Item 5 East Northamptonshire Council Cedar Drive THRAPSTON Northamptonshire NN14 4LZ
APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 10 October 2012 INDEX OF APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Application Location Recom. Page No.
12/00010/FUL Land Adjacent Skew Bridge Ski Slope Grant Northampton Road Rushden Northamptonshire NN10 6AP
Development Control Committee 1 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
Committee Report 10 October 2012
Printed: 27 September 2012
Case Officer Mr James Wilson 12/00010/FUL
Date received Date valid Overall Expiry Ward Parish 23 December 2011 19 January 2012 19 April 2012 Rushden Spencer Rushden
Applicant LXB RP (Rushden) Limited
Agent JR Consulting - Mr John Rose
Location Land Adjacent Skew Bridge Ski Slope, Northampton Road, Rushden Northamptonshire NN10 6AP
Proposal Hybrid Planning Application comprising: Full application for the erection of a home and garden centre, retail units, drive-thru restaurant, gatehouse, lakeside visitor centre, restaurants and boat house, together with proposals for access. Outline: application for the erection of a hotel, crèche and leisure cub with some matters reserved (appearance). Plus removal of ski slope and associated site levelling, landscaping, habitat management and improvement works, vehicular access and servicing proposals together with the provision of car and cycle parking and a bus stop
This report comes to Development Control Committee as the application is a major application and is a departure from the development plan.
1.0 Summary of recommendation.
1.1 That Members resolve to grant planning permission subject to; the completion of a S106 agreement in respect of developer contributions, conditions (the final detailed wording to be delegated to the Head of Planning Services in conjunction with the chair and ward members) and, the referral of the application to the Secretary of State as the application is for more than 5,000 sq m of floorspace, includes town centre uses and is not in accordance with all provisions of the development plan.
1.2 On referral to the Secretary of State an assessment will be made as to whether the application will be ‘called in’ for his determination. He will have a 21 day period to inform the Council if this is the case; otherwise, the Council will be allowed to determine the application in accordance with its normal procedures.
1.3 Executive Summary
1.3.1 The application is for a retail and leisure development on the site of the former Skew Bridge Country Club and dry ski slope which is adjacent to a Special Protection Area (SPA)/SSSI/Ramsar site and now also falls within the Nene Valley Improvement Area. There is considerable local public support for the proposals.
1.3.2 The proposals, as submitted by the applicant, are contrary to the local Development Plan policy. Principally, the scale and format of the development does not accord with Policy
Development Control Committee 2 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
12 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. The level of retail floorspace in this out-of-centre location is not what was envisaged by the local Development Plan policy.
1.3.3 The application does sit more comfortably with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which is more current, which sets out a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ and requires ‘that needs for retail, leisure, commercial, office and other main town centre uses are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability.’ The emerging review of the Core Spatial Strategy also identifies a greater role for Rushden in the settlement hierarchy.
1.3.4 As such, although not in complete accordance with development plan policy, it is necessary for members to consider all material considerations, weighing the impacts of the scheme and potential benefits, to consider whether planning consent should be granted even if contrary to policy guidance. These benefits are considered to be substantial and include; The regenerative effects of the scheme for the site and the town as a whole, The employment opportunities generated by the development, The enhancements to the environment and additional habitat management activities and access provided to the SPA/SSSI/Ramsar site, The provision of recreation and leisure facilities to be accessible to the whole community, including a visitor centre for the Rushden Lakes development and wider Nene Valley and a boathouse, Enhanced tourist facilities helping to support existing visitor attractions and local businesses, The provision and connectivity of considerable elements of the Greenway and Blueway project, with provision of a pedestrian/cycleway across the A45 to connect the town better with the Nene Valley.
1.3.5 In order to assess out-of-centre applications which have town centre uses the NPPF requires that local planning authorities apply a sequential test and an impact test to determine whether the proposals are acceptable. Objections have been raised by a number of neighbouring shopping centres and Local Authorities and an independent report regarding the applicant’s retail impact assessment was commissioned by the Joint Planning Unit. In order to obtain its own independent advice the Council appointed consultants White Young Green (WYG) to review the applicant’s and objectors’ submissions regarding the retail impact of the scheme.
1.3.6 On balance, WYG consider that the retail catchment area and turnover of the proposed development, as set out by the applicant, are reasonable, although they believe that the true draw of the scheme will extend to Zones 9 and 11 of the North Northamptonshire Retail Capacity Study as well as Zone 10. While this is a slightly expanded catchment area and zone of influence, which includes Wellingborough Town Centre, they do not consider that there are any suitable and available alternative sites for the proposals and therefore the application meets the sequential test as no sequentially superior sites are available.
1.3.7 In terms of the impact test WYG do not believe that the proposed development would result in any impacts that could be considered to be significantly adverse. The anticipated trade draw from Rushden, Kettering and Corby will not be of a level that will undermine their future vitality and viability. This also applies to the higher order centres such as Northampton and Milton Keynes which WYG consider to be extremely strong centres with a diverse retail offer and a significant sphere of influence. WYG state that the one area of concern where the conclusions on impact are more finely balanced relate to Wellingborough. However, WYG do not believe that there is any clear evidence that future investment will be prejudiced in Wellingborough in the short to medium term due to the complex and difficult nature of any potential expansion proposals for the Swansgate Centre which would be the only alternative site. WYG and your officers therefore believe that the impact test has been met.
Development Control Committee 3 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
1.3.8 In relation to other issues relevant to the development the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated, to your officers and other statutory agencies, that there are no impacts in respect of the SPA/SSSI/Ramsar site, transport and access considerations or flood risk and drainage concerns.
1.3.9 Your officers consider that the material considerations listed above, which include the creation of 1,340 full time permanent jobs and the delivery of a construction apprentice and training scheme together with linkages of the Greenway via a pedestrian/cycle bridge over the A45, offer considerable benefits. These benefits deserve to be afforded significant weight and, on balance, officers do not believe that the policy imperatives or any other material considerations which weigh against the application are such that they outweigh these significant benefits. Therefore the view of officers is that planning permission should be granted for this application.
2.0 The Proposal
2.1 This application is a hybrid application for a mixed use retail and leisure scheme at Rushden Lakes (formerly known as Skew Bridge), comprising a detailed scheme for a 6,886sqm Home and Garden Centre (with 1,716sqm covered heated planting area and 3,185sqm uncovered planting area), 31,502sqm of retail units in 3 retail "terraces", drive-thru restaurant, gatehouse, lakeside visitor centre, restaurants and boat house, together with proposals for access. The outline proposal is for a hotel, crèche, leisure club with some matters reserved. The proposal also includes removal of ski slope and associated site levelling, landscaping, habitat management and improvement works, vehicular access and servicing proposals together with the provision of car and cycle parking and a bus stop.
2.2 The 3 retail terraces comprise a 4,546sqm garden centre related terrace, a 13,935sqm terrace for national multiple/lifestyle/home/sports/clothing stores, and a 13,021sqm terrace for national multiple clothing/general merchandise.
2.3 There are two lakeside restaurants of 464sqm each, a visitor centre of 289sqm, a boathouse of 289sqm, a drive-thru restaurant of 186sqm, a 112 bed hotel (4,987sqm), a 1,465sqm leisure/health club and a 181sqm crèche.
2.4 The Design and Access Statement accompanying the application contains a thorough analysis of the site and the access arrangements together with the layout of the development. The supporting Architect’s Design Statement outlines the alternative options which have been considered and explains the evolution of the scheme proposals and how this works with the site’s topography and landscape features.
2.5 The application is supported by : -Planning Statement -Design and Access Statement -Environmental Statement (as amended 21.03.2012 & June 2012/Addendum to Environmental Statement) -Architects Design Statement -Sustainability Design and Energy Assessment -Energy Statement -Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment -Landscape Design Statement -Flood Risk Assessment (as amended February 2012 and May 2012) -Transport Assessment (& further submission) -Arboricultural Implications Assessment -Breeding Birds Survey -Extended Phase 1 Habitats survey -Otter Survey -Reptile Survey -Wintering Bird Survey
Development Control Committee 4 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
-Air Quality Assessment -Land Quality Assessment -Economic Benefits Study -Employment Charter -PPS4 Assessment -Lighting strategy -Public consultation report -Floor plans, elevations images and aerial photos
2.6 The application has been amended over the course of its consideration. The following revised information has been submitted on the dates indicated and further re-consultation was carried out on 29th March 2012, 26th June 2012 and 2nd July 2012. - Revised Flood Risk Assessment (22.02.2012) - Revised Flood Risk Assessment (April 2012) - Revised Flood Risk Assessment (16.05.2012) - Environmental Statement Addendum (received 27.03.12 & June 2012) - Revised S106 Heads of Terms (21.03.2012) - A full list of revisions and submissions is itemised and available to view on the Council’s Planning portal - The principal alteration in the first amendment was to remove the lock, weir and marina from the application on the advice of Natural England and the Environment Agency.
3.0 Site and Surroundings.
3.1 The site lies to the west of Rushden within the River Nene valley with the river and the gravel pit lakes at its northern boundary and the A45 as the southern boundary. It is a site of some 30ha including the former Skew Bridge ski lake and Delta Pit lake as well as the land surrounding the lakes. The developable area of the site covers some 12.63ha which sits between the A45 and Skew Bridge ski lake to the south of the site. It is accessed from the A45 roundabout known as Skew Bridge roundabout.
3.2 The site was formerly used for leisure and recreational purposes and included a country club and a ski slope. The site is currently vacant and is characterised by open ground, a considerable amount of which is cleared with the remaining being covered with scrub and the hardstanding of previously demolished buildings. The former ski slope is still on the site although it is overgrown.
3.3 Part of the site is within the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. When planning permission was originally granted in 2005 the SSSI did not exist as a single SSSI but was made up of a number of SSSIs and Local Wildlife sites. The current SSSI was formed in 2005. The SPA was formally designated in 2011.
3.4 The site also lies within the newly designated Nene Valley Improvement Area. This designation covers an area of approximately 41,000ha running through the heart of Northamptonshire to the Eastern fringes of Peterborough. It includes the River Nene and its tributaries, gravel pits, reservoirs and much of the floodplain within the valley itself. The NIA will deliver a step change in nature conservation, where local organisations have come together with a shared vision for the natural environment. This partnership will plan and deliver significant improvements for wildlife and people through the sustainable use of natural resources, restoring and creating wildlife habitats, connecting local sites and joining up local action. The designation was made by DEFRA and significant funding is being made available to the partnership’s objectives.
Development Control Committee 5 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
4.0 Policy Considerations.
4.1 National Planning Policy Framework March 2012
4.2 East Midlands Regional Plan- March 2009
The Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands (RSS8) remains in place. On the 10th November 2010 the High Court ruled that the Secretary of State's decision to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) was unlawful as it had been taken without primary legislations. A statement was then issued by the Government reiterating their intention to abolish all RSS and that this should be treated as a material consideration. Despite a further legal challenge it has now been confirmed that the intention of the Government to abolish all RSS is a material consideration which should be taken into account when determining a planning application. The Localism Act received Royal Consent in December 2011. This contains the necessary legislation to abolish the RSS. However, this cannot be done until after consideration of the Environmental Impact Assessments in to the effect of this abolition. This has not been completed and so the RSS has not yet been revoked. It is noted that the Secretary of State is currently attributing only limited weight to the intention to revoke RSS in his role in determining called-in applications therefore the RSS still requires appropriate consideration.
Policy 1 - Regional Core Objectives Policy 2 - Promoting better design Policy 3 - Distribution of New Development Policy 11 - Development in the Southern Sub-area Policy 19 - Regional Priorities for Regeneration Policy 22 - Regional Priorities for Town Centres and Retail Development Policy 45 - Regional traffic growth reduction Policy 48 - Regional Parking Standards
4.3 North Northamptonshire Joint Core Spatial Strategy
Policy 1- Strengthening the Network of settlements Policy 5 - Green Infrastructure Policy 6 - Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions Policy 8 - Delivering Economic Prosperity Policy 9 - Distribution and Location of Development Policy 11- Distribution of Jobs Policy 12 - Distribution of retail development Policy 13 - General Sustainable Development Principles Policy 14 - Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Construction
4.4 Other Relevant Polices / Documents
ENC SPD – Developer Contributions NCC SPG – Crime and Disorder NCC SPG – Parking North Northamptonshire Sustainable Design SPD North Northamptonshire Annual Monitoring Report, December 2011 Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) Core Strategy, May 2010 MWDF Development and Implementation Principles Supplementary Planning Document, March 2007 Biodiversity SPD North Northamptonshire Retail Capacity Study Feb 2011, Roger Tym & Partners
Development Control Committee 6 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
North Northamptonshire Retail Capacity Study Update 2012, Roger Tym & Partners
5.0 Relevant Planning History.
5.1 There is a long planning history for this site. Through the 1960s and 1970s there were permissions for offices and weighbridge, plant and vehicle storage and workshops and garages. During the 1970s there were permissions for the siting of seasonal caravans. During the 1980s there were permissions for petrol service station, cafeteria and retail stores. In the 1990s there were permissions for leisure facilities, go carting and concrete manufacture.
5.2 In relation to the current application the most relevant planning permissions are: EN/01/00143/OUT: granted for hotel, restaurants, bars and retail, leisure uses, campus style business park. EN/02/00218/OUT: granted for a development comprising hotels, restaurants, bars and retail, leisure uses, and campus style business park. EN04/02395/VAR: granted to vary the conditions 1,3,5,12 and 13 of EN/02/00218/OUT in order to submit revised master plan and allow the phased submission of reserved matters. EN/07/02383/VAR: granted to vary conditions 18, 24 and 30 of planning permission EN/04/02395VAR: details of the level of the Ski Lake. EN/07/02469/REM: reserved matters granted for erection of office A and associated car parking and landscaping pursuant to planning permission EN/04/02395VAR. EN/07/02471/REM: reserved matters granted for erection of office C and associated car parking and landscaping pursuant to permission EN/04/02395VAR. EN/07/02472/REM: reserved matter granted for erection of office D and associated car parking and landscaping pursuant to planning permission EN/04/02395VAR EN/07/02473/REM: reserved matters granted or erection of office E and associated car parking and landscaping pursuant to planning permission EN/04/02395/VAR EN/07/02475/REM: reserved matters granted for erection of retail/leisure and landscaping pursuant to planning permission EN/04/02395/VAR EN/07/02476REM: reserved matters granted for landscaping infrastructure and ancillary buildings pursuant to planning permission EN/04/02395/VAR. EN/07/02477/REM: reserved matters granted for erection of hotel and associated car parking and landscaping pursuant to planning permission EN/04/002395/VAR EN/10/00688/RWL: Replacement of extant planning permission EN/04/02395/VAR of conditions 1,3,5,12,and 13 of EN/02/00218/OUT in order to submit revise masterplan and allow the phased submission of reserved matters dated 21/01/2005 - application outstanding. EN/11/01528/FUL: Repositioning of part of an existing earth bund (retrospective)
6.0 Consultation and Representation.
6.1 Pre-application consultation was undertaken by the applicant as set out in the submitted consultation assessment. This took the form of adverts and leaflet distribution highlighting a public exhibition on the 4th and 5th November 2011, a media briefing and a web site. Meetings were also held with Rushden and Higham Ferrers Town Councils and the Rushden Town Centre traders group as well as individual meetings with MPs and Councillors. 323 people attended the exhibition and 171 feedback forms were filled in. 86% of the feedback was positive with 11% having no objection and 3% objecting.
6.2 Once the application was received the application was publicised through press notice and site notices. Neighbour notification letters were sent out to neighbouring authorities and relevant organisations. Several of the responses refer to the marina and lock elements of the scheme, which are now no longer a part of the proposals.
6.3 Neighbours and Residents: 6.3.1 There have been 30 responses from the general public with 23 being in favour of the application. The reasons expressed for supporting the proposals are summarised in the following bullet points with some comments reproduced.
Development Control Committee 7 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
‘A great asset to our Town, Jobs Jobs Jobs yes please’. A boon for the area. Rushden has suffered from a lack of investment & this is an opportunity to right that wrong. Objections from Kettering & Northampton should be ignored. ‘This is major investment in our stagnating area. Please please please make this go ahead. Jobs, things to do and what we all need more than anything - stimulation of the economy’. ‘There has been a great deal of house building over the last ten years and local amenities have not kept up. I appreciate concerns over the impact on local high streets but I think this is a great opportunity to improve what is currently an eyesore and a dumping ground’. ‘It is not fair that the shoppers of Rushden have to travel so far to use the large chain stores. At least this will give us Marks & Sparks. Maybe others will follow’. Prospect of 1500 jobs can only be a good thing, use of the land will be good as currently derelict. Support for development to stimulate stagnant economy, if planning approval given it would be worth considering a provision that a certain number of apprenticeships are generated by the main contractor and a certain percentage of the main contractor’s supply chain is procured from within a radius that covers the East Northants area. Will provide much needed jobs and financial stimulus for the area, reduce CO2 emissions by reducing the need to travel distance for shopping, remove an eyesore from the landscape and reduce anti-social behaviour and illegal use of motorbikes on this site. ‘Improved shopping to people living in our area’ ...’The improvement to the infrastructure in the area.’ Support for the application to kick-start regeneration but concerns about the access onto the A45. Rushden Historical Transport Society has no objection to the planning application in general but a corner of the suggested garden centre cuts across the route of the disused Wellingborough to Higham Ferrers branch line, we would ask that this is revised on the plan to leave it clear so that this line could be reinstated as and when future transport requirements necessitate. ‘I am glad to see that the plans use the natural assets of the area i.e. lake, woods, etc but would ask that the foot bridge access is made mandatory in line with the emphasis on access for all.’ The proposals will recapture back to the County significant retail leakage, be a central hub supporting the "Destination Nene" inward investment priority. Make a major contribution to the protection and understanding of the SPA, provide new net jobs to match new housing, reduce out-commuting, reduce CO2 and save on travel-to-work costs. It will in the shorter term provide construction jobs and support "construction skills". It will directly support Rushden Town Centre through contributions to a new Town Centre Manager; enhanced bus services and more footfall. ‘I believe the development is a long overdue addition to the area. East Northants sadly lacks this kind of retail / leisure experience.’
6.3.2 There were 7 responses which were against the application the main reason cited for objecting are summarised below. Impact on small businesses in Rushden and High Ferrers – ‘This development will in my opinion be the death of Rushden and Higham small businesses. The already decimated High Street is in danger of becoming a ghost town.’ Wellingborough Traders Group objects as they feel this will harm Wellingborough Town Centre, at a time that government policy is supporting town centres. Concerned about loss of larger retailers from Town Centre and impact on independent retailers and displacement effect of jobs. The area has been re-colonised by otters, a large heronry has been established on the eastern edge of the ski lake, and the Cettis Warbler has re-established itself in the area. Increased noise, light pollution, boat traffic and visitor numbers will degrade the wildlife habitat.
Development Control Committee 8 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
6.3.3 A number of petitions have also been submitted to the Council in support of the proposals. Councillor P Whiting from Higham Ferrers submitted a petition on 6th June 2012 which had been circulated for 2 weeks around the stores and retailers within Higham Ferrers. A total of 562 people signed the petition. Mr Roger Clarke also submitted a petition to Higham Ferrers Town Council dated 27th May 2012 and forwarded to the Council in support of the development citing that this would be both good for Higham and Rushden having facilities on the doorstep and not having to travel further afield. A total of 114 people signed this petition. Sean Lever submitted a petition with 491 signatures and comments in support of the proposals and a further petition has been received from Cllr Hobbs on 16th August 2012 listing 79 people in support of the application.
6.4 Anglian Water: Has assets subject to an adoption agreement within or close to the site that may affect the layout - need informative on any planning permission. Broadholme Sewerage treatment plant has capacity for the flows from the development. Will need a drainage strategy to determine mitigation measures to avoid unacceptable risk of flooding downstream. To discharge trade effluent from the development into the public sewer needs Anglian Water consent and an informative should be attached to any permission. Conditions need to be attached relating to foul sewerage and surface water disposal.
6.5 Irchester Parish Council: Generally in favour of the application, concerned about increase in traffic through the villages of Irchester and Little Irchester and effect on the wildlife of the valley - want these issues addressed.
6.6 Wildlife Trust: Need to be assured that the lock does not cause lowering of water level in the lake as this may impact negatively on the wildlife on adjacent lakes. Need more detail about the lock. Raise the issue of required access to the SSSI for the Wildlife Trust’s own management activities. Concerned about the potential conflict between the proposed footpath networks and the access arrangements for the public and maintenance. Supportive of areas of wild flower meadow within the scheme and would welcome a commitment from the developer for the on-going maintenance of these areas. Suggest a buffer strip of native species planting is provided between the ornamental planting and the site boundary to prevent the spread of invasive species into Wilson’s Pits Nature Reserve. It would be of benefit for the planting schedule to be subject to approval by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of planting. Consideration of the creation of ‘shallows’ and temporary island features in the main lake for the benefit of wintering birds. Support for the use of green roofs on the visitor centre, boat house and leisure centre. Concerns about the location of the marina in respect of the views from the visitor centre for wildlife observation. Impact on important heronry within SSSI raised and fact that development in this vicinity should not be undertaken between January to August. The Wildlife Trust also indicated the need for conditions to cover the following topics; Management and monitoring of the habitats as well as the adjacent SSSI for the duration of the facilities on site; provision of management of access routes through the site; monitoring and mitigation for water level changes; management and monitoring of impacts to wider parts of the SPA/SSSI relating to disturbance.
