Report to: PLANNING COMMITTEE Date of Meeting: 12 August 2020

Subject: DC/2018/01775 Cop Retail , Meols Cop Road,

Proposal: Erection of a new retail building (Class A1) to be used as a 'Foodstore', petrol filling station including 'kiosk' and public recycling facility; alterations to access via Meols Cop Road and Foul Lane; provision of new car parking and reconfiguration of existing car park; hard and soft landscaping and associated infrastructure works following the demolition of the existing buildings

Applicant: BNP Paribas Depository Agent: Mr. Timothy Price Services Limited and BNP Savills (UK) Ltd Paribas Depository Services (Jersey) Limited Being the Trustees for UBS Triton No 2 Property Unit Trust (Jersey)

Ward: Ward Type: Major Application

Summary

The application is for a new ground floor level foodstore of 7,450 sq. metres, with car parking and access, a Petrol Filling Station (PFS), recycling facilities and landscaping following the demolition of three vacant retail units, to the south side of Argarmeols Close on the opposite side of Fine Jane’s Brook.

The application was originally considered by Members of Planning Committee on 31 July 2019, who were minded to approve subject to referral to the Secretary of State and the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the planning conditions set out within the report. Though the Secretary of State was satisfied that the Local Planning Authority may determine the application, and the Section 106 is completed, the decision notice has not been released.

The application was re-presented to members but then subsequently withdrawn from the January 2020 Agenda, owing to late concerns over the then possible closure of Beales Department Store, Lord Street. The store is now closed, and as a result of the Covid pandemic, and the lockdown that has ensued, it has not been possible to undertake further work to assess the impact of the proposals on Southport Town Centre. This means that there is no immediately up-to-date evidence available to confirm that there will be no significant impact on Southport Town Centre.

Following a “called-in” inquiry that took place in 2015/16, planning permission was granted on 7 December 2016 by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for a foodstore of 11,089 sq. metres, elevated to first floor level, with revised car parking and access, a Petrol Filling Station, recycling facilities and landscaping following the demolition of three retail units in the same location. The 2016 permission has been lawfully commenced and as such this permission remains extant (i.e. valid). The report confirms that there is a genuine possibility of this being implemented.

As the impacts arising from the 2016 permission, if implemented, would be greater than those arising from the current planning application by virtue of the fact that it is larger in gross/net floor area, it is considered that the current application will result in a lesser impact on Southport Town Centre than would be realised by the 2016 permission.

The “existing building” as referred to throughout the report comprises the proposed to be demolished Units 5A, 6 and 7.

The report demonstrates that relevant material planning considerations have been fully re- assessed, and recommends that the application be approved, subject to appropriate conditions and the provision of a Section 106 Agreement (already completed).

The recommendation for approval must be referred to the Secretary of State to comply with the requirement of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) Direction 2009 Part 5 as it amounts to development outside a town centre including retail use in an out-of-centre location, is not in accordance with one or more provisions of the development plan and consists of or includes the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is over 5,000 sq. metres gross of retail floor space.

Recommendation:

That the application be referred to the Secretary of State for determination with a recommendation for approval subject to the provisions of a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the planning conditions set out at the end of the report.

The legal agreement will include:  Commitment to keeping the Sainsbury’s Lord Street store open for a minimum five- year period.  Commitment to local labour provision.

Case Officer Mr. S Faulkner

Email [email protected]

Telephone 0345 140 0845 (option 4)

Application documents and plans are available at: Site Location Plan The Site

The site comprises land at the Meols Cop Retail Park, accessed via the roundabout junction with Foul Lane, Town Lane and Scarisbrick New Road. The retail park comprises around 19,000 sq. metres of multiple units including an existing foodstore. The application site comprises units 5A, 6 and 7 plus an existing area of car parking, servicing land and landscaping adjacent.

There is also a 12,000-sq. metre Tesco Extra food store south of the application site served off the Roundabout, and Kew Retail Park amounting to around 8,000 sq. metres of retail. The site is 200 metres south of the former Kew ‘Park and Ride’ facility.

Fine Jane’s Brook and a public footpath run to the northern boundary dividing the site from residential dwellings at Argarmeols Close immediately to the north and there are playing fields to the west.

Relevant History

The site has been subject to a considerable number of applications in recent years; many for advertisements and minor alterations. The most relevant permission is for the foodstore approved by the Secretary of State in 2016 (DC/2014/00887), referred to above in the Summary and hereon as the ‘2016 permission’.

All pre-commencement conditions attached to the 2016 permission were discharged on 31 July 2019, under reference DC/2019/00820.

A Certificate of Lawfulness for proposed development was issued on 15 November 2019 under reference number DC/2019/01675 – this confirmed that the proposed installation of piled foundations to enable commencement of the 2016 permission would constitute lawful operations at the time the certificate was sought.

A further Certificate of Lawfulness for existing development was then issued on 28 November 2019 under reference number DC/2019/0908 – this certificate was issued following the installation of five piled foundations.

As the 2016 permission was lawfully commenced prior to 9 December 2019, it is therefore extant (i.e. valid) and capable of being fully implemented.

Consultations

Highways Manager No objections subject to conditions.

Flooding and Drainage No objections subject to conditions.

Air Quality No objections Environmental Health No objections subject to conditions.

Contaminated Land Team No objections subject to conditions

Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS) No objections following receipt of bat emergence/re-entry survey.

Environment Agency No comments received.

United Utilities No objections subject to conditions and informatives.

Police Architectural Liaison Officer No objections.

Merseytravel No objection subject to conditions relating to car parking, travel plan, bus stop provisions and use of ‘dial-a-ride’ services.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue No objections subject to informatives.

Cadent Gas No objection though gas pipelines are identified within the site boundary and may be needed for easements and/or wayleaves.

Representations

Further letters have been sent to all neighbours and previous objectors to set out the applicant’s current position affording additional time to update comments.

In response, Asda have re-affirmed their continued objection and state that the fall back position should not receive substantial weight, the certificates of lawfulness and the comparison of other new stores contrasts with 8 store closures, and recent events make it impossible to draw conclusions on impact of Southport Town Centre.

A petition is supplied containing 30 signatures, endorsed by Councillor Pugh. This confirms intention to afford the opportunity for a representative of Southport & Windsor Properties to address the Planning Committee.

Other representations have been received, some in multiple form, from the following:

Councillor Pugh, Councillor Dawson, 2 from residents of Argarmeols Close, Asda, Aviva (owners of Central 12), Aberdeen Standard Investments (owners of the Sainsbury’s Lord Street Store) and Southport & Windsor Properties.

Throughout the process objection has varied based on the status of the application at any given time, but the main objections are summarised as follows:

Objections relating to retail impacts

- Insufficient information to demonstrate that there will not be significant adverse impacts on Southport Town Centre, and notably, Sainsburys Lord Street, - New retail impact assessments should be supplied, including updated Household Survey information, - Central 12 Southport Retail Park is a sequential alternative that may become available shortly, and has not been properly considered, - Five-year provision for Sainsburys Lord Street foodstore remaining open is unenforceable and not compliant with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations, - Reduced store size requires reconsideration of trade draw from Asda at Central 12 and Morrisons at Winter Gardens, and figures not provided on a “like for like” basis, with the impact of the 2016 permission not considered with regard to current data, - New store should not be considered in absence of further Retail Strategy Review, - Restrictive conditions will not assist town centre and Meols Cop Retail Park will prove more attractive proposition for town centre retailers, with provision for concession units, - Change in food store provision since previous approval with expansion of Aldi at Meols Cop and in , added to home ordering, - Need to consider impact of possible new Aldi store in Tarleton, - Further assessment of footfall to Lord Street required.

Objections relating to “fall back” position (i.e. would the 2016 permission be delivered?)

- Condition 27 of the 2016 permission contains a restriction requiring Home Bargains to cease trading to avoid a breach, with a consequent impact on the “fall back” position, - The true test of fall back is “occupation” as per White City Court case (Trafford Council, 2011), - Discharging of conditions on 2016 permission (expiring December 2019) does not constitute proof that it will be implemented, - The applicant misled the 2016 Inquiry by saying the former Homebase store would be acquired through vacant possession, only for Homebase themselves to instigate the vacation – impacts on likelihood of fall back being implemented,

Objections relating to traffic impacts

- Traffic, parking and highway safety impacts, increased congestion. - Lack of availability of suitable facilities for cyclists. - The use of traffic data from 2015 is not appropriate for assessing a scheme in 2020. Therefore, new surveys should be commissioned. - The applicant should provide a full Traffic Impact Assessment using the revised data, including a new LINSIG assessment of the proposed signalised junction. - The trip rates proposed to assess the development should consider TEMPRO growth. - Further clarity is required in relation to the distribution of existing and future traffic flows from the retail park, allowing for the new signalised junction.

Objections relating to other impacts

- Need for further independent traffic modelling exercise with air quality monitoring. - Issues relating to Air Quality - Impact from construction piling on physical stability of nearby houses. - Scheme not felt to bring benefit to local area. - May not create new jobs if merger (of Asda and Sainsburys) goes ahead and jobs are lost elsewhere in town (the merger is known to be no longer proceeding), - Total number of jobs less than the applicant forecasts – therefore less weight to be given to economic benefits of the development - No need for a new supermarket - No need for further petrol filling station - No need for recycling facility.

Some objections previously related to limited time to consider various reports and retail information, but these have now been in the public domain for a significant period, and there has been no shortage of time for third parties to comment on the implications of the scheme in full.

Supporting/no objection A total of 5 representations in support, including two following the latest round of further notification, as follows,

- Should be approved without delay, - Store is readily wanted by local community, - Job creation and improved choice/competition, - Long term vacancies likely on retail park if permission not forthcoming.

Policy Context

The relevant policies are set out within the Sefton Local Plan adopted 2017, the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and the Supplementary Planning Document ‘Sustainable Travel and Development’ (June 2018). The application has also been reviewed in relation to the Planning Practice Guidance ‘Retail’.

