possible job losses at existing stores, however overall a positive impact is anticipated in terms of job creation.
5.5.8 Conclusion on Sequential Assessment and Town Centre Impacts
5.5.8.i The proposed development does not accord with Policy EC17 of PPS4 as WYG has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach for the following reasons:
§ There is no convincing argument that some of the A1 units could not be disaggregated § Banbury’s market share does not need to be urgently improved therefore the Bolton Road site must be considered as an available site § The Bolton Road site is sequentially preferable and could accommodate some larger A1 units alongside a convenience goods retail offer
HPPDM agrees with these conclusions and therefore, based on the advice in accordance with Policy EC17, planning permission should be refused solely on these grounds.
5.5.8.ii Notwithstanding the above conclusions, the proposal would have significant impacts upon the town centre as set out below:
§ Banbury Gateway would exist as a standalone destination due to the presence of A3 units and a foodhall therefore discouraging linked trips to the town centre § Even if M&S and Next agree to retain a presence in the town centre this could only be secured over a short time period. Their loss would reduce investor confidence in the town centre. § The proposal would hinder the delivery of the Bolton Road site thereby negatively impacting upon planned investment
5.5.8.iii HPPDM considers that these impacts would be significant and as such the application does not accord with Policy EC16 of PPS4.
5.6 TRANSPORT
5.6.1 The site lies adjacent to the M40 and is accessed by Ermont Way only, a single carriageway road leading from the Hennef Way roundabout which is controlled by two sets of traffic light signals. 580 parking spaces are proposed (together with parking for the disabled and parent and toddler spaces) and 146 cycle parking spaces are proposed. Given the scale of the development, it has the potential to have a significant transport impact. The County Council as Local Highway Authority however raises no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions. The key issues and recommended conditions are set out below.
5.6.2 Traffic Generation
5.6.2.i With regard to traffic generation, the Transport Assessment and Addendum are acceptable and figures used are considered to be reasonable. It is concluded that the development would have an impact upon the highway network, particularly in relation to the Bridge Street/Windsor Street junction, however other junctions that have been assessed would continue to have capacity. The application is considered to be acceptable in terms of traffic generation subject to off site works which would include the installation of CCTV works to monitor and manage the traffic signals at Daventry Road/Wildmere Road and minor improvements to the Hennef Way roundabout.
5.6.3 Access Arrangements
5.6.3.i The indicative details within the site are acceptable. Off site improvements are required to pedestrian and cyclist access to the site for sensory impaired users (tactile paving). Signage directing pedestrians and cyclists to the site from the town centre and back would be required.
5.6.3.ii All works must be secured by planning condition and would be the subject of a S278 Agreement between the developer and OCC.
5.6.4 Public Transport
5.6.4.i A new bus service would be provided by the developer running from Banbury Bus Station to the site via Bridge Street, Middleton Road and Ermont Road. It would run every 20 minutes 8am – 8pm Monday to Saturdays and 8am – 6pm on Sundays. Concerns have been raised in relation to keeping to this frequency at peak times and if the bus service were to fail. A s106 agreement is required to ensure that the developer maintains the frequency of the bus and that the service runs for no less than 5 years.
5.6.5 Parking Levels
5.6.5.i The parking levels for both vehicles and cycles do not meet the minimum requirement for a site of this scale and the justification for each is not robust. In addition there is no indication of where staff would park. However, OCC considers the parking levels to be acceptable subject to a Car Parking Management Plan to be in place at recognised peak times (to be agreed by planning condition). Staff parking and cycle parking would be linked to the development’s Travel Plan (to be secured via s106) which is considered to be acceptable. Cycle provision is expected to be sheltered and secure and showering and changing facilities must be provided; both to be secured via planning condition.
5.6.6 Layout
5.6.6.i Layout within the site (vision splays, parking spaces, bus stop and service yards) is considered to be acceptable. The changes to the road layout (giving priority access to the retail development) are considered to be acceptable subject to a S278 agreement between OCC and the applicant. The indicated details of the new footpath are considered to be acceptable subject to a S38 agreement between OCC and the applicant (to dedicate the new link as public highway). Full details of the new footpath link are to be secured via planning condition. The hedge bounding the public right of way should be no higher than 0.9m to retain visibility.
