Ribble Valley Borough Council s19

This report needs to be read in conjunction with the DATE INSPECTED: 23 DECEMBER 2014 Decision Notice.

Ribble Valley Borough Council

DELEGATED ITEM FILE REPORT - APPROVAL

Ref: JM/CMS Application No: 3/2014/1081/P Development Proposed: Variation of condition 8 of planning consent 3/2005/0587/P to allow the sale and display of any A1 non-food goods by catalogue showroom retailer for up to 185m2 of the existing sales area at Homebase Clitheroe CONSULTATIONS: Parish/Town Council Town Council - No objections to this proposal.

CONSULTATIONS: Highway/Water Authority/Other Bodies Environment Directorate (County Surveyor) – It is anticipated that delivery of the vehicles associated with the proposed change we manage accordingly. It is believed that the proposed change is unlikely to have a significant effect onto the adjacent highway network. There is no objection to the proposed development on highway grounds.

Environment Agency – N/A.

CONSULTATIONS: Additional Representations. One letter of representation has been received which raises concern that the development be at the rear of the Homebase store as it is a very busy access road and could cause problems in relation to highway safety.

RELEVANT POLICIES: Core Strategy 2008-2028 – A Local Plan for Ribble Valley – adopted version Policy DMG1 – General Considerations. Policy DMR1 – Retail Development in Clitheroe.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG).

COMMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL/AONB/HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES/RECOMMENDATION: This proposal seeks a variation of condition to commit the use of 185m 2 of the existing ground floor of the Homebase store for a catalogue showroom retailer. There is to be no external changes but one would envisage that some signage details advertising the new retail store or the retail element will all be submitted in due course. To assist the determination of this application a Design and Access Statement and supporting statement has been submitted which indicates that the retailer would be Argos and it would be a service known as a click and reserve service. The proposal would include a broad selection of non- food goods and visiting public would normally select the goods from a catalogue or digital browser and it would then be supplied to them fully packaged. The proposed Insert would occupy approximately 6% of the gross internal area floor space of the existing Homebase store. The remainder of the store and the garden centre will continue as present.

The relevant policies for consideration in relation to the Core Strategy relate to DMR1 and DMG1. Policy DMG1 deals with general considerations and it is clear that there are no issues in relation to residential amenity, highway safety and associated other considerations. Policy DMR1 deals with retail proposals in Clitheroe and would give consideration to the impact on existing retail outlets and have regard to any potential harm and viability to the town centre. The Homebase store was approved in 2005 as an edge of town development and since then there have been approvals for other retail food stores which would also be considered edge of settlement.

In considering the proposal regard needs to be given to the appropriateness of the sequential approach and paragraph 24 of the NPPF confirms that where new main town centre uses are proposed which are not within existing centres and not in accord with the development plan they should be supported by sequential assessment. It is accepted that the Homebase is an out of centre location but I consider it to be accessible and well related to existing shops in relation to the town centre. The proposal does not involve any new retail space and the application if approved will simply reuse a small part of the existing Homebase sales area to sell a broader range of A1 non-food goods.

The new NPPG ensuring the vitality of town centres, paragraphs 8-12, concentrates on the application of approach to new or main town centre uses and that the application of the sequential test should be proportionate and appropriate for the given proposal. I am of the opinion that the limited amount of square meterage would not have any significant harm and as such there is no need for a formal sequential test assessment to test the retail implications of the new floor space.

The applicants have considered the limited impact but has still included a brief assessment of available retail accommodation within the town centre. They also have had regard to the requirement of the catolgue store and therefore have limited many of the vacant shops.

In relation to retail impact the proposal relates to a maximum of 185m2. It is important to emphasise that no new retail space is proposed and that the development is below the threshold of 2,500m2 in paragraph 26 of the NPPF and paragraph 16 of the NPPG concerns:

 the impact test only applies to proposals exceeding 2,500m2 gross of floor space unless a different locally approved standards are set by the Local Planning Authority. In relation to the Core Strategy there is no revised threshold.

The applicant in a supporting statement has indicated that according to Argos’ sales data that approximately 75% of the proposed turnover will be in goods that are already permitted by the operational permissions and/or sold by Homebase. It should be noted that Homebase does sell many items of garden furniture and electrical goods which I would confirm is what you would expect to be sold in an Argos.

It is indicated that they would expect that the turnover will be generated from the existing Homebase customers although do recognise that there will be some new customers who presently shop at existing Argos stores and perhaps in the locality.

Some benefits of such a store would be that we would maximise use of existing building which is in a stable location and the possibility provides linked trips with both Homebase and nearby stores and provide customers with easy access Argos’ bulky range of goods thereby making it more convenient for shoppers. It is also indicated that would probably be around 15 jobs to be located.

To conclude I am satisfied that the proposal would not cause harm to existing retail elements of any significance and there would not be a significant adverse impact as defined in paragraph 27 of the NPPF. The regeneration section they cocluded that they would have no objection or concern about the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION: That the condition be modified with the additional phrase “notwithstanding the above the sale and display of any A1 non-food goods by a catalogue showroom retailer will be permitted for up to 185m2 of the existing sales area”.