Assessment of the Proposal

Retail impacts / Impacts on Southport Town Centre

The Council’s retail consultants, Nexus Planning, commented on the application prior to Planning Committee in a detailed appraisal from June 2019, and updated their position prior to the application being brought to Sefton Planning Committee in January 2020. At this time, the Beales department store chain went into administration, leading to the permanent closure of its premises in Lord Street in Southport in February 2020. This followed the closure of the Lord Street Debenhams department store in January 2020. Nexus are of the view that the loss of these operators has impacts on the ongoing vitality and viability of Southport town centre.

Paragraph 017 of the Town Centres and Retail Planning Policy Guidance (as updated on 22 July 2019) identifies that ‘The impact test will need to be undertaken in a proportionate and locally appropriate way, drawing on existing information where possible.’ In accordance with this guidance, the applicant’s submission and Nexus’ 2019 report relied on the existing Borough-wide household shopper survey of September 2015 (which was originally undertaken to support the 2015 Sefton Retail Strategy Review).

However, in light of changes in the composition of Southport town centre in the very early part of 2020, the Council considered that there was a need to undertake additional work to fully understand the current health and trading position of Southport town centre. This work also had regard to the commencement of the Aldi trading at Birkdale in October 2018. As a consequence, Nexus were instructed in March 2020 to undertake a new Borough-wide Sefton Retail Strategy Review.

With particular reference to Southport and the Meols Cop Retail Park planning application proposal, the intention is that the new Retail Strategy Review will:

. provide a Healthcheck Assessment of the vitality and viability of Southport town centre in accordance with key indicators set out at paragraph 006 of the Town Centres and Retail PPG; and . utilise a new household shopper survey to identify the current trading position of foodstores within and around Southport town centre, and the trading position of the town centre as a whole.

The second of the above matters (and therefore the Retail Strategy Review as a whole) has been postponed as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic; shopping patterns in recent months have been atypical and it was decided that undertaking a household survey at the current time would be inappropriate as a result.

Notwithstanding this, Nexus Planning visited Sefton’s principal centres (including Southport) during week commencing 16 March 2020 in order to undertake a ‘walkover’ survey and record the composition of land uses and vacancies within each centre. The Draft Healthcheck Assessments carried out (to be published shortly) have identified a number of concerns in respect of Southport’s vitality and viability. These concerns are as follows:

. the vacancy rate relating both to the proportion of vacant units and the proportion of vacant floorspace, which has increased considerably since 2015 to a level that is substantially above national average; . a notable general reduction in the comparison goods offer of the town centre since 2015 (which appears to have accelerated in recent months); . the loss of national multiple tenants in recent times from Lord Street and from other parts of the town centre, including Chapel Street; and . Springboard footfall data demonstrating an annual reduction in footfall on main shopping streets between 2017 and 2018 (equating to a loss of around 7% of footfall), and a further reduction between 2018 and 2019 (equating to a loss of around 1% of footfall).

In addition, the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic creates further uncertainty in respect of the vitality and viability of town centres. Given the significance of the Meols Cop Retail Park planning application, it is considered appropriate to provide an update in respect of the proposal’s compliance with key retail policy tests in the above context.

Sequential Test

With regard to the sequential approach to development, the report of June 2019 considered the potential offered by four sites, namely:

- Units on Tulketh Street (now occupied by Sports Direct), - Central 12 Shopping Park, - Land North of Lord Street/West of Coronation Walk, and - Former BHS, Chapel Street.

Since those reports were completed, and following further review prior to January 2020 in respect of the lease position on Central 12, it is understood that there are no material changes in respect of these sites and Nexus therefore remain of the view that none are both available and suitable to accommodate the application proposal. No other sites have been put forward for consideration. As such, the proposal continues to accord with the requirements of the sequential test as articulated by NPPF paragraphs 86 and 87 (and Local Plan Policy ED2, as it applies to the sequential test).

Impact Test

Paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires assessment of the following:

. the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and . the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and the wider retail catchment (as applicable to the scale and nature of the scheme).

In respect of the first part of the test, Southport has been identified as one of 101 towns which have been invited to develop proposals for a Town Deal, as part of the Government’s Towns Fund initiative. In total, up to £25m is available to each location. This work is ongoing and consultation was undertaken on a Future Southport Masterplan between 29 June and 20 July 2020. The Future Southport consultation provides a series of themed ‘Big Ideas’ which seek to boost the town. These include the following:

. focussing the main shopping area on a smaller part of the town centre (around Lord Street, Chapel Street, Tulketh Street and King Street); . replace the loss of major attractions (such as the department stores) with new uses that create a buzz and activity; . support thriving independent businesses in the northern part of Lord Street by introducing complementary uses (including the re-use of Debenhams as a co-working office, café and apartments); . introduce additional uses in the southern part of Lord Street, including a hotel and new apartments; . develop a landlord engagement programme to encourage the re-use of vacant shops and premises; and . create investment in the public realm (e.g. the quality of streets and spaces) connecting the assets in the central area of the town centre to create a high quality environment.

The aspiration of the Future Southport Masterplan is to generally broaden the offer of the town centre, placing a lesser reliance on retail and supporting the introduction of new uses to support footfall and bring premises back into active use. Notably, there is no specific aspiration to support additional grocery retail in the town centre and, as such, the above aspirations may be achievable regardless of whether or not the Meols Cop application is approved.

Moreover, the above remain ‘Big Ideas’ which have only very recently been the subject of a public consultation exercise. The objective of the NPPF impact test is to safeguard existing, committed and planned public and private investment. This is confirmed by paragraph 015 of the Town Centres and Retail PPG, which states that:

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

. the policy status of the investment (i.e. whether it is outlined in the Development Plan) . the progress made towards securing the investment (for example if contracts are established) . the extent to which an application is likely to undermine planned developments or investments based on the effects on current/forecast turnovers, operator demand and investor confidence.’

Given that the investment is not directly informed by the Development Plan, and the aspirations are at a very early stage, these are not considered to be sufficiently established to the point where they can reasonably be considered planned investment for the purposes of the first part of the NPPF paragraph 90 impact test. There is no other fresh investment proposal requiring consideration as part of the test. Accordingly, Nexus remain of the view that the Meols Cop proposal accords with the requirements of the first part of the impact test.

The second strand of the impact test (the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and the wider retail catchment (as applicable to the scale and nature of the scheme) is less straightforward.

Paragraph 4.71 of Nexus’ June 2019 Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues report found that the trade diversion impacts arising from the application proposal are ‘…generally limited in terms of their magnitude.’ Whilst, in the intervening period, Experian has issued more up to date expenditure and population data (and revised its future growth projections), it is accepted that (as a proportion of Southport town centre’s overall turnover and based on the existing household survey) trade diversion will remain broadly similar to that considered by Nexus Planning at June 2019.

However, as set out above, it is Nexus’ view that Southport town centre has become weaker over the past 12 months and potentially less able to withstand the impacts arising from a development of this nature. The Chief Planning Officer would agree with this view.

In this regard, it is noted that paragraph 018 of the Town Centres and Retail PPG states that:

‘A judgement as to whether the likely adverse impacts are significant can only be reached in light of local circumstances. For example, in areas where there are high levels of vacancy and limited retailer demand, even very modest trade diversion from a new development may lead to a significant adverse impact.’ (underlined emphasis.)

It is evident that there are high levels of vacancy and limited retailer demand in Southport. Furthermore, to fully understand the current viability of foodstores to fully understand the current viability of foodstores within and at the edge of the town centre, and the trading performance of the centre as a whole, it is considered necessary to undertake a new household survey. A new survey would enable an assessment of how Southport’s retail offer has fared overall across the past five years.

In accordance with paragraph 018 of the Town Centres and Retail PPG, it is necessary to have a more comprehensive and up to date understanding of local circumstances, in order to adjudicate whether or not the impact of the application proposal on Southport town centre’s vitality and viability is of a ‘significant adverse’ magnitude.

Without this up to date evidence, it cannot be confirmed that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of the second part of the NPPF paragraph 89 impact test. Due to the increasingly fragile health of Southport town centre, it is possible that the proposal could result in a significant adverse impact in practice.

As a consequence of the above, it is not considered that that the applicant has satisfied Local Plan Policy ED2 insofar as it relates to the impact test.

Notwithstanding this, it is noted that application proposal now provides for a smaller store and that a lesser amount of expenditure will be diverted from Southport town centre than was previously found to be acceptable by the Secretary of State (albeit this will diverted from a weaker centre).

Nexus’ June 2019 report identified that a planning obligation, which ensures that the Lord Street Sainsbury’s continues to trade for a period of five years subsequent to the opening of the Meols Cop store, would act to mitigate some of the impact arising from the proposed development. It is Nexus’ view such a provision could still have some benefit in helping to safeguard Lord Street and the town centre. It is therefore considered appropriate to maintain the need for the obligation, which was signed in October 2019, in determining the application. It is the Council’s intention to proceed with a new household shopper survey at the appropriate time (which is likely to be when there is some confidence that shopping patterns have stabilised). However, the applicant has indicated that they do not want to wait for this additional research to be undertaken, and instead, has asked that the application is determined by Committee based on the current available evidence and with some reliance on the materiality of the fall back position. The relevance of the fall back position, is discussed further in the next section of the report.

In summary, the Nexus assessment concludes that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to confirm that there is no significant impact on the vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre. For these reasons, if judged in isolation in relation to retail impact, the application would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) considerations, and with Policies ED2 and SD2 of the Sefton Local Plan.

Fall back position

As set out above, there is no evidence confirming that significant adverse impacts will not result on Southport Town Centre, having regard to the relevant tests above. Consideration must be given to whether a “fall back” position exists. This is an important material consideration, and essentially requires members to consider whether, if planning permission is refused, the applicant would pursue the 2016 planning permission.