5.6.7.ii An alternative pedestrian/cycle route would be available to the rear of units 3 – 11 during the opening hours of the development – this is considered to be acceptable.
5.6.8 Travel Plan
5.6.8.i To be part of s106 agreement with obligations for monitoring and providing a Travel Plan coordinator. £900 is required for the monitoring of the Plan.
5.6.9 Legal Agreements
5.6.9.i A s106 agreement is required to secure appropriate financial contributions to public transport services and off site works. Based on the Council’s Draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document £309,913 is required at January 2012 prices.
5.6.9.ii S278 Agreements would be required for footway/cycle links, new tactile paving, signage and kerb realignment.
5.6.9.iii A routeing agreement would be required for construction traffic. Details to be agreed with OCC/CDC
5.6.9.iii Admin fee for monitoring the S106 agreement is £3,750.
5.6.9.iv Subject to the recommended conditions and agreements, HPPDM is satisfied that the application complies with PPG13 and Policies T1 and T4 of the South East Plan.
5.7 LANDSCAPE IMPACT/DESIGN AND LAYOUT
5.7.1 Landscape Impact
As the site is situated on the very edge of the urban area the development has the potential to have a significant landscape impact given its proposed scale. Wider views of the site beyond the urban area are gained mainly from the M40 and the Daventry Road on approach to Banbury and some views can be gained across Banbury from the Southam Road. Views from the footpath adjacent to the Oxford Canal to the north of the site are limited given the distance and screening between.
5.7.2 The existing buildings, which are not of any significant scale, are seen from these viewpoints within the context of the wider industrial estate and there is currently an undeveloped buffer of land to the east and the north of the buildings which allows for a comfortable transition between the Prodrive buildings and the open countryside.
5.7.3 The proposed buildings would be of greater scale than the existing Prodrive buildings (the tallest being 13.2m), and would be sited immediately adjacent to the River Cherwell to the north, immediately adjacent to the northern part of the public footpath at the point where it runs under the M40 (unit 11) and adjacent to the M40 itself (units 11 and 12). For these reasons the development would have a significantly greater impact upon its immediate surroundings than the current site, creating a hard urban edge to the north when viewed from the open countryside (where the country park is proposed) and the M40 and having a dominating impact upon the public footpath which would be significantly enclosed, particularly at the point where it emerges from under the M40 towards the site.
5.7.4 Design and Layout
With regard to design, PPS1 states that: ‘Planning authorities should 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. Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted’.
5.7.5 In terms of the design principles for the proposed development, the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application identifies a number of physical site constraints that had an impact upon the development of initial ideas. These include the location of the River Cherwell and the existing lake on the site, the motorway together with its embankment and landscaping, the flood alleviation scheme to the north, existing industrial buildings and strategic servicing along the route of the former Daventry Road.
5.7.6 Whilst five different options are explored within the Design and Access Statement based around the physical constraints of the site, they largely follow the same theme; large buildings located around the edge of the site with a significant area of centrally located parking, open views to and from the motorway and the separation of the amenity area and open countryside from the overall layout.
5.7.7 During pre-application discussions, officers advised that the layout of the site was disappointing, representing a 1980’s out of town retail development which turns its back on the surrounding industrial estate, river and open countryside and which, because of this layout, misses opportunities to create a high quality development in such a prominent location.
5.7.8 The final solution does little to address these fundamental layout and design concerns however the statement lists some finer details that have been incorporated into the design including using local materials, relocating the A3 units and opening them up to the amenity area, and introducing distinctive design via use of materials, parapets and a glazed roof over the courtyard of the A3 units.
5.7.9 These alterations to the scheme are noted, however the A3 units together with the canopy roof would be tucked away into the north western most section of the site beyond the A3 units, which is the least visible part of the site and furthermore, whilst a pedestrian route is indicated between the A3 units to the amenity land, this land would still be situated to the rear of the core block of buildings and segregated from the main circulation area of the site as a whole. The use of local materials only appears to be a token effort and the reference to ironstone indicates that it would be reconstituted stone which is disappointing.
