It Is Considered That the Proposed Development Will Not Cause Significant Harm to the Amenity

REDCAR AND CLEVELAND BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT)

COMMITTEE DATE: 3 March 2010

LIST: D

APPLICATION NUMBER: R/2009/0777/FFM

Application For: Proposed Retail Food Store At: Land to the Rear of the Medical Centre East of the Extended Spring Wood Road, Guisborough

PROPOSAL:

Planning permission is sought for a food store with associated access road, servicing and parking on land at Spring Wood Road, Guisborough.

The retail store would be located within an area identified for employment purposes on land south of Rectory Lane. A medical centre lies to the north, Belmont House office block lies and a Focus DIY unit lie to the north west. There are residential properties to the south of the former railway line, beyond the bowls/cricket club to the east and along Rectory Lane. The site is approximately 150 metres to the south east of Guisborough District Centre and is considered an edge of centre site.

The gross floor area would be 1,457 square metres with a retail sales area of 990 square metres.

104 car parking spaces would be provided and this figure includes 4 disabled spaces and 2 parent and child spaces. 8 free standing cycle stands would be provided at the store entrance which would provide 16 cycle parking spaces.

Aldi intend to restrict the range of goods to between 850 and 1,000 products. This range ensures high volume and high turnover. This compares with major supermarkets that sell from a range of up to 20,000+ products and more modest sized operators such as Iceland that have floor areas of 1,000 -1,500 square metres that sell between 2,500 and 4,000 products. Aldi are not therefore mainstream competitors.

Aldi estimate that a store of the size proposed would provide employment for between 12-15 people. Company policy is to recruit from the local area.

Aldi propose to open the store between 0800 and 2000 Mondays to Saturdays and between 1000 and 1800 on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

The site has maximum dimensions of approximately 130 metres by 80 metres in size having an irregular shape. The building would occupy the southern part of the site with parking to the north and east. Landscaping is proposed at the perimeter The building would have a flat roof and have maximum dimensions of approximately 59 metres by approximately 32 metres (including the eastward projecting delivery bay). The building at its highest would reach a maximum of approximately 5.5 metres measured from ground level. The exterior would have a white and aluminium finish. The entrance would be at the north side of building. A dark grey aluminium canopy would run across part of the front (north) elevation and partly across the western elevation.

A ‘Planning and PPS6 Statement’ together with supplementary documentation dealing with the issues raised in the recently published PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) have been submitted to support the proposal. It recognises that the site is allocated for employment purposes under ‘saved’ Policy IND3. The Statement notes that the Employment Land Review acknowledges that the site is unlikely to come forward for that type of development as funding is required to provide the necessary infrastructure to accommodate the development. Further, the Statement notes that there is 133 years supply of employment land in East Cleveland and 25 years in Guisborough. It concludes that the development of a food store at this site would not materially affect the supply of employment land in the District. The applicant’s consider that the development of a food store at this site would enhance the prospects of the remaining land through the provision of infrastructure.

A Transport Assessment has been submitted to support the application. This noted that the accident records show that the two junctions likely to have the greatest impact in terms of additional traffic: Rectory Lane/Spring Wood Road and the priority junction at Rectory Lane/New Road have no personal injury accidents. Spring Wood Road/ Rectory Lane junction and the Rectory Lane/New Road junctions were modelled. The analysis showed that neither would suffer a significant impact as a result of this development. The assessment also notes that the location is readily accessible to sustainable modes of transport.

A Travel Plan, Ecological Assessment, Planning and PPS6 Statement, Design and Access Statement, Supporting Consultation Statement, Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Assessment, Sustainability Statement and Drainage Statement also supported this application.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN:

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The North East of England Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021

Guisborough is identified within the RSS as a ‘Rural Service Centre’, providing services to its largely rural surroundings and villages. Policy 11 states that ‘planning proposals should support the development of a vibrant rural economy that makes a positive contribution to regional prosperity, whilst protecting the Region’s environmental assets from inappropriate development by strengthening the role of the Rural Service Centres’. In addition, one of the key objectives within ‘Theme 3B: Delivering Sustainable Communities’ is to focus all types of retail development, particularly high trip generating uses, within city, town and rural service centres.