The concept of fall back position is set out by R v Secretary of State for the Environment Ex p. Ahern (1988). This confirms that the following points occur where the existence of a fall back position is raised:

(a) whether there is a fall back use which could be lawfully undertaken; (b) whether there is a likelihood or ‘real prospect’ of such a use occurring; and (c) if the answer to the second question is “yes”, a comparison must be made between the proposed development and the fall-back use.

Point (a) is clearly engaged as the 2016 permission has now been implemented and has been certified as implemented via Certificates of Lawfulness issued under Sections 191 and 192 of the Act.

On point (b), Zurich Assurance Ltd (t/a Threadneedle Property Investments) v North Lincolnshire Council [2012] confirms that there does not have to be a probable or even a high chance of the fall back occurring; it must only be more than a merely theoretical prospect. Even where the possibility of undertaking a lawful use is slight, that is sufficient to make the fall back position a material consideration and the weight to be attached to this is a matter for the members of Planning Committee.

It is also affirmed by the Court of Appeal case Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] that the consideration of fall back will always be a matter for the decision-maker’s planning judgment in the particular circumstances of the case in hand. It is therefore appropriate and necessary for the Committee to consider the available fall back position, i.e. the 2016 permission. There are two components to this; the implementation of the building itself, and the subsequent likelihood that Sainsbury as joint applicants for that scheme would trade from it.

Fall back position relating to implementation of 2016 permission

The following facts are pertinent in respect of implementation:

- There is a lawful planning permission in place, with all pre-commencement conditions discharged, and development has since been certified to have been commenced. There are no time constraints to the continuation of this application. - The applicant advises that there is a contractual obligation for UBS Global to carry out the construction of the 2016 permission, and Sainsbury’s would be required to take a 25-year lease of the premises whether they occupy or not. - The applicant advises that the tender process is completed, and a contractor is in place and chosen to complete the development as per the 2016 permission. - The applicant advises that the contractual arrangements for construction have been extended on a rolling basis on anticipation of planning permission forthcoming (the most recent being to April 2020).

Fall back position relating to occupation of 2016 permission

The following facts are pertinent in respect of occupation:

- A letter of intent is submitted by J Sainsburys dated 7 July 2020, which confirms that they will fit out and operate from the store approved by the 2016 permission, though their preference is to trade from the store proposed by the current application. - Sainsburys are signatories of the Section 106 Legal Agreement for the 2016 permission, which was held by the Inspector in the Castle Fields Nottingham case to carry weight in addressing the realism of fall back (APP/Q3060/A/13/2198870). - The 2016 permission is purpose built and designed for Sainsburys to operate from. It is not reliant on the theoretical combining of extant retail permissions to create a retail unit capable of being delivered. - Whilst of lesser weight than the contractual obligations referred to above, the applicant has highlighted three Sainsburys stores above grade level (i.e. first floor with undercroft parking) that have opened since September 2017 as indicative of Sainsburys ongoing strategy and intent: . Eddington (44,631 sq. ft) – September 2017 . Redhill (123,665 sq. ft) – October 2017 . Selly Oak, Birmingham (130,540 sq. ft) – November 2018

(The 2016 permission is 119,361 sq. ft and comparable to two of the above openings. Sainsbury have also opened other stores accessed at ground level in the period since, and plan two more openings over the course of the next 12 months, albeit, of smaller scale.)

Taking the above factors in combination, point (b) is clearly engaged, in respect of both the building out and occupation of the 2016 planning permission, and this is a relevant material consideration given that it provides for additional retail floorspace over and above that being considered by the current planning application. It is claimed by representations received that the “fall back” position cannot be applied, as condition 27 of the 2016 permission would:

1. Prevent Home Bargains from using Unit 2C for the sale or display of convenience goods if the 2016 permission is implemented, or 2. Prevent Sainsburys from using the 2016 permission for the sale or display of convenience goods if Home Bargains have not ceased the same.

The condition was as follows:

“Apart from the development hereby permitted, no other retail unit on the retail park, as defined by the blue line on Drawing No 2012-002 A-PL-01 Rev B, shall be used for the sale or display of convenience goods.”

It is considered that a correct interpretation of the planning condition does not, and cannot, require the removal or cessation of a pre-existing retail unit. It is equally considered that it was not the Inspector’s intention at the called-in inquiry pursuant to the 2016 permission being granted to require an existing retailer to vacate.

The objectors contend otherwise, but concede that the condition does not prevent implementation of the 2016 permission. Even if the objectors' interpretation of the condition is accepted the issue becomes whether the condition is varied (as the objectors consider would be necessary).

It is considered more than a theoretical proposition that the condition could be varied following implementation of the 2016 permission. It is therefore concluded that even if the condition has the effect the objectors argue for, it is a realistic prospect that subsequent to implementation the 2016 permission could still be occupied.

One of the representations received relates to a retail development at the White City Retail Park in Trafford. This was a 2011 appeal decision where it was noted that none of the four major retail operators sustained an interest in delivering a consented scheme for the amalgamation of four units (three existing and one unimplemented). It was considered by the Inspector that the appeal proposal would result in harm, and that the fallback was unrealistic for these reasons.

The Zurich court case referred to above postdates the discussion of that appeal and though it does not confirm occupation to be the true test, it is accepted that there should be a genuine prospect of the 2016 permission being occupied to present a realistic basis for comparing land use impacts. As set out above, there is an identified end user for the 2016 permission and the store is purpose built and designed for their retail purposes.

It was also suggested by representations that the attempts to secure approval of planning conditions on the 2016 permission represented a late bid to maintain this as an extant permission. Whatever the circumstances, the 2016 permission is lawful, and the above considerations clearly demonstrate sufficiently that there is a realistic prospect of it coming forward should planning permission not be granted for the current scheme. It has not been concluded at any stage that the information constitutes proof that the store will be built, but the information now provided readily passes muster to allow the conclusion to be reached that the full building and occupation of the 2016 store is indeed a realistic prospect.

Based on the above considerations, if members accept there is no evidence available to conclude that no significant adverse retail impacts arise from this planning application, members are invited to compare the likely impacts on Southport Town Centre with the impacts likely to result from the 2016 permission (point (c) above).

The 2016 permission was estimated to have a 29.9% impact on convenience goods facilities within Southport’s Primary Shopping Area (PSA); the latest study available as of July 2019 suggested this impact would be reduced to 18.7% for the current application. The 2016 permission was estimated to have a 1.5% impact on comparison goods facilities within Southport town centre as a whole; this compares to 1.1% for the current scheme. The applicant considers overall there to be around a 25% lesser impact on Southport Town Centre from the current application when compared to the 2016 permission.

It should therefore be apparent that the 2016 permission, affording a larger store than is currently proposed, would have the potential for greater impacts on Southport town centre and the PSA when compared with those now identified by the current application.

In conclusion, if the current application is considered unacceptable, it is ultimately a matter for the decision maker as to the level of weight to be given to a fall-back position. In that respect, the Chief Planning Officer advises that the factors above are more than sufficient to enable the conclusion that the 2016 permission (1) is lawful, (2) would be built out, and (3) would be operated as a food store.

For these reasons, should members have concerns over the retail impacts of the current planning application, which would be entirely legitimate in the absence of up-to-date retail survey information, they are invited to lend significant weight to the provisions of the 2016 planning permission which remains extant (i.e. valid), and which can be confirmed to have even greater impacts on Southport Town Centre than the current proposal.

Conclusion on retail planning matters

The Nexus assessment concludes that there is no evidence available to confirm that there is no significant impact on the vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre. For these reasons, the application would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) considerations in respect of impact, and with Policies ED2 and SD2 of the Sefton Local Plan.

However, the realistic prospect of the building out and occupation of the 2016 permission is a significant material consideration which is considered to outweigh the policy harm identified above. In short, the impacts arising from the building out and occupying of the 2016 permission would not only prove greater than those likely from the current planning application but would also cause greater harm to the vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre. It is not considered that any further retail assessment is necessary in these circumstances.

Design and layout considerations

The design of the main building involves a mix of glazing, brick and cladding which are common features of the immediate locality whether on larger units within the retail park or the nearby residential dwellings to Argarmeols Close.

This approach would afford an attractive visual appearance when viewed from Meols Cop Road and will provide for a more expressive, responsive building than exists at present, set some 100 metres from the back edge of the highway when compared to the taller and more dominant existing building projecting forward.

The north elevation is mostly screened by the existing tree cover adjacent to Fine Jane’s Brook, screening off most of the lower part of the building from outlooks to residents on Argarmeols Close. The east elevation to Foul Lane is prominent but the blank, cladded elevations are little different to adjacent units.

The remaining south elevation of the proposal is almost entirely concealed by the side elevation of Unit 4, to which it would be adjacent, save for a short section to the rear that would project slightly beyond Unit 4 and would be visible from Foul Lane. The forward projection of five other units on the retail park will diminish the store’s impact from longer views. The design largely reflects the function of the building and the needs of servicing and store layout and is what would be expected of a food store proposed on this scale.

Landscaping proposals will reduce the visual impact of parking and will also complement that already existing adjacent to Fine Jane’s Brook. An acoustic fence is to be provided to the northern boundary, to mitigate noise from parking, and whilst there is concern that this will give rise to some unacceptable visual impacts, it will be set behind the recycling bank from most vantage points fronting Meols Cop Road and will also be viewed within the context of existing and proposed landscaping as described.

For the above reasons the scheme is considered fully compliant with the Sefton Local Plan Policies EQ2 and EQ9, and the provisions of the NPPF (most notably Section 12 ‘Achieving Well Designed Places’).

Impact on the living conditions of adjacent residents

The main concern relates to the living conditions of residents at Argarmeols Close, north of Fine Jane’s Brook. Regard must be had to the height of the building and impact on sunlight/outlook, the impact of deliveries and other various activities on site, and the measures required to address concerns that may arise during the construction period. It is not considered that any other residential dwellings are directly affected by the proposals.