5.7.10 In addition to the above comments, the Council’s Design and Conservation Team Leader raises further issues about the layout and design. Her key concerns being the large scale of the development compared to nearby buildings, the uncomfortably close relationship between the buildings and the motorway, the visual appearance of the scheme akin to a distribution warehouse development rather than retail, together with quality typical of industrial units which would have inactive elevations facing the motorway. Furthermore, due to the layout, it is considered that pedestrian circulation areas would be minimal, the public footpath would be poorly incorporated into the scheme and the service yards including plant and machinery would be easily viewed from beyond the site. In addition, the Council’s Landscape Officer does not consider that the landscaping proposals have been comprehensively designed as part of the scheme, stating that it would simply fill the spaces left over. Furthermore, there is no evidence of high quality planting or hard landscaping materials.
5.7.11 In response to these criticisms, WYG makes the following comments: § The services along the former Daventry Road which include water, gas and electricity prohibit the construction of buildings along this route as the relocation of these services would likely have a significant impact on the Banbury area.
5.7.12 § The service areas are kept to a minimum (unlike Banbury Cross Retail Park), soft landscaped areas extend to 24% of the site and the pedestrian walkways extend to 1.7km throughout the site.
5.7.13 § The existing 2.4m palisade fencing to the boundary of Wildmere Road would be replaced with a 6m wide landscaping buffer to screen servicing and the service yard to the north west would be screened by a 2.4m high hedge and existing and proposed trees.
5.7.14 § The M&S building has design impact, accentuated by large glazed window/wall elements, overhanging canopies, brise soleil and exemplar wall cladding materials. WYG believe that the buildings would have an active frontage with the M40 and that the scheme would represent a transition or gateway from the open countryside to the north.
5.7.15 § In terms of scale, the maximum height of the buildings (the canopy over the A3 element) would be 11.2m, compared to some of the industrial buildings in the area which amount to 18m at ridge height.
5.7.16 Overall, the Design and Access Statement, in justifying the design, states that it is based on maximizing the site’s development potential and given the two prestigious anchor tenants, the remainder of the development including the parking is required to support the success of these.
5.7.17 Whilst the amendments to the scheme are noted, HPPDM remains of the view that the proposed development ultimately misses a number of opportunities, namely:
§ It would not present an attractive entrance to the town when travelling south on the M40 – instead it would have the appearance of warehousing and views from the M40 would look directly into the servicing areas which would do nothing to promote the town § It would fail to achieve any transition between the open countryside and the urban area § It would not face the public realm and would not properly address the motorway § It would not retain the historic alignment of the route to Daventry § It would fail to achieve links between the development and the open countryside/existing amenity areas/planned country park
5.7.18 Furthermore, the scheme would fail to achieve high quality inclusive design, worthy of its prominent edge of urban area location for the following reasons:
§ The high density of buildings, maximising retail footprint, in turn maximizes the requirement for parking so pushing the historic public right of way to the edge of the site. § Standard materials are proposed such as white rain screen cladding § Architectural detailing is restricted and includes only small accented areas (corner of M&S building and A3 canopy) § Significant hard landscaping is proposed with very little soft landscaping or amenity space
5.7.19 For the above reasons, the scheme, due to its relationship with its surroundings, layout, orientation, design, materials and landscaping would fail to achieve high quality and inclusive design and fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions. The development is therefore in direct conflict with PPS1, Policies CC6, C4 and C5 of the South East Plan and Policy C7 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan.
5.8 PUBLIC FOOTPATH
5.8.1 The former Daventry Road marks the route of the existing public right of way which runs across the site. The route runs along Wildmere Road (west/east) before turning north to the east of the existing Prodrive buildings and to the west of the triangular agricultural field. As the footpath leaves the site, it turns north east adjacent to the River Cherwell and under the M40.
5.8.2 To achieve a maximum number of buildings for the development, the associated and maximized parking would be arranged across most of the route of the existing footpath. The footpath is subsequently indicated as being realigned around the eastern edge of the proposed parking area firstly along the frontages of units 12 and 13 and then turning back towards the existing route adjacent to the motorway embankment. In addition to this route which would be approximately 70m longer than the existing, an alternative non-public right of way route is suggested running along the frontages of units 1 and 2 and then following the service road to the rear of unit 5 before entering the amenity land to the rear. This route would be 230m longer than the existing route and would be open for public use during the opening hours of the retail park.