Redcar and Cleveland Local Development Framework:

CS7 - Spatial Strategy for Guisborough

Policy CS7 sets out the spatial strategy for Guisborough over the plan period. Of particular relevance to this application, the strategy states that the Council and its partners will a) enhance the role of Guisborough as a rural service centre serving the towns and villages of East Cleveland and the wider rural area, for shopping, employment and local services; j) safeguard existing businesses, resist their redevelopment for housing and other non-employment uses where it meets the economic strategy for the town; k) support the development of the town centre for retail, leisure and service development; m) support the development of Morgan Drive and Cleveland Gate for medium and small-scale business development; and n) promote Cleveland Gate Business Park for information and technology businesses seeking an attractive environment.

CS9 - Protecting Existing Employment Areas

Policy CS9 seeks to safeguard land and buildings within existing business parks and industrial estates for business and general industry. Within Guisborough, land at Cleveland Gate Business Park and Morgan Drive are safeguarded.

CS11 – Innovative and New Technologies

Kirkleatham Business Park, Redcar and Cleveland Gate Business Park, Guisborough will be promoted for information and technology based businesses incorporating high quality building design and attractive environments.

CS18 - Town, District and Local Centres

Policy CS18 sets out the retail hierarchy for town, district and local centres within the borough. Guisborough is identified within the retail hierarchy as a district centre. The policy seeks to focus development proposals for town centre uses within town and district centres. The scale and type of development will reflect the centre’s existing and proposed function and its capacity for new development. A proposal for a town centre use will be required to follow the assessment approach set out within PPS6 in terms of need, scale, sequential approach to site selection, impact on other centres, including those beyond the Borough boundary, and accessibility.

CS20 - Promoting Good Design

Seeks to ensure a high standard of design which takes account of its surroundings, contributes towards a sense of place, designs out crime and incorporates sustainable design techniques to design reduce the local and global impact of the development. CS24 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

Seeks to protect the Boroughs biodiversity and geological resources.

CS26 – Managing Travel Demand

Seeks to encourage use of non-car modes of transport and the use of Travel Plans.

DP2 – Site Selection

Policy DP2 sets out the criteria for determining suitable locations for development. The criteria include requirements for development to: Not result in the unacceptable loss or significant adverse impact on important open spaces or environmental, built or heritage assets which are considered important to the quality of the local environment; Minimise the impact upon the overall character of the streetscape or loss of landscape area; Avoid locations that would put the environment or human health or safety at unacceptable risk; and Have infrastructure, services and community facilities to serve the development.

DP3 – Sustainable Design

The criteria covering the specific design requirements are set out in Policy DP3. On major developments at least 10% of the predicted energy requirement should be from renewable sources.

Policy DP4 Developer Contributions

The Council will seek to negotiate planning obligations to secure necessary community benefits required as a consequence of the development. The level of developer contribution will be commensurate with the scale and nature of the proposal.

Policy DP5 Art and Development

On major developments, developers will be encouraged to provide the equivalent of at least 1% of the cost of the development for an artistic element provided as an integral part of the design of the development.

DP6 – Pollution Control

Seeks to ensure that proposals to not give rise pollution or are mitigated to acceptable levels.

DP7 – Potentially Contaminated and Unstable Land

Seeks to ensure that effective measures are taken to deal with any contamination.

DP11- Archaeological Sites and Monuments

Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan 1999: Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan (Saved Policies)

IND3 General Industry, Business and Warehousing

Policy IND3 sets out the areas which will be reserved primarily for general industry, business uses or warehousing. This includes land to the south of Blackett Hutton, Guisborough (B1 use only) and land north of Middlesbrough Road, Guisborough (B1offices/ research and development only).