The rear boundary treatments to Argarmeols Close are in the order of 35-55 metres north of the site, this distance increasing in a west to east direction. These rear elevations all currently face the long projection of the rear of the vacant existing building. The proposed food store would be of reduced projection and overall footprint compared to the existing building, albeit of slightly greater height. However, it would be much reduced in height and footprint compared to the 2016 planning permission, in terms of its projection and its height.

The reduced projection most benefits those who have the shorter existing distance between their rear elevations and those of the new building. The 2016 planning permission affords a much taller building than both that now proposed and the vacant existing building.

The reduced height of the building and its much lesser projection when compared to the 2016 permission is such that it is considered to significantly improve the outlook for those residents if it is assumed that most might prefer views across a more open aspect of the retail park than to a building of substantial height and projection. Indeed, this view is essentially supported by the absence of any representations that question the direct implications of visual impact of the finalised scheme on neighbouring properties.

The positioning of the building as stipulated by the 2016 permission was held by the Secretary of State not to have an adverse impact on nearby residents in terms of overshadowing or loss of light and in that respect a building of 40 metres less depth and a height close to half that of what was previously proposed could not be considered to cause harm. The nearest dwellings are nos. 22 and 24 and their rear elevations are 53 metres from the main (reduced height) elevation.

It is considered that outlooks are not adversely affected and there is sufficient distance between the north elevation of the building and the rear elevations of Argarmeols Close for there to be no unacceptable loss of privacy to residents. With all servicing proposed to take place from Foul Lane, and the 2016 planning permission subject to unrestricted 24-hour servicing, acoustic screening is required to be installed prior to the service yard first being brought into use.

Residents have raised concern over the impact of the build phase on their dwellings. Whilst planning permission cannot be refused on the grounds of these impacts, conditions are in place to require applicants to submit a Construction Management Plan and a scheme of works to ensure that residents are informed fully in respect of piled foundations; these conditions were previously supported by the Secretary of State and are included again.

An acoustic fence had previously been proposed to the undercroft car park to ensure residents are not affected by noise from manoeuvring, parking and turning of cars. This requirement is also continued through the proposed planning conditions and extends from the eastern extreme of the recycling bank to the front corner of the store nearest Fine Jane’s Brook. The fence also assists in preventing car headlights shining through to these same dwellings.

Fencing is also proposed around the recycling area and adjacent to the PFS which reduces the impact of noise disturbance and lighting from these activities.

As is the case in relation to retail impact, if members have concerns over the impacts on living conditions of nearby occupants, they should afford considerable weight to the fact that the impacts are not seen to be as significant as those brought by the 2016 planning permission if built out and completed. This is again bearing in mind that there is a realistic prospect of the 2016 permission ultimately being built out and operated as set out above.

It is considered that these factors in combination acceptably address all concerns relating to impact on living conditions of nearby dwellings and the scheme therefore meets with the requirements of Sefton Local Plan policy EQ2 ‘Design’ and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, most notably Paragraph 127.

Highway safety and accessibility

The highways manager has confirmed that there are no objections to the current application as no harm results in highway safety terms, and there are no other significant transport- related implications. The most up-to-date information relates to a Supplementary Transport Note dated November 2018. Though this note is over 18 months old, it is considered sufficiently robust to allow an in depth analysis of traffic implications arising from the current application.

If the note is not accepted to be robust, the fact the 2016 permission is capable of implementation and a genuine possibility means that significant weight must be afforded to the traffic implications of the 2016 permission, which were discussed at the Inquiry into that application in 2015/16 and found to be acceptable. As the fall back position brought by the 2016 permission is now relied upon, there is no need for further up-to-date reports relating to transport-related implications.

The layout and principles of access are little different in the new application but are summarised below.

Traffic Impact Assessment

The previous consent was for a food supermarket with a GIA (Gross Internal Area) of 10,942 square metres. The current application involves a smaller food supermarket with a GIA of 7,492 square metres.

To establish suitable trip rates for the proposed development, reference has been made to the trip rates already accepted by the Highway Authority as part of the previous consented application for the site. These trip rates were applied to the revised development footprint to ascertain the likely vehicular trip impact. To use these trip rates is considered reasonable as the annual forecast growth rate for traffic in Sefton in the 5-year period 2015-2020 using the nationally recognised software Tempro 7 is identified as being only 1.015. The application of the Tempro 7 growth rates in this instance would result in only a very minor increase in the trip rates with the resultant forecast trips being still significantly less than that of the previously consented scheme.

The assessment showed that 814 two-way trips would be expected in the PM weekday peak hour (16:30-17:30) and 841 two-way trips would be expected in the Saturday peak hour (13:30-14:30). The assessment for the previously consented application showed that 1,007 two-way trips would be expected in the PM weekday peak hour (16:30-17:30) and 1,041 two-way trips would be expected in the Saturday peak hour (13:30-14:30). This represents a reduction on the 2016 permission’s impact of 193 two-way trips in the PM weekday peak hour and 200 two-way trips in the Saturday peak hour.

The Supplementary Transport Note dated November 2018 was submitted on behalf of the applicant, which provided an analysis of the current proposal on its own merits irrespective of the 2016 application. This analysis included predicted trip rates taking account of forecast trade diversion and shows no material change between the 2016 Inquiry figures and those for 2018. With the use of this and the trip generation figures contained within the 2018 Transport Assessment, the Supplementary Transport Note has considered and summarised the traffic impact of the current proposal on the local highway network.

Within the Supplementary Transport Note, there are two tables which show the impact of the proposed development during the weekday pm peak and the Saturday peak for the site access and the wider highway network. The figures shown indicate that there is a slight reduction in traffic on the wider highway network and an increase in traffic for the site access in both the weekday pm and Saturday peaks when compared to the 2018 baseline figures. The Supplementary Transport Note concludes that as these forecast traffic generation figures are less than those identified in the 2016 permission and that as the modelling in 2016 demonstrated that the local highway network operated with minimal queuing and delay, there was no need to undertake any further detailed modelling assessments, including for future years.

It is considered that this is an acceptable position to take, and that the current application, as a stand-alone proposal, has been assessed and it has been demonstrated that the proposed development can be accommodated with minimal impact on the local highway network.

Vehicular/Pedestrian Access Arrangements

It is proposed to alter the existing vehicular access arrangements on Meols Cop Road by closing off the existing vehicular access which allows traffic to turn left only into the site from Meols Cop Road and introducing a new traffic signal-controlled junction catering for all vehicle movements. The previous consented application included an assessment, using LINSIG junction modelling software, which demonstrated that this proposed traffic signal- controlled junction would operate within capacity. The design of this junction has been previously accepted by both the Highway Authority and the Planning Inspector as suitable to serve the previous approved food store development, which was significantly larger than that proposed in this application.

The new proposed signal-controlled junction will include pedestrian facilities across the access to the store but not across Meols Cop Road as there is an existing TOUCAN crossing a short distance from the primary point of pedestrian access to the site, which will enable pedestrians to safely cross Meols Cop Road. This signal-controlled junction will need to ensure the appropriate visibility splays for vehicles for all arms of the junction.

The existing bus stop (S61087) within the lay-by on the east side of Meols Cop Road will be relocated as part of the highway works for the new junction. It will need to be moved south of its current position, but not too close to the existing roundabout. The relocated bus stop will be located within the existing carriageway alignment of Meols Cop Road, rather than within a new lay-by and will require the installation of access kerbs, a raised footway area, new bus stop posts and timetable and appropriate carriageway markings.

A new vehicular access to serve the service yard will be introduced off Foul Lane. To accommodate this, it will be necessary to realign and reconstruct the pedestrian footway, together with the provision of flush kerbs and tactile paving.

The existing vehicular access to the retail park car parks from Foul Lane will be unaltered.

The main pedestrian access to the site will be from Meols Cop Road via a pedestrian link to the north of the petrol filling station or via the footway on the southern side of the new access road. Both pedestrian routes connect to good pedestrian links within the site. There is also pedestrian access to the front of the proposed store via a link to the footway/cycleway which links Foul Lane and Meols Cop Road to the north of the site.

Petrol Filling Station

It is recognised that there are already two existing petrol filling stations very close to this site, namely Tesco and BP. The petrol station which forms part of this development proposal will have 4 pumps, plus a forecourt area to accommodate several waiting vehicles in each lane. Given the other existing petrol stations in the area and the layout and configuration of the proposed petrol station, it is unlikely that significant queues would develop within the site which could cause congestion on the highway network.

Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs)

To ensure that free flowing traffic conditions along Meols Cop Road are not adversely affected by on-street parking, it will be necessary to introduce ‘No Waiting At Any Time’ restriction in the form of double yellow lines on both sides of Meols Cop Road from the junction of Kew Roundabout (New Foul Lane/Scarisbrick New Road) to the mid-point of the bridge over Fine Jane’s Brook.

It will also be necessary to revoke an existing Prohibition of Driving TRO that prevents the right turn into the site from Meols Cop Road.

Stopping-up Order and Adoption

The extent of the adopted public highway on the east side of Meols Cop Road is defined by the back edge of the footway but includes the existing left turn lane which provides access to the existing car park. Given that this left turn lane will be removed as part of the proposal it will need to be ‘Stopped-up’ so that it can be incorporated within the site. As such, the applicant will need to make an application for a ‘Stopping up’ Order to the Highway Authority and give an undertaking to pay all costs involved.

The new traffic signal-controlled junction will need to be dedicated to the highway authority for adoption under s278/38 of the Highways Act 1980. The exact extent can be agreed at a later stage; however, it is normal for the area to be defined along the back edge of the footway and by a line that would encompass all the traffic signal equipment. The layout of the proposed vehicular access off Foul Lane which will serve the service yard will also result in an area that will need to be dedicated to the highway authority for adoption under s228 of the Highways Act 1980. Again, the exact extent of the area can be agreed at a later stage.