6.7 Northamptonshire Police: No formal objection to the application. However, have comments and recommendations to reduce the likelihood of crime disorder and anti-social behaviour. Want to work with applicant to secure a sustainable environment. Need to adhere to SPG Planning Out Crime Guidance. The D&A Statement does not demonstrate how crime prevention measures have been considered and what measures are proposed to be implemented. Would like following matters dealt with as conditions: - a crime prevention statement submitted - detailed CCTV/ANPR scheme to be supplied - lighting strategy submitted - detailed boundary treatments scheme required-all service areas should be secured - parking at the rear of the hotel is vulnerable and needs redesigning - should not have a public footpath through the service yard of unit C - landscaping should be designed not to obstruct CCTV
Development Control Committee 9 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
- east elevation of Unit B needs better surveillance - short term parking needs to be available at the security gatehouse.
6.8 Campaign for Dark Skies: Ensure that all exterior lighting for all car parks, roadways and loading areas is designed so that no light shines out across the neighbouring area or into the night sky. Any building facade illumination needs to be designed so light is focused on the area to be lit with no spill. A further consultation response on 16.02.2012 commented that providing the lighting equipment used in the development is the same specification submitted for approval then CfDS considers that there will not be any adverse increase in light pollution from this development.
6.9 Natural England: The site lies within the Upper Nene Valley gravel pits SSSI which is also a SPA and Ramsar site. Prefer the development not to include a lock and marina. The lock raises issues which have not yet been considered as part of the application and it may therefore be necessary for ENC to carry out an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations as the requirements of the Water Framework Directive have not been taken into account. The concern remains that the level of water in the lake is critical and it has not been proved that the lock mechanism can safeguard the level. NE is broadly satisfied with the mitigation details proposed to ensure no likely significant effects but would require the bund between the lake and the extension to the lake to remain in place until water levels have been retained. A more detailed Access and Habitat Management Plan is required prior to works commencing and implemented in the first phase of development. A detailed Construction Management Plan is also required. The marina, if taken forward should be relocated to the south east corner of the lake. A condition is necessary to protect the heronry and so ground works in that vicinity should be avoided January through August. Would encourage maximum opportunities for biodiversity enhancement. Updated water vole survey is also needed.
6.10 Rushden Historical Transport Society. No objection but want the route of the disused railway to be protected- garden centre cuts the route of the Wellingborough-Higham Ferrers branch line route and this needs to be preserved and protected.
6.11 Northamptonshire County Council - Archaeology: The NCC has not been contacted by the applicant-application has only undertaken a rough assessment of potential for archaeology - please attach a condition for an archaeological programme of works.
6.12 ENC Environmental Protection Officers: Noise from all phases of development is not considered to have a significant impact on nearby residential and commercial properties. There is a need to protect the wintering birds from noise and a condition restricting the time of year that ground works can be undertaken would suffice. Other conditions could include a Noise Management Plan, and the need to control dust. The information submitted is sufficient to demonstrate that there are no expected air quality issues. Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Management Plan should be submitted to the Authority in writing. In respect of lighting of the scheme the final details have not been submitted, however, it is recommended that this can be controlled by conditions for advertisement illuminations, site illuminations and lighting for the construction phase. Agree with the engineer’s report that there does not appear to be a significant risk to human health to controlled waters from the level of contamination found on the site. However, further monitoring to assess the level of ground gas present at the site needs to be undertaken, which should be controlled by condition.
6.13 Borough Council of Wellingborough: The Borough Council of Wellingborough’s Planning Committee resolved that it had no objection to the application but wished to make the following comments; - the s106 to contribute to mitigation measures for Wellingborough Town centre - improved public transport from Wellingborough - improved footpath and cycle access along the Nene Valley, in particular including links to Chester Farm and the proposed development at Wellingborough East (Stanton Cross)
Development Control Committee 10 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
- training and apprenticeships.
6.14 Corby Borough Council: CBC has objected to the application on the basis that - the sequential test is flawed - the amount of floorspace proposed is comparable to that identified for the whole of North Northamptonshire. - the sub-regional scale of the development does not accord with local or national policy - the retail impact information supporting the application is flawed.
6.15 Kettering Borough Council: KBC objects to the application on the grounds the proposed development is unacceptable in principle. There is no Development Plan support for the proposed development in an out of town location at Rushden. The application has failed the sequential and impact tests and therefore the NPPF directs the application should be refused.
6.16 Northampton Borough Council: NBC strongly objects to the application. Concerned that the applicant has not undertaken a proper retail impact assessment in regard to the impact of the scheme upon Northampton Town Centre and Weston Favell District Centre or an adequate sequential assessment of alternative sites. Concern that an out of town, unallocated, retail development of a sub-regional scale at Rushden Lakes has the potential to significantly impact upon the vitality and deliverability of well advanced plans for the redevelopment of Northampton Town Centre. Have submitted comments as a holding objection until such time as a proper retail assessment, including full sequential analysis, has been carried out. Consider that the application fails to comply with the requirements of PPS4 and therefore should be refused.
6.17 Higham Ferrers Town Council: Higham Ferrers Town Council wholeheartedly welcomes and supports the application. They recommend approval and have the following comments; - a condition to be included that the improvements to the Skew Bridge roundabout are carried out prior to development of the site to enable construction traffic to access the site without impacting on day to day traffic flows. - a sequential test should be carried out on Higham Ferrers Town Centre as this appears to have been omitted - as part of the S106 the Town Centre Manager be shared between Rushden and Higham Ferrers due to the proximity of Higham Ferrers to the proposed site. - the need for a footbridge across the A45 to the site is strongly supported - the Council has concerns about impact of the development on Chowns Mill roundabout. The impact needs to be assessed and funding for mitigation measures included as part of the S106.
6.18 Bedford Borough Council: Bedford Borough Council objects to the proposals on the grounds that the development is sub-regional in scale and will impact on the trade of Bedford Town Centre and could potentially prejudice planned investment in Bedford. As the proposal is not in a town centre and is of a scale that would be detrimental to existing higher order town centres in the wider catchment the application should be rejected.
6.19 Rushden Town Council: Support the application as this will bring employment to Rushden and boost local economy also the site has SSSI status and this would encourage additional tourism and leisure pursuits which will help the local economy. Consider that a footbridge is required as part of the scheme to link the site to the town, this should also link to the current ‘Greenway’. With regard to the provisions of a Town Centre Manager members would like to know; What is the remit for the post? How long will this position be in place Where will the Town Centre Manager be based and would they be working on behalf of the retail park as well as the Town Centre? If the proposed scheme is phased a bus service needs to be running at the time of the 1st phase to ensure public transport access to the site.
Development Control Committee 11 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
The name ‘Rushden Lakes’ to be retained for the development. Member consider the provision of a Marina to be viable, however, if this is not will monies be redirected to other tourist schemes?
6.20 NCC Fire & Rescue: NCC Fire and Rescue comments that new developments place additional demands on fire and rescue resources. The County Council applies a contribution rate of £145 per 100sqm of floorspace towards local fire and rescue infrastructure costs. It is stated that this contribution will be utilised at the first station nearest to the development. The County Council also request that the developer installs 12 fire hydrants which it believes is required after initial assessment. The hydrants should be installed at the same time as other water infrastructure and prior to any commercial buildings being occupied. The final location of the fire hydrants must be agreed in consultation with the Northamptonshire Fire and Rescue Service before installation. NCC Fire and Rescue request that this contribution is secured via planning obligation.
6.21 NCC Waste Planning Authority: Comment that prior to any development taking place the applicant should demonstrate how it meets policies CS7 and CS8 of the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) Core Strategy. Policy CS7 seeks the efficient utilisation of resources in the construction as well as operational phase of development. Policy CS8 encourages the integration of waste management facilities in areas of significant new development. The MWDF Development and Implementation Principles Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) requires all developers to submit a waste audit to allow for informed decision making and consideration of waste management issues through the planning process. The SPD also requires that all forms of development prepare a Waste Management Facilities Strategy to demonstrate the provision of individual waste management design features that supports the separation, storage and collection of waste in order to maximise the efficiency of its subsequent re-use, recycling and treatment.
6.22 ENC Waste Management: Require a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) for the initial clearance of the land and the subsequent construction phase of the project. The SWMP should be agreed and submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.
6.23 Environment Agency: Object to the application as the Flood Risk Assessment is not yet in a position to adequately inform the decision in line with PPS25 Development and Flood Risk. Advise that additional information is required to clarify what is proposed and make the scheme PPS25 compliant. Also advise that further information necessary to ensure that the proposal complies with Directive 2000/60/EC: The Water Framework Directive (WFD).
6.24 Rambler’s Association: Welcomes the inclusion in the application for improved pedestrian and cycling access with the provision of a bridge across the A45 this will include a link from the Greenway to Rushden Lakes. Also welcome the intention to restore the Bailey Bridge over the River Nene which will give access to public footpath UE2 allowing people from Irthlingborough and visitors to the nature area to access the retail park. The improved links to public footpath UK1 are also supported providing better access to Ditchford Lakes and Meadows Local Nature Reserve.
6.25 North Northamptonshire Badger Group: The group does not have any objection to the development.
6.26 NCC Highways: The Local Highways Authority made an initial response to the consultation on 24.02.2012 and made the following points. Further correspondence has taken place to resolve outstanding issues.
Trip Rates - Clarification and updates for trip rates are required to agree this issue. Local Road Assessment - The submitted Transport Assessment does not assess the impacts of the development on the local highway network. A range of junctions should be assessed using ARCADY / PICADY / LINSIG models as appropriate.
Development Control Committee 12 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
Consideration of other developments required to be reviewed including those that have consent already and proposals that may gain consent prior to the determination of this application. A45 Skew Bridge Roundabout - This is a key consideration. A previous scheme was identified for a development of this site. That scheme has been retested for this proposal. However, tidality, origin and destination of trips into and out of the roundabout and the proposed solution will differ to that previously assumed. The Retail Impact Assessment will inform part of this work in terms of distribution of trips. As above, the Retail Impact Report needs to be confirmed before the assessment of the roundabout can be completed. Confirm that the County Council will not be requiring ARCADY assessment of that particular roundabout. Chowns Mill Roundabout - Request a Nil Detriment design, to mitigate the impacts of the development proposed, for this junction that can then be costed to provide the evidential base to determine the appropriate contribution. Public Transport - On going discussion on public transport issues required further comment to be provided when a position / agreement is known regarding service provision, infrastructure, routing etc. Foot / Cycle Bridge - In the interests of pedestrian and cycle accessibility and highway safety a pedestrian/cycle bridge should be provided and available for use prior to first opening of the first unit on the site. Service Road - confirm that the County Council as Local Highway Authority would not object to the service road being stopped up as part of this proposal if it gains consent and provided that any costs associated with the stopping up order are met by the developer. Would seek the adoption of the access road and internal roundabout, potentially including any public transport facility.
Recommendation - that the matters raised above and in the attached report are explicitly considered with information / clarification obtained from the applicant on all such matters. Confirm at this stage that the Local Highway Authority considers it has insufficient and inadequate information on which to form finite views and offer advice.
6.27 Highways Agency: The Highways Agency provided a technical response to the application via its consultants AECOM dated 31.01.2012 setting out various issues and issuing a TR110 Holding Direction on the grounds that insufficient information had been provided in support of the application to ensure that the A45 trunk road continues to serve its purpose as part of the national system of routes for through traffic. Further requests for information have been made to clarify the proposals and enable the Highways Agency to consider the Transport Assessment fully and provide a response.
6.28 Government Pipeline System/Fisher German Surveyors: Comment that the proposals will not affect the underground pipeline network.
6.29 West Northamptonshire Development Corporation: Objects to the proposed development on the grounds that it does not conform with the NPPF or the Development Plan and would potentially impact on the planned existing and committed public and private sector investment within Northampton.
6.30 National Grid - notified the Council that High or Intermediate Gas Pipelines and associated equipment had been identified as being in the vicinity of the proposed works. No works should be undertaken until detail consultation has taken place.
6.31 Other Commercial Interests (Full objections contained within Appendix 2) 6.31.1 CBRE Britannica Fund (Swansgate Shopping Centre, Wellingborough)
CBRE Britannica Fund strongly objects to the proposals on the grounds of the quantum of development and its resultant impact on Wellingborough town centre. They contend that the proposed development (approximately 38,292 sqm of retail floorspace) is some 11% larger than the total retail capacity of the Swansgate Shopping Centre and is akin
Development Control Committee 13 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
to the creation of a new town centre. Being close to Wellingborough it has the potential to severely undermine the long term future of the Swansgate Shopping Centre. They consider that this is contrary to the objectives of Policy 1 and Policy 12 of the adopted North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.
They go on to state that where there is an identified need for retail development the sequential test must be followed with preference given to edge of centre and then existing retail areas which are well served by public transport. If there is additional need for comparison retail floorspace they go on to state that this should be delivered through disaggregated provision within Rushden town centre. The issue of potential job losses in neighbouring centre is also raised and request that the Council refuses planning permission.
6.31.2 Legal & General (Grosvenor Centre, Northampton)
Drivers Jonas Deliotte on behalf of L&G object to the proposals and supply an addendum report to the original objection setting out the further points of objections. (Further analysis of this will be conducted later in the report). They have significant concerns regarding the principle of the Rushden Lakes proposals being a substantial amount of retail floorspace in an out-of-town centre location.
There is also a concern that it will draw considerable amounts of trade and shoppers from existing town centres in Northamptonshire undermining current and future planned investment within these centres. They request that planning permission be refused.
6.31.3 PR Kettering Ltd (Newlands Shopping Centre, Kettering) Ellandi, on behalf of PR Kettering Ltd, reference the National Planning Policy Framework and its commitment to promote competitive town centres and the need for local planning authorities to apply a sequential test and impact assessment for developments with main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre.
They state that the application is contrary to the development plan and fails to undertake a satisfactory assessment of sequential sites and also underestimates the impact of the development on existing town centres.
Overall, they consider the proposal to be of an inappropriate scale and will lead to significant cumulative impact on a number of centres, notably Wellingborough and Kettering and will prejudice planned investment in those centres. They request that the application be refused planning permission.
6.31.4 Helical (Corby) Ltd (Corby Town Centre)
Jones Lang LaSalle, on behalf of Helical (Corby) Ltd, objects to the proposals stating that the application is flawed and should be refused on the following basis; - The application fails the sequential approach – it is contrary to local and national policy. - The proposals will have a significant impact on town centres – affecting the vitality and viability of the town centres in North Northamptonshire by creating a competing out-of-town centre that would strengthen the draw away from the town centres.
6.31.5 Ropemaker Properties Ltd (Riverside Retail Park, Northampton)
Turley Associates, on behalf of Ropemaker Properties Ltd raises strong objections to the proposals, particularly the scale of the retail element which will draw trade away from existing centres and impact adversely on their vitality and viability.
Development Control Committee 14 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
They contend that there is limited need for this development and that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate additional comparison goods retailing within existing centres without developing Rushden Lakes.
Therefore, they state, the proposals fail to satisfy the sequential test. They assert that the development being of such a scale will significantly impact exiting trade within surrounding centres and the proposed investment for them. They comment that the proposals would become a regional destination drawing trade from Northampton and its catchment adversely impacting on accessible services and facilities in the town. They conclude that the proposals are contrary to the ‘town centre first’ approach of the NPPF and fail the sequential test and therefore the application should be refused.
7.0 Evaluation 7.1 The following issues are relevant to the determination of this application: Accordance with the Development Plan Compliance with the NPPF Layout, Design and Sustainability Retail matters – sequential and impact tests Transportation, highways, access Economic and regeneration effects Impact on SPA, Ramsar and SSSI Other environmental impacts Flood risk and site drainage Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Conditions and s106 obligations Overall balance and conclusions 7.2 Principle of Development – The Development Plan
7.2.1 The Development Plan is made up of the East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS8) and the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008) and the saved policies of the East Northamptonshire Local Plan. The Council’s emerging Four Town’s Plan will also form a part of this Development Plan but at this early stage of its production little weight can be afforded to it. Members will be aware that under S38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 applications are to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The weight and balance that is given to different material considerations has also to be carefully considered and evaluated.
7.2.2 Under planning policy all of the uses contained within the application, except for the Visitor Centre and Boathouse are defined as town centre uses.
7.2.3 The principle of development of the site has long been established through a number of previous development consents over the past 20 years. The 1996 Local Plan, which remains the site specific development plan document for the site, identifies the majority of the application site as having extant commitments for industrial and commercial uses (1.3ha, east of the former ski slope) and recreation and leisure uses (5.5 ha, west of the former ski slope), including bowling alley, sports hall, multi-screen cinema and fast food outlet (Local Plan, Rushden Strategy Statement, paragraph 4.22). These earlier consents were subsequently superseded by the 2002 permission (reference 02/00218/OUT), which includes a hotel, restaurants, bars and retail, leisure uses and a campus style business park, covering the entire application site. The recent renewal of the 2002 outline consent (reference 10/00688/RWL) maintains the principle of business and/or leisure related uses at Rushden Lakes/Skew Bridge.
Development Control Committee 15 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.2.4 The Regional Plan
7.2.4.1 The Regional Plan was adopted in March 2009. Although the Secretary of State has indicated that he intends to revoke regional plans this has not yet been formally implemented, therefore weight still needs to be attached to the Regional Plan as it forms part of the statutory Development Plan.
7.2.4.2 Policy 1 of the Regional Plan sets out the core objectives for the region. Of note for this application are the aspirations ‘to improve economic prosperity, employment opportunities and regional competitiveness..’,’to improve accessibility to jobs, homes and services’..’ To protect and enhance the environment’ and ‘To minimise adverse environmental impacts of new development and promote optimum social and economic benefits’.
7.2.4.3 Policy 2 promotes better design in new development reducing CO2 emissions and providing resilience to future climate change.
7.2.4.4 Policy 3 – Distribution of New Development, sets out the broad parameters for where development should be located. Rushden falls within ‘The development needs of other settlements and rural areas’ and it states that New development in these areas should contribute to: maintaining the distinctive character and vitality of rural communities; shortening journeys and facilitating access to jobs and services; strengthening rural enterprise and linkages between settlements and their hinterlands; and respecting the quality of tranquillity, where that is recognised in planning documents; In assessing the suitability of sites for development priority should be given to making best use of previously developed land and vacant or under-used buildings in urban or other sustainable locations, contributing to the achievement of a regional target of 60% of additional dwellings on previously developed land or through conversions.
7.2.4.5 Policy 11 sets out that the regional spatial strategy role for small towns in the Sub- area should be maintained through the retention of basic services and facilities but also states that their rural hinterland should be safeguarded from encroachment by larger centres.
7.2.4.6 Policy 19 indicates that regeneration activity should be focussed on areas of greatest identified need. With specific regard to retail development, paragraph 3.2.16 identifies that in the Southern Sub-Area, ‘There is a large proportion of retail expenditure ‘leakage’ to the south of the Region from the Sub-Area at present.’
7.2.4.7 Policy 22 advocates collaboration between Local Authorities and other partners to promote the vitality and viability of existing town centres. It also states ‘Where town centres are under-performing, action should be taken to promote investment through design led initiatives and the development and implementation of town centre strategies’.
7.2.5 North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy & Review
7.2.5.1 The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy was adopted in 2008, however, an immediate review of the strategy was started on the basis of the concerns of the Inspector over infrastructure investment and the deliverability of employment targets. Subsequent changes to the national planning system and delays in bringing forward development, due to the recession, means that there is further reason for completing this review.
Development Control Committee 16 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.2.5.2 The review of the Core Spatial Strategy has been progressing and a substantial amount of evidence has been amassed. A consultation on the Emerging Draft Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 has been published and feedback is sought by mid-October 2012. While most of the policies have been set out in detail work on the role of town centres has been left to be completed following further consideration of retail strategy. Only a limited amount of weight can be given to this emerging plan given its early stage of consultation.
7.2.5.3 The vision for the adopted Core Spatial Strategy envisages ‘A step change of growth in homes and jobs will have been matched by investment in infrastructure, services and facilities, creating a more self sufficient area, better able to meet the needs of local people and to play an enhanced role in the UK.’ A series of objectives are set out in order to realise the vision, these include Objective 4 ‘Town Centre Focus’ which seeks to ensure that services and facilities, including cultural provision, are located in town centres and other areas of focus in North Northamptonshire, and that opportunities to maximise and enhance the provision of leisure, retail and cultural facilities are taken, making places more self- sufficient and creating real hearts of communities. Objective 7 ‘Economy’ sets out the need to: ‘Build a more diverse, dynamic and self reliant economy, which is not overly dependent on in or out commuting to make it reach its potential, through providing the workplaces, jobs, skills and sites to bring this about.’
7.2.5.4 Policy 1 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy indicates that smaller towns such as Rushden will provide secondary focal points for development within the urban core of the 3 growth towns of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. It states the emphasis for development will be on the regeneration of the town centres ..’in order to provide jobs and services, deliver economic prosperity and support the self sufficiency of the network of centres.’
7.2.5.5 Policy 8: Delivering Economic Prosperity, establishes a target of 47,400 net jobs to be created during the plan period and Policy 11 allocates the need for sites within East Northamptonshire to accommodate 5,220 net jobs across all sectors.
7.2.5.6 Policy 9 establishes that development will be distributed to strengthen the network of settlements set out in Policy 1. Development in the open countryside will be strictly controlled and priority will be given to the reuse of suitable previously developed land and buildings within the urban areas.