SH12 Retail Development on Industrial Estates

Retail development will only be permitted on industrial estates where it involves: a) stores for the sale of bulky goods which cannot be accommodated in existing town or district centres or on the edge of such centres; or b) retailing ancillary to and inextricably linked with a business or industrial use where the main use would be inappropriate in a town centre; or c) small scale retail uses providing a local service to those working in an industrial area. Total floorspace in any one unit should not exceed 200 sq m of A1, A2 or A3 use.

Other Documentation

Redcar and Cleveland Strategic Retail, Leisure and Office Study 2006

Guisborough Market Towns Retail Distinctiveness Project 2006

RELEVANT HISTORY:

R/2006/1123/FFM: Erection of Major Retail Store with Associated Car Parking, Access Road and Service Yard – Withdrawn

R/2009/0777/FFM: Screening Opinion issued 17 December 2009 advising that the proposal did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

This application has been advertised as a ‘Departure’ from the Development Plan by means of both press and site notices. The application has also been the subject of local consultation. As a result 28 letters/e-mails have been received from the occupiers of 78, Alderley, 102 Belmangate, 1 Craven Vale, 28 Chaloner Street,47 De Brus Way, 145,194, 198 (1 letter/1e-mail) Enfield Chase, 6 Fountain Street, 12 Grafton Close, 5, 31 Kemplah House, 3 Kindlewood Gardens, 6 (2 letters) Middleton Drive, 10 Pytchley Road, 180 Westgate, 23 Wilson Street, Guisborough Bowls Club, Garth Surgery, Rectory Lane, 22 Rievaulx Way all Guisborough; 22 Bluebell Way, Skelton and two unaddressed, Lord Gisborough and Peacock and Smith (2 letters) on behalf of Morrison’s making the following comments:

1. Guisborough already has a number of major food retailers within and around the town. The addition of another outlet, out of the centre, could potentially weaken the position of the existing town centre operations, in turn weakening the retail attraction of the existing town centre. The number of units in and around the Westgate area is already a reflection of a lack of viability and vitality in the retail market. 2. The proposal would impact upon the surrounding road network due to additional traffic. This could add to additional congestion particularly around the adjacent signalised junctions and roads leading to the town centre. This extra traffic is likely to increase safety problems on the affected network. Additional severe delays at the Rectory Lane traffic lights may impede access and egress to the medical centre. 3. The design is their standard building that they would have anywhere. It is the first building on what might become a business park. Care was taken over the design of the medical centre. It is important that Aldi should be a high quality building that sets the standard for any future buildings on the area. 4. The site is highly visible to the residents in Belmangate. Accept that the designation in the Local Development Framework will almost inevitably result in its development but have concerns that the built form of the development would have a detrimental effect on the prospect from adjacent and affected properties. The development should be sympathetic to the site’s location on the edge of the National Park and heavily screened to minimise the impact from views into the site. 5. Potential for light pollution. Any lighting should be restricted in direction, emissions and time. 6. Appreciate Aldi fills a niche market place not currently satisfied in Guisborough. 7. Regularly use the Redcar store and recognise the quality and range provided. 8. Question whether this is the right site, although options are limited. 9. Would be interested to know what sequential location examination had taken place in the area. 10.Would be happy to see an Aldi to negate the need to travel to other stores in Middlesbrough/Redcar. Those working in Belmont House could do their shopping in the lunch hour. 11.It would bring in more visitors and local shops would benefit. 12.It is in a better location than the proposed Lidl store due to the dangerous proposed entrance. The development of this site whether by Aldi or Lidl should be encouraged. 13.Anything that brings employment can only be good. Aldi and Lidl represent the only real competition to the big supermarkets. 14.The existing two stores are too expensive to shop in. 15.The queues in Morrison’s demonstrate Guisborough is under serviced with outlets. 16.The town has doubled in size it follows the town will develop more 17.It would be welcomed by low income families. 18.The land is an eyesore. 19.More accessible from Lingdale. 20.Aldi give shopping vouchers and this is a much needed necessity especially now money is tight. 21.Concerns regarding the security of the club during the construction phase and afterwards due to the increased exposure to the public. 22.Concerns that noise during construction and once the store is open would interfere with the existing calm and quite location. Whilst the Design and Access Statement refers to the need to ‘enhance boundaries’ to consider views from certain areas that includes the bowling green it does not identify the car parking issue as a consideration. 23. No details of the boundary treatment can be found in the Design and Access Statement. 24.The bowling club is dismayed that Aldi did not consider extending an invitation for the club to attend one of the exhibitions it held and some of the concerns may have then been dispelled. 25.Would introduce more choice. 26.Would create more jobs. 27.The site is an edge of centre site allocated for Class B1 employment uses by saved Policy IND3. 28.Concern regarding the increase in traffic and its impact upon the access to the medical centre where queuing can cause problems in an emergency situation. 29.Question that the correct catchments area has been used 30.Assessment has failed to include all the retail stores (The Avenue and Enfield Chase) in the area. 31.Consider cumulative impacts on the Centre are likely to be significant.