Parking

The proposed car parking provision for the proposed Sainsbury’s store consists of 391 spaces including 24 disabled spaces and 16 parent and child spaces. This is in addition to the 348 car parking spaces on the existing car parks within the retail park. This results in a total of 739 car parking spaces that will be available within the retail park.

The applicant has carried out a parking accumulation study to establish the parking demand for the proposed development. The TRICS trip rates, as developed for the previously consented store were used in the parking accumulation study for both the weekdays and Saturdays based on the 391 parking spaces being available. The study begins at 7am and continues until 10pm – weekdays and Saturday. The study indicates that during the weekday peak (17:00 – 18:00), the car park accumulation is forecast to be 175 vehicles or 45% occupancy of the car park and that during the Saturday peak (14:00 – 15:00), the car park accumulation is forecast to be 329 vehicles or 84% occupancy of the car park.

The greatest car park usage on a weekday was forecast to be between 11:00 and 12:00 with a car park accumulation of 262 vehicles or 67% occupancy of the car park and on a Saturday the greatest car park usage was forecast to be between 12:00 and 13:00 with a car park accumulation of 358 vehicles or 91% occupancy of the car park. As such, this shows that the proposed 391 car parking spaces will be sufficient to accommodate the demand for parking resulting from the proposal. It should also be remembered that visitors to the new development will also have access to the additional 348 car parking spaces on the existing car parks within the retail park.

The car park layout, as proposed, has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.

It is proposed to provide cycle parking in the form of 25 ‘Sheffield’ cycle stands which when configured correctly can accommodate up to 50 bikes. This will be located close to the ground floor entrance of the store ensuring convenience and security through natural surveillance.

Electric Charging Points

It is proposed to provide 4 no. electric charging points within the car parking area which is acceptable.

Servicing

All deliveries to the store will take place within the proposed service yard accessed from Foul Lane. The applicant has provided tracking drawings to demonstrate that a 16.5m articulated vehicle, which is the largest that will access the yard, can safely access, manoeuvre within and leave the yard. In addition to the expected up to 10 normal deliveries per day that can be expected with a store of this size, the service yard will also cater for the vehicles associated with Groceries On-line operation that will be run from this store. Loading space and parking for up to 6 such vehicles is catered for. The applicant has also provided tracking drawings to demonstrate that a petrol tanker making deliveries to the petrol station can safely enter, leave and manoeuvre within the site.

Accessibility

The transport assessment considered in detail the level of accessibility for other modes of travel including walking, cycling and public transport to the site. The applicant has also submitted a Minimum Accessibility Standard Assessment as part of the submission.

Pedestrians

Clearly defined pedestrian routes are identified on the submitted site layout plan (A-PL-003 Rev A), which provide convenient, direct and safe connections between the store entrance, other retail units on the Meols Cop Retail Park, key points of pedestrian access from the surrounding highway network and nearby bus stops. There is an existing traffic signal- controlled TOUCAN crossing on Meols Cop Road near to the northern boundary of the site.

The existing path adjacent to Fine Jane's Brook that runs between Meols Cop Road and Foul Lane and the site is unlit, approximately 2.0m wide and a section undulates quite significantly. Given the importance of this link in making the development site accessible for pedestrians it will be necessary for the development to include the comprehensive upgrade of this path so that it is 3.0m wide, level and with an appropriate scheme of lighting.

Cyclists

The existing path adjacent to Fine Jane's Brook forms part of Sefton’s Strategic Cycle network providing excellent connections across this part of Southport. The improvements to the existing path as identified above will be of benefit to cyclists accessing the development.

Buses

At present the two existing bus stops near the proposed store on Meols Cop Road are served by the 44 service, which provides links to and . There are also bus stops within easy walking distance on Scarisbrick New Road that are served by the 300 service that provides links to Southport, , and Liverpool) and the 375/385 services that provide links to Southport, Ormskirk, Skelmersdale and Wigan.

It is intended that the existing southbound bus stop adjacent to the existing Homebase store will be retained in its current location and already has access kerbs, a raised footway area and a shelter.

The existing northbound stop on Meols Cop Road, to the north of Fine Jane’s Brook and adjacent to Meols Cop High School playing fields, has a shelter, but the stop will need to be upgraded with access kerbs and a raised footway area to make it fully accessible for wheelchair users and those with prams/buggies, etc. The existing bus stop within the lay-by on the east side of Meols Cop Road will be removed and a replacement bus stop will be introduced within the existing carriageway alignment on the east side of Meols Cop Road, including the installation of access kerbs, a raised footway area, a new bus stop and timetable and appropriate carriageway markings.

Taxis

Taxis play an important role in helping those without the use of a car in undertaking their main weekly food shopping. There is a lay-by close to the main entrance of the store which can be used for drop-off and pick up of customers by hackney carriage vehicles. The taxi rank will need to be marked out and signed in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.

Travel Plan

A Framework Travel Plan has been submitted to support the application. This Travel Plan will need to be developed and introduced for the development.

Construction Traffic Management Plan

A Construction Traffic Management Plan will be required to cover the construction of the development and is conditioned.

Response to representations on Highway Matters

Representations have suggested that the use of traffic data from 2015 is not appropriate for assessing a scheme in 2020 and new surveys should be commissioned. This issue has been reviewed and no new developments or infrastructure changes have been identified that would have caused material changes in the traffic flow data since 2015. This position has been reinforced by reference to traffic data from 2018 for Meols Cop Road showing very little change from 2015 and a slight decrease from 2012.

It has been suggested that the applicant should provide a full Traffic Impact Assessment using the revised data, including a new LINSIG (industry standard) assessment of the proposed signalised junction. As traffic flows in the area remain effectively unchanged since 2015, the traffic impact assessment as previously submitted is considered to be satisfactory.

It is also suggested that the trip rates proposed to assess the development should consider TEMPRO growth (TEMPRO is a program designed to project trips in an area over time for use in transport models). Although TEMPRO growth rates would usually be applied to background traffic rather than specific trip rates, applying the TEMPRO growth rates to the forecast trip generation for the development site results in only a very minor increase in trip rates which would not have any material effect on the operation of the highway network.

The final part of the representation suggested that further clarity is required in relation to the distribution of existing and future traffic flows from the retail park, allowing for the new signalised junction. Further information has been provided by the developer in relation to the trips associated with the existing retail park and the proportion that would use the new junction on Meols Cop Road. These trips were included in the previous junction modelling and assessment and are considered to be acceptable and can be accommodated within the operation of the new junction.

Similar to retail impact and the living conditions of nearby occupants, if members have concerns over the impact of the proposals on highway safety and accessibility, they should afford considerable weight to the fact that the impacts are not seen to be as significant as those brought by the 2016 planning permission. This is again bearing in mind that there is a genuine prospect of the 2016 permission ultimately being built out and operated as set out above.

For the above reasons the scheme complies with Sefton Local Plan Policy EQ3 ‘Accessibility’, and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 109-111).

Economic Impacts and Benefits

Though the reduced size of the store slightly reduces the number of job opportunities available when compared to the 2016 permission, the proposal is still expected to generate around 30 full-time and 170 part-time equivalent job opportunities (gross). This would be spread over a range of skills and the flexibility of jobs that may be offered within a supermarket is such that it will generate considerable job opportunities. The increase in wage earning population would potentially benefit other local businesses with more disposable income distributed in their stores.

The store will facilitate private sector investment in Southport of more than £15m. The Economic benefits delivered by the development were given significant weight by the Secretary of State when granting the 2016 permission. Paragraph 32 of his decision letter confirms:

“The Secretary of State concludes that the proposed development would contribute to economic growth and generate a significant number of new jobs both during the construction phase and once the store was operational. Even when set against the smaller number of jobs which may be lost at other stores as a result of the proposal, the Secretary of State affords this benefit significant weight.”

The store construction would also generate opportunities for local labour and the Section 106 Legal Agreement contains measures requiring the applicant to undertake ‘reasonable endeavours’ to maximise opportunity in this respect.

Further representations have been received in relation to job creation and economic benefit. It is true that the application site delivers no jobs in its current, derelict and unoccupied form.

However, the proposed store is anticipated to create up to 200 employment positions (a reduction compared to the 2016 permission when granted). The reduction in the present scheme partly reflects the smaller scale store, and the increased efficiency of grocers in the UK. Stores have increased operational efficiency (with greater automatisation in warehousing and administration) and the introduction of more efficient customer facilities such as ‘self scan’ checkouts. These changes mean foodstores in the UK now require less staff.

It therefore follows that the level of job creation first envisaged by the 2016 permission is likely to be less than was first expected should that scheme be implemented. It is considered likely that these changes will have had impacts on job opportunities across the retail sector.

Though the number of employees is estimated by the applicant, numbers cannot be confirmed on a precise basis and it is sufficient for members to be aware that it will deliver more jobs than are currently the case, or were in place when the existing former Homebase store was last occupied. There is no credible reason for the analysis of job creation to be any more detailed than that carried out by the Secretary of State above.

Representations have suggested that a full employment assessment should be provided on the basis that it was required for the new Aldi store on the former Birkdale Trading Estate. However, the circumstances are completely different, as the analysis was centred on land designated in the Local Plan for employment use and this was needed to justify the loss of employment land, and therein, a Section 106 contribution towards compensating for its loss. It was not specifically introduced as a discussion point to promote economic benefits brought about by the scheme, though the economic benefits were appropriately addressed as part of that scheme.

It is not considered accurate to conclude that if stores lose staff whether to another store, or for other reasons, they will close. It will more likely mean in practice they reconsider whether they are still required given the increasing efficiencies and automation prevalent in retail. Indeed, the whole concept of ‘overtrading’ reflects the reality that stores can lose some amount of trade without losing financial sustainability (of staff numbers or the entire store). The general increase in retailer efficiency and automation ties in with the lesser numbers now proposed by the current application.

As stated above, the secured planning obligation commits the applicant to local labour provisions through a recruitment training plan that will commit them to using Job Centres and other employment sources bringing people back into work rather than displacement from their current jobs.