7.2.5.7 Policy 12 focuses on the distribution of retail development and supports the strengthening of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough town centres setting minimum net increases in comparison shopping floorspace. It also states ‘Development of an appropriate scale that enhances the retail offer of Rushden town centre will be supported’...’Where retail development, for which there is an identified need, cannot be accommodated within the defined town centre areas, a sequential approach will be followed with preference first to well-connected edge of town-centre locations followed by district and local centres including those in sustainable urban extension, and then existing retail areas that are well served by a choice of means of transport.’
7.2.5.8 The emerging draft for consultation Joint Core Strategy while silent on the matter of town centre policy does envisage an enhanced role for Rushden, designating this as a growth town which would provide a focus for major co-ordinated regeneration and growth in employment, housing, comparison retail development and higher order facilities serving one or more districts.
Development Control Committee 17 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.2.6 East Northamptonshire Local Plan – Saved Policies
7.2.6.1 The East Northamptonshire District Local Plan was adopted in 1996 and is an old style development plan. The majority of Local Plan policies are now superseded replaced by policies in the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008). No relevant policies in respect of the Rushden Lakes/ Skew Bridge site have been saved, although the adopted Proposals Map identifies much of the site as existing commitments (permissions). The Four Towns Plan will become the new site specific Development Plan Document covering the Rushden area. However, this is at an early stage of preparation and is expected to progress closely behind the emerging Joint Core Strategy 2011-31. As such, the 2008 Core Spatial Strategy currently forms the principal development plan document for Rushden Lakes/ Skew Bridge.
7.2.7 Adopted Minerals and Waste Development Framework.
7.2.7.1 The Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted May 2010) identifies the application site as a "Sand and gravel safeguarding area" (Policy CS10). This requires that development of a significant nature will have to demonstrate that the sterilisation of proven mineral resources of economic importance will not occur as a result of the development, and that the development would not pose a serious hindrance to future extraction in the vicinity. However, given that the principle of development on the site is already established through earlier consents, the site's current designation as a Minerals Safeguarding Area under Policy CS10 is not considered to be worthy of significant weight in this case.
7.2.8 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
7.2.8.1 The NPPF was published in March 2012 and has replaced the previous national planning guidance which existed in the form of Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS).
7.2.8.2 Paragraph 214 and 215 of the NPPF state that for a 12 month period decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the NPPF. In other cases and following the 12 month period it indicates that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans ‘according to their degree of consistency with this framework’. Therefore, the closer the policies in the plan to the Framework the greater the weight that may be given to them.
7.2.8.3 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. For decision takers (determining planning applications) it says that this means ‘approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay’. It goes on to state that it also means ‘where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole’
7.2.8.4 The issue of a sequential test for main town centre uses as previously set out in PPS4 is addressed in Paragraph 24 of the NPPF. This states that a sequential test should be applied where planning applications are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan.
7.2.8.5 Paragraph 26 also states that when assessing application with town centre uses which are outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a locally defined threshold. If no local threshold is set then a default level of 2,500sqm should be applied. The assessment should include the impact of the proposal on existing,
Development Control Committee 18 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012 committed and planned public and private investment in centres in the catchment area and the impact on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from when the application is made. For major schemes the impact should be assessed up to ten years.
7.2.8.6 Whilst the NPPF replaced PPS4; Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, the Practice Guide which accompanied this PPS is still extant and can be used as a guide in applying the sequential and impact tests.
7.2.8.7 A ministerial statement “Planning for Growth” dated March 2011 and issued, by the Minister of State for Decentralisation, is a material planning consideration and should be afforded some weight. The statement sets out the steps the Government expects local planning authorities to take going forward in respect of determining planning applications. It advises local planning authorities that; • The Government’s top priority in reforming the planning system is to promote sustainable economic growth and jobs. The Government’s clear expectation is that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be “yes”, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy. Local Planning Authorities should therefore, • Consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may, where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity). • Ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.
7.2.9 Overview of the Principle of Development
7.2.9.1 The main thrust of policy advice across the different hierarchy of plans is on much the same basis and in the case of this development is principally about encouraging retail development in central town centre locations and supporting the vitality and viability of town centres. Rushden is considered as a main town centre, lower in the settlement hierarchy than Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough which are the focus for significant development, but where there should be an enhancement of the existing offer and where town centre development would be encouraged. The emerging policy position is also for Rushden to play an enhanced role within the growth of the sub-region and for a significant amount of housing development to be focused here over the period to 2031.
7.2.9.2 The proposal for the level of retail floorspace submitted would tend to suggest that it is contrary to the development plan. In total 43,289 sqm of A1 retail floorspace is proposed. Of this 16,333 sqm comprises the Garden Centre and outdoor area for plants together with retail terrace A which will accommodate related retailers and would not generally locate in town centre areas due to their size and offer. Retail Terraces B and C which will accommodate town centre A1 retailers will provide approximately 27,000 sqm of floorspace.
7.2.9.3 The Joint Core Strategy envisages that the majority of new comparison shopping floorspace will be located in the 3 main growth towns. It provides for development of an appropriate scale for Rushden Town Centre, however, even discounting the Garden Centre and related retailing elements the amount of floorspace would be considerably more than had been envisaged within the plan.
7.2.9.4 However, as will be further discussed in section 7.4.5, a large proportion of expenditure available to the Rushden area is spent elsewhere. The development of a leisure and retail facility, such as the one proposed, would enable the retention of much of this lost expenditure thereby reducing the need for residents to travel as far for comparison shopping needs and achieving a higher level of sustainable development. This would help support one of the general aims of the Core Spatial Strategy in achieving greater self-sufficiency for the area as a whole.
Development Control Committee 19 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.2.9.5 With the publication of the NPPF in March 2012 considerable weight needs to be given to this revised national policy as it is current and up to date. While the Development Plan, principally the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy, is an adopted statutory plan the fact that it is currently being reviewed and was adopted in 2008 means that subtleties and difference emphasises with national policy require careful consideration. Foremost in the NPPF is the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. As stated above this is taken to mean that ‘where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits..’ The stage of the review of the Core Spatial Strategy suggests policy 12 is now to some degree out of date. NPPF paragraph 23 requires that local planning authorities allocate a range of suitable sites to meet retail and other town centre uses ‘in full’ and ‘are not compromised by limited site availability’. This is a change in emphasis in policy and means that a different approach may be required if retail shopping patterns and needs are to be met. This would lead your officers to conclude that while the proposals are not entirely compatible with the adopted Development Plan, there are inconsistencies between this and the more up-to-date national policy with which they appear more in conformity. As such, although not in complete accordance with policy, it is open to members to consider all material considerations, weighing the impacts of the scheme and potential benefits, to consider whether planning consent should be granted even if contrary to policy guidance.
7.2.9.6 The principle of development and the balance of impacts and benefits are further considered in the following sections..
7.3 Layout, Design and Sustainability
7.3.1 A Design and Access Statement has been submitted with the application and this is supported by a more detailed Architect’s Design Statement; Landscape Design Strategy; Sustainable Design Statement & checklist and the Energy Statement. These set out the developer’s approach to the design process.
7.3.2 The Design and Access Statement sets out how the scheme design and layout has been developed through a process of consultation with key stakeholders and the wider community. Local people were engaged through a series of media adverts, a leaflet drop, a public exhibition and a dedicated website. The proposals include a garden centre, retail units, hotel (with leisure and crèche), restaurants, visitors centre, a boathouse and security gatehouse. Initial provision of a marina, (with a lock giving access to and from the River Nene) has been removed and replaced by a slipway for non-motorised boat access adjacent to the boathouse. Associated car parking (1,300 spaces) with hard & soft landscaping are proposed. Enhanced access to the two lakes within the application site area is facilitated and the provision of links to the wider footpath and cycle network along the Nene Valley and the adjoining urban areas including a pedestrian/cycle bridge across the A45. Bus stop facilities are also provided.
7.3.3 The garden centre is located to the east of the site with retail terraces A and B aligned perpendicular to this forming a boundary with the A45 making best use of the change in levels and natural screening. This also makes effective use of the existing access road which provides direct access to the service yards and also keeps this area out of view of the visitors. Retail terrace C is located opposite terrace B diagonally facing Skew Bridge ski lake maximising the opportunity for unobstructed views of the lake and SSSI. The lake edge has been extended into the site both physically and visually and the restaurants, visitor centre and boathouse, forming the main leisure elements of the scheme, take advantage of this by their location on the lake side. The main car parking area is framed within the main terraces and provides a significant landscape opportunity but has also been informed by the flood mitigation strategy. The hotel, leisure club and crèche are set back from the site entrance to reduce visual and physical impact.
Development Control Committee 20 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.3.4 The layout has also been informed by various constraints. A sewer pipe runs South to North and doglegs through the centre of the site (between the proposed terraces A and B) and then onto a treatment facility to the North of the River Nene. It is controlled and managed by Anglian Water and there is a 6m easement each side of the sewer pipe centre line. An earth bund forms the boundary to the north of the site which provides a defendable buffer between the development site and the nearest part of the SSSI helping to protect the wildlife and environmental interest of that site.
7.3.5 The massing and scale of the proposed buildings has been designed to minimise visual impact and integrate sensitively into their context and landscape. The building masses do not exceed two storeys with the exception of the hotel block which will be three storeys. Terraces B and C have been designed to provide similar scale to terrace A but with emphasis at the corners of the blocks helping frame the entrance to the site and provide a sense of arrival. The architectural approach to the buildings is purposefully simple, understated and subservient to the landscape with a modern approach using natural materials where possible. For example the retail terraces facades are predominantly timber clad to blend in with the surrounding with double glazed shopfronts to provide good natural lighting to the retail units. There is a colonnade along the retail terraces and a timber brise soleil is applied to provide solar shading to the glazed elements of the facades. Tenants’ signage will also be contained within the depth of the brise soleil in a controlled, consistent and complementary manner.
7.3.6 The general approach and design for the development, given the setting and location of the site, is considered acceptable. There are no direct neighbouring uses and the development will be predominantly surrounded by modern industrial and retail units located to the south of the site on the other side of the A45. The visual impact of the scheme will be limited by the A45 screening vegetation and constrained views into the site due to the location of the SSSI and its enclosed nature. The proposal will remove the existing earth mound which was formerly the artificial ski slope which is visible from the surrounding area and A45.
7.3.7 Sustainability Issues - The development seeks to respond to the issues of carbon reduction, climate change and resource and energy efficiency. National and local policy sets an aspiration for all new built development to achieve higher performance in these areas. NPPF paragraph 95 states; To support the move to a low carbon future, local planning authorities should: plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions; actively support energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings; and when setting any local requirement for a building’s sustainability, do so in a way consistent with the Government’s zero carbon buildings policy and adopt nationally described standards. It goes on to say in paragraph 96 In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should expect new development to: comply with adopted Local Plan policies on local requirements for decentralised energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that this is not feasible or viable; and take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption.
Development Control Committee 21 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.3.8 Policy 14 of the NNCSS sets out the local requirements in relation to residential and commercial buildings and this has been supplemented by the North Northamptonshire Sustainable Design SPD. This document provides detailed guidance for developers and a check list of questions to enable applicants to assess whether their proposals are addressing the key issues in relation to sustainable design.
7.3.9 The application is supported by a Sustainable Energy and Design Statement which specifically addresses the design check list contained in the SPD and further information on energy is provided in the Architects Design Statement and Energy Statement submitted by the applicant.
7.3.10 Overall the development responds positively to the sustainability criteria set out in the SPD incorporating good design to; create a distinctive character for the development, provide continuity and enclosure on the site relating well to the existing landform, address the issue of movement within the site – the provision of a cycle/pedestrian bridge across the A45 and links to the wider Greenway and footpath network helps to integrate the development, deliver a legible built form and high quality public realm, provide a diversity of choice through the mix of uses provided
7.3.11 Of particular interest in this assessment is the focus the applicant has given to resource and energy efficiency and the resilience to climate change. The flood risk strategy and mitigation is dealt with elsewhere in this report, therefore, this section will concentrate on the achievement of carbon reduction and energy provision. Policy 14 of the NNCSS states that; Development should meet the highest viable standards of resource and energy efficiency and reduction in carbon emissions. In particular: a) Proposals for large developments including the Sustainable Urban Extensions, should demonstrate that: ii. non-residential development will be compliant with a BREEAM/Ecobuilding assessment rating of at least ‘very good’ iii. a target of at least 30% of the demand for energy will be met on site (the actual figure to depend upon technical and economic viability), and renewably and/or from a decentralised renewable or low-carbon energy supply.
7.3.12 The assessment of the performance of the proposed buildings against the BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) rating demonstrates that for a particular known occupant the rating would be achieved. Some of the scoring criteria is attributed to the final fit out of the end users, therefore, it is not possible to undertake a full BREEAM assessment until later in the scheme. However, the performance for the ‘test’ unit indicates that a score of 58.50% is achieved against the required standard of BREEAM ‘very good’ which is 55%.
7.3.13 The applicant’s approach moving forward would be to use ‘Green Leases’, where negotiable, which incorporates an agreement between the landlord and tenant as to how the building is to be fitted out, managed and occupied in a sustainable way to comply with BREEAM. It is not intended for all elements of the scheme to be formally certified under BREEAM, however, the applicant will ensure that sustainability is addressed at an equivalent level across the site. In this respect it would be appropriate to include a condition which required a post-occupation assessment of the scheme against the BREEAM rating.
7.3.14 In order to achieve this overall rating the applicant has designed specific elements of the scheme to a very high level of sustainability where they have more control over the end user. Passive energy saving measures underlie the basis of all the building designs and
Development Control Committee 22 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012 include good natural day lighting, natural ventilation and carefully considered orientation together with high levels of insulation throughout. The Visitor Centre, Boathouse and Management Gatehouse will all be constructed to net-Zero carbon principles, and will be fully served by on-site renewable energy solutions. They will all incorporate ‘green roofs’ which help insulation and promote biodiversity through habitat enhancement. A number of other sustainable design features help these buildings achieve a zero carbon and zero energy rating.
7.3.15 The Energy Statement produced by Emission Zero for the applicant undertakes a thorough analysis of the options for renewable energy production on site and identifies the best opportunities as being; Photovoltaic panels, Solar Thermal and combined Photovoltaic and solar thermal (PV-t) systems can be easily implemented onto roof space. (Polycrystalline Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV) cells are to be strategically integrated into the 2,860sqm walkway canopy glass roof and a similar system would be installed across the garden centre plant sales area roof, and 216no./50kW PV panels would be centred along the solid roof). a Water Source Heat Pump (WSHP) which would be fed from the large water expanse of the Skew Bridge ski lake.
7.3.16 The estimated non-regulated equipment load represents approximately 30% of total site energy, meaning that the scheme provides for 30% of its own energy requirements and is in line with NNCSS Policy 14 target.
7.3.17 Overall the proposals seek to achieve the policy requirements under Policy 14 of the Core Spatial Strategy and the good design requirements of the NPPF. The proposals demonstrate innovative thinking and use of technology to produce well designed buildings and a sense of place which incorporates a high level of sustainability. Assessing the scheme on design and sustainability criteria would not be a reason for refusal. Conditions are suggested in respect of lighting, monitoring BREEAM performance and the provision of onsite renewable energy.
7.4 Retail Matters
7.4.1 Introduction and Overview of retail policy, studies and retail assessments
7.4.1.1 The relevant national policy for determining retail applications is the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This replaced PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth although the Practice Guide in relation to this PPS remains extant and can be used to inform the assessment for this type of scheme. The Development Plan, the current North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy adopted in 2008, is also valid in this assessment and is the starting point for considering applications, however, the NPPF to some extent supersedes the retail policies of the Development Plan and it is therefore national planning policy which will be of greatest relevance in this analysis. Members should consequently accord the NPPF more weight as this is more recent guidance. (See discussion in 7.2.9.5)
7.4.1.2 The application is accompanied by a PPS4 Retail Assessment produced for the applicant by Burnett Planning & Development Ltd (BPDL). Several objections have been made by neighbouring authorities and operators of shopping centres in surrounding centres regarding the reliability of this report. In order to assess the impact of this potential scheme and its implications for the emerging Core Spatial Strategy the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit commissioned a report specifically on the retail issues for the emerging Core Spatial Strategy and the implications of the Rushden Lakes proposal. This seeks to set out whether these proposals are likely to be complementary, and achievable in addition to new development in the three town centres; or whether the proposals would be likely to displace planned investment and capacity.
Development Control Committee 23 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.4.1.3 Alongside this independent report several critiques of the applicant’s Retail Assessment have been submitted and the applicant has also responded to the GVA retail assessment report submitted by the JPU. (These are appended to this report for Members information). It is difficult to make sense and interpret these differing standpoints as while the GVA report opposes the Rushden Lakes proposals it is not entirely consistent with the other analyses which have been undertaken. In order to obtain its own expert opinion the Council commissioned White Young Green (WYG), national planning consultants with a track record of advising on major retail applications, to provide their opinion. Their advice was based on a brief requiring four key outputs; A review of the applicant’s PPS4 Assessment of December 2011 and, in particular, the likely catchment of the development, its likely turnover and the headroom for additional comparison goods floorspace in the period to 2031; A review of the adequacy of the applicant’s sequential test analysis in the context of the NPPF; A review of the applicant’s retail impact assessment, focusing on the likely scale and significance of the impact on the town centres of Kettering, Corby, Wellingborough, Northampton and Bedford; and An independent assessment of the performance of the proposal against all relevant retail planning policies.
7.4.1.4 This has allowed your Officers to take an independent view of the information submitted and come to a structured decision in relation to the retail assessment of this scheme. This section of the report is therefore structured as follows; Review of current retail planning policy Capacity and Qualitative Need o North Northamptonshire Retail Capacity Update Study – 2012 o Rushden’s Local Needs and Defined Catchment The Sequential Test Impact Assessment Council’s Consultant (WYG) conclusions Officer assessment & overall conclusion
7.4.2 The NPPF and National Policy
7.4.2.1 Paragraph 23 of the NPPF relates to the need to promote competitive town centre environments, in drawing up local plans, it states local planning authorities should; recognise town centres as the heart of their communities..; define a network and hierarchy of centres which is resilient to anticipated future economic change; promote competitive town centres which provide customer choice..; and allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial, office, tourism, cultural, community and residential development needed in town centres.
7.4.2.2 Paragraph 23 goes on to state that: ‘It is important that needs for retail, leisure, commercial, office and other main town centre uses are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability.’
7.4.2.3 In respect of the assessment of application proposals for main town centre development, the NPPF revises and simplifies the two key national policy tests relating to the sequential approach to development and impact. The former test is set out in Paragraph 24 and states that Local Planning Authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre or are not in accordance with an up-to-date Development Plan. It also advises that they; ‘...should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference
Development Control Committee 24 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012 should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.’
7.4.2.4 As regard to the ‘Impact’ Test the previous tests as set out in policy EC16.1 of PPS4 have been refined within the NPPF into a twin test. Paragraph 25 of the NPPF states that: ‘When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sqm). This should include assessment of: 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 wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made.’
7.4.2.5 Paragraph 27 indicates that, ‘where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have a significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused’.
7.4.3 The Development Plan
7.4.3.1 Policy 12 of the Core Strategy – Distribution of Retail Development, states that the town centres of Kettering, Corby and Wellingborough will be strengthened and regenerated as the focus of sustainable communities in North Northamptonshire. It goes on to set out minimum net increases in comparison shopping floorspace for the 3 main centres. It also states that development of an appropriate scale that enhances the retail offer of Rushden town centre will be supported and that;
‘Where retail development, for which there is an identified need, cannot be accommodated within the defined town centre areas, a sequential approach will be followed with preference first to well-connected edge of town-centre locations followed by district and local centres including those in the sustainable urban extensions, and then existing retail areas that are well served by a choice of means of transport. The scale of retail development should be appropriate to the role and function of the centre where it is to be located. Accordingly, proposals for major retail development and their phasing will be assessed to ensure that they do not have an adverse impact on the long term viability of other town centres or the ability of North Northamptonshire to retain expenditure.’
7.4.4 Capacity and Qualitative Need
7.4.4.1 Before turning to the individual national policy tests for town centre uses and undertaking an assessment of the various reports submitted, a few words of explanation regarding the policy test and the relationship of need would be helpful and how this is now meant to be applied.
7.4.4.2 When PPS6: Planning for Town Centres was replaced by PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth in 2009 the requirement to undertake a freestanding test on ‘need’ for planning applications with town centre uses, regardless of their location was removed. This has been carried through to the NPPF. The Practice Guide, which is still extant, however, requires that an understanding of ‘need’ is still essential as this can inform the assessment as to whether any adverse impact may occur in planning or land use terms. The concern with the previously drafted ‘needs’ test was that it may restrict competition and limit consumer choice. While the present tests require an understanding of the local need, both quantitative and qualitative, this individual test has been removed and the principle (and
Development Control Committee 25 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012 previous practice) of refusing applications solely on the grounds of demonstrable need should no longer be the case.
7.4.4.3 As a result of the changes in national retail planning policy, the NPPF now seeks to promote a process whereby the starting position is to proactively drive and support sustainable economic development and that planning should ‘...not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives.’ (Core Principle 3)
7.4.4.4 Therefore, whilst the obvious starting position for any retail proposal is to review the ‘need’ (both quantitative and qualitative) in the local area, it is important that any evidence gathered on need is used to inform judgements reached in terms of the sequential approach and impact, which are now the key tests rather than being viewed as an exercise in its own right.