Town Council

No adverse comment, subject to the building being sympathetic to the surgery building and if there is provision of a cycle way from the branch walkway.

Natural England

Based on the information provided in the Ecological Assessment, Natural England has outstanding concerns regarding the proposal as further information is required concerning great crested newts, reptiles etc. Natural England recommends that the application should be refused/deferred/withdrawn/suspended until the applicant submits sufficient information to show that the species would not be affected or that potential effects would be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated the information provided

Northumbrian Water

Development should not commence until a detailed scheme for the disposal of surface water has been approved. Contaminated Land Officer

The Phase1 Geo-Environmental Assessment report identifies potentially significant source pathway receptor linkages to human health, groundwater and surface water and therefore recommends a Phase 2 intrusive investigation.

The Conceptual Model identifies groundwater as both a potential pathway and receptor and it is essential that a groundwater investigation and assessment should be included as there is a potential for the site to be underlain from migration from the gas works approximately 90m NE of the site.

The report also states that no gas protection measures are necessary – this department disagrees with this comment as there are no trial pit/ borehole logs describing the strata and a gas monitoring regime may be necessary dependant on what strata is identified.

It is recommended that consideration be given for a gas risk assessment to be carried out in line with CIRIA 665 2007

Prior to any intrusive investigation it is recommended that the design of a site investigation is submitted to the Local Planning Authority in writing for approval.

With respect to the above findings and recommendations it is recommended the full standard contaminated land condition be imposed.

Highways and Transportation

No objections to the proposal from a highway point of view but have the following comments:

1. Would like to secure (either by condition or Section 106 Agreement) a pedestrian/cycle link from the walkway to the extended Springwood Road. 2. We have reviewed the applicants Transport Assessment, submitted in support of this application and are satisfied that it meets the requirements laid out in the scoping report. However further development seeking access from the proposed access road would need further assessment carrying out to ascertain its impact on the local highway network. 3. With regard to the Travel Plan also submitted in support of this application, we have the following comments to make;  Section 6 Travel Plan targets, rather than the wording “following completion” a timescale should be set for the targets, generally a survey is carried out within 6 months of opening and an action plan produced from this survey.  Section 7.5 Cycling, there appears to be no provision of changing rooms, showers or storage lockers. Cycling training could be offered via RCBC.  Section 7.12 Car Sharing, Promotion of the 2+travel website is needed and it appears the potential for car sharing with other workers in Guisborough has been overlooked. 4. The carriageway and footways proposed for the development shall be designed, constructed, drained and lit to a standard suitable for adoption and in this respect further details, including longitudinal/cross sections, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before work commences on site. 5. The use shall not be commenced until the access and parking requirements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. 6. All vehicular areas are to be bound, (the use of permeable surfacing is recommended), surfaced and sustainably drained to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. 7. Before the development commences details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of proposals to provide contractor car parking and a materials storage compound with in the site boundary for the duration of the works. 8. Before the development commences details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing of proposals to prevent mud/debris from being deposited on the highway for the duration of the construction period. 9. Before the development commences details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of a traffic management plan for the construction phase of the works. Details are also to be included of the site access. 10.Before the development commences, details shall be submitted and approved in writing of a surface water management plan to accompany this submission. 11.The applicant is proposing to discharge his surface water via an infiltration system, but this is subject to further investigation. However there is a history in the area of existing sands and gravels acting as a drainage conduit as opposed to soakaways. Springwood Road has also recently occurrences of flooding due to excess surface water streaming down from the adjacent Guisborough hills. The final drainage scheme needs to be agreed.