The low barriers to entry to many of the employment positions created ensure that the development can directly address many ‘long term’ unemployed. It will also be noted that there is a legal provision for the applicant to utilise ‘reasonable endeavours’ in securing local labour resource.

As such, the development gives rise to several economic benefits and this weighs in favour of the proposal when having regard to Local Plan Policy SD2 ‘Principles of Sustainable Development’. The issues relating to the economic impact on Southport Town Centre are addressed in the retail assessment set out above.

Impacts on crime and anti-social behaviour CCTV is to be installed to all areas of the car park, and at all access points to and from the site, ensuring there are no concealed areas affording easy opportunity for anti-social activity. Security lighting will be provided in and around the site perimeter and within service areas, and ATMs are positioned directly on the store frontage where users are visible from both the open car park and within the store atrium. These would be protected by industry standard ‘anti-ram’ bollards.

The agreed scheme of landscape maintenance will also ensure there are no concerns in respect of overgrown landscaping creating hiding places or gathering areas.

The scheme therefore complies with the relevant aspects of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policies SD2 and EQ2 of the Sefton Local Plan.

Air quality

There are no objections to the proposal from the Environmental Health team. The condition requiring the Construction Management Plan (condition 7) makes provision for dust suppression during the construction period, and the development also makes provision for 4 no. electric vehicle charging points which will promote the use of electric vehicles. The scheme therefore complies with the relevant aspects of the NPPF and Policy EQ5 of the Sefton Local Plan.

Flood Risk

The Lead Local Flood Authority have raised no objections subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the submitted Sustainable Drainage Strategy, and subject to it being fully constructed prior to the development being occupied. Subject to this the scheme complies with the relevant aspects of the NPPF (notably paragraphs 163 and 165), and Policy EQ8 of the Sefton Local Plan.

Ecology

An extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report was submitted alongside the planning application, and though Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS) have advised that some of the survey data provided is out of date, the limited nature of habitat on-site i.e. mainly hard standing and buildings on a retail park is such that the report is acceptable.

The Habitats Regulations Assessment report outlines the test of likely significant effects and demonstrates that there will be no likely significant effects on Martin Mere Special Protection Area (SPA). The development site is 350m from Martin Mere Mosslands Biological Heritage Site (BHS) which is a non-statutory designated site. The BHS supports pink-footed geese which are a ‘qualifying feature’ of Martin Mere SPA.

The site is also relatively close to the following designated sites:

 Brook Farm Bridge Drains BHS – 350m from the site running along the edge of Martin Mere Mosslands BHS;  High Brows Farm Covert BHS – 750m southeast; and  Southport Old Links Golf Course – Local Wildlife Site 1km northeast.

The development is unlikely to harm the features for which the sites have been designated due to the separation distance and limited nature of habitats on the application site.

A preliminary bat roost assessment was carried out alongside the application, and though this categorised the building as having low to negligible potential, the report recommended a further inspection by a suitably licenced bat worker as the potential roost features are considered suitable for crevice dwelling bats and, if insulation is present, then potentially hibernating bats. Following this work, seasonal surveys were carried out in May 2019 which confirmed that no bats were present. These surveys are acceptable to MEAS and, as a result, no further mitigation is necessary.

Conditions are also attached relating to felling of trees and shrubs outside the bird nesting and breeding season, as is a condition requiring that no works are carried out within 5 metres of the bank of Fine Jane’s Brook. This is to protect otter/water vole population during the construction. Though neither condition was regarded as necessary by the Secretary of State, the Chief Planning Officer considers they are important to ensure that the Local Planning Authority discharges its responsibilities as a competent authority.

The proposal is considered acceptable in relation to Paragraphs 176-177 of the NPPF and Policies NH1 and NH2 of the Sefton Local Plan.

Contaminated Land

The Council’s Contaminated Land team concluded on the previous application that there is no requirement for a full investigative remediation strategy. However, the presence of a nearby landfill is noted, as is the intersection through the site of a former railway line. In view of this, it was felt proportionate to require the measures to be addressed through a precautionary condition which requires further appraisal in the event of unexpected contamination being discovered during the works, and this was agreed by the Secretary of State in the 2016 planning permission.

The current application has been subject to a revised and updated appraisal, which now confirms that some contaminated land conditions will be required on the new permission. This notwithstanding, Paragraph 179 of the NPPF states that ‘Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.’

Subject to the above, the proposal gives rise to no conflict with Paragraphs 178-179 of the NPPF and Policy EQ6 of the Sefton Local Plan.

Noise and construction issues

The noise assessment was revised during the planning application and has been both written and assessed based on a potential 24-hour store opening. The Technical Officer has concluded that in terms of delivery noise, plant and equipment and noise from the car park, there would be no adverse noise impacts within the vicinity, or on the living conditions of residents of Argarmeols Close. As stated earlier in the report, the servicing area would benefit from acoustic walling.

The 2016 planning permission provides for acoustic fencing to the entirety of the Argarmeols Road boundary. Residents of Argarmeols Road have rear elevations around 40 metres from the rear elevation, and it is considered the acoustic fencing remains necessary as these residents remain the most sensitive receptors (i.e. would be the most likely to be affected by noise generated from the proposal) and a condition is attached.

Conditions are also recommended in respect of plant and equipment for the Petrol Filling Station component, a Construction Management Plan, and a restriction on the use of the recycling facility. Matters relating to piling operations will also be covered by condition, as was set out by the Secretary of State in detail previously.

The scheme is therefore considered to comply with the relevant aspects of the NPPF, notably Paragraph 170, and Policy EQ4 of the Sefton Local Plan.

Energy Efficiency

The applicant proposes several measures will be incorporated into the design of the building to reduce energy consumption and, in turn, carbon emissions:

- Inclusion of a combined heat and power unit (CHP); - High efficiency air source heat pumps; - Improved U values and glazing performance; - Bespoke design to maximise natural daylight reducing the requirement for lighting; - Solar gain control measures; - LED lighting and adaptive lighting controls; - Demand controlled ventilation; and - Mitigate the need for high capacity cooling systems.

These measures are estimated by the applicant to exceed the current Building Regulations Energy Efficiency Standards by 47% and is set out by a detailed Energy Assessment Report accompanying the application.

As adherence to these measures is covered by condition, the scheme accords with the overarching objective of the NPPF, notably Paragraph 154, and Local Plan Policies SD2 and EQ7.

Section 106 Legal Agreement

It is considered necessary to secure potential benefits and mitigate potential harms arising from the scheme through a formal legal agreement. The agreement was completed on 31 October 2019.

The provisions of that agreement include: - a commitment to keeping the Lord Street Sainsbury’s store open for a minimum five- year period, and - a commitment to ‘reasonable endeavours’ for local labour provision, using local resources during the construction period and following store opening.

The legal agreement to which the application would be subject is fully enforceable on the granting of planning permission, and the five-year provision is deemed suitable and necessary by Nexus Planning to ensure compliance with policy. The retail impacts have been considered in relation to their being realised within 5 years of the date of the planning application.

The Inspector’s report for the 2016 permission found that there was no requirement for the applicant to enter into an agreement which provided for the continued operation of the existing Lord Street Sainsbury’s store, as she believed that this store would continue to be a viable business after the implementation of the Meols Cop proposal. However, as set out by the latest Nexus report, a different view has been reached this time for the following reasons:

- the most pertinent consideration relates not to the performance of the Lord Street Sainsbury’s after the implementation of a larger Sainsbury’s store at Meols Cop, but instead relates to whether Sainsbury’s would secure most profit from trading from one or two stores in Southport; and, - changes in the retail sector mean that retailers are being increasingly cautious in respect of the number of stores that they trade from.

In this context, given the uncertainty as to whether Sainsbury’s would wish to trade from two stores so close to each other in practice, the agreement is therefore considered to meet the relevance tests to provide for an acceptable planning permission. The Section 106 Agreement is not an incentive for Members to resolve to grant permission but serves a legitimate planning purpose when assessed against CIL. This remains the case given there is no longer an up-to-date assessment of retail impacts on Southport Town Centre.

Other matters and response to further representations

The majority of representations were submitted whilst the application was recommended for approval on the basis of there being no significant adverse retail impact on Southport Town Centre, with the fall back position being of lesser significance. As the report concludes, there is no up-to-date evidence confirming that there will be no significant adverse retail impact, but the fall back position is now considered to be much more significant in the planning balance. However, it still remains necessary to respond to these objections, as they are not withdrawn.

The applicant is not required to demonstrate the need for the food store under the provisions of current policy. It is only necessary to ensure impacts on planned investment and on the vitality and viability of town centres for the next five years are addressed. The impact of the new convenience store at Birkdale Trading Estate (Aldi) has been considered by the Nexus report. In further response to representations made by Southport & Windsor Properties (SWP), they commented that the applicant confirmed in the 2016 Inquiry that an agreement had been reached with Homebase to secure vacant possession, but the vacation was instigated by Homebase themselves. SWP state that this means that the applicant should provide details of the agreement, as it is relevant to the fall-back position. Moreover, SWP state that the Council should require financial appraisals to confirm the 2016 permission to be a realistic proposition. The letter also continues to suggest that Central 12 should be tested further as a sequential alternative.

It is not considered necessary to have sight of any contractual arrangement with Homebase, nor an explanation of how the agreement came about. However, the 2016 planning permission has been implemented, with all pre-commencement conditions discharged, and is extant (i.e. valid), with Sainsbury’s confirming their intent to occupy once the store is constructed.

In any event, the proposed new store subject of this planning application will still be acceptable regardless of anything permitted previously and would have a lesser impact than that resulting from the 2016 permission, as stated above. A further letter was received from SWP on 13 May 2019, reiterating that the Council request sight of the legal agreements between Sainsburys/Homebase, financial appraisals and assessments for Central 12, and an independent chartered retail surveyor’s report on the current retail position in Southport. None of this was felt to be necessary, or relevant, for the same reasons as above – explanatory memorandums were previously provided detailing the development contracts have been supplied both for the 2016 permission and the current proposal (if approved) by the applicants.