7.4.4.5 A needs assessment (both quantitative and qualitative) is an important consideration for the plan making process whereby the NPPF requires local planning authorities to allocate a range of suitable sites to ensure that ‘needs’ are met in full. The range of sites required to meet this need will be informed by the ‘scale’ and ‘type’ of need identified as part of any needs assessment. To some degree, this is covered under Policy 12 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2008) albeit this policy could now be considered to be out of date, (see previous discussion in 7.2.9.5) it is evident that Policy 12 was informed by a retail study prepared in 2006. Since then, a new study was undertaken in 2011 with a further update published in May 2012. The findings of this study are outlined in more detail below.
7.4.4.6 North Northamptonshire Retail Capacity Study (NNRCS). – The NNRCS was completed in February 2011 and provides a key piece of evidence for the Core Spatial Strategy review. It provides an assessment of the quantum of additional comparison and convenience floorspace which is required across North Northamptonshire in the period to 2031. The update study completed in April 2012 takes account of new information specifically; Population forecasts, Per capita expenditure data; Expenditure growth rates; Special forms of trading (such as online shopping); Turnover efficiency gain in existing retailers and retail planning commitments.
7.4.4.7 The NNRCS covers the whole of the North Northamptonshire area but sub-divides this area into 11 sub-zones (see Appendix 1) to create a picture of localised shopping patterns which can extend into neighbouring authority areas. For example Zone 10 is Rushden and Raunds but part of this extends further into Bedfordshire.
7.4.4.8 In their assessment of the Rushden Lakes application, GVA make reference to the most up to date retail evidence base which was the North Northamptonshire Retail Capacity Update (dated 2011). However, since then the further update study, referenced above, has been published. This study seeks to provide a more up to date assessment of the likely need for future retail floorspace in North Northamptonshire through to 2031 based on two housing/population growth scenarios. Whilst it is not the intention to review in significant detail the findings of the study, it is important to reflect upon its findings particularly given GVA’s reliance on the conclusions of the 2011 study when assessing the proposals at Rusden Lakes.
7.4.4.9 In assessing the conclusions of the 2012 Update it is important to note that the capacity figures are presented as ‘global figures’ for the whole of North Northamptonshire which is a wide-ranging and diverse geographical area. Therefore, the study somewhat simplistically assumes that the needs of one part of the catchment (at a more detailed local level) could be met by commitments in another part of the catchment which, in reality, is unlikely to be the case. No assessment is made in the 2012 Update of the needs of each part of the catchment (or each centre) and how best these needs can be met in the future.
Development Control Committee 26 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.4.4.10 Furthermore, the 2012 Update is primarily focused on ‘quantitative need’ and makes no assessment of likely qualitative needs, particularly in relation to comparison goods. Whilst there is reference to expenditure leaking to other centres outside the catchment, the ‘static retention’ scenario assumes that this leakage will continue and grow (in monetary terms) as a result of population and expenditure growth. Whilst there is an enhanced market share scenario, the increase in retention that has been modelled is very cautious at just four percentage points for the whole of the catchment (an increase from 61% to 65%).
7.4.4.11 In dealing with the capacity identified for comparison goods, the study recognises that in 2010 existing comparison goods facilities within the defined catchment area retained 61% of the comparison goods expenditure generated by residents within the same catchment. This means that under the Strategic Opportunity Scenario £355m of the £902m generated within the catchment leaked to other retail destinations outside the catchment. Of this £355m leakage, approximately £141m was spent in Northampton; £53m in Peterborough; £46m in Milton Keynes with the remainder spread over various centres including Market Harborough, Leicester, Stamford, Bedford, etc.
7.4.4.12 This level of leakage is also reflected at the local level in Zone 10 (which covers Rushden). In 2010 approximately 40% of the expenditure generated within Zone 10 was being spent at facilities outside North Northamptonshire. The majority of this (56%) was being spent in Northampton with 21% also going to Milton Keynes. Furthermore, of the £147.2m generated within Zone 10, only £55.3m (or 38%) was being retained by facilities within Zone 10. This means that over 60% of the expenditure generated within Zone 10 is spent outside that zone. The proximity of Wellingborough has a strong draw for residents within this zone and there would appear to be some overlapping of catchments between Wellingborough and Rushden. However, the influence of Wellingborough is not as strong as the draw of Northampton and Milton Keynes which are 16 and 25 miles away respectively.
7.4.4.13 Despite this high level of leakage, there is no assessment within the 2012 Update of the shopping patterns that occur throughout the eleven zones and how these may be altered by future retail provision. In fact, in the GVA’s review of the Rushden Lakes application, they acknowledge that the 2011 study identified no specific floorspace requirement for Rushden and that it primarily focuses on the needs of the three key centres. However, the study does not effectively deal with needs at a more localised level because the methodology contained within the study sought to roll forward existing market shares within the whole study area, rather than looking in detail at existing shopping patterns and assessing whether they were sustainable or whether or not they needed to be altered by the introduction of new floorspace. WYG assert that this ‘qualitative assessment’ is simply missing from the study.
7.4.4.14 WYG point out that the NPPF is quite clear that future needs must be met ‘in full’ and any proper assessment of future needs must consider ‘qualitative’ factors such as competition, choice and whether people are being forced to travel significant distances to access suitable retail facilities. While they accept that locations such as Rushden will never be able to compete fully with major centres such as Northampton and Milton Keynes there would appear to be an opportunity locally to provide more sustainable shopping patterns. However, this is not explored within the ‘broad brush’ approach set out in the updated retail capacity study.
7.4.4.15 It is interesting to note that in GVA’s independent assessment for the JPU, they highlight the fact that the comparison goods market share of facilities within North Northamptonshire has increased from 50% in 2005 to 61.5% in 2011, which is a positive step forward. However, they highlight that this increase has only been secured by the provision of additional out of centre retail development as little new development has been secured in- centre. Therefore, although a key objective of government guidance is to promote the town centre first objective, WYG contend that the fact that out of centre development can contribute positively to more sustainable shopping patterns locally (as is the case in North Northamptonshire) must not be overlooked.
Development Control Committee 27 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.4.4.16 In fact, GVA (para 2.50) accept that there is potential for Rushden Town Centre “to increase its market share, if it is able to attract a significant scale of new retail development.” However, GVA then go on to state that “based on the overall capacity within the North Northamptonshire area, achieving a development of sufficient scale to radically alter current shopping patterns would deflect significant capacity away from other town centres”. WYG assume that they mean centres within North Northamptonshire. If this is correct, then WYG believes this statement is misplaced. When the shopping patterns for Rushden are assessed in detail at the local level WYG state it is evident that there is significant outflow to Northampton, Milton Keynes and Bedford. These are centres which are all outside the North Northamptonshire area. Within North Northamptonshire there are significant expenditure flows from the Rushden area to Wellingborough which is unsurprising given its close proximity. However, expenditure flows to Kettering are more limited with even lower levels recorded in Corby (which is over 22 miles away). Therefore, if there is to be any ‘deflection’ of capacity from any centre within North Northamptonshire, it is WYG’s view that this would be centred on Wellingborough and any impact on Kettering or Corby would be minimal. The greatest level of ‘deflection’ will occur at larger centres outside North Northamptonshire including Northampton, Milton Keynes and Bedford which the NNRCS does not seek to address.
7.4.4.17 GVA contends that the consequence of permitting the Rushden Lakes proposal would be to absorb all of the identified expenditure capacity within North Northamptonshire for the next 10 years. WYG, conversely, believe that this statement is misleading, given that the methodology adopted for the North Northamptonshire study is focused on modelling the capacity arising from population change and expenditure growth (albeit with a slight increase in market share) and does not consider the significant changes in shopping patterns that could occur within various parts of the catchment which may have a significant impact on current market shares and retention rates. In fact there is no qualitative assessment which considers whether or not current levels of leakage are acceptable or whether it would be possible to promote more sustainable shopping patterns locally within different parts of the catchment. WYG argue that the suggestion that Rushden Lakes would also redistribute growth away from centres such as Corby defies logic given the fact that they operate within distinctly different catchments and are over 20 miles apart. They believe there is very little evidence of any significant movement of expenditure between the Rushden Zone and the Corby Zone which is unlikely to significantly change even if Rushden Lakes is implemented in the future.
7.4.4.18 WYG also have some concerns in relation to the global capacity figures reported in the NNRCS 2012 Update. These are briefly set out below;
In seeking to assess the conclusions reached by the NNRCS report, WYG note that a significant part of the future capacity identified across the whole study area is absorbed by the commitment referred to as ‘Evolution Corby’. This is slightly concerning for two reasons. 1. WYG is aware that the ‘Evolution Corby’ was ‘resolved to grant’ by the planning committee but the S106 was never signed and the permission was never issued. Since then the applicant has sold the site and whilst the new owner has expressed a willingness to progress the scheme there would appear to be no prospect of any permission being issued in the immediate future. 2. Corby Town Centre currently has a market share of just 7% in the whole study area. However, in assessing future needs across the whole study area, £71m (or 53% of the turnover of all known commitments) is allocated to Corby Town Centre to account for ‘Evolution Corby’. As a result the study concludes that there is an ‘over provision’ of floorspace in the study area for the medium to long term. However, WYG questions whether it is right that a significant proportion of the needs identified throughout the whole study area should be met in Corby which is located to the north of the study area?
Development Control Committee 28 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
Furthermore, there appears to be certain inconsistencies in relation to floorspace efficiency, as a result, WYG consider that too much ‘capacity’ appears to be directed towards existing retailers in the form of increased productivity. For example, of the £81.5m of growth that is identified between 2010 and 2016, £56.7m is allocated to existing retailers to account for increases in productivity. Whilst an adjustment is necessary, this appears to be much higher than that set out in Table 3.5 of the NNRCS.
The study models both a static (61%) and slightly improved market share (65%). The static scenario would appear to be unrealistic on the basis that if Evolution Corby was implemented (which the study accounts for) then the market share of Corby would dramatically increase. WYG maintain it is not clear how this is accounted for in the study and whether this has informed the judgements made in relation to increasing the market share from 61% to 65%. Therefore, whilst the retail study is useful baseline information WYG contend the conclusions cannot be seen to provide definitive floorspace targets for North Northamptonshire against which developments such as Rushden Lakes can be judged.
7.4.5 Rushden’s Local Need and Defined Catchment
7.4.5.1 WYG suggest that despite the obvious limitations of the study in relation to assessing specific schemes which were not included in the commitments, the NNRCS does provide useful baseline information which can be used to inform the decision making process in relation to Rushden Lakes. When considering ‘need’ at a more localised level (i.e. Zone 10) it is apparent that there is significant (over 60%) amounts of expenditure which are generated within Zone 10 but spent at facilities elsewhere. BPDL (in Appendix 6 of their response) suggest that once the Rushden Lakes scheme is implemented the retention of expenditure within Zone 10 could increase to 70% at 2016. Clearly this is a significant and ambitious increase in the retention of expenditure compared to the levels currently achieved by existing facilities within Rushden and the remainder of Zone 10. Even if the NNRCS had examined ‘qualitative needs’ in addition to the ‘quantitative needs’ it is unlikely that the study would have put forward such a significant change within just one of the eleven zones. WYG feels that this is particularly true given the fact the adopted Core Strategy focuses on the centres of Kettering, Corby and Wellingborough. Therefore, even though it is accepted that the Core Strategy is now out of date (see section 7.2.9.5) and overlooked the needs of Rushden, this will have clearly influenced the preparation of the revised retail capacity study which focused on the three key centres previously identified in the adopted Core Strategy.
7.4.5.2 At present, the NNRCS models Rushden’s future needs based on maintaining its market share (or static retention). Given Rushden’s limited market share across the whole study area, the quantitative need arising will be much more limited than the need identified in support of the Rushden Lakes application. Whilst it is not possible to extract an exact figure for the needs of Rushden from the NNRCS (as the study presents the future quantitative need as a single global figure for the whole study area), it is evident that any such assessment for Rushden would not arrive at the scale of development proposed at Rushden Lakes.
7.4.5.3 WYG state that it is more difficult to arrive at precise floorspace figures when applying more qualitative judgements about future retention of expenditure. However, they accept that in order to achieve a significant shift in retention rates locally it is often necessary to provide a certain critical mass which will convince local people to alter their shopping habits. It is not clear to WYG from the application submission whether the scale of the retail facility proposed is necessary to achieve the required ‘step change’ in retail shopping patterns at the local level or whether a smaller facility would achieve something similar. They also consider that as part of Zone 10 would appear to fall within Wellingborough’s catchment for comparison goods, it is likely that Rushden Lakes will also contribute to meeting some of the needs of Wellingborough’s residents as well.
Development Control Committee 29 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.4.5.4 WYG acknowledge that any future development which seeks to claw back trade from centres with a very strong draw such as Northampton and Milton Keynes would require the ‘offer’ provided at the local level to be significant particularly with the inclusion of department stores and a number of high street multiples. What they feel is not clear, however, from the evidence submitted to date, is how the needs at the local level (i.e. Rushden) have informed the overall scale and nature of the scheme. Notwithstanding this WYG accept that given the quality of the retail facility that would be provided at Rushden Lakes they would anticipate that a significantly greater proportion of people living in the Rushden area would then choose to shop locally rather than travelling to Northampton, Milton Keynes or Bedford on a regular basis, as they do now. The proposed development at Rushden Lakes is not expected to provide the diverse range and offer that would still be available within Northampton or Milton Keynes but the applicant anticipates that 30% of expenditure in Zone 10 would still be spent elsewhere after Rushden Lakes was implemented. This would still suggest that residents may visit these higher order centres but on a less frequent basis.
7.4.5.5 Therefore, when examining current shopping patterns within the Rushden area WYG believes it is apparent that there is a strong qualitative need to enhance the provision of comparison goods facilities to promote more sustainable shopping patterns locally and increase current expenditure retention rates. They state that even GVA in their assessment of the Rushden Lakes proposal accept that there is potential for Rushden Town Centre to increase its market share if it is able to attract a significant scale of new retail development. However, the identified need (which GVA support) cannot only exist if the opportunity to accommodate that need only exists within the town centre. WYG argue that the need must exist regardless of whether there are sites available within Rushden Town Centre. If there are no sites available within or on the edge of Rushden Town Centre to accommodate the identified need then the need does not simply fall away.
7.4.5.6 In terms of the catchment that has been adopted by BPDL, the PPS4 assessment places significant emphasis on Zone 10 of the NNRCS being Rushden’s ‘home zone’. Whilst WYG maintain that this is true in terms of the sphere of influence of existing retail facilities within Rushden (both in-centre and out of centre), they believe that Rushden Lakes is likely to draw from a wider area than existing facilities within Rushden Town Centre (particularly with the specialist Home & Garden facility). As a result, WYG would anticipate that the primary catchment of the proposed development is more likely to be centred on Zones 9, 10 and 11 rather than just Rushden’s ‘home zone’ which is identified to be Zone 10. To some degree WYG consider this is accepted by BPDL whereby it is assumed that 89% of the development’s trade will be drawn from these three zones. They would also agree with BPDL that residents in Zone 7 may also look towards Rushden Lakes in the future for some of their comparison goods shopping needs.
7.4.5.7 However, when looking at future needs in this part of the North Northamptonshire catchment, it would appear to WYG that if the development is to attract expenditure generated in Zone 9 and Zone 11 then it may be necessary to consider locations just beyond Rushden where the localised need could also be met. Based on the location of the proposed development and the close proximity of the settlement of Wellingborough, it could be argued that (subject to suitable sites being available) Wellingborough (circa 5 miles away) may also be well placed to meet the quantitative and qualitative needs identified in the southern part of North Northamptonshire and create more sustainable shopping patterns in this part of the catchment. Whilst WYG accept that there is a need in Rushden given the scale of the proposed development at Rushden Lakes (and its location) it is likely that the development will go beyond serving just the needs of Rushden and will also appeal to people living in the Wellingborough area. Therefore, whilst ‘need’ is not a test that has to be satisfied in the NPPF, WYG believe that it will be important to carefully consider this issue when assessing the sequential approach and the potential impact of the proposed development.
Development Control Committee 30 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.4.6 The Sequential Test
7.4.6.1 As set out in 7.4.2.3 paragraph 24 of the NPPF sets out the order of preference in applying the sequential approach. The first preference for development for main town centre uses will be to locate in town centres, followed by edge of centre locations, and only if no other suitable sites are available should out of centre sites be considered. Paragraph 24 indicates that, when considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites which are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and the local planning authority should also demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.
7.4.6.2 Additional guidance on how to apply the sequential approach is provided by the Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach, which is still extant. Paragraph 6.24 indicates that, in determining the appropriate area of search for an application, it will be relevant to consider the scale and form of development proposed. It states that: ‘...some proposals will serve a purely localised need (e.g. local foodstores) whereas others are likely to serve a materially wider catchment area. In these instances, it will be relevant to consider whether the proposal is of an appropriate scale to the location proposed, or whether some of the need could be better met within an existing ‘higher order’ centre.’
7.4.6.3 Paragraph 6.26 then indicates that: ‘When considering ‘location specific’ needs, it is important to distinguish between cases where needs arise because of a gap or deficiency in the range, quality or choice of existing facilities, and where the commercial objectives of a specific developer or occupier are their prime consideration.’ The current sequential test, as required by the NPPF, is notably different from that set out by Core Strategy Policy 12, specifically in relation to the Core Strategy policy giving preference to edge of town centre sites before district and local centres, and to other existing retail areas over any other out of centre site, no matter how well connected it might be. The national test is more recent and is considered to more accurately reflect the sustainable development principles established by the Government. Accordingly, it is considered to be of greater relevance to the determination of the application.
7.4.6.4 WYG consider that the applicant’s approach to the sequential test is predicated on the fact that the existing retail offer in Rushden is deficient in terms of its scale and quality, and residents are therefore forced further afield in order for their comparison goods needs to be met. As a result, the retention of expenditure in Rushden and its catchment area is limited and below that which could reasonably be expected.
7.4.6.5 Paragraph 4.4 of the PPS4 Statement submitted by BPDL states that: ‘The Rushden Lakes proposal is intended to provide a step change in the sustainability and self sufficiency of Rushden in meeting more of the shopping needs of its catchment given its underperformance relative to other centres (Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby) and therefore address the economic, environmental and social disadvantages that the relative lack of quality, choice and competition in shopping facilities in Rushden presents for its substantial local population.’ WYG believe that this stated need for additional retail floorspace has two particular consequences in terms of the applicant’s approach to the sequential test. 1. It is stated that the need is effectively local to Rushden and its catchment and cannot be met by further development anywhere else. BPDL note in the PPS4 Assessment that Rushden’s primary catchment equates to Zone 10 of the North Northamptonshire Capacity Update study area. Rushden Town Centre therefore is the defined area of search for the sequential test. 2. BPDL believe that it is not possible to disaggregate elements of the proposed scheme to a more centrally located site or sites. In this regard, paragraph 4.23 of the applicant’s PPS4 Assessment states that:
Development Control Committee 31 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
‘The application proposals exhibit a number of key characteristics that are important to the viability and deliverability of the development and to meeting the identified need. This includes: - Modern efficient floorspace that is specifically designed to meet retailer requirements and includes the flexibility to provide upper floor (i.e. mezzanine) level trading and storage space. Including critical ‘anchor’ stores. - A critical mass of retail units of a range of sizes (from 135 sqm gross to 5,574 sqm gross) providing the co-location opportunity and mutual benefits of retailers trading together, capable of attracting national multiple retailers to Rushden who would not otherwise consider investing in the town. - A critical mass of retail units capable of generating the rental values necessary to support the deliverability of the overall regeneration of the site.’
7.4.6.6. As a result of the above, paragraph 4.29 of the PPS4 Assessment contends that: ‘The needs and requirements that the Rushden Lakes application will meet cannot be achieved by arbitrary disaggregation of the various retail components onto separate own centre sites even if suitable sites were available. The critical mass and co-location elements mentioned above are essential to achieving the step change in shopping patterns that is needed in Rushden.’ The proposed retail element of the Rushden Lakes development is stated to cover an area of circa 10 hectares. Given that the applicant contends that it is essential that the scheme provides the critical mass of a number of national multiple retailers at one site and that the need is effectively ‘location specific’, BPDL concludes that, even allowing for reasonable flexibility, there are no sequentially superior sites which could meet the needs and requirements that the application site will meet.
7.4.6.7 While this was the applicant’s initial approach, in response to comments received from GVA and other objections, BPDL has in its own response to this, assessed sequential alternatives within a 30 minute drive-time of the site. GVA’s report of April 2012 contested that the applicant had effectively overstated the need for additional facilities in Rushden and that development of the scale proposed would attract expenditure from a much wider catchment than that suggested. GVA concluded, in summary, that the proposals are out of scale in relation to the current retail hierarchy and the defined role of Rushden town centre. It also found that no clear need had been established for the other main town centre uses (the restaurants and hotel). Due to this, GVA concluded that the proposal would serve a catchment area extending well beyond Zone 10 of the NNRCS Update study area and that, as such, any need for the development was not particularly localised nor, therefore, particularly location specific. As such, they argued that the area of search for the sequential approach should have been cast further afield.
7.4.6.8 GVA also suggested that the applicant has failed to appropriately apply the sequential test by not properly considering the ability for disaggregation; in particular, of the other main town centre uses associated with the proposal. At paragraph 3.35 of their report, GVA disputes the applicant’s suggestion that the additional restaurants and hotel are genuinely ancillary or inextricably linked to the proposed development. Instead, it suggests that there are a number of sites within Rushden town centre which could accommodate these uses.