5.8.3 The Council’s Rural Development and Countryside Manager is not convinced by the submission as it includes insufficient detail in terms of the impact of the development upon the existing public right of way, furthermore, the proposal neither accommodates the existing route or demonstrates that there are circumstances not to do so. It is also stated that even if the new route were justified, it is not satisfactory in terms of conflict between cyclists and shoppers and the potential for an alleyway to develop overtime between the boundary hedge of the car park and the motorway embankment. The County Council also considers that there are safety issues concerning the realigned footpath.
5.8.4 In response to the comments of the Council’s Rural Development and Countryside Manager, WYG has stated that retaining the public right of way in its current location would diagonally intercept the car park, significantly reducing the number of parking spaces available and the efficiency of the layout. The public right of way where it runs in front of units 12 and 13 would be 4m in width to reduce conflict and it is not considered appropriate to align the public right of way to the north west of the parking in front of units 12 and 13 as this would be a greater risk of conflict between cyclists and vehicles reversing from spaces.
5.8.5 Policy R4 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan has not been saved, in its place but not forming part of the statutory development plan is Policy R4 of the non- statutory Cherwell Local Plan which states that the Council will safeguard and, where possible, enhance the existing public rights of way network. Development over public rights of way will not be permitted unless a suitable diversion can be secured which will not prejudice public rights.
5.8.6 In this case, the existing right of way would not be safeguarded or enhanced. The realigned footpath would be less convenient than the existing as it would no longer take a direct route across the site and it would have the potential to reduce public enjoyment given the likely conflict between pedestrians, motor vehicles, cyclists and shoppers and the fact that the footpath would be more enclosed by the proposed buildings and the M40. The detail of Policy R4 carries little weight due to its non-statutory status and therefore it would not be sustainable to recommend that the application be refused on these grounds.
5.8.7 Instead Policy C6 of the South East Plan seeks to maintain, enhance and promote the Public Rights of Way system to facilitate access to eh countryside. Ultimately the development would secure a footpath through the site providing access to the countryside despite not necessarily enhancing the existing arrangement. Measures could be adopted and secured via planning condition in the event that the application is approved to promote the use of the path by the use of signage and with these arrangements (and notwithstanding the earlier conclusions in relation to the lack of inclusive design) HPPDM considers that the public right of way is satisfactorily maintained in accordance with Policy C6 of the South East Plan.
5.8.8 It should be noted that if the application is approved, the proposal could not go ahead unless the affected public rights of way have been diverted. If this process leads to an objection the diversion would be considered at an inquiry.
5.9 SUSTAINABILITY
5.9.1 As set out in PPS1, sustainability is the core principle underpinning planning which is echoed in Policy CC1 of the South East Plan. The key areas of priority are identified as social and inclusive progress, sustainable resource use, conservation of the natural environment, addressing climate change and economic growth.
5.9.2 The submitted sustainability statement discusses the way in which the proposal has been developed to address the key principles. These include making use of previously developed land, conserving resources and using sustainable construction methods, introducing renewable energy, addressing pollution, creation of jobs and social opportunities, ecological enhancement and promoting sustainable transport.
5.8.3 The Council’s Planning Policy Officer and Urban Design Officer (commenting on sustainable design), do not believe that the proposals go far enough given the unsustainable location of the site. Sustainable commitments relate to M&S only, (including BREEAM) and not the whole site for example no details are indicated of PV arrays on the rest of the buildings. Furthermore, it is not clear why more PV is not proposed given the size of the roofs. Other green technologies such as rain water harvesting are referred to but appear to be an afterthought to the design process, rather than influencing the conceptual approach. For these reasons, the Council’s Urban Design Officer considers the proposals to be a disappointing response to the green agenda, in what could be a ground breaking approach to design.
5.8.4 In response to these comments, WYG refers to the Energy Strategy which attempts to reduce energy demand for the site, through building design, before applying renewable energy measures. The orientation of the site and the layout of the buildings means that good levels of daylight are expected to be achieved. The plans have been updated to indicate sky lights and PV rays on all of the units and through the proposed measures the development will meet Policy NRM11 of the South East Plan which requires all development to achieve 10% of it energy from renewables. In addition to this, although it is not practicable to commit to BREEAM ‘Very Good’ on buildings where occupiers are speculative, the developer is willing to agree to a condition which secures this BREEAM level across the whole site.