It is pointed out through representations that a new Aldi discount foodstore has opened in Birkdale and a further one is now proposed at Tarleton (West Lancashire), which was approved. It has been suggested that Home Bargains on the Kew Retail Park should also be factored into the assessments of retail impacts.

The Birkdale Aldi store was been factored into calculations within the updated Retail Impact Assessment, but it is not for this application to consider the impact of any proposed new store in Tarleton; the onus would be on the applicant of that store to consider the relative impacts of consented food stores elsewhere.

Draft financial appraisals were issued by SWP suggesting that the conversion of Units 1-5 at Central 12 for a foodstore may be a viable proposition, however as set out above, this is not a suitable sequential alternative. However, they move on to suggest that were the applicant to build out and occupy the 2016 permission, it would make a loss, and as such, it would simply not be built. SWP suggest that the latter appraisal shows that the 2016 permission would prove an unrealistic proposition.

SWP acknowledges that the appraisal relating to Meols Cop is based on a series of its own ‘assumptions’ and does not contain any independent or verified evidence. It has not been tested or reviewed by officers and any response may raise sensitive matters relating to commercial confidentiality. Moreover, the Chief Planning Officer is satisfied that any lack of viability as may be identified by an independent review would likely be overridden by contractual obligations to implement. There is no need for viability assessment. Aviva’s letter expressed concern over the impact of the proposed development on Central 12. As explained above, new leases have been issued to Boots and Next which run to 2023. The principal test of retail impact still relates to the impact on Southport’s Primary Shopping Area, as was the case at Inquiry.

In the lead up to Planning Committee in July 2019, and after publication of the Committee Report, Councillor Pugh raised concerns that money has recently been pledged to town centres by the Liverpool City Region and Southport would receive in the order of £400,000. Concerns have also been raised over increased vacancy and reduced footfall, with reduced job creation compared to what was originally envisaged. Concern is being raised that Sainsbury’s will leave Southport town centre and other stores will follow. Concerns are also raised over air quality.

The Chief Planning Officer has noted that any monies as may be received do not represent existing planned or committed investment as is required for impact testing by the Framework or National Planning Practice Guidance. Issues of vacancies and footfall are already picked up by the Nexus report, issues of reduced job creation are explained above, and as set out elsewhere, the applicant is committing through a Section 106 Agreement to keep the Lord Street Sainsbury’s store open for a minimum five-year period following the opening of Meols Cop.

The remainder of the retail park is subject to various controls on what may be sold, as set out in the Committee Report and as affirmed by condition 31. Matters of air quality are already covered within the Committee Report, with impacts from the larger permitted store found to be acceptable by the Secretary of State.

Additionally, Nexus have taken account of the current Home Bargains store and condition 31 is designed to prevent further primary convenience retail from Units 2A & 2B.

The report concludes that there will be changes to the nature of traffic movement, but this will not be materially over and above existing levels, or those envisaged by the 2016 permission, and there is ample capacity in the existing network to accommodate traffic flows to and from the development.

As the Sainsbury-Asda merger is not now proceeding, no weight can be afforded to the suggestion that the stated job opportunities will not be created due to the merger.

Correct naming of applicant

During the discussions relating to the Section 106 Agreement, it became apparent that there was an issue relating to the correct naming of the applicant. At the time of the application submission, the applicant was:

“BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES TRUST COMPANY LIMITED AND BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES TRUST COMPANY (JERSEY) LIMITED AS TRUSTESS FOR THE TRITON NO 2 PROPERTY UNIT TRUST (JERSEY) AND SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LIMITED” In an email dated 9 October 2019, the agents for the planning application, Savills, asked that the applicant details be updated to identify them as follows:

“BNP PARIBAS DEPOSITORY SERVICES LIMITED AND BNP PARIBAS DEPOSITORY SERVICES (JERSEY) LIMITED BEING THE TRUSTEES FOR UBS TRITON NO 2 PROPERTY UNIT TRUST (JERSEY).”

The applicant has since acknowledged that there was an error in the name noted on the planning application and that it should have noted the new company name on its submission. The Council’s concerns related to possible unforeseen issues that may have arisen out of the fact that the application was lodged in the wrong company name.

The Section 106 Agreement has been completed with the new company name noted. The office copy entries also refer to the new company name. As such, the only reference to the old (incorrect) company name is on the planning application. The landowner has indicated that the decision notice will need to be amended to note the new company name.

The Plymouth case (R. (on the application of Park Pharmacy Trust) v Plymouth City Council [2008] EWHC 445 (Admin)) follows the line of authority from Main v Swansea City Council (1985) 49 P. & C.R. 26.

In Main, the Court of Appeal (CA) determined that there was sufficient failure in the certificate to enable a court to quash the resulting grant in 'certain circumstances'. The defects were not such as to amount to a complete nullity and it was a matter of the Court's discretion whether relief should be granted.

In Plymouth, Sullivan J (as was) similarly declined to quash where there was an error in naming (as here). He concluded 'no possible basis' to quash because: (i) the LPA had been able to consider the merits, (ii) the LPA had been able to readily communicate with the applicant despite the error, and, (iii) no one had been prejudiced.

In the Plymouth case, the LPA had knowledge of the error in the application prior to determining the application. The relevant officer in that case specifically advised the Committee that the error in the name “did not affect the planning process”. This advice was specifically found by Sullivan J to be 'entirely correct'.

It is considered appropriate to consider the principles contained within the Plymouth judgment prior to progressing the current application. Having regard to the judgement:

(i) The merits of the case have already been considered and through this updated Committee Report, are being re-considered in full, (ii) There has been no loss of communication with the applicants, who have been represented by Savills continually throughout both the processing of the planning application and the S106, and (iii) The naming error causes no prejudice to any party (including third parties) involved in the planning process, as the application has been consistently referred to throughout as an application for a new Sainsburys store. It is not considered that the name change would give rise to different matters being raised.

It is therefore safe to conclude that there is no offence to the principles set out by the Plymouth judgment. It follows that there is also no prejudice resulting from the way the application has been certified under Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) () Order 2015 (as amended).

The naming error is not considered to be relevant to the planning decision.

Need for referral

Under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, it is a requirement that this application, should members be minded to approve, be referred to the Secretary of State for his determination, as it amounts to development outside a town centre including retail use in an out-of-centre location, is not in accordance with one or more provisions of the development plan and consists of or includes the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is over 5,000 sq. metres gross of retail floor space. The recommendation is therefore subject to both the completion of the Section 106 Agreement and there being no objections from the Secretary of State. Though the application was referred following Planning Committee in July 2019, it will need to be referred again in the event of any further resolution from members that planning permission should be granted.

Environmental Impact Assessment

It is confirmed that the proposals have been subject to screening under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. The Council’s screening opinion was published on 13 September 2018 (DC/2018/01686) and confirmed that a full Environmental Impact Assessment was not required in this case. This screening opinion remains effective until 13 September 2020. Planning Balance and Conclusion

As set out above, Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that, where regard is to be had to the statutory development plan in determining an application for planning permission, the determination shall be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The assessment undertaken by Savills and the analysis from Nexus confirms there are no suitable sequential alternative sites. It is nevertheless clear that there is no up-to-date appraisal with regard to impacts on Southport Town Centre, and consequently, there is no direct compliance with the relevant retail policies of the Sefton Local Plan, or the relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

However, the weight to be given to this non-compliance is clearly outweighed by the fact that there is a genuine prospect of the 2016 permission being fully implemented and traded. This would mean that the granting of planning permission can be fairly based on the rationale that the retail impacts would be less than that would result from the 2016 permission. The fall back position should therefore be afforded significant weight.

It is concluded that the proposed development would contribute to economic growth and generate a significant number of new jobs both during the construction phase and once the store is operational. This benefit can be afforded significant weight.

The proposal, despite being on a smaller scale than the 2016 planning permission, would increase the choice and variety of available convenience goods. The site is relatively accessible by a variety of means of transport even though many would undertake their journeys by car. The design of the proposal is acceptable and would improve the overall appearance of the retail park. There is some moderate support for the proposals. These factors should be afforded a moderate degree of weight.

The s.106 agreement requires an opportunity for local labour and reinforces protection over the Lord Street store. This protection is necessary to enable the recommendation to grant planning permission and ensuring that both the town centre store and this one trade concurrently. This is a factor that would mitigate the potential harm to Southport Town Centre.

It is therefore clear that the proposal satisfies the economic, social and environmental roles of sustainable development and having had regard to the relevant provisions of the NPPF and the policies of the Sefton Local Plan, there are no other material planning considerations which would prevent the granting of planning permission.

The proposal would amount to sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF and Policy SD1 of the Sefton Local Plan. On this basis, it is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to referral to the Secretary of State, the provisions of the Section 106 Agreement completed 31 October 2019 and further referral of the application to the Secretary of State. Recommendation –

That the application be referred to the Secretary of State for determination with a recommendation for approval subject to the provisions of a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the planning conditions set out at the end of the report.

The legal agreement will include:  Commitment to keeping the Sainsbury’s Lord Street store open for a minimum five- year period.  Commitment to local labour provision.

Schedule of conditions:

1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2012-002 A-PL-01 Site Location Plan; 2012-002 A-PL-02 Existing Site Plan; 2012-002 A-PL-03 Proposed Site Plan Rev A; 2012-002 A-PL-04 Rev A; Proposed Ground Floor Store Layout; 2012-002 A-PL-08 Proposed Roof Plan; 2012-002 A-PL-10 Proposed Elevations; 2012-002 A-PL-11 Proposed Site Sections; 2012-002 A-PL-12 Proposed Petrol Filling Station 2012-002 A-PL-13 Existing Roof Plan; 2012-002 A-PL-14 Existing Retail Elevations, Noise Impact Assessment Report September 2018 and March 2019 addendum, Landscape Management Plan 6549.LMP.003 September 2018.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development.