7.4.6.9 In considering the sequential test of the applicant, the GVA report and other submissions from neighbouring commercial operators, WYG consider it prudent to first give consideration to the recent decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council and others, issued on 21 March 2012. In brief summary, Dundee City Council granted planning permission for a large Asda superstore at a site less than a kilometre away from an existing Tesco store in west Dundee in January 2010. Tesco raised judicial review proceedings to determine the legality of the decision on the basis that there was an allocated site which could accommodate some, but not all, of the floorspace proposed by Asda. In considering whether the alternative allocated site should be viewed as sequentially superior, the Supreme Court judgement ruled on the meaning of a site’s ‘suitability’ to accommodate the development proposed.
Development Control Committee 32 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.4.6.10 Within this ruling Lord Hope (Paragraph 38) stated that; ‘...the whole [sequential] exercise is directed to what the developer is proposing, not some other proposal which the planning authority might seek to substitute for it which is for something less than that sought by the developer...I do not think that this is in the least surprising, as developments of this kind are generated by the developer’s assessment of the market that he seeks to serve. If they do not meet the sequential approach criteria, bearing in mind the need for flexibility and realism to which Lord Reed refers in para 28, above, they will be rejected. But these criteria are designed for use in the real world in which developers wish to operate, not some artificial world in which they have no interest doing so.’
7.4.6.11 In considering the above, WYG recognise that the case specifically relates to the application of Scottish national planning policy and local plan policy of relevance to the subject application proposal. They also note that the NPPF specifically requires applicants as well as local planning authorities to demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale. However, they believe the direction that suitability should be considered in terms of the ‘real world’ in which developers operate to have some pertinence to the application of the NPPF and, indeed, to the Rushden Lakes proposal. In this regard WYG consider three matters to be of principal relevance to the consideration of the sequential approach: 1. the area of search for alternative sites; 2. the appropriateness of the scale of development proposed; and 3. the ability to disaggregate elements of the proposal from the remainder of the scheme in order that they are sited more centrally.
7.4.6.12 The Area of Search for Alternative Sites WYG tend to agree, to some extent, with some of GVA’s concerns in terms of the area of search and would expect the proposed development to draw from an area wider than just Rushden or Zone 10. The application site’s location affords easy access to the settlement of Wellingborough and whilst residents of Zone 10 of the NNRCS Update study area currently have to travel elsewhere to access certain types of goods, it is WYG’s view that some of the qualitative benefits of the scheme could also be delivered through an appropriate development in or around Wellingborough town centre.
7.4.6.13 Wellingborough and Rushden are located in close proximity (in adjacent NNRCS Update Zones 9 and 10) and it is not considered unreasonable for residents of one to travel to the other in order to undertaken comparison goods shopping. Accordingly, whilst it is accepted that the area as a whole is the subject of a qualitative deficiency in terms of the number and range of national multiple retailers, WYG do not considered that this need (particularly given the scale of the proposed development) can only be met in Rushden alone. They therefore believe that it would be sensible and reasonable for Rushden and Wellingborough to jointly form the focus for the sequential search.
7.4.6.14 In forming this view, WYG acknowledge that the provision of a smaller scale development in Wellingborough would not necessarily meet the needs of residents in Rushden and therefore if it could not achieve the same critical mass or attract similar high quality retailers then certain residents would be likely to continue bypassing Wellingborough and carry on shopping at Northampton and Milton Keynes. Furthermore, WYG assert that whilst this ‘need’ to retain additional comparison goods expenditure is not identified by the adopted Core Strategy, it is planned for by the Emerging Draft for Consultation of the Core Strategy which indicates that the Growth Towns of Corby, Kettering, Rushden and Wellingborough will be the focus for major co-ordinated regeneration and growth in employment, housing, comparison retail development and higher order facilities serving one or more districts.
7.4.6.15 The Appropriateness of the Scale of Development Proposed WYG consider that there is a significant need (both quantitative and qualitative) for additional comparison goods floorspace within the southern part of North Northamptonshire.
Development Control Committee 33 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
Accordingly, whilst it is accepted that a significant ‘step change’ in shopping patterns would provide associated benefits in terms of reducing travel, they do not consider that the applicant has fully justified the scale of development that is being promoted is necessary.. WYG acknowledge that any future development which seeks to claw back trade from centres with a very strong draw such as Northampton and Milton Keynes then the ‘offer’ provided at the local level would need to be significant particularly with the inclusion of department stores and a number of high street multiples. WYG recognises that the matter of scale is of relevance to the consideration of the sequential and impact tests and is not a policy test in itself. They therefore believe that, if it can be demonstrated that there are no other sequential alternatives which could accommodate a development which would bring about the necessary step change (accepting that may occur through a slightly smaller scale development) and would satisfy the impact test, then the proposal will be acceptable in retail planning policy terms.
7.4.6.16 Disaggregation Whilst WYG agree with GVA in terms of its assertion that the proposed hotel element and restaurant elements of the scheme are not genuinely ancillary to the remainder of the proposal, they do consider that such elements assist with the viability of such a development and that such uses will attract trade as a result of their location (adjacent to the Lakes and the road highway network) which may not ordinarily be available to such ‘in centre’ development in this broad location. Accordingly, and giving some consideration of the Supreme Court judgement in respect of the Dundee case, WYG do not consider that hotel and restaurant development of a comparable scale would be provided elsewhere in either Rushden or Wellingborough, if such elements were removed from the application proposal. Therefore, they consider that the hotel and restaurants do reasonably form part of the ‘real world’ development which is tailored to the opportunities of the particular site under consideration and that no benefit would be served from adopting the (effectively theoretical) position that they may be brought forward on an alternative site.
7.4.6.17 WYG consider that the same could also be said of the primary retail components of the scheme. Whilst some of the potential operators may be attracted to alternative locations/units in the future (if any sequentially superior sites did come forward), the location of Rushden Lakes (i.e. easy access to the A45) and the proposed critical mass will result in attracting many operators who, on their own, are unlikely to consider locations within Rushden or Wellingborough town centres. Therefore, although ‘in theory’ the retail units within the scheme could be disaggregated and directed towards the established centres of Rushden and Wellingborough (if sequentially superior opportunities existed) in the ‘real world’ WYG consider that this simply would not happen.
7.4.6.18 Alternative Sites to Accommodate the Development In order to consider suitable and available alternative sites WYG has given further consideration to the sites identified and reviewed by BPDL in its PPS4 Assessment and subsequent Response to GVA. They have also had discussions with both Local Councils. In total, 22 sites in Rushden and Wellingborough are identified in these two documents, and no further sites were identified following the discussions with either Council. WYG has not given any further consideration to any additional sites outside these two towns, as they do not consider that any such sites could provide the benefits in terms of retention of expenditure locally (particularly in the southern area of North Northamptonshire) which would result from the application scheme.
7.4.6.19 In considering the sites, a large number were regarded as clearly too small by WYG to accommodate development of even a broadly similar type to that proposed at Rushden Lakes. In particular, sites 1 to 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 17 to 21 are too small to accommodate the development proposal, even allowing for substantial flexibility in terms of its exact format. Sites 7, 8 and 10 WYG found to be in use for outdoor recreation purposes or are formally protected from development and are therefore not considered to be suitable. Alternative forms of development are being pursued at sites 13 and 15, which are also substantially smaller than the application site.
Development Control Committee 34 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.4.6.20 Accordingly, WYG consider that two sites merit further consideration, these being the Palmbest site at Rushden and the Swansgate Centre site at Wellingborough. The Palmbest site is situated between College Street, Duck Street and High Street in Rushden town centre and was identified in the 2010 Rushden Town Centre Regeneration Strategy as having potential to accommodate a retail-led mixed use redevelopment scheme. In addition to new shops, the strategy recommended restaurants and cafes, multi-storey car parking and potentially complementary residential development. WYG are aware that any future development site requires some work to be assembled and that, on this basis, the Regeneration Strategy suggested that the site’s development over the ‘long term’ (six to 10 years) would be ambitious. In the current climate, WYG are of the view that a realistic timetable for the site’s development would likely be somewhat in excess of 10 years. Given this, and the fact that the identified strategy to bring the site forward is a mixed-use development which would not accommodate even a broadly similar quantum of floorspace to that proposed at Rushden Lakes, they do not consider that it realistically represents a suitable and available alternative site to accommodate the type of development proposed.
7.4.6.21 Whilst the Swansgate Centre was identified as a clear opportunity to improve Wellingborough’s retail offer by the Wellingborough Masterplan Strategic Framework (November 2005), the Wellingborough Town Centre Area Action Plan (TCAAP) (adopted July 2009) considered that other town centre sites offered greater and more realistic redevelopment potential. WYG is unaware of any significant efforts to drive forward the potential redevelopment of the centre following the adoption of the TCAAP and they consider that any scheme to bring about the centre’s redevelopment is still some time away given the current economic conditions. Furthermore, whilst the redevelopment of the site could result in a much improved retail offer in Wellingborough, it is not envisaged that it could provide an uplift in floorspace commensurate with that which would result from the development of the Rushden Lakes site. There would appear to be significant doubts as to the availability and viability of the site even over the medium to long term, and the site is unable to accommodate a similar scale of development to that proposed at Rushden Lakes. Accordingly, WYG consider that the Swansgate Centre does not represent a sequentially superior site. From discussions with the local planning authority, WYG is also unaware of any other out-of-centre site in either Rushden or Wellingborough which could accommodate a development of the type proposed at Rushden Lakes and which would better connect to a defined town centre. Similarly, they are not aware of any such site that has been put forward through any representation received in response to this planning application.
7.4.6.22 From the above discussion and review of the information available, your officers would concur with the view of WYG that the area of search as amended by the applicant, through their sensitivity analysis of the Sequential Test, is appropriate. Furthermore, it is considered that the disaggregation of the scheme’s elements is not feasible or realistic in the light of the applicant’s proposals for the site and that there are no sequentially superior sites which could provide a suitable and available alternative option. Therefore your officers conclude that the Sequential Test has been met.
7.4.7 Impact Assessment
7.4.7.1 As stated above in 7.4.2.5 paragraph 27 of the NPPF indicates that application proposals for retail, leisure and office development should be refused planning permission where a significant adverse impact is likely to arise from development. Therefore, the key test is not whether there is an impact as a result of the proposed development but whether that impact could be deemed to be significantly adverse.
7.4.7.2 The policy test set out in paragraph 27 is that planning permission should only be refused where a proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact. In seeking to consider the significance of the impacts arising from the proposed development, it is important to reflect upon the advice set out in the Practice Guidance (which remains a material
Development Control Committee 35 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012 consideration following the introduction of NPPF) under Section 5 and Section 7. Paragraph 5.10 states that: ‘In assessing whether an impact is significant, it should be remembered that any new development involving town centres uses will lead to an impact on existing facilities, and as new development takes place in one centre this will enhance its competitive position relative to other centres. This is a consequence of providing for efficient modern retailing and other key town centres uses, and promoting choice, competition and innovation.’
7.4.7.3 WYG point out that the Practice Guidance recognises that impacts will arise with all retail developments but this is not necessarily a ‘bad thing’ as development often enhances choice, competition and innovation. The key challenge is to differentiate between those developments that will have an impact and those that will fundamentally undermine the future vitality and viability of established centres – i.e. a ‘significant adverse’ impact.
7.4.7.4 It is clear that impacts will arise as a result of the proposed development. However, WYG consider the fundamental question is whether the impacts arising will be so significant that they would undermine the future vitality and viability of those established centres. In making judgements about whether or not the future of a centre will be significantly adversely affected, it is important to understand the current role, performance and health of the centre or centres which will be impacted and how their role and function may change as a result of the impacts arising. Paragraphs D.38 and D.39 of Appendix D of the Practice Guidance, state that: ‘In all cases however it is important that the impacts are considered on the vitality and viability of the whole of a centre or centres, not simply on individual facilities which may be similar to the proposed development. In each case, it is important that impact assessments are accompanied by an assessment of the current performance and health of existing centres and facilities within the catchment (based on the health check indicators), and an assessment of the proposal against the objectives of any town centre or related strategies.’
‘The significance of any impacts will be a matter of informed judgement and depend on the individual circumstance of the locality and type of centre or facility. There is no universal threshold which could be applied to indicate whether an impact on trade/turnover is likely to be significant…’
7.4.7.5 WYG has reviewed all of the data presented in relation to the health of existing key centres and has visited each centre, as part of the input to their report, to understand the centre’s role and function. Appendix 8 of the submitted PPS4 Assessment considers the current health of Kettering, Rushden and Wellingborough. In summary the towns were found to have the following characteristics;
Kettering o a vital and viable town centre, which was subject to encouraging increases in rent and decreases in investor yield in the period to 2008 o a balance between convenience, comparison and service uses which is very broadly commensurate with national average, and has a relatively large number (108 in 2011) of national multiple comparison goods retailers. o 47 vacant units were present in the primary shopping area at 2011, which represents a reduction on the figure of 51 in 2009 and equates to 13% of the total number of units across the Primary Shopping Area. Rushden o benefits from a reasonable mix of convenience, comparison and service operators, but with obvious weakness in terms of fashion provision. o only 19 national multiple comparison goods retailers and, as a whole, 24.6% of all units in Rushden are multiples compared to the cited GOAD UK average figure of 29.5% (at June 2011). o 34 vacant units in the centre (as defined by GOAD) in January 2011, equating to 20.7% of all units. This figure is reported to have fallen to 25 vacancies at
Development Control Committee 36 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
November 2011, equating to 15.0% of all units. This represents a 26% reduction in vacancies. Wellingborough o retail offer is also broadly consistent with national average benchmarks, with slightly more units in service use and slightly fewer being vacant (at November 2011). o effect on the economic downturn has been modest in terms of prime retail rents, which dropped from £85 per sqft in 2008 to £80 per sq.ft in 2009. However, WYG would suggest, that the weak economy has continued to take hold subsequent to this and that the rents currently being achieved may not necessarily reflect the 2009 level. o just 10.8% of the centre’s units were vacant at November 2009, which represents a reduction on the figure of 13.9% recorded in June 2010.
7.4.7.6 The PPS4 Assessment concluded that each of the centres is effectively vital and viable. WYG has visited each of the centres and, whilst they consider that some of the data set out by the applicant is effectively outdated and is possibly too positive (particularly in terms of the citation of yields which were achieved in 2008), they do not consider that any of the centres is subject to long-term decline. Most particularly, although Rushden has very limited representation from national multiple retailers and a weak fashion offer, its vacancy rate was found to have fallen significantly during 2011. Accordingly, whilst its offer could be more comprehensive, they do not consider that Rushden currently exhibits the characteristics of a ‘failing’ centre.
7.4.7.7 In seeking to assess the likely impact of the proposed development, the NPPF sets out two issues which need to be carefully considered. 1. The impact of any proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal 2. The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area up to five years after the application is made.
7.4.7.8 The impact of any proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment In terms of existing and committed investment within the key centres, WYG is not aware of any potential impacts that would arise as a result of the proposed development at Rushden Lakes. In terms of committed development (considered in more detail below as part of the cumulative impact issues) there are no significant planning permissions in place for new development in the key centres, nor are there currently any significant developments being implemented.
7.4.7.9 However, WYG point out that from the GVA assessment and the objections received, it is evident that there are plans for investment within some of the key centres in the future. The planned investment relate to ‘Evolution Corby’ in Corby, the extension of the Grosvenor Centre in Northampton and potential opportunities in Kettering and Wellingborough. In terms of Evolution Corby it appears to WYG that the new owners of the site, Helical Bar, are keen to reinvigorate the proposals for this site which previously had been granted a resolution to approve planning permission subject to a S106 agreement but was never signed and the scheme was eventually abandoned by the then owners and the site sold. Whilst there is currently no new planning application being considered for the site, WYG do not doubt that the new owners of the site will be actively pursuing some form of retail development on the site in the future. However, the key test at this stage is whether the proposed development at Rushden Lakes would have a significant adverse impact on this planned investment in the future.
Development Control Committee 37 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.4.7.10 From the evidence gathered in the NNRCS, it is apparent to WYG that there is little if any overlap between the catchments for Corby and the Rushden area. In fact given the significant distances involved between Rushden and Corby WYG would be surprised if future investment decisions in Corby would be influenced to any great degree by development in the Rushden area. Corby does not rely on trade from the Rushden area to support its vitality and viability. In fact, WYG would have expected any future investment in Corby to seek to achieve a greater retention of trade in Zone 4 where there is leakage to higher order centres (including Northampton, and Leicester) as well as improve its market share in surrounding zones thereby competing with Market Harborough and Peterborough. On this basis, WYG do not believe that a new retail development in Rushden would be competing for the same trade that would also be targeted by any new development in Corby. As a result they cannot see how there would be any adverse impact on any future investment decision in Corby if and when a new scheme emerges.
7.4.7.11 In terms of Northampton, WYG is aware (through the representations submitted) that a planning application for the extension of the Grosvenor Centre was expected towards the end of 2012. This proposed extension would seek to attract a new anchor retailer to the centre as well as providing additional units which would enable high street brand retailers who are keen to secure representation within the centre but cannot find suitable accommodation. Given that Debenhams, House of Fraser, M&S and Primark are already represented within the town centre WYG assume that the targeted anchor for the Grosvenor Centre expansion would have been a John Lewis department store. Whilst the proposals at Rushden Lakes would not necessarily preclude John Lewis from operating a store there (possibly their John Lewis ‘at home’ format) WYG would be very surprised given the fact that the existing Waitrose opposite the site already has a significant John Lewis ‘home’ offer. Furthermore, WYG would expect John Lewis to favour Northampton Town Centre for a department store format given the size of the catchment area and the overall draw of this sub-regional centre. On this basis, it would appear that the key tenants for the Rushden Lakes scheme would include M&S and Debenhams. Given that both of these retailers are already represented in Northampton WYG find it difficult to see how securing these retailers in Rushden would impact upon the future implementation and letting of any potential extension to the Grosvenor Centre. The key retailers who already operate within Northampton but who are also interested in securing space at Rushden Lakes recognise that the two schemes would serve different catchments and would be complementary otherwise they would simply be moving trade from one store to another rather than increasing market share.
7.4.7.12 Whilst WYG accept that a significant proportion of the trade generated at Rushden Lakes would be diverted from Northampton given the centre’s strong influence over the Rushden catchment at present, they do not believe that there is any clear evidence that the development would have a significant adverse impact on any possible future extension of the Grosvenor Centre. Future investment decisions in Northampton would primarily be based upon making Northampton more competitive in relation to Milton Keynes or Bedford and whether an expansion of the town centre’s offer could help claw back trade lost to its major competitors.
7.4.7.13 WYG also accepts that concerns have been raised by investors in Northampton and these concerns must be considered as part of the overall planning balance that the Council has to make in respect of Rushden Lakes. However, at this stage they find it difficult to conclude with any certainty or clear evidence that if Rushden Lakes was to be implemented then the future investment in Northampton Town Centre would be prejudiced. There have been aspirations to extend the Grosvenor Centre for some time and no firm proposals have yet to materialise. In the minutes of a meeting held by Northampton Borough Council’s Scrutiny Panel (on the 8th of August 2012) dealing with retail matters, there is an indication that Legal and General “was revising its scheme to make sure that it was deliverable and cost effective... However, it was likely that it would be a smaller scheme”. WYG considers that these minutes indicate that a scheme for the expansion/redevelopment of the Grosvenor
Development Control Committee 38 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
Centre is still some way off and there is no evidence to suggest that the delay that has occurred to date is in anyway related to the proposal at Rushden Lakes..
7.4.7.14 In terms of Kettering, GVA highlight that Ellandi acquired the Newlands Centre in 2011 and have since identified an opportunity for Kettering to enhance its position within its core catchment. In identifying the Newlands Phase 1 area, early indications suggest that there may be the potential to bring forward a development of circa 6,000 sq. m targeted at high street retailers. The potential opportunity would appear to be in the early stages of market testing, however, WYG are not aware of any evidence whereby retailers have suggested that if Rushden Lakes was to be implemented then they would not consider investing in Kettering Town Centre.
7.4.7.15 It would be surprising to WYG if this was the case given the fact that the baseline evidence demonstrates that there is minimal expenditure flowing from the Rushden area to Kettering at the moment despite the centre’s sub-regional status. WYG consider this is probably due to the fact that Northampton is almost as close to Rushden as Kettering and given its superior retail offer would be more likely to draw trade from this area. Therefore, based on the evidence in the NNRCS WYG believe it is more likely that any future investment in Kettering is more likely to be influenced by what is happening at Corby (and vice versa) given that the majority of the trade leaking from Kettering’s core zone is directed towards Corby.
7.4.7.16 For Wellingborough, GVA make reference to a number of potential redevelopment sites many of which WYG consider to be complex and will be affected by land assembly issues. One major opportunity that is referred to would involve the extension of the Swansgate Centre. However, this is again a highly complex and expensive development that will involve the redevelopment of the existing 1,000 space car park to provide circa 20,000 sq. m of retail floorspace and a new car park.
7.4.7.17 The Wellingborough TCAAP has prioritised the development of other opportunity sites over the redevelopment of the Swansgate Centre and WYG are of the opinion that this will be a highly complex scheme which is unlikely to be realised in the short to medium term. Therefore, whilst the proposed development at Rushden Lakes would influence investment decisions relating to the redevelopment of the Swansgate Centre the two schemes are likely to be operating within much different timescales. Furthermore, WYG would seriously question the future delivery of the Sawnsgate extension both in terms of the physical ability to accommodate the development and its financial viability.
7.4.7.18 The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability up to 5 years after the application is made. The NPPF states that the impact of a proposal should be assessed up to five years from when the application was made. However, for major schemes where the full impact may not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made. As the proposed development is clearly a major scheme, the applicant and their consultants have assessed the impact of the proposed development at year 5 (2016) and at year 10 (2021). An update of their impact assessment is set out in Section 5 of their response to the GVA report.