Tees Archaeology

Archaeological remains are present in the form of earthwork remains of a former medieval field system and drove way along with the archaeological remains of a mid 19th century railway line.

The proposed development would lead to the destruction of these deposits which are of local importance. It is recommended that a programme of archaeological works takes place prior to the development to allow a record to be made of the upstanding and buried remains of the site so that they are preserved by record. This is in accordance with the advice given in PPG 16 ‘Archaeology and Planning’. Arborist

There are trees to the south of site managed by the Council as part of the walkway.

There are three Beech trees growing in the middle of the site. They are mature specimens approximately 80 years old and are average to poor condition. There is evidence of damage caused by livestock and flooding. There are a number of old wounds and tears on the main stems of all three trees and these are possible sites of future decay. It is considered that that the safe useful life of the trees is compromised. None are therefore worthy of protection.

Redcar and Cleveland Employment Land Review

The Employment Land Review assesses the supply, need and demand for employment land and premises in the Borough. The study identifies employment sites available in Guisborough at land north of Middlesbrough Road, Morgan Drive and Cleveland Gate Business Park. The study recognises that the currently available site to the north of Middlesbrough Road is likely to be removed and allocated for housing due to its physical constraints and that the remaining land at Cleveland Gate Business Park has not been forthcoming for employment land partly due to the landowner holding out for value uses. The study indicates that a scheme of small workshops should be provided and that the feasibility of developing a small business centre should also be considered. The study indicates that land at Cleveland Gate needs to be brought forward and would be suitable for more general light industrial units, preferably some being available freehold.

REASONED ARGUMENT:

Planning permission is sought for a food store with associated access road, servicing and parking on land at Spring Wood Road, Guisborough.

The building would have a flat roof and have maximum dimensions of approximately 59 metres by approximately 32 metres (including the eastward projecting delivery bay). The building at its highest would reach a maximum of approximately 5.5 metres measured from ground level. The exterior would have a white and aluminium finish. The entrance would be at the north side of building. A dark grey aluminium canopy would run across part of the front (north) elevation and partly across the western elevation.

PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth updates national planning policy guidance for town centres and retail development, bringing it together within one integrated policy document looking at economic development as a whole. Policy EC10 indicates that local authorities should adopt a positive and constructive approach to planning applications for economic development. All applications for economic development should be assessed against the following impacts:

a) whether the proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide emissions and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to, climate change; b) the accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the car, the effect on local traffic levels and congestion (especially to the trunk road network) after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured; c) whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions; d) the impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives; and e) the impact on local employment

The approach continues to prioritise development towards existing centres to protect the vitality and viability of these centres. Policies EC14 and EC15 advise that where there is an application for retail development outside of an existing centre or on a site not allocated in an up to date development plan document, the sequential approach must be applied. Developers should demonstrate that alternative sites within or on the edge of existing centres have been thoroughly assessed. They must also have been flexible about their proposed business model in terms the scale and format of their development, car parking provision and the scope for disaggregation, when considering alternative sites

Policy EC16 requires that where an application for a main town centre use is made outside of an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan, an impact assessment must be submitted. The impact assessment should assess the following impacts on centres:

a) 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; b) the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer; c) the impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the development plan; d) in the context of a retail or leisure proposal, the impact of the proposal on in- centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future consumer expenditure capacity in the catchment area up to five years from the time the application is made, and, where applicable, on the rural economy; e) If located in or on the edge of a town centre, whether the proposal is of an appropriate scale (in terms of gross floorspace) in relation to the size of the centre and its role in the hierarchy of centres; and f) Any locally important impacts on centres. Policy EC17 advises that where a proposal for a main town centre use is made outside of a centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan, permission should be refused where the applicant has not demonstrated that they have following the sequential approach or there is clear evidence to show that the proposal would likely lead to significant adverse impacts upon existing centres. The impact upon existing centres should also take account of the likely cumulative effect of the proposed development together with any recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments.