5.8.5 In HPPDM’s view, the measures set out by WYG to secure sustainable approaches to development, are considered to be in accordance with PPS1 and Policies CC1, CC4 and NRM11 of the South East Plan.
5.10 PUBLIC SAFETY
5.10.1 Given the scale and nature of the proposed development and in accordance with PPS1 to promote public safety and prevent crime RPS on behalf of Thames Valley Police (TVP) has identified a specific need for effective and visible policing of the proposed development. To this end the applicant would be required to fund two police community safety officer posts (working on a shift basis) for a period of four years and a two desk office on the development. This would amount to a total figure of £291,784 being secured via a s106 Agreement.
5.10.2 As an alternative, the Council’s Safer Communities Manager in conjunction with Thames Valley Police requires a CCTV monitoring system to be installed within the site together with all necessary infrastructure to enable the CCTV to operate fully and efficiently as part of the district wide CCTV system. The CCTV facility and any ancillary CCTV would be fully controlled by TVP operators as an integrated system and the recording, storing and interrogation of data and data handling would be conducted by them.
5.10.3 In response to RPS’s request for police presence the Council’s Safer Communities Manager considers that the provision of CCTV would be a preferred option over a police presence in this particular case as the posts are unlikely to be frequently used in relation to the development due to its out of town centre location where it would be difficult for TVP to reliably staff the required posts other than as drop ins.
5.10.4 Given the concerns raised in relation to the reality of the provision of police posts on the site and the fact that the CCTV approach would be a permanent arrangement (not just funded for four years) it seems that CCTV would be the most appropriate approach to providing public safety in this case. With such measures, to be funded by the applicant, in place HPPDM is satisfied that if the application is to be approved, the development would achieve levels of public safety as required by PPS1.
5.11 FLOOD RISK/DRAINAGE
5.11.1 Parts of the site lie within Flood Zones 2 and 3. An objection was initially issued by the Environment Agency in relation to the submitted drawings, as the proposals included the culverting of a water course on the site. Further investigations have been carried out in relation to the watercourse which demonstrates that its catchment is minimal. The Environment Agency therefore accepts the principle of the proposed culverting and has withdrawn the objection, however states that the proposed development will only be acceptable if certain measures are implemented and secured. These can be secured via planning condition in the event that the application is approved which include: § Carrying out the development in accordance with the revised FRA (Feb 2012) § Submission and approval of a surface water drainage scheme § Submission and approval of scheme to deal with land contamination § Submission and approval of a verification report demonstrating completion of works in accordance with a remediation strategy. § Carrying out the development in accordance with the illustrative Landscape Masterplan (including scrape and pond).
5.11.2 OCC as Drainage Authority reiterates the requirement for the design of the drainage system
5.11.3 The Environment Agency also provides advice in relation to the Flood Alleviation Scheme and emergency planning, surface water drainage design, foul drainage, pollution prevention, relevant consents required (other than planning permission) and waste management.
5.11.4 Given the advice of the Environment Agency and the Local Drainage Authority together with the recommended conditions, HPPDM is satisfied that the proposed development would not increase the risk of flooding in the area and for this reason, the application is considered to be in accordance with PPS25 and Policies NRM1 and NRM4 of the South East Plan.
5.12 CONTAMINATED LAND
5.12.1 The Campbell Reith Geoenvironmental and Geotechnical Study submitted with the application concludes that due to the presence of an underlying aquifer and the River Cherwell and pond, the site has, respectively, medium and high hydrological environmental sensitivity. It is further concluded that the proposed end user presents a medium risk.
5.12.2 The report recommends that further investigative work would be required in order to confirm the underlying geology of the site, the existing ground water regime and the engineering properties of the underlying soil. In addition, works would be required in order to investigate the ground gas conditions and the existence or otherwise of waste and asbestos in the ground.
5.12.3 Subject to the findings, the report recommends that appropriate remediation strategies are put in place.
5.12.4 The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer considers that the work done to date in terms of land contamination is acceptable and agrees that further investigative work would be required.
5.12.5 In the event of approval, conditions are recommended which secure the further investigative works required, the remediation works that may subsequently be necessary and if so the detail of that remediation strategy.