7.4.7.19 From WYG’s review of GVA’s independent assessment, they report that it appears that GVA criticise BPDL’s trade draw analysis (and the approach adopted) for a number of reasons. These include: The potential turnover of the scheme is underestimated No consideration of planned developments in Northampton or Corby The trade draw assumptions do not account for the site’s strategic road connections or the fact that the development will be ‘fashion orientated’ and will therefore, compete with higher order centres WYG consider these issues in turn in their report
Development Control Committee 39 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.4.7.20.Turnover of the Proposed Scheme In seeking to assess the likely turnover of the scheme, GVA has simply applied an average sales density of £5,500 sqm to the proposed net sales area of 26,747 sqm. On this basis, GVA arrived at a potential turnover of £147m. In their response to the GVA Independent Assessment, BPDL has provided a detailed breakdown of the likely turnover of each component of the scheme whereby an assessment is made in relation to the ‘home and garden’ element as well as considering potential or likely end users in Terraces B and C. WYG believe that the position adopted by GVA is erroneous whereby a blanket turnover of £5,500 per sqm is applied to the whole scheme including the garden centre and the restricted ‘home’ element. From WYG’s experience of garden centre facilities and similar ‘home’ focused retail developments (the Barton Square at the Trafford Centre near Manchester is referenced) significant floorspace is devoted to the display of bulky items including large items of furniture. Therefore, there is a distinct difference between the efficiency of the floorspace that would be provided when compared to traditional town centre units.
7.4.7.21 On this basis, WYG believe that GVA’s conclusions that the turnover of the development is significantly underestimated are misplaced and as a result ‘contaminate’ their conclusions reached in relation to impact. They consider the position presented by BPDL appears to be reasonable and robust and closely reflects the position adopted by other objectors to the scheme. The turnover of Terrace C is influenced by the fact that Debenhams (who tend to have a lower sales density than other comparison goods retailers) are the assumed end occupier of Unit C1. However, WYG do not believe that such an approach is unreasonable given that Debenhams are likely to be one of the potential end occupiers who could be accommodated within the scheme. If the unit was to be occupied by another retailer with a higher average sales density then it is evident that the total turnover of the proposed development would be closer to £90m rather than the £83m suggested by BPDL.
7.4.7.22 However, WYG believe that the assessment undertaken by BPDL is not unreasonable and reflects the likely tenants that would occupy space within the development once constructed. Regardless of whether the assumption that Debenhams will occupy Unit C1 is a robust position to take at this stage, what the assessment by BPDL clearly shows is that the turnover assumed by GVA (c.£145m) is significantly over-estimated and misplaced. Given that the total turnover is more likely to be somewhere between £85m and £90m, WYG are concerned that GVA’s assessment of the likely impact of the scheme has been based on a turnover some two thirds greater than what is likely to be achieved. This has significant implications for any true assessment of impact and in WYG’s view will have seriously undermined GVA’s conclusions on impact. Given that GVA have based their conclusions of impact on a turnover significantly greater than what is likely to occur, WYG believe that the conclusions reached by GVA on this matter cannot be relied upon.
7.4.7.23 WYG suggest that it could be argued that the position presented by GVA seeks to sensitivity test the likely impact presented by BPDL in their PPS4 Assessment, the fact that the turnover utilised by GVA is over £60m greater than the position presented by BPDL (which WYG considers to be reasonable) means that the analysis by GVA significantly overstates the likely impact/trade draw well beyond the limits of any sensible sensitivity test. WYG further believes that if there is any sensitively test to be applied to the likely turnover then this would be a difference of circa £5m rather than £60m. WYG considers the estimated turnover which GVA rely upon in seeking to assess the likely impact of the proposed scheme to be flawed. As a result, they conclude that any judgements subsequently reached as to whether the impact arising would be ‘significantly adverse’ will also be similarly flawed.
7.4.7.24 Assessing Commitments In their response to the GVA assessment, BPDL have undertaken a revised cumulative impact assessment. This revised assessment takes on board the findings of the updated NNRCS (2012) study including the minimum housing growth data. The revised assessment also seeks to address various concerns raised in relation to ‘commitments’. It is WYG’s view that when commitments are generally assessed as part of a cumulative retail impact assessment these commitments would normally have a valid planning permission and there
Development Control Committee 40 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012 would be some evidence to suggest that they would be implemented in the near future. In fact the Practice Guidance accepts that: “Conventionally, cumulative impact assessments take into account the effect of known commitments i.e. schemes with planning permission.” (Appendix D, Para D7)
7.4.7.25 The Practice Guidance does accept that in certain circumstances it may be relevant to test other proposals particularly where there is a choice between two competing proposals and the combined impact of both needs to be assessed. However, the situation envisaged by the Practice Guidance is not relevant to this case. WYG assert that the ‘Evolution Corby’ scheme is not a commitment with a valid planning permission and there is no clear evidence that a scheme could be consented, developed and open for trading within the short to medium term. There will be significant issues to be addressed if this scheme is to be progressed in the future which would suggest that any future development is likely to be delivered longer term.
7.4.7.26 Similarly, there is currently no valid planning permission in place for the extension of the Grosvenor Centre in Northampton. Whilst a planning application was intended to be submitted by the end of 2012, as stated above, it is evident that this scheme will not now be progressed. Given the uncertainty surrounding both proposals and the fact that there is a significant amount of work to be progressed before either scheme would have a valid planning consent, WYG believe that it is unreasonable to expect the applicant for Rushden Lakes to consider both of these schemes as ‘committed developments’ as part of their cumulative impact assessment.
7.4.7.27 However, WYG does note that BPDL, in their revised assessment, have taken on board certain commitments within Northampton that have been raised by objectors to the proposed development. Table H of Appendix 4 of BPDL’s report outlines which schemes have been included and why three schemes have not be included because they do not benefit from a valid planning consent. The four foodstore proposals that do have consent have been include in BPDL’s revised cumulative impact assessment.
7.4.7.28 Trade Draw Assumptions In seeking to assess the likely trade draw of the proposed development it is important to reflect upon the nature/character of the scheme once it is fully let. Given the fact that the development will provide modern flexible accommodation well served by car parking, WYG would expect the proposed development to appeal to national multiples with perhaps an emphasis on fashion outside of the ‘home and garden’ element. As a result, it is highly likely that the development will attract end operators normally found in higher order centres such as Northampton, Milton Keynes, Bedford, Peterborough, etc. Therefore, they argue, whilst there will be some trade diversion from nearby centres such as Rushden, Wellingborough and to some extent Kettering, the most significant diversion is likely to occur from the higher order centres (primarily through ‘claw back’). The trade draw assessment adopted by BPDL recognises this by assuming that nearly 60% of the development’s turnover will be drawn from Northampton, Peterborough, Milton Keynes and Bedford. The other 40% will fall on centres within North Northamptonshire with a significant part being drawn from facilities in Wellingborough which is understandable given its close proximity to the proposal.
7.4.7.29 WYG consider that the trade draw assessment in relation to the key centres in North Northamptonshire does not seem unrealistic. Although the levels of trade drawn from the centres are unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact WYG contend that the diversion from Wellingborough may influence future investment decisions in relation to any potential redevelopment in the medium to long term. Whilst WYG accept that the development at Rushden Lakes will be able to attract retailers who would not consider locating within Wellingborough Town Centre, there will be some overlap in the range of goods sold and therefore the centre will experience some trade draw and impact. However, WYG believe that whilst the impact that may occur could influence any future strategy for the redevelopment of the Swansgate Centre there is no certainty that this redevelopment would have been successful with or without Rushden Lakes.
Development Control Committee 41 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.4.7.30 In terms of the likely impact on the higher order centres, to some extent WYG agree with GVA that a greater proportion of trade might be drawn from the higher order centres depending upon the overall tenant mix that is achieved once the scheme is fully let. If this is the case then the impact on the key centres in North Northamptonshire would be less but the estimated impact on centres such as Northampton and Milton Keynes would increase. However, if this is the case, WYG still struggle to see how the potential diversion from centres such as Northampton and Milton Keynes could fundamentally prejudice their future vitality and viability (i.e. result in a significant adverse impact). Theses regional centres are ranked within the top 60 and top 40 (respectively) in the country and benefit from massive footfall and extensive catchments. WYG argues that there is no evidence that any retail facility in any of the higher order centres would close as a result of the development therefore the range of goods/facilities would not change. Furthermore, there is no clear evidence that the expansion of these centres could not be facilitated in the future which would further reinforce their vitality and viability. In fact the recent submission of a planning application for the 10,000 sqm expansion of the retail offer in Milton Keynes (including a new Primark store) further reinforces this point.
7.4.7.31 In summary, WYG do not believe that the proposed development would result in any impacts that could be considered to be significantly adverse. The anticipated trade draw from Rushden, Kettering and Corby will not be of a level that will undermine their future vitality and viability. This also applies to the higher order centres such as Northampton and Milton Keynes which are extremely strong centres with a diverse retail offer and a significant sphere of influence. WYG state that the one area of concern where the conclusions on impact are more finely balanced relate to Wellingborough. Whilst the centre is acknowledged (by both BPDL and GVA) to be reasonably healthy it is evident that Wellingborough does rely on expenditure that is generated by residents in Rushden. In fact 15% of the expenditure directed towards Wellingborough Town Centre comes from Zone 10 (Rushden) which is not insignificant. Whilst WYG do not expect the impact of Rushden Lakes to result in the closure of any retail facilities within Wellingborough they do believe that the close proximity of the development to the centre could influence future investment decisions in the short to medium term.
7.4.7.32 However, although there are aspirations for the expansion of the centre in the future including the extension of the Swansgate Centre there is no clear evidence, apparent at this stage to WYG, that those aspirations will be severely prejudiced by Rushden Lakes. In fact, there are serious question marks over whether the expansion and redevelopment of the Swansgate Centre is a realistic proposition. At this stage, no one is actively pursuing such a scheme and whilst ideas have been shared about the possible redevelopment, these would appear to be so ambitious and complex that even without the Rushden Lakes proposal WYG has serious reservations as to whether such a proposal is achievable in the ‘real world’.
7.4.7.33 WYG is aware that Wellingborough Borough Council has not raised any objection to the proposed development and that they recognise that the development will bring significant benefits in terms of jobs and new retail facilities that will be accessible to local residents. Therefore, if the local authority was convinced that a scheme could be delivered in the future that would secure a significant expansion of Wellingborough’s retail offer WYG would have expected them to defend this opportunity at all costs. However, they anticipate that the Council are likely to have similar reservations about the reality of securing such a scheme in the future. In conclusion, whilst the significance of the impact in relation to Wellingborough is more finely balanced, WYG does not agree with the conclusions reached by GVA that there will be significant adverse impacts arising at any of the key centres within and beyond the catchment. However, it is asserted by WYG that the conclusions reached by GVA will have been affected by the unrealistic assessment of the likely turnover of the development which they believe has been significantly overstated by GVA.
7.4.7.34 Your officers consider from the forgoing discussion and information that the Impact Test has been met.
Development Control Committee 42 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.4.8 Conclusions of Retail Consultants – WYG
7.4.8.1 WYG was commissioned by the Council to provide an independent review of the existing and somewhat conflicting evidence and submissions regarding the PPS4 Assessment for the application. Their brief, set out in 7.4.1.3, required an assessment of the likely catchment area of the development, it’s probable turnover and the headroom for additional comparison goods floorspace in the period to 2031; A review of the adequacy of the applicant’s sequential test analysis and retail impact assessment in the context of the NPPF, focusing on the likely scale and significance of the impact on the town centres of Kettering, Corby, Wellingborough and Northampton, and an independent assessment of the performance of the proposal against all relevant retail planning policies.
7.4.8.2 WYG considers that, from a retail planning perspective, the key issues that have been at the centre of significant debate relate to need, the application of the sequential approach, and the likely impact of the proposed development.
7.4.8.3 In summary, WYG have sought to assess the proposed development at Rushden Lakes in light of the two key retail planning tests set out in paragraphs 24 and 26 of the NPPF and in the development plan. Clearly, the development plan, and particularly the adopted Core Spatial Strategy, does not anticipate or plan for this scale of retail development within the Rushden area. There is a strong focus on the expansion of the retail offer in Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough town centre’s with an acceptance of appropriately scaled development that enhances the offer of Rushden town centre. However, WYG notes within the Emerging Draft for Consultation of the Core Strategy that the proposal is for an enhanced role for Rushden which will be pertinent to the application. Whilst the proposed development would appear to be in conflict with the adopted Core Spatial Strategy WYG think it is important to note that the strategy is currently being updated and also the adopted plan (and its retail policies) was informed by PPS6 and does not reflect the significant changes in national policy that have occurred since the publication of PPS4 and more recently the NPPF.
7.4.8.4 When assessing the development in terms of the sequential approach, it would appear that the evidence presented to date provides little justification as to why the scale of development proposed is necessary to achieve the ‘step change’ within Rushden to ensure that future shopping patterns will be more sustainable. WYG is well aware that a certain critical mass will be required not only to make the scheme attractive to end operators but also to make it attractive to local residents who want to fulfil their comparison goods shopping needs. However, WYG does not believe that the applicant has adequately demonstrated flexibility in relation to format and scale. However, they do accept that significant disaggregation applying the ‘real world’ approach is unrealistic in this case and any attempt to ‘scatter’ the key elements of this development across a number of in-centre or edge of centre sites (if available, suitable and viable) is unlikely to happen and, more importantly, is unlikely to address the need identified to promote more sustainable shopping patterns in the southern part of North Northamptonshire.
7.4.8.5 Given that WYG believe that the scale of development is likely to also serve the needs of nearby Wellingborough residents, they have assessed the 22 sites (presented by the applicants) within the Rushden and Wellingborough area. From their assessment, they concluded that there would appear to be no suitable, viable and available sequentially superior sites which can meet the required need.
7.4.8.6 In terms of impact, WYG state it is evident that the proposed Rushden Lakes scheme will have an impact. However, the test is to establish whether that impact will be ‘significantly adverse’. Clearly, by clawing trade back from centres such as Northampton, Milton Keynes, Bedford, and so on, those centres will lose trade. However, any diversion that is created as a result of the Rushden Lakes scheme will not, in the opinion of WYG, undermine the future performance of these centres which operate at the regional and sub-regional level. WYG’s
Development Control Committee 43 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012 biggest concern (in terms of impact) would be Wellingborough where the conclusions on the significance of the impact are more finely balanced. Whilst the centre is reasonably healthy, it is evident that the development of Rushden Lakes just 5 miles away will influence trading patterns and future investment decisions within the centre. Although there may be aspirations for the expansion of the retail offer that could be affected by the Rushden Lakes proposal, WYG have serious reservations about the prospects of securing significant additional retail floorspace within Wellingborough as part of the expansion of the Swansgate Centre, with or without Rushden Lakes. The ambitious plans for the expansion of the Swansgate Centre are highly complex and in their view are unlikely to prove viable. As a result, WYG do not believe that there is any clear evidence that future investment will be prejudiced in Wellingborough. Furthermore, whilst WYG have concerns in relation to the scale of the proposal and the likely impact on Wellingborough they acknowledge that there are also a number of significant benefits associated with the scheme and that the Council will need to determine how much weight they will give to these benefits when reaching a decision on the proposed development.
7.4.9 Officer Assessment and Overall Conclusion on Retail Issues
7.4.9.1 As already set out, the proposals are not entirely in conformity with all elements of the Development Plan. Policy 12 of the adopted Core Spatial Strategy envisages the location of significant retail development within the 3 main growth towns and the level of proposed floorspace was never anticipated in this location at the time of its production.
7.4.9.2 However, subtle differences have emerged between national policy and the local policy which was formulated on outdated PPS6 planning guidance. The NPPF, as indicated by WYG, is quite clear that future needs must be met ‘in full’ and ‘are not compromised by limited site availability’. Greater emphasis is also placed on the delivery of economic growth and for these reasons, together with the review of the Core Strategy which is likely to acknowledge Rushden’s desire for further growth, it would be not be warranted, in your officer’s opinion, to refuse the application on these policy grounds.
7.4.9.3 In respect of the further tests required under the NPPF your officers have weighed up the information and evidence from the applicant and objectors as well as the GVA report, commissioned by NNJPU, and its own independent study provided by WYG.
7.4.9.4 While there is no longer a specific test in relation to need there is a requirement to understand the local need, potential trade draw and catchment area so as to inform decisions on the sequential and impact tests. WYG argue that there ‘is a strong qualitative need to enhance the provision of comparison goods facilities to promote more sustainable shopping patterns locally and increase current expenditure retention rates.’ Your officers would agree with this premise and the argument that this need does not simply fall away if there are no sites available within or on the edge of Rushden town centre to accommodate this identified need. Your officers would also concur with WYG’s conclusion that the proposals will meet the needs or part needs from more than just Zone 10. It is reasonable to assume that Zones 9,10 and 11 will form the catchment area for the facility and that the facility will be sustained on the ‘clawback’ or expenditure which is being lost. Your officers, however, do not agree with assertions that this will be a sub-regional or regional facility but that it will still serve a relatively localised need. In this respect it is important to assess and identify whether there are any alternative more centrally located sites which can provide facilities and whether there is a significantly adverse impact on existing centres.
7.4.9.5 WYG has assessed the range of sequential sites which have been identified by the applicant or considered as part of the consultation and sensitivity testing by the applicant. From the two key sites which were considered in detail – Plambest site in Rushden and the Swansgate Centre extension in Wellingborough your officers share the opinion of WYG that these sites do not realistically represent suitable and available alternative sites for the proposals and therefore do not provide sequentially superior sites. Your officers do not accept that various elements of the scheme can be disaggregation and concur with WYG that
Development Control Committee 44 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012 the ‘critical mass’ of the scheme will be important in attracting many operators who would otherwise not consider Rushden or Wellingborough as a location and for residents in order to change their shopping patterns. WYG raises the issue of whether the scale of development that is being promoted is necessary to achieve the ‘step change’ to deliver the intended benefits. They indicate that the applicant has not fully justified this. However, your officer’s opinion is that the matter of scale is relevant for the sequential and impact tests and not required as a test in itself. Substantial economic and social benefits are being provided by the scale and mix of uses provided, they form an integrated ‘offer’ for a recreation and leisure destination which will have significant benefits for Rushden and the southern part of North Northamptonshire. Rushden Lakes will provide a focus for increased leisure tourism around the Nene Valley and, as such, it would not be possible to disaggregate any parts of the scheme, even if suitable and available sites were available.
7.4.9.6 The issue of impact has been fully addressed by WYG in their report. Your officers believe, and agree with WYG, that there will be an impact on other centres, however, that this will not be significantly adverse. The one area of concern which your officers share with WYG is the potential impact on Wellingborough and the likely effect this might have on further private investment. However, it is clear to your officers from the evidence of WYG and the responses from Wellingborough Borough Council that any future expansion of Wellingborough Town Centre is highly unlikely to come forward in the same timeframe as Rushden Lakes and therefore ultimately any planned investment for major retail facilities would be directed into the latter part of the plan period. On these grounds your officers do not consider that, although there is some conflict with the Development Plan, the proposals meet the NPPF tests on sequential sites and impact and it is not warranted to refuse the application on the basis of retail policy considerations.
7.5 Transportation, Highways, Access
7.5.1 This site has been the subject of several Transport Impact Assessments the most recent, unrelated to this specific application, was for the renewal of the Business Park campus which was agreed by the Highways Authority and Highways Agency allowing consent to be granted for that application in June 2012.
7.5.2 A core planning principle of the NPPF is the need to actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and to focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable. This section considers these accessibility and transport issues.
7.5.3 The North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Policy 4 states that 'the connection between the rural hinterlands of North Northamptonshire and their most accessible service centres and within urban areas from their local neighbourhoods to town and district centres, will be strengthened though an emphasis on: a) improving the strategic and local bus network, upgrading facilities for bus users and enhanced service frequency, quality and comfort of buses; b) introducing demand responsive transport networks to fill key gaps in the scheduled network; ... d) establishing improved walking and cycling networks for the key local connections, with secure cycling facilities at key destination points and interchanges;..
7.5.4 The site is located adjacent to the A45 trunk road and is accessed by an existing slip road from the Skew Bridge roundabout which also links to Crown Way and access to the Crown Park industrial and retail park and the Northampton Road (B645).
7.5.5 The application is supported by a Transport Assessment (TA) which has been amended by the Transport Addendum submitted in March 2012 and a further Addendum dated June 2012. The Transport Assessment sets out the developer's approach in respect of access to the site, the issues relating to modal shift and examines the effects of the
Development Control Committee 45 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012 development on the strategic and local infrastructure describing what would be necessary to facilitate the development.
7.5.6 The analysis of likely traffic generation and its impact is a highly technical exercise and involves the use of survey data, comparable information from other, similar developments and the application of growth factors and computer modelling.
7.5.7 The evaluation of this section of the report will be sub divided into a series of elements including; Access arrangements, internal servicing and bus infrastructure Site sustainability issues Trip generation, highway impact and mitigation measures
7.5.8 Access arrangements, internal servicing and bus infrastructure
7.5.8.1 The existing access, Claudius Way, is an adopted highway of good standard measuring approximately 7.5m in width. This road will be upgraded to form the main access to the retail/leisure park. Beyond the customer access this road will be retained to form a service and bus route for the development.