Where no significant adverse impacts have been identified, the proposal should be determined by taking account of the positive and negative impact of the proposals in terms of Policy EC10 and any other material considerations, once again having regard to recent permissions, developments under construction and completed developments.

The planning application has been supported by a planning statement. Revised documentation has been received to incorporate the recent changes to national planning policy.

Site Selection

PPS4 requires developers to follow the sequential approach to site selection. The planning statement shows that the developer has considered two sites within the existing district centre. The site at Fountain Street has been ruled out because this site is not currently available and is unlikely to become available in the foreseeable future. Also this site is not considered to be large enough to accommodate the proposed development. The site at Reid Terrace has also been ruled out because it is considered to be insufficient in size to accommodate the proposed store. It is also within multiple ownerships, which would make it difficult to deliver. It is considered that the applicants have sufficiently considered these sites within the district centre and that there are no other suitable sites within the district centre.

The sequential approach requires sites on the edge-of-centres to be considered, there are no suitable sites within the existing centre. The planning statement shows that two edge-of-town sites have been considered. The former Peacocks Timber Yard was firstly considered. The statement expresses concerns regarding the access to the site and indicates that the size of the site would be insufficient to accommodate the proposed store. In addition, this site is bounded by residential properties, which may give rise to residential amenity issues. It is considered that this site would not be viable for the store proposed. The second edge-of centre site to be considered was land on the frontage of Cleveland Gate Business Park. This site is considered to be too small to be able to accommodate the proposed store and associated car parking. The assessment also indicates that acquiring neighbouring sites would be difficult and cost prohibitive which would render the proposal unviable.

It is considered that an appropriate sequential approach has been followed in assessing these sites and that there are no other sites within or closer to the District Centre which need to be considered. This land is safeguarded for business and general industrial use under Policy CS9 of the adopted Core Strategy. The proposed retail use is therefore contrary to Policy CS9. Whilst saved Local Plan Policy SH12 does allow for some forms of retail development on industrial estates and business parks, this is limited to convenience retail of no more than 200sq m in size which provide a local service to those working within the industrial area. The proposed store would have a floor area considerably larger than this and is designed to serve a much larger catchment area. The proposals would therefore be contrary to saved Local Plan Policy SH12.

The applicant’s supporting Retail Statement recognises that the application site is allocated for employment purposes under ‘saved’ Policy IND3. The Statement notes that the Employment Land Review acknowledges that the site is unlikely to come forward for that type of development as funding is required to provide the necessary infrastructure to accommodate the development. Further, the Statement notes that there is 133 years supply of employment land in East Cleveland and 25 years in Guisborough. It concludes that the development of a food store at this site would not materially affect the supply of employment land in the District. The applicant considers that the development of a food store at this site would enhance the prospects of the remaining land through the provision of infrastructure.

The supporting retail statement indicates that even with the loss of some allocated employment land within Cleveland Gate Business Park or the proposed development, there would still be approximately 6.8 hectares of employment land available in Guisborough. Although it is accepted that this is a reflection of the current situation, this includes 4.29 hectares at the site to the North of Middlesbrough Road. This site is retained as employment land through saved Local Plan Policy IND3. However, it is not included and protected through LDF Policy CS9. Furthermore; the site has recently been included as a proposed housing allocation in the Communities DPD Preferred Options. It is likely that the Council will pursue the re-allocation of this site for housing development through the LDF, and it is realistic to assume that the amount of available employment land remaining in Guisborough will be circa 2.5 hectares (Cleveland Gate and Morgan Drive). It is therefore not considered that there would be sufficient employment land within Guisbrough to justify the release of this safeguarded employment land for retailing. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposals include the intention to create an access to open up the remainder of the business park this does not override the impact that would be caused by the potential loss of the allocated and safeguarded employment land.