3) No development shall take place above slab level until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance.

4) A scheme of noise control for any plant and equipment to be installed on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to its installation. The scheme of noise control shall demonstrate compliance with the maximum noise emission limits set out in Section 15 of the Noise Impact Assessment Report by Hann Tucker (March 2019 addendum). The approved scheme shall be implemented and shall thereafter be retained and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

5) A scheme of odour control for any kitchen or other extraction systems shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to their installation. The approved odour control scheme shall be implemented on site before the extraction system is brought into operation. Thereafter it shall be retained and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and ensure an acceptable visual appearance.

6) The development hereby permitted shall not be open for trading until the following highway works have been completed:

• Construction of the new vehicular access servicing the development from Foul Lane together with the realignment and reconstruction of the pedestrian footway and the installation of flush kerbs and tactile paving either side of the access. • Closure of the redundant vehicular access on Meols Cop Road together with the realignment and reconstruction of the pedestrian footway. • Construction of the new traffic signal-controlled junction incorporating controlled pedestrian crossing facilities across the access to the car park. • Removal of the existing bus stop within the lay-by on the east side of Meols Cop Road and introduction of a replacement bus stop within the existing carriageway alignment on the east side of Meols Cop Road, including the installation of access kerbs, a raised footway area, a new bus stop post and timetable and appropriate carriageway markings. • Upgrading of the existing northbound stop on Meols Cop Road, to the north of Fine Jane’s Brook with access kerbs and a raised footway area. • Reconstruction and widening to 3.0m of existing pedestrian/cycle path on the south side of Fine Jane’s Brook between Meols Cop Road and Foul Lane, including the provision of a scheme of lighting. • Introduction of waiting restrictions on both sides of the section of Meols Cop Road between the Kew Roundabout and Fine Jane’s Brook.

Reason: To ensure that acceptable access is achieved to the development and to safeguard other highway users at all times.

7) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The CMS shall be carried out as approved and adhered to throughout the construction period. The CMS shall provide for:

• The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors. • Loading and unloading of plant and materials. • Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development. • The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate. • The drainage of the site whilst ensuring the protection of the surface water system, including Fine Jane’s Brook, from pollutants, contamination and construction debris. • Hours of working. • Wheel washing facilities. • Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction. • A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works.

Reason: This is required prior to the commencement of development to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users during both the demolition and construction phase of the development.

8) No development shall take place until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CTMP shall include details of how construction traffic will be managed during the construction period to ensure the safety of highway users and the free flow of traffic on the highway network. The CTMP shall be carried out as approved and remain in place throughout the construction period.

Reason: This is required prior to the commencement of development to ensure the safety of highway users during both the demolition and construction phase of the development. If the details are not approved prior to commencement it will prejudice the safety of highway users.

9) A suitable 4m high acoustic barrier with a minimum mass of 12kg/m2 and a sound absorbing face shall be erected around the service yard as set out in the Noise Impact Assessment Report by Hann Tucker (September 2018 and addendum March 2019). The acoustic barrier shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and erected before the service yard becomes operational and retained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

10) No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall be based on sustainable drainage principles in accordance with the principles and provisions set out in the Flood Risk Assessment by Hadfield Cawkwell Davidson (August 2018). It shall also include details of future management and maintenance to ensure it remains effective for the lifetime of the development. The approved surface water drainage scheme shall be carried out before the store is open for trading and shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details for so long as the retail use continues to operate. Reason: These details are needed prior to the commencement of development in case design changes are necessary; to promote sustainable development, to secure proper drainage and to manage risk of flooding and pollution.

11) No development shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of foul sewerage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: These details are needed prior to the commencement of development in case design changes are necessary; to promote sustainable development, to secure proper drainage and to manage risk of flooding and pollution.

12) No development shall take place until details of an acoustic fence along the treatment of the northern boundary of the application site, to include acoustic mitigation around the car park and recycling centre (including its height, finish and density), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The acoustic fence shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details before the store is occupied and open for trading and shall thereafter be retained for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

13) No pile driving, or ground compaction works shall take place unless details of the methodology to be employed; the hours and duration of the works; and how dust, vibration and noise is to be mitigated, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

14) The development hereby permitted shall not be open for trading until the Hackney Carriage lay-by as shown on Drawing No: 2012-002 A-PL-03 Rev A has been provided. An additional six spaces reserved for ‘accessible’ users must also be provided within the wider Retail park (defined by the blue line on Drawing No 2012- 002 A-PL-01). It shall thereafter be retained for its intended purpose for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate provision is made for Hackney Carriages in the interest of promoting alternative modes of travel.

15) The development hereby permitted shall not be open for trading until the areas for car parking and cycle parking and four electric vehicle charging points have been provided in accordance with the details on Drawing No: 2012-002 A-PL-03 Rev A. These parking areas shall be retained for their intended purpose during the lifetime of the development. Reason: To ensure that enough cycle parking is provided for the development in the interest of promoting non-car based modes of travel whilst facilitating the use of electric vehicles to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions.

16) The development hereby permitted shall not be open for trading until a Travel Plan Co-ordinator has been appointed. Within 6 months of the opening of the foodstore hereby permitted, a Travel Plan shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall follow the general principles, strategies, review and monitoring arrangements set out in the Framework Travel Plan V0.4, revised September 2018. The approved Travel Plan shall be in place for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: To meet sustainable transport objectives including a reduction in single occupancy car journeys and the increased use of public transport, walking & cycling.

17) All landscaping as shown on drawing nos. 6549.ASP.PP.1.0, 6549.ASP.PP.1.1, 6549.ASP.PP.1.2 (Planting Plans 1-3) and 6549.LMP.003 shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the store opening for trading. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. Reason: To ensure an acceptable visual appearance to the development.

18) The measures identified within the Landscape Management Plan submitted by Aspect Landscape Planning (September 2018) shall be carried out as approved and its provisions implemented during the lifetime of the development hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable visual appearance to the development.

19) No development shall take place above slab level until a scheme for refuse storage and recycling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out before the store is open for trading and shall be retained for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate facilities are provided within the development for refuse storage and recycling.

20) The collection of waste from the recycling centre shall not be undertaken outside the hours of 0800 and 2000.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

21) The jet wash facility shall not be made available for operation outside the hours of 0800 and 2100.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users. 22) The air-line/compressor shall not be made available for operation outside the hours of 0700 and 2300. The noise level of any air-line compressor/tyre inflator shall not exceed 80dB(A) at 1 metre at any time.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

23) The noise level from any individual petrol pump shall not exceed 68 dBA at 1 metre at any time.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

24) No tree, shrub or hedgerow felling, or any vegetation management and/or cutting operations shall take place during the period 1st March to 31st August inclusive unless any such works are supervised at all times by a qualified professional ecologist.

Reason: To protect birds during their breeding season.

25) No development shall commence until a detailed scheme precluding the storage of building materials within a minimum of 5 metres of the top of the bank of Fine Jane’s Brook including details of methods of protection to this zone has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed measures shall be retained thereafter during the construction period.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation (water vole habitat).

26) The measures in the Energy Assessment Report and Ventilation Report by BSD in August 2018 shall be incorporated into the design of the store and shall be available for use before it is open for trading. The measures shall be retained for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: To ensure that the development contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions using low carbon, decentralised and renewable energy measures.

27) All external lighting on the building and within the site boundary shall be housed in full cut-off lanterns with an angle of elevation set no higher than 5 degrees from the horizontal to limit sky glow and glare.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

28) The foodstore hereby permitted shall be subject to the following floorspace restrictions:

• The total gross internal floorspace shall not exceed 7,492 sqm including any mezzanine floorspace. • The net retail floor area (excluding checkouts, lobbies, concessions, restaurants, customer toilets and walkways behind the checkouts) shall not exceed 4,705 sqm including any mezzanine floorspace. • The total retail sales area for the sale and display of convenience goods shall not exceed 2,939 sqm including any mezzanine floorspace. • The total retail sales area for the sale and display of comparison goods shall not exceed 1,765 sqm including any mezzanine floorspace.

Reason: To safeguard the vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre.

29) The development hereby permitted shall be used as a single unit and shall not be subdivided into two or more retail units without express planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre.

30) No more than 2 concession units shall be provided within the building hereby permitted and neither shall exceed 145 sqm gross internal floor area.

Reason: To safeguard the vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre.

31) Apart from the development hereby permitted and Unit 2C (Home Bargains), no other unit on the retail park, as defined by the blue line on Drawing No 2012-002 A-PL-01, shall be used for the sale and display of ‘food and drink’ goods. No unit other than the development hereby permitted shall be used for the primary sale and display of ‘food and drink’ goods (i.e. no more than 50% of net retail floor area) without express planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre.

32) No other retail unit on the retail park, as defined by the blue line on Drawing No 2012- 002 A-PL-01, shall be further subdivided into two or more retail units without express planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To assist in safeguarding the vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre.

33) Prior to commencement of development a detailed remediation strategy to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks and the relevant pollutant linkages identified in the approved investigation and risk assessment, must be prepared and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

The strategy must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and roles and responsibilities. The strategy must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 on completion of the development and commencement of its use. In the event that the proposed remediation scheme involves the provision of a ground cover system a plan indicating the existing and proposed external ground levels on the application site shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, ecological systems, property and residential amenity and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

34) The approved remediation strategy must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation. Following completion of the remedial works identified in the approved remediation strategy, a verification report that demonstrates compliance with the agreed remediation objectives and criteria must be produced and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority, prior to commencement of use of the development.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, ecological systems, property and residential amenity and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

35) In the event that previously unidentified contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development immediate contact must be made with the Local Planning Authority and works must cease in that area. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of the remedial works identified in the approved remediation strategy, verification of the works must be included in the verification report required by condition 34.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, ecological systems, property and residential amenity and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.