7.5.8.2 The proposed improvements within the TA to the Skew Bridge Roundabout include: adding a further traffic queuing lane both east bound and west bound on the A45 at the approach to the roundabout; a further lane to exit Crown Way; a change of priority between the A5001 Northampton Road and Crown Way; the slight widening of Northampton Road approach; the enlargement and widening of development arm (Claudius Way); and the provision of a link road connecting Northampton Road to Crown Way.
7.5.8.3 The Highways Agency's response to the TA indicated that the Skew Bridge roundabout assessment is based on weekday PM peak and Saturday traffic flows, however, the traffic flows presented were weekday only (since the base flows on a Saturday are significantly lower). The Highways Agency required clarification on this data together with the level of future growth forecast used and suitability of the retail impact assessment, the trip generation deduction and the distribution of these over the network.
7.5.8.4 Additional information has been provided to the Highways Agency and Highways Authority in the form of the aforementioned TA Addendums, with further explanation of detailed refinements. This has satisfied both authorities that the proposed slightly enhanced highway junction solution as agreed by the consented Rushden Lakes Business Park application will be acceptable for this application. A supplementary link road has been added to the original design submitted with the retail application. This will connect Crown Way to Northampton Road and provide additional highway capacity at this junction. This link formed part of the scheme approved under the extant Business Park consent.
7.5.8.5 The internal layout of the scheme is acceptable in Highway terms removing the conflict between pedestrians and heavy goods vehicles servicing the stores by the provision of the servicing access. Parking is provided for up to 1,300 spaces throughout the site to serve the retail units, restaurants, hotel and crèche and for visitors to the SSSI and users of the boathouse. This provision is considered adequate to ensure that all uses on the site are catered for and it conforms with Northamptonshire County Council parking standards once an allowable reduction of 30% is applied to account for linked trips, which has been agreed by the Local Highway Authority.
Development Control Committee 46 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.5.8.6 Bus servicing of the site, as set out in the TA, is to be provided via the servicing access route with a dedicated bus pick up/drop off point located towards the western-most section of retail terrace B. This provision, to serve the site, will ensure the retail park is located within 400 metres of a public transport node. The scheme is proposing to extend Stagecoach's 49 service into the site which will service the centres of Higham Ferrers, Rushden and Kettering.
7.5.8.7 The County Council responded to the consultation and indicated that a half hourly service to Higham Ferrer and Rushden was a high priority. They also consider that a half hourly service to Wellingborough and Irthlingborough is also important. In order to provide the best service possible to the development, which enhances existing routes, the County Council has agreed to procure these services directly through a contribution which can be pooled. This, it is envisaged, would provide both an extended 49 and 45 service to the site on a half hourly basis which are subsidised for a meaningful period in order to make them commercially viable in the longer term. As a minimum the contribution would provide a bus service to the site on a half hourly basis to Rushden and Higham Ferrers town centres, Monday to Saturday between 07.00 and 19.00h. A suitable contribution will therefore be sought through the s106 agreement and triggered at the commencement of development.
7.5.8.8 Concerns were also raised by NCC with the positioning of the bus stop within the scheme. A preferred position was considered to be in the vicinity of the entrance to the scheme between the opposing pavilions. However, practicalities regarding the loss of car parking, commercial realities and passenger convenience were cited by the applicant for not changing the main public transport access strategy. Following negotiation a compromise was agreed whereby the main bus stop on the service access road would be enhanced to include a better arrival point for passengers with a canopy, ATMs and the positioning of coffee shop pod (or similar). A further drop off point was also to be investigated to provide greater choice for the bus operators which would provide for a lay-by stop and suitable shelter on the internal roundabout which services the retail units, hotel and drive-thru restaurant. This could be provided within the boundaries of the highway land and could therefore be delivered relatively easily. The final allocation of buses between the two potential bus stop locations would be agreed with the operator at a later date.
7.5.9 Site Accessibility Issues
7.5.9.1 The TA identifies the wider accessibility of the site using non car modes and improved linkages between the site and Rushden and enhanced access to the SSSI and Greenway network.
7.5.9.2 The site is located on the edge of the Rushden’s urban area within a reasonable proximity for walking and cycling to the town centre and residential areas, however, it is separated by the A45 trunk road, a fast moving dual carriageway.
7.5.9.3 The TA proposes that, in order to overcome the severance of the site by the A45, a pedestrian crossing facility will be provided to a high standard at the site access junction. This will provide a seamless connection from the footbridge, across Claudius Way to a dedicated shared cycle/pedestrian footway connecting to the site and the footpaths and cycleways to be provided within the SSSI.
7.5.9.4 The proposed foot/cycle bridge and connecting footpath/cycleways will enable people to use the new Rushden Lakes facility by accessing it on foot from the Waitrose car park without the need to use their cars to pass through the Skew Bridge roundabout. This will also enable a link to the Greenway route connecting to Rushden and it is recommended that a s106 obligation or arrangement through s278 agreements be sought to facilitate this link with the wider network through the junction improvements.
Development Control Committee 47 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.5.9.5 The foot/cycle bridge will also facilitate an integrated connection to the Greenway route to the North which, via a refurbishment of an existing Bailey Bridge within the SSSI, will enable access to be gained to the site from Irthlingborough, Stanwick Lakes and when completed further access to Wellingborough including Wellingborough Station. Once again a contribution will be sought to refurbish the Bailey Bridge.
7.5.9.6 Given the importance of pedestrian and cycle accessibility to the site and the implications for road safety of pedestrians attempting to reach the site without the foot/cycle bridge being in place, the Local Highway Authority has been very insistent that this piece of infrastructure for the site is operational from start of trading. The developer has now negotiated that the foot/cycle bridge will be of a high quality design to provide an appropriate entrance to the site for pedestrians and cyclists and that this will be available and operational on the commencement of trading. A suitable condition will be recommended to ensure this is delivered prior to occupation. The transfer of this asset to the Highway’s Agency and future adoption for maintenance purposes by the Highways Authority can be dealt with through provisions in the Highways Act.
7.5.9.7 The TA provides for a Framework Travel Plan (FTP) which sets out a strategy for managing multi-modal access to the site and promoting access by sustainable means. This is a common requirement for major developments and generators of high trip rates. The delivery of this Plan will help to achieve the 20% modal shift required from Sustainable Urban Extensions and 5% from existing urban areas as set out in the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy. The Travel Plan will primarily, although not exclusively, focus on promoting sustainable travel options amongst the anticipated 1,500 employees that will be generated at the site. The measures which will be introduced within the Travel Plan are as follows; Walking measures such as providing information on safe pedestrian routes and shower/changing room facilities; Cycling measures such as the cycle to work scheme and provision of cycle maps; Public transport measure such as the provision of route/service information on notice boards and offering interest free season ticket loans; Promoting car sharing and; Car park management.
7.5.9.8 It is proposed that individual tenants develop their own travel plans as part of the Framework Travel Plan. To ensure the individual Travel Plans are successful in achieving the objectives a set of targets have been established within the FTP. There are 2 types of targets – ‘Action’ and ‘Aim’ targets. Action targets include:- A Travel Plan Coordinator being appointed prior to stores first opening for trading; The first travel plan survey to be undertaken within 3 months of the store first opening for trading; The finalised Travel Plan to be agreed within 6 months of the store first opening for trading. Aim targets include:- For Employees – Achieve a 20% decrease in Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) trips over time and achieve an increase in use of alternative modes to offset reduction in SOV use. For Customers – Increase awareness of Public Transport options available to access the store by 10% and increase awareness of cycling and walking options available to access the store by 10%
7.5.9.9 The structure for reporting on the Travel Plan achievements is proposed to be done individually by each occupier appointing a part-time Travel Plan Coordinator prior to the first trading of each unit. While this will help to ensure that the individual measures are implemented by each tenant, it does not help to monitor the development as a whole or promote sustainable modes of transport to the site more globally. It is considered that some coordination of all these travel plans is necessary and that the monitoring should be aggregated so that the impact and performance of the whole development can be assessed.
Development Control Committee 48 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
Following further negotiation the TA Addendum (March 2012) instigated the requirement for a Travel Plan Manager to be appointed by the developer at least 3 months prior to the first occupation of the retail units. This post would be responsible for overseeing the management, development, implementation, monitoring and review of all the travel plans. Conditions can be imposed to require this Annual Travel Plan Review and monitoring and it is recommended that a clause also be inserted within a s106 agreement to provide for the Travel Plan Manager.
7.5.10 Trip generation, Highway impact and mitigation measures
7.5.10.1 The impact of the proposed development on the highway network is considered in the Transport Assessment (TA) as amended by the Transport Assessment Addendum’s submitted in March and June 2012. The TA uses complex modelling to assess the future potential impact of the development. The first step in quantifying the impact of a proposed development on the transport system is to establish a baseline from which to assess the impact of the proposals. As the site does not currently have a use the applicant has used the previously consented scheme for the business park as the baseline comparator together with other available data. The Highways Agency was concerned that if this did not obtain a further consent then the impact of the development would need to be reassessed and the TA would need amending accordingly. This issue was overcome when the existing consent was renewed on 13th June 2012.
7.5.10.2 The next stage is to determine how much traffic is likely to be generated by the development providing an estimate of the person trips for all elements of the scheme that are likely to be generated.
7.5.10.3 From the proposed uses a trip generation assessment has been applied having regard to TRICS, an industry standard database. The use of which was agreed with NCC and the Highways Agency. The analysis indicates that the peak hour flows for both arrivals and departures are as follows;
Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (Rushden Lakes) Weekday PM Peak (17.00-18.00) Sat Peak (14.00-15.00) Element Arr Dep Total Arr Dep Total
Garden Centre 10 26 18 90 71 161 Retail Park 208 198 406 554 591 1145 Hotel 22 13 55 34 22 56 Leisure (equivalent) 33 18 51 26 22 48 Restaurant 3 2 5 4 4 8 Crèche 7 10 17 - - - Total 284 266 550 708 710 1418
This takes into account reductions due to combined trips between different land uses.
7.5.10.4 The Highways Agency and Highways Authority were both concerned that the trip rates that had been generated through the modelling were potentially too low thereby underestimating the impact the cumulative trips would have on the network. A series of technical notes were issued and responded to clarifying the methodology and assumptions used and agreeing the amendments to the trip rates and how they were calculated.
7.5.10.5 Once the total number of trips has been estimated and agreed the TA then considers how this additional traffic would be distributed across the highway network. In the case of this retail application in order to determine the distribution an assessment of the North Northamptonshire Retail Capacity Study Update (NNRCS) was used to understand the retail draw patterns to the site. The distribution of trade to the development has been based on the Retail Impact Assessment for the scheme which estimates from the NNRCS’s 11
Development Control Committee 49 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012 separate zones that the trade draw for Rushden Lakes will come from the following areas (see Appendix 1) Zone 7 - 8% Zone 9 – 11% Zone 10 – 69% Zone 11 – 9% Other Zones – 3%
Zone 10 is the Rushden area itself and therefore the majority of trade and also traffic, in the applicant’s view, will be generated from here. The Highways Agency’s planning consultants (Turley’s) reviewed the retail study in relation to the likely trade draw and accepted it as a reasonable approach to the assessment of the retail related trips.
7.5.10.6 Further clarification was sought by the Highways Authority in respect of the area of Zone 10, which includes a large rural hinterland around Rushden as well as Raunds. The application of the retail distribution was also questioned for the non-retail uses, i.e. crèche, leisure centre, restaurants and hotel. Given the high percentage of trips generated within Zone 10 it was agreed that for all non-retail uses, apart from the hotel, it would be reasonable to assume these followed the retail trip distribution. For the hotel it was considered that trips would be generated from further afield as well as locally and therefore as a sensitivity test 100% of trips would be assigned via the A45 – 50% to the North and 50% South. This has helped to provide a more accurate trip distribution.
7.5.10.7 Growth rates are then applied to this data so that an assessment of future year impact can be made. For the purposes of this modelling TEMPRO local traffic forecasting was used and a range of committed developments need to be factored in. After various discussions between the applicant and the highways authorities it was agreed that certain developments would be included on top of that assumed as growth by the TEMPRO model to more accurately reflect the likely future traffic flows.
7.5.10.8 The modelling to design the offsite Skew Bridge junction required the agreement of a PARAMICS model which demonstrates the performance of the junction. It can then assist in assessing the functioning of the highway and then evaluating the design changes that are required to make the junction acceptable in highway terms for the development and future predicted traffic flows. Agreement on the use and application of the PARAMICS model was reached by the applicant, the Highways Agency and Highways Authority and has allowed the Highways Agency to agree the principle of the junction design. Further detailed work is on- going and a suitable solution is accepted that will be deliverable to resolve the outstanding road safety audit issues and design standards for the junction.
7.5.11 Both the Highways Agency and Highways Authority are satisfied with the highway proposals and mitigation which the applicant is proposing subject to conditions, a public transport contribution, a travel plan package and a clause to be inserted in the s106 regarding Chowns Mill intersection of the A45 and A6. As with the Business Park renewal application it is predicted that there will be some future impact from the development on this junction. The applicant and the Highways Agency will negotiate a contribution which can be pooled with other funds and contributions to bring forward a scheme to ameliorate these impacts.
7.5.12 From the assessment above and the confirmation by both the Highways Agency and Highways Authority that the development is acceptable to them subject to certain conditions and s106 contributions your officers are satisfied that no unsustainable impacts will be generated by the development in respect of highways or transport matters.
7.6 Economic and Regeneration Effects
7.6.1 The NPPF in paragraph 17 states as one of its core principles that planning should 'proactively drive and support sustainable economic development' and 'Every effort should be
Development Control Committee 50 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012 made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth
7.6.2 The existing and emerging North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategies set out jobs targets for the area and promote a stronger, greener economy. The former states that ‘Around half of the total new jobs are forecast to be generated in service sectors, for example in retailing, leisure, professional and public services,’ ...’In order to meet these ambitious job creation figures, economic growth will need to be higher than growth in previous years.’ The latter, set out in a committee report of 3rd July 2012 to the Joint Planning Committee, indicates that a minimum net increase of 28,500 jobs will be sought by the following; a) Prioritising the enhancement of existing employment sites and the regeneration of appropriate previously development land; e) Supporting proposals that encourage skills and training provision and promote sector specific training. Training and employment agreements will be used where appropriate to facilitate increased opportunities for the local workforce. f) Safeguarding and enhancing North Northamptonshire's tourism and cultural assets and supporting proposals to grow the green tourism industry.
7.6.3 The application is accompanied by an Economic Benefits Study and an Employment Charter. The former sets out the economic benefits of the scheme both during construction and post construction in relation to jobs, impact on the local economy and the wider benefits for Northamptonshire as a tourism and leisure destination. The latter deals with maximising the employment and training benefits of the development for local people and focuses on how this can be achieved through apprenticeship schemes and other mechanisms.
7.6.4 The delivery of economic benefits for a local area is a material consideration in weighing the merits of a planning application. The NPPF states at paragraph 19 ‘The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.’
7.6.5 The Core Spatial Strategy at 3.79 states that ‘opportunities for training schemes as part of a new development will be encouraged, including initiatives to maximise local employment and training in the construction industry...’ and ’Developer contributions and training and employment agreements will be used to achieve this, and where possible develop wider training infrastructure’.
7.6.6 This section will assess the economic benefits of the scheme in 3 main areas Employment benefits during construction Post construction employment Wider benefits to the local economy and leisure and tourism impacts
7.6.7 Employment benefits during construction
7.6.7.1 It is estimated by the applicant that the construction phase of the development will generate 290 direct jobs and that these will be created and sustained over a 12 month period. The overall economic contribution of this is estimated to be around £14.2m. Out of these jobs about 80 are expected to be filled from the Rushden and East Northamptonshire area.
7.6.7.2 A number of indirect jobs will also be created by the development. It is calculated, using data from other major schemes, that a ratio of 0.63:1 indirect jobs to direct jobs will be generated on these types of development. These are jobs that will support the construction activities on site and can range from on-site security, initial site clearance, workforce catering and administration jobs. In addition to this will be the additional expenditure from non- Northamptonshire based construction workers, estimated to be about 50% (145 employees) for accommodation, food, and other services over the 12 month period. Overall it is estimated
Development Control Committee 51 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012 that the direct labour benefits of the construction project will generate over £15m and approximately £7m will be retained within Northamptonshire. Non-labour contributions including the purchase of building materials and developer contributions through the s106 agreement are estimated in the region of £25m.
7.6.7.3 A scheme of this magnitude can bring substantial employment benefits to a locality, however, the ability to maximise the benefit for local job seekers will be in the arrangements that are put in place to coordinate the skills and training activities and apprenticeships especially for young people. This will help to ensure that the right skills and experience is developed in the longer term for the future construction sector in East Northamptonshire. While the overall unemployment rate (Job Seekers Allowance claimants) for East Northamptonshire (2.5%) is below the regional (3.3%) and national figures (3.5%) the amount unemployed aged between 18-24 in September 2011 as a percentage of total unemployed was 32.6% which is the third highest in the County, above the national average and only slightly below that of the East Midlands.
7.6.7.4 The permanent retail and other jobs created by the development, estimated to be 1,340 direct jobs and 844 indirect jobs, will help to address this situation and imbalance which means that local young people have less access to jobs and employment opportunities. The construction phase employment opportunities will also help to provide an important entree into the industry for some young unemployed people. In June 2011 the Rushden Jobcentre Plus had 130 people actively seeking work in the construction sector with up to 100 looking for entry level positions. At any one time there is likely to be a similarly sized pool of labour seeking to gain a first step into the industry.
7.6.7.5 In order to properly facilitate this process your officers consider that it is appropriate for the applicant to negotiate and provide a contribution towards Construction Futures to maximise apprenticeships and training opportunities during the construction phase.
7.6.7.6 Construction Futures is a publicly funded organisation created by Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership and West Northamptonshire Development Corporation, which works with developers to match potential apprenticeship placements and training opportunities with local people through colleges and the local job centres. The Council has already agreed a scheme elsewhere in the District which involves Construction Futures and they have an excellent track record in working with the industry. The applicant has agreed to a contribution, to be provided through the s106 agreement, which enables Construction Futures to manage the process. An initial evaluation of the development proposals suggest that it could yield in excess of 500 training weeks for local people. A contribution has therefore been added to the s106 heads of terms.
7.6.8 Post Construction Employment
7.6.8.1 It is estimated that approximately 1,340 FTE direct jobs will be created by the retail elements of the scheme which will provide an annual economic benefit of around £26.8m. Typical jobs created in this sector could include retail store and warehouse managers, sales and retail assistants and shelf fillers. A degree of indirect jobs will also be created and this may account for up to 844 FTE jobs in the local economy generating a further £16.9m.
7.6.8.2 In comparison the Business Park application, previously consented for this site, envisages that approximately 3,700 jobs or full time equivalents would be created within what might be regarded as higher value added employment areas. However, the previous developer who promoted the business park concept has gone into liquidation after 8 years of seeking to deliver this scheme and the current owner of the site has indicated that this proposal is not viable especially in the current climate. These proposed jobs therefore, while very desirable for Rushden and the surrounding area, are very unlikely to be delivered in this format and scale even in the long term.
Development Control Committee 52 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.6.8.3 As well as the retail employment there will be jobs associated with the hotel, leisure centre, restaurants and other activities such as site management and security, the visitor centre and the crèche. It is estimated that in total these are likely to generate a further 232 jobs and an additional 146 indirect jobs may be supported creating over £7m in economic benefit. For these posts it is suggested that 80% of them will be filled by residents of Northamptonshire and that 60% will come from the North Northamptonshire area, demonstrating that local people will make up a significant proportion of the on-site workforce. From the analysis provided by the applicant your officers have no reason to question these assumptions and estimates of jobs created.
7.6.8.4 However, an important element of any regeneration scheme is its ability to provide local jobs and to encourage the retention of economic activity and wealth it creates. The applicant has submitted with the application an Employment Charter which seeks to set out how the development can support the local economy through the employment of local people both during the construction phase and the operation of the Rushden Lakes site.
7.6.8.5 Concentrating on the operational phase and the commitments provided by the developer to help provide employment benefits for local residents these include; Prepare employment packs for occupiers in partnership with Jobcentre Plus and other training agencies/organisations; Work with the Economic Development Officer at East Northants Council to ensure as many employment opportunities are being afforded to local people as possible; Promote the packs to prospective occupiers at Rushden Lakes and host training event with local training organisations. As it is not yet clear which tenants will be operating on the site and many retailers have their own in-house apprenticeship schemes it is not possible or desirable to request a contribution towards facilitating this activity. Encouragement should be given for the developer to work closely with the Jobcentre Plus and other providers to maximise local employment opportunities. They should also seek to influence tenants to introduce and deliver apprenticeship and training scheme within the scheme to provide excellent customer service and prospects for career progression.
7.6.9 Wider benefits to the local economy and leisure and tourism impacts
7.6.9.1 The scheme is also a significant tourism and leisure draw for the area providing access to the Rushden Lakes nature reserve and building on the success of, and being able to link to, the adjacent Stanwick Lakes. Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership states that East Northamptonshire has a lower tourism spend than the County average and may help to attract further tourism spend. A visitor centre and boat house are being provided as part of the development and a clause within the s106 agreement will be inserted to ensure that these are made available on favourable terms for local organisations to manage and operate for the benefit of local people and visitors.
7.6.9.2 The development has the ability to integrate within the wider tourism assets of Northamptonshire, many of which are situated along the Nene Valley. The East Northamptonshire Greenway project aims to develop a network of routes for walking and cycling in the south of the district and this will help to connect locations so that they are accessible for leisure and recreational purposes. As the scheme is aiming to deliver wider leisure objectives it has been agreed that a contribution towards delivering part of the Greenway network linking it through Rushden Lakes will be made via the s106 agreement.