It is therefore considered that the application would be contrary to the adopted Development Plan and that the site is not suitable for the proposed retail store.

Impact on Existing Centres

The retail assessment submitted with the application indicates that the majority of the proposed store’s turnover is expected to be drawn from the Morrisons store within the district centre (48%) and the Sainsburys store on Rectory Lane (45%). This would equate to a loss of 8.7% of turnover at Morrison’s and a loss of 16.2% of turnover for the Sainsburys on Rectory Lane upon the stores opening in 2011, before falling slightly by 2014. The impact upon Morrisons is notable. However, it is acknowledged that Morrisons is probably overtrading and therefore the proposed development should not significantly harm the continuing operation of that store. The impact upon the Sainburys store is significant, but this store is located outside of the district centre and is not therefore afforded any protection under PPS4. There is an outstanding commitment for a Lidl store on the corner of Rectory Lane and Enfield Chase. PPS4 requires that the cumulative impact of this outstanding commitment and the proposed development upon the District Centre is considered. Due to the relatively small size of the proposed stores, the deep discount market that they would both be operating within which is currently unserved within the District Centre and the overtrading of Morrisons, it is considered that the proposals would not have a significant adverse impact upon Guisborough District Centre or the Local Centre at Enfield Chase.

Due to the nature of the goods sold, the proposed store is likely to have very limited impact upon the smaller convenience and comparison retailers within Guisborough District Centre and the Local Centre at Enfield Chase.

Character and Appearance

The application proposes a simple flat roof contemporary building of modest height on land allocated for employment purposes where a variety of commercial building could be expected to be developed. In this context and subject to final finishes and landscaping it is considered that the development would not harm either the character or appearance of the area.

Amenity

The development would be closest to leisure, business and medical uses on a site that is some distance from residential properties. The proposed traffic generation would be through a network of reasonably busy town centre streets before dissipating throughout the area. Opening hours, external lighting and deliveries could be restricted by planning condition. In this context and given that the land is earmarked for employment uses it is considered that the activity associated with this use should not impact upon the surrounding area to a degree that permission should be withheld on these grounds.

Accessibility

The application site is in an edge-of-centre location approximately 150m from Guisborough District Centre. The site would be within easy walking distance of the existing district centre and numerous bus routes which run along Westgate.

Highways

Access to the site is from an extended Spring Wood Road that runs immediately to the east of Belmont House. The applicant has provided the correct number of car parking spaces in total, his provision for disabled users is two spaces short. The agent has indicated the willingness to adjust the layout. Should planning permission be granted this could be achieved by planning condition. The cycle parking has been confirmed to be provided at the west side of the building under the wrap around canopy. Again full details may be achieved by planning condition. The Council as, Highway Authority, has reviewed the Transport Assessment submitted in support of this application and are satisfied that it meets the requirements laid out in the scoping report. However, further development seeking access from the proposed access road would need further assessment carrying out to ascertain its impact on the local highway network.

Drainage

A drainage statement has been submitted in support of the application. This advises that a new foul sewer would need to be provided and advises that all storm water drainage would be discharged by a SUDS infiltration system subject to infiltration tests. A satisfactory drainage scheme may be achieved by condition and this would satisfy Northumbrian Water’s requirements.

Trees

The trees have been inspected by the Council’s arborist. There are three Beech trees growing in the middle of the site. They are mature specimens approximately 80 years old and are average to poor condition. There is evidence of damage caused by livestock and flooding. There are a number of old wounds and tears on the main stems of all three trees and these are possible sites of future decay. It is considered that that the safe useful life of the trees is compromised. None are worthy of protection.

Ecology

An Ecological Assessment has been submitted with the application. This concludes that the site is considered of low ecological value and recommends further survey work.

Based on the information provided in the Ecological Assessment Natural England has outstanding concerns regarding the proposal as further information is required concerning great crested newts, reptiles etc. Natural England recommends that the application should be refused/deferred/withdrawn/suspended until the applicant submits sufficient information to show that the species would not be affected or that potential effects would be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated the information provided.