5.12.6 Subject to the recommended conditions, HPPDM is satisfied that the proposed works comply with PPS23 and Policies ENV7 and ENV12 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan.
5.13 AIR QUALITY
5.13.1 Policy NRM9 of the South East Plan states that proposals should contribute to sustaining the current downward trend in air pollution in the region. The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer believes that the proposal has the potential to affect the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) on Hennef Way (500m from the site), which was designated in this first quarter of 2011 and the significance of the expected impact requires assessment.
5.13.2 The application was not accompanied by an Air Quality Assessment however a section relating to pollution is included within the submitted Sustainability Statement which incorrectly concludes that the site is not located within or nearby an AQMA. The Statement does however set out that it is not expected that the development would be significantly detrimental to existing air quality.
5.13.3 Policy NRM9 identifies motor vehicles as one of the key sources of emissions affecting an AQMA. The only vehicular access into the site is from the Hennef Way/Wildmere Road roundabout which is situated within the identified AQMA. For this reason, the Council’s Environmental Protection Officer considers that it would be necessary to secure an Air Quality Assessment of the proposed development and mitigation measures where necessary. Mitigation can include best practice during construction to reduce dust and other pollutants and reduced traffic movements.
5.13.4 The application as submitted shows signs of some of these measures, including the details set out in the sustainability assessment, the provision of a free shuttle bus to and from the site into the town centre and cycle parking.
5.13.5 For these reasons and subject to appropriate mitigation measures, details of which would be secured by the recommended condition relating to the submission of an Air Quality Assessment, HPPDM is satisfied that the proposed development is unlikely to cause harm to air quality or be detrimental to the identified AQMA on Hennef Way.
5.14 NOISE
5.14.1 Lying adjacent to the M40, there is already a significant noise impact upon the site and surrounding area, which could have a negative impact upon the proposed development; reducing the quality of the environment and the experience of the space created. However the proposal is not a noise sensitive development and due to its nature, much of the time spent by shoppers would be inside the retail units where noise emanating from the motorway would be reduced. Furthermore, the proposed A3 units, where shoppers would have an opportunity to sit outside, would be located at the furthest point on the site from the motorway, shielded from the noise created by it, by the proposed retail units and the canopy roof intended to contain the outside space between the A3 uses. The enjoyment of the amenity space to the rear of the retail units may be affected by noise from the motorway, however again this is positioned at one of the furthest points from it.
5.14.2 The proposed retail destination itself is not likely to result in significant levels of noise beyond that arising from vehicular movements as a result of shoppers and deliveries and there are no noise sensitive developments within the vicinity of the site such as residential development that would be affected by the development. The proposals are considered therefore to comply with PPG24.
5.15 BIODIVERSITY/ECOLOGY
5.15.1 With regard to the value and protection to be afforded to the site in ecological terms, it does not lie within any statutory or non-statutory designated sites of ecological importance. It is noted that there is a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Local Wildlife Site within a 2km radius of the site however due to their location, it is not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon these sites.
5.15.2 Developed over time as part of Prodrive’s ongoing expansion since the company’s first occupation, a large proportion of the site offers little natural habitat or quality foraging for wildlife given the existence of the buildings, the lawned areas that are regularly mown and the agricultural field to the west which is grazed by stock. An ecological assessment of the site was carried out in August 2011 which revealed that there are no bats present on the site nor evidence of reptiles or other species such as badgers, otters or water voles.
5.15.3 Of notable ecological value however are the River Cherwell lying just to the north of the site boundary; the corridor of which provides an important foraging and commuting route for bats, and the pond lying within the site to the north which provides habitat for wildlife. As proposed, the development due to its location would not physically disturb these ecologically valuable areas, however their protection should be achieved at the time of construction should the application be approved in order that they be conserved in accordance with PPS9.
5.15.4 The Council’s Ecologist is satisfied that there is no evidence of protected species on the site and that the proposal would not cause direct harm to parts of the site of ecological value. Conditions relating to the removal of hedging outside the bird nesting season, the provision of suitable bat and swift nesting boxes and controls over lighting type and times to protect the river corridor for bats are recommended as planning conditions.
5.15.5 However the Council’s Ecologist does not consider that the proposals include sufficient ecological enhancements in accordance with PPS9 given the scale of the development and the limited opportunities for enhancements on the ground. Green roofs for the majority of the buildings are recommended to enhance and increase biodiversity by improving natural habitat for invertebrates and birds and having the added benefits of reducing water run-off in times of heavy rainfall and reducing heat loss thereby helping to save energy.
5.15.6 WYG does not agree with the Council’s Ecologist’s opinion in relation to ecological enhancements, particularly the suggestion of incorporating green roofs on the proposed buildings. They consider that this would result in significant additional cost and is not a necessary requirement as the site offers other opportunities for ecological enhancement. They consider that given the ecological value of the site (which is not considered to be high other than around the river and the pond) that the enhancements that are proposed, including new hedge and tree planting, the planting of wildflower grassland and wildflower meadow grassland and the provision of suitable bat and bird boxes together with controlling lighting is enough to achieve the ecological protection and enhancements required by PPS9.
5.15.7 PPS9 states that ‘the aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests’ it continues by stating that where significant harm would be caused, an alternative site should be considered. Where an alternative site is not available appropriate mitigation should be achieved and if this is not the case appropriate compensation should be secured. Finally if compensation cannot be secured the application should be refused.
5.15.8 In this case, given the low ecological value of the main part of the site and the fact that the proposal would not physically affect the areas to the north that are of greater value, it could not be considered that the proposed development would cause significant harm. For this reason, there is no requirement for an alternative site to be considered and it could be argued that as significant harm is not envisaged mitigation measures are not required, however in this case, the proposal includes measures to protect and enhance biodiversity which are fully supported and it is agreed that in the event of the application being approved these will be secured via planning condition.
5.15.9 The Environment Agency is satisfied with the impact of the development subject to conditions to control adverse impact in relation to the ecological value of the water courses.
5.15.10 With regard to the overall impact of the proposal upon biodiversity it is recognised that the site does not lie within a statutory or non-statutory designated site and would not have an impact upon those designated sites within the vicinity. A large part of the site is of low ecological value and no European Protected Species were found to be present. The River Cherwell Corridor and pond are of important value to wildlife and foraging and commuting bats, however neither will be physically disturbed by the proposed development. Measures to protect existing biodiversity and to achieve enhancements are proposed and are considered to be appropriate and commensurate with the scale of the development and the recognised value of the existing site. For these reasons, HPPDM considers that the application is acceptable in terms of its impact upon biodiversity in accordance with PPS9, Policy NRM5 of the South East Plan, Policies C1, C2 and C4 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Policy SD8 of the Draft Core Strategy.
5.16 TREES
5.16.1 There are a number of trees on the site arranged in small groups adjacent to the main access from Wildmere Road, around the buildings, within the area of open space by the river and along some of the boundaries of the site. None of the trees are of such individual significant merit that they appear as outstanding specimens on the site, however, arranged as groups and individuals around the buildings, the existing trees do provide some amenity value within the site in the form of typical landscaping. The arboricultural report accompanying the application states that there are 52 trees in total on the site and in order to accommodate the proposed development, 20 of these trees would need to be removed, which the report identifies as lower and moderate grade trees.
5.16.2 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer recognises that there are a number of reasonable trees to be removed from the site however he is satisfied that significant replanting is proposed to mitigate against their removal. In the event of a recommendation of approval, conditions are recommended relating to tree protection, a planting schedule and construction of planting pits.
5.16.3 HPPDM is satisfied that, notwithstanding the concerns raised in relation to the landscaping scheme as a whole, whilst a number of trees would be removed from the site, the proposed tree planting in association with the development would serve to secure appropriate mitigation against this loss in accordance with Policy C4 of the South East Plan.
5.17 ARCHAEOLOGY
5.17.1 It is noted by both GK Heritage (the applicant’s Archaeological consultants) and the County Archaeologist that, whilst the site has quite significant archaeological potential owing to evidence of Iron Age and Roman settlements, it has undergone considerable modern disturbance as a result of the development of the industrial estate and the construction of the existing buildings on the site. Therefore it is considered that the site has limited potential to produce significant archaeological deposits. However there may still be some small pockets of undisturbed archaeological evidence in the undeveloped areas or beneath large areas of hardstanding and the existing buildings, and for this reason, an archeological Watching Brief is recommended in the event of the application being approved.