Archaeology

Archaeological remains are present in the form of earthwork remains of a former medieval field system and drove way along with the archaeological remains of a mid 19th century railway line.

The Phase1 Geo-Environmental Assessment has been submitted and identifies potentially significant source pathway receptor linkages to human health, groundwater and surface water and therefore recommends a Phase 2 intrusive investigation. The Conceptual Model identifies groundwater as both a potential pathway and receptor and it is essential that a groundwater investigation and assessment should be included as there is a potential for the site to be underlain from migration from the gas works approximately 90m NE of the site.

The report states that no gas protection measures are necessary but the contaminated land officer disagrees with this comment as there are no trial pit/ borehole logs describing the strata and a gas monitoring regime may be necessary dependant on what strata is identified. Consideration needs to be given for a gas risk assessment to be carried out in line with CIRIA 665 2007. In the light of this it is recommended that the full standard contaminated land condition be imposed on any planning permission.

Health and Safety

There is potential for pedestrians to cross behind a reversing delivery vehicle. Ideally the site should be organised to avoid this. The agent on behalf of the applicant has advised that generally only one HGV vehicle together with two smaller vehicles visit the site per day. The smaller vehicles tend to deliver before the store opens. The potential for conflict is therefore considered minimal. It is considered it would be difficult to sustain a reason for refusal on this ground.

Conclusions

The proposed retail store is located outside of an existing retail centre as set out within the retail hierarchy contained within the LDF. Therefore, the applicant must demonstrate that they have followed the sequential approach to site selection as set out within PPS4. The supporting planning statement shows that the correct approach has been undertaken and that all possible alternative sites both within the existing district centre and in edge-of-centre locations have been considered and have been discounted for various valid reasons. It is therefore accepted that there are no more sequentially preferable sites. However, the application site is safeguarded for business and general industrial use under Policy CS9. Whilst saved Local Plan Policy SH12 does allow for some retail development within safeguarded business and industrial estates, convenience retail is restricted to units of no greater than 200sq m, which are required to meet the local needs of the industrial area. The location and scale of the proposed development is significantly greater than that allowed by SH12, and would therefore be contrary to Policy CS9 and would harm the strategic aspiration for Guisborough set out in Policies CS7 and CS11. As the development would not accord with this safeguarding the development would also be contrary to policy DP2.

Whilst the applicant indicates that even with the loss of this site to retail development, there would still be enough employment land within Guisborough to meet future demand for at least the next 25 years. This is not considered to be the case, as this presumption is based on the retention of all current allocations. The employment allocation on land to the north of Middlesbrough Road is safeguarded under saved Local Plan policy IND3; however it has not been protected by Core Strategy Policy CS9. Furthermore, that site has recently been included as a proposed housing allocation in the Communities DPD Preferred Options. It is likely that the Council will pursue the re-allocation of that site for housing development through the LDF, and it is therefore realistic to assume that the amount of available employment land remaining in Guisborough will be circa 2.5 hectares. The safeguarding of this site for business and industrial uses is therefore considered to be essential.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposals would not have a significant adverse impact upon existing centres the proposed development would be contrary to LDF Policies CS9 and DP2 which seek to direct development to appropriate locations and safeguard land for business and industrial development.

RECOMMENDATION:

In the light of the above it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would result in the loss of an employment site as identified by ‘saved’ Policy IND3 in the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan 1999 and protected by Policy CS9 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Development Framework and where it is considered that no exceptional circumstances exist to warrant the sites release. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims of ‘saved’ Policy IND3 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan 1999 and Policy CS9 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Development Framework.

2. The proposed development is within an employment area as identified by ‘saved’ Policy IND3 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan 1999 and protected by Policy CS9 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Development Framework and does not fall within the categories of retail development outlined in ‘saved’ Policy SH12 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan 1999.

3.The Ecological Assessment is inadequate in that it does not fully address the impacts upon European Protected Species and as such is contrary to the advice contained in PPS9: ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’ and Policy CS24 of the Redcar and Cleveland Local Development Framework.