5.17.2 Based on these circumstances, the County Archaeologist recommends that if the application is to be approved, relevant conditions should be imposed to secure an appropriate level of archaeological monitoring and recording action to take place throughout the period of construction works.
5.17.3 With these measures in place, it is considered that the application complies with PPS5 and Policy BE6 of the South East Plan.
5.18 S106 MATTERS
5.18.1 As the application is recommended for refusal a s106 Agreement is not required. If the recommendation is not accepted however, an agreement would be needed to secure off site highway infrastructure contributions, security CCTV, public art, a shuttle bus, the retention of M&S in the town centre and the retention of Prodrive in Banbury.
5.19 CONCLUSION
5.19.1 The development would result in the loss of valuable employment land and the proposal for retail development is not acceptable in principle, in an out of town centre location.
5.19.2 A sequential assessment of other sites has been carried out, however HPPDM is not satisfied that the development could not be disaggregated and because of this conclusion that there are no other sequentially preferable sites. Notwithstanding this position, which in itself should be a reason for refusal in its own right as set out in PPS4, it is considered that the development would have a significant impact on Banbury due to the establishment of a standalone site that would not encourage linked trips and the high probability that the anchor stores of M&S and Next in the town centre would not remain in the medium term.
5.19.3 The design and layout of the proposed development is not of high quality or inclusive design and a number of opportunities available for improving the character and the quality of the area have been missed in direct conflict with PPS1.
5.19.4 The transport impact of the development has been addressed and is acceptable subject to conditions and off site works.
5.19.5 Issues relating to the public right of way, sustainability, public safety, flood risk, contaminated land, air quality, noise, biodiversity/ecology, trees and archaeology have either been addressed by the submission or are capable of being addressed via planning agreement and/or condition in the event that the application is approved.
5.19.6 For the reasons given the application is considered to be unacceptable in planning terms as it does not demonstrate compliance with the sequential approach and would have significant impacts upon Banbury Town Centre and planned investment, furthermore the application is considered to be unacceptable by virtue of its design and layout. However, members are reminded of the context of the application as set out in para. 5.1 of this report which is that Prodrive wish to move to the Hella site. This is clearly a finely balanced judgement however the recommendation is one of refusal for the reasons set out below.
6. Recommendation: REFUSAL for the following reasons:
1. The application for an out of town centre retail development which is not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan in the manner and of the size proposed does not meet the requirements of the sequential approach in direct conflict with Policy EC17 of PPS4 and policy E2 of the Cherwell Draft Core Strategy (2010) in that it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that some of the proposed A1 (retail) units could not be disaggregated onto a sequentially preferable site.
2. The application for a retail development at this out of town centre location does not accord with the national policy imperative to direct uses of this kind to locate in established town centres where they can be easily accessible to all modes of transport and can also increase trips to complementary service, cultural and retail uses in those centres. In this out of town centre location and offering both an element of A3 (restaurant and cafes) use and an element of convenience goods alongside the comparison goods offer, the development would discourage visits to the town centre which would have a significant impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre. Furthermore the continued presence of the Next and M&S stores in the town centre could only be guaranteed in the short term thus reducing investor confidence in the town centre which would significantly affect the vitality and viability of the town centre and in addition, the development would hinder the delivery of the planned redevelopment of sequentially preferable sites thus prejudicing the future regeneration, improvement and vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole. The development is therefore contrary to policies and guidance within PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, Policy TC2 of the South East Plan and Policies E2 and BAN8 of the Cherwell Draft Core Strategy (2010).
3. The proposed development by virtue of its layout, orientation, design, scale and appearance would fail to achieve any transition between the open countryside and the urban area, would not present an attractive entrance to Banbury, would not relate well to the public realm or provide links to the countryside and would not retain the historic alignment of the existing public rights of way. As such the application misses a number of opportunities available for improving the character and the quality of the area. Furthermore, by virtue of its density, architectural detailing, use of standard materials, extensive hard landscaping and minimal soft landscaping, the development would fail to achieve high quality and inclusive design. For these reasons, the application is contrary to advice contained within PPS1, Policies CC6 and BE1 of the South East Plan, Policy C28 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan and Policy SD13 of the Cherwell Draft Core Strategy (2010).
CONTACT OFFICER: Jane Dunkin TELEPHONE NO: 01295 221815