7.6.10 In conclusion the proposals have significant opportunity to provide regenerative effects for Rushden and also the southern part of North Northamptonshire. Job creation both during the construction phase and the full time employment opportunities available to, particularly, the younger residents of Rushden and other nearby centres could have a major impact on youth unemployment. The proposals to bring forward apprenticeships and construction industry training as part of the scheme will also provide pathways to employment for many local people, as well as the development strengthening the tourism offer within the area. Your
Development Control Committee 53 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012 officers consider that these benefits are a material consideration in the deliberation and balance in any planning decision and significant weight should be afforded them.
7.7 Impact on the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI/SPA and Ramsar sites
7.7.1 This site is located partially within and adjacent to the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. The current SSSI is a nationally important site for breeding birds, over wintering water birds species and a wet floodplain woodland. In 2011, the SSSI became the designated Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA and Ramsar site for the area’s wintering and non breeding season population of water birds. In 2012 the Nene Valley Improvement Area was also designated by DEFRA which this site lies within.
7.7.2 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 afford a high level of protection to sites classified as SPA. The Local Planning Authority must ensure that any plans will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned. The use of ‘Appropriate Assessments’ enables the implications of developments on the SPA to be thoroughly considered. The UK is also a signatory to the Ramsar Convention which protects wetlands of international importance. Ramsar sites must be treated in the same way as SPAs and proposed developments must have an Appropriate Assessment undertaken if there are significant impacts.
7.7.3 In relation to ecology and nature conservation the Environmental Statement (ES), submitted by the applicant, acknowledges the designation of the SSSI/SPA as an important European site for wintering and breeding birds and as a rare example of wet floodplain woodland. However, it goes on to state that the development scheme would predominantly be located on land to the south of the Skew Bridge lake and Delta Pit lake, where it is characterised by open ground with patches of regeneration vegetation. The site currently suffers from a high degree of trespass with recreational off road 4x4 and trail bike activity which has degraded the local vegetation. The ES proposes a set of mitigation measure to address potential impacts of the scheme on ecological receptors during and post construction and whilst the site is being managed. A Habitat and Access Management Plan has also been prepared for the parts of the site which lie within the SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site and Skew Bridge Ski Lake Local Wildlife Site. Outside of these designated sites the loss of open mosaic habitat from clearance and construction activities would be about 13ha which would bring about some loss of perennial species. However, it concludes that the residual effects of the development would be either not significant (neutral), or minor.
7.7.4 English Nature responded to the consultation on 21.02.2012 and indicated that their preferred option for development at the site would not be to include the lock and marina. They point out that various features of the SPA have been omitted from the ES, (i.e. a number of wintering birds) however they go on to state that any impacts to these will be picked up in the assessments of those features (other birds and animals) which are covered.
7.7.5 Additional issues regarding the proposed lock have not been covered in the ES and it would therefore be necessary for the Local Planning Authority to undertake an Appropriate Assessment around the specific issues relating to the impacts of water levels and water quality of the lakes if the lock connects these to the River Nene. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires an assessment to consider the impact in relation to the River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) and in its original form the application did not..
7.7.6 In relation to the above concerns and those from the Environment Agency on the lock and weir, the applicant responded to the Local Planning Authority on 27th March 2012 by submitting an Environmental Statement Addendum. Here they revised the description of the application and proposed to remove the lock and the marina from the scheme. The Addendum sets out the impacts and mitigation measures which are no longer applicable with the removal of the lock and marina and identifies that there are no wider impacts arising from this other than for ecology and the water environment.
Development Control Committee 54 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.7.7 With this provision in place Natural England has commented that it does not require an Appropriate Assessment to be undertaken for the development. In terms of construction and operational impacts identified, Natural England are broadly satisfied with the mitigation details proposed and that a range of conditions be applied to ensure there are no further likely significant effects on the interest features of the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar site.
7.7.8 In respect of ecology and nature conservation the Environmental Statement sets out methodology and scope of the assessment, agreed with Natural England, that was undertaken to evaluate the impacts of the development on the key environmental receptors.
7.7.9 The following surveys were undertaking to enable the evaluation and conclusions in relation to potential necessary mitigation. Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Baker Shepherd Gillespie, March 2011); Arboricultural Survey & Implications Assessment (Lockhart Garratt, September 2011); Wintering Bird Survey (Baker Shepherd Gillespie, January – March 2011); Breeding Bird Survey (Baker Shepherd Gillespie, March – July 2011); Reptile Survey (Lockhart Garrett Ltd, September 2011); and Otter Survey (Lockhart Garrett Ltd, May 2011).
7.7.10 From these surveys the presence of various protected species and habitats has been reconfirmed with three wintering birds listed as species of high conservation concern (song thrush, lapwing and herring gull) and thirteen species listed of medium conservation concern. For breeding birds the survey identified 51 species of which 17 species are confirmed breeders, 16 are probable breeders, 13 are possible breeders and five are considered unlikely to breed within the site. Of these, four of the species are of ‘high conservation concern’ (cuckoo, grey partridge, linnet and song thrush) with the song thrush classed as a probable breeder on site and the grey partridge, cuckoo and linnet also being possible breeders within the site. Sixteen species are on the amber list and are of ‘medium conservation concern’. Of further note is the existence of a heronry within the site which consists of eight to nine nests and the presence of otters on the Skew Bridge ski lake.
7.7.11 The ES considers the potential impacts arising from the development on the principle interest features of the SPA/SSSI/RAMSAR Site, including wintering and breeding bird populations which are as follows; Intermittent increases in noise (up to 75dB(A) in the worst case) associated with construction works, particularly the construction of the lock and its associated access track and development along the southern boundary of Skew Bridge ski lake and to the south of Delta Pit lake; Intermittent increase in dust associated with construction works, particularly earthworks in close proximity to Skew Bridge ski lake; Decrease in water quality as a result of construction activities, particularly the suspension of sediments during the retreat of the southern boundary of Skew Bridge ski lake and the construction of the lock and its associated access track; Loss of natural screening vegetation and marginal vegetation along the alignment of the vehicular / pedestrian access route between Skew Bridge ski lake and Delta Pit lake and other pedestrian / cycling routes, and as a result of the retreat of the southern boundary of Skew Bridge ski lake; and Increase in light pollution due to the need for safe working and site security during construction works.
7.7.12 A degree of concern relating to the impact of the development centred around the construction and future operation of the lock and weir was raised by Natural England (as mentioned above) as this lies within the heart of the SSSI. The level of activity generated on Skew Bridge ski lake by the marina was also a cause for concern. With the removal of this element of the scheme from the proposals due to the concerns from Natural England and also the potential impact on the water quality and habitats by joining the lake to the main
Development Control Committee 55 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
River Nene, as highlighted by the Environment Agency, it has reduced the overall impact of the development during the construction phase.
7.7.13 Natural England has requested various conditions including a Construction and Environment Management Plan and restrictions on tree felling and ground clearance which will mitigate the impacts on the interest features of the SPA/SSSI/RAMSAR site.
7.7.14 The ES also considers the main impacts of the scheme post construction which are; Increase in noise as a result of additional traffic accessing the site and mechanical and electrical plant associated with the retail units; Increased air pollution as a result of additional traffic accessing the site; Increased night-time light pollution; Disturbance as a result of water-based recreational activities, Drainage from the development site; Decrease in water quality due to water-based recreational activities within Skew Bridge ski lake; and Physical disturbance from users of the footpaths within the designated sites.
7.7.15 In order to mitigate these impacts Natural England has requested conditions including a detailed Access and Habitat Management Plan related to Skew Bridge ski lake and Delta Pit lake. Further conditions also include a watercraft exclusion zone around the western island on Skew Bridge ski lake for the protection of otters, the prohibition of all motorised craft use on the lake and agreement of an external lighting scheme to reduce light pollution
7.7.16 In summary, the applicant’s screening on the Appropriate Assessment together with responses received from Natural England and the Local Planning Authority’s assessment of the potential impacts on the integrity of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site satisfies your officer’s that an Appropriate Assessment is not required. Impacts to biodiversity, protection of fauna and nature conservation can adequately be mitigated through the imposition of appropriate conditions, as outlined above, and therefore these would not represent sufficient grounds on which to refuse the application. In fact there would be significant positive benefit to the management and control of the natural conservation objectives in this part of the SPA.
7.8 Other Environmental Impacts
7.8.1 The ES concludes that in terms of landscape and visual impact there will be both adverse and beneficial changes as a result of the development. These conclusions are supported by a more detailed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which accompanies the application. The main visual impact will be to some public views principally from the South/West along the A45 corridor, however, as this is a transport corridor and the sensitivity in such areas is low the impact is considered to be slight. The landscape changes to the site will have adverse impacts in terms of changes to landscape character in the vicinity of the lakeside environment through introduction of large scale buildings, and beneficial impacts in terms of removal of the artificial ski slope hill, management of the woodland and natural areas around the lake and improved access, and introduction of a landscape framework around the development.
7.8.2 The noise and vibration assessment within the ES breaks the impacts down into 3 areas that relate to the assessment of noise and vibration impacts arising from construction activities, vehicular movements to and from the development, and the operational uses that would affect noise sensitive receptors. Noise levels from construction are unlikely to exceed 55dB LAeq,T (less than the noise expected at a general busy office) at the nearest noise- sensitive properties on the B645 and therefore the affect is considered very ‘minor’ with impacts being temporary and intermittent. Vibration impacts are considered to be temporary, intermittent and of ‘low’ sensitivity given that the nearest commercial building is over 80m from the construction activities and residential receptors over 30m away. The noise impacts from traffic movements is considered to be negligible at the residential receptors located on
Development Control Committee 56 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
Northampton Road and Higham Road and the significance of adverse effects at receptors located on the road network will be ‘neutral’. With regards mechanical and electrical plant on the new buildings, an assessment of the predicted noise levels against the methodology detailed in the ES would suggest that for all locations, specific noise from plant installations would be barely discernible and, therefore, would be classified as being of ‘neutral’ significance.
7.8.3 The ES includes an air quality impact assessments for both the construction and post- construction phases of the scheme. The proposed site is not within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). With regards the construction phase and associated dust, suitable measures to reduce dust emissions for ‘high risk’ sites will be implemented and it is considered that, provided that measures such as those described in the ES are adopted, dust from site activities can be reduced to acceptable levels which would avoid significant adverse effects on existing sensitive locations. Post construction, air quality impacts will be limited by encouraging people to access the site by means other than the private car and no further mitigation measures are considered to be necessary. A Construction and Environment Management Plan is proposed to provide suitable mitigation measures.
7.8.4 The land and contamination assessment evaluates the existing ground conditions at the site and assesses the potential impacts relating to human health, groundwater and surface watercourses associated with the development. The site investigations found localised occurrences of contamination that will require remediation given the proposed end use of the site. Soil and groundwater remediation will be undertaken in accordance with a Remediation Strategy, which will be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and Environment Agency. The Environment Agency has no objection on the grounds of land contamination subject to various conditions being imposed. Mitigation measures for ground gas issues will comprise further gas monitoring and risk assessment to establish the ground gas regime and where appropriate, the specification of suitable gas protection measures as necessary. A condition to cover this will also be recommended in the event consent is granted.
7.8.5 The ES water environment section looks at the potential impacts of the scheme on surface water, drainage, groundwater and flood risk during both construction and post- construction phases. The applicant states that in respect of surface water there is currently no water flow between Skew Bridge ski Lake, the River Nene, Delta Pit lake or surrounding lakes, although historically a lock connected Skew Bridge ski lake and the River Nene. It asserts that the impact of the development is considered ‘neutral’ on the basis of the construction of the lock as part of the scheme. This would have been of concern to the Environment Agency, however, as stated above the lock and weir have now been removed from the application. In respect of ground water the ES considers the site lies within a hydrogeological setting of ‘medium’ sensitivity. The incorporation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) features within the drainage strategy (e.g. permeable paving) will allow the recharge of groundwater and will not result in significant adverse impacts on groundwater levels etc. Runoff from car parking areas, access roads and service yards will be treated through the use of petrol interceptors etc. The magnitude of the effect is considered to be ‘negligible’ and therefore impacts are considered to be long-term and of ‘neutral’ significance. Surface water and flood risk mitigation measures are dealt with below under the section on flood risk.
7.8.6 In summary, your officers are satisfied that other environmental impacts of the scheme are suitably mitigated and not severe and would not be a reason to justify refusal of the planning application.
Development Control Committee 57 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.9 Flood Risk and site drainage
7.9.1 The NPPF states at paragraph 100 ‘Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere’. It provides further advice in paragraph 103 and states; ‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site specific flood risk assessment following Sequential Test, and if required the Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that: Within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; and Development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant including safe access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely managed, including by emergency planning; and it gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems’.
7.9.2 Technical guidance was published alongside the NPPF for flood risk. This draws on PPS25 which has been superseded although the practice guide remains extant.
7.9.3 The application is supported by a full Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), as amended in March and June 2012, and the site has consent for a business park which was granted in 2002 on the basis of a Flood Risk Assessment provided at that time and updated in 2010 for the renewal application granted in June 2012.
7.9.4 The development is located adjacent to the Skew Bridge and Delta lakes with the River Nene located to the north of these lakes. As such the majority of the proposed development will fall within flood zone 1 (least vulnerable) with parts also lying within flood zones 2 and 3.
7.9.5 The proposed development will alter the flood zones and it has been designed so as to raise the finished floor levels of each development block above the predicted 1 in 1000 year flood level of 40.17m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum). Each building will have safe access routes away from potential flooded areas during the 1 in 100 year + climate change event. The retail units, restaurants, boathouse and visitor centre are classified as ‘Less Vulnerable’ in the NPPF Technical Guidance and therefore are considered appropriate in the suggested locations close to the lake edge. The hotel use, considered ‘More Vulnerable’ has been located to the eastern part of the site which is on higher ground and in flood zone 1.
7.9.6 As the development displaces and alters the floodplain characteristics like for like compensation is required. The FRA indicates that a total 22,751m3 flood compensation storage up to the 1 in 100 year + climate change is provided which is greater than the calculated 21,733m3 required. To achieve this the scheme has been designed to flood the area adjacent to the lake before inundating the swales and car parking areas during the extreme events.
7.9.7 The Environment Agency responded to the original Flood Risk Assessment and objected on the basis that further information was required on a range of technical issues to make the scheme PPS25 compliant as well as specific issues for the Local Planning Authority to address. These are set out below;- PPS25 Sequential Test Flood attenuation within the outside curtilage of the Garden Centre Water Framework Directive associated with the provision of the Lock and Marina
Development Control Committee 58 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.9.8 PPS25 Sequential Test
7.9.8.1 The EA’s objection in respect of the PPS25 Sequential Test was that they wished to await the outcome of the independent retail assessment, which provides its own Sequential Test, before offering the Planning Authority final comments on the matter. They stated that this could have ‘in principle’ implications for those parts of the development located within flood zone 2 and 3.
7.9.8.2 The practice guide to the former PSS25 provides some advice regarding when the sequential test needs to be applied to individual applications. It identifies that: Where applications relate to sites not allocated in the plan the sequential test needs to be applied Where a site has not been sequentially tested in the Local Development Document (LDD) the sequential test will need to be applied at the individual site level Another instance when the sequential test is required is where the use is not in accordance with LDD allocations and policies. For example if housing is proposed on a site allocated for a less vulnerable use. PPS25 requires the application of the sequential test to all planning applications in flood risk areas, including those on previously developed land, unless the areas or site has already been allocated through a sequential test informed by a SFRA.
7.9.8.3 The Flood Risk Assessment accompanying the application provides its own sequential test. This carries out an evaluation of 14 alternative sites within a 2.5km radius of the town centre. The purpose of the sequential test is to determine whether there are more suitable sites that could be developed at lower risk (zone 1) and that ‘only where there are no reasonably available sites in Flood Zones 1 and 2 should decision makers consider the suitability of sites in Flood Zone 3’.
7.9.8.4 The result of this evaluation was that there were no ‘reasonably available’ alternative sites viable to provide the development space comparable to the proposed site at Rushden Lakes and also providing the same mix of leisure and retail facilities. The NPPF paragraph 24, referring to the retail sequential test, states ‘Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale’. The applicant has submitted the proposed mix of uses to deliver a ‘step change’ in the level of retail and leisure facilities provided for local residents of Rushden and Higham Ferrers. The proposals do need a level of critical mass to ensure the choice and offer is sufficient to provide an alternative to existing destinations and to ensure that scheme is deliverable. The EA stated that they wished to await the outcome of the independent retail assessment (by GVA commissioned by NNJPU) before offering final comments on the sequential test.
7.9.8.5 While the results of the GVA report are noted your officers consider that the assumptions made in the original retail impact assessment, as well as the revised sensitivity analysis on the Sequential Test, are valid. The sequential test is robust given the catchment area of the proposed development, the turnover to be derived from this area and the assumptions on claw back of lost expenditure. The analysis of the retail impact assessment PPS4 sequential test is set out in section 7.4.6 and your officers would contend that this holds true for the NPPF flood risk sequential test and reinforces the fact that there are no alternative comparable sites within the proposed site area. The GVA report does not in fact provide a list of sequentially preferable retail sites. Therefore for all of these reasons your officers consider that the proposals meet the flood risk sequential test. A Sequential Test conforming to the EA’s template has been undertaken by officers and is attached at Appendix 5.
7.9.8.6 The NPPF states at paragraph 102 that ‘If, following application of the Sequential Test, it is not possible, consistent with the wider sustainability objectives, for the development to be located in zones with a lower probability of flooding, the Exception Test can be applied if appropriate. For the Exception test to be passed:
Development Control Committee 59 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
It must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk’...’and A site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.’
7.9.8.7 There are significant benefits in relation to sustainability which the development brings to the area which outweigh the risk of flooding. These are related to reduced travel for retail and leisure trips for local people, reduced CO2 emissions from these trips, increased employment opportunities locally and therefore reduced out-commuting and consequent reduction in CO2 emissions for accessing employment. The Flood Risk Assessment demonstrates that the mitigation provided by the development adequately protects this development and provides attenuation for the displaced floodplain causing a nil-detriment effect on the flood plain overall and not increasing the likelihood of flooding elsewhere. Your officers are therefore satisfied that from the information provided, the comments of the EA and evaluation of the scheme against policy objectives that it meets the Exception Test.
7.9.9 Flood attenuation within the outside curtilage of the Garden Centre
7.9.9.1 A further concern in relation to the original Flood Risk Assessment for the EA was the fact that the outside stock storage area of the Garden Centre would flood more regularly than the 1% annual probability event (i.e. 1 in 100 year event).
7.9.9.2 The EA were concerned that there might be significant risk of pollution to the flood waters from stored pesticides and fertilisers that would be harmful to the aquatic environment. The proposals were for a reactive stock removal to be triggered on the announcement of flood warning and raised storage shelves had also been discussed, however, this did not overcome the concerns around enforceability and the effectiveness of this particular flood cell within the overall attenuation scheme.
7.9.9.3 As part of the discussions with the EA and the subsequent submission by the applicant in the revised Flood Risk Assessment a remodelled flood storage area has been created such that the need to flood the outdoor storage area of the Garden Centre is now in conformity with the EA’s requirements. The remodelled flood storage area has allowed other less sensitive areas to be flooded within the critical 1% annual probability event providing a more effective and enforceable flood mitigation scheme. As part of any consent an informative is recommended advising that appropriate signage is provided as part of the development informing the users of the areas susceptible to flooding (i.e. the car park) and the identified evacuation routes.
7.9.10 Water Framework Directive associated with the provision of the Lock and Marina
7.9.10.1 The EA has provided advice to the applicant and the LPA on the Water Framework Directive (WDF). Regulation 17 of the Water Environment (WFD)(E&W) Regulations 2003 places a duty on each public body including local planning authorities to ‘have regard to’ River Basin Management Plans (RBMP). The lake is not currently a water body under WFD because it is too small. However, the introduction of a lock would mean that the lake would become included, as part of the River Nene water body.
7.9.10.2 New activities and schemes that affect the water environment may impact the biological, hydromorphological, physico-chemical and or chemical quality elements of a water body. Any of these impacts could lead to deterioration and therefore a preliminary assessment would be required in respect of the above elements. The Environment Agency advised that for this application there would be the potential for an impact of the status of the River Nene from its present baseline and therefore an assessment would be required.
Development Control Committee 60 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.9.10.3 The proposals for the lock and marina had been promoted through the previous application on this site for the Business Office Campus. At the time that this was consented the Water Framework Directive had not been brought into force. As a result of extended negotiation between the applicant, the EA and the Planning Authority it was agreed to remove the lock, weir and marina element from the scheme for both the existing consent and this application. The original benefits of the lock and marina were to provide greater access to Skew Bridge lake for local people to enjoy quiet recreation through the provision of boating facilities. The retention of the boathouse and replacing the marina with a launching slip for non-motorised craft will achieve the same objective in providing water borne leisure access within the scheme. The nature of this change was not considered to represent a substantial difference to the planning application and consultation with the EA and English Nature confirmed that both welcomed the decision to remove this part of the development proposal.
7.9.10.4 This, therefore, removes the requirement to undertake an assessment as part of the Water Framework Directive.
7.9.11 Both the EA and Anglian Water comment on the Surface Water Drainage strategy and require conditions to manage this in term of its implementation and maintenance into the future. The act of development generally causes a reduction in the permeability of the site due to the introduction of hard non-porous surfaces.
7.9.12 In summary officers are satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that its Flood Risk Assessment now adequately addresses the Environment Agency’s concerns and that the flood compensation storage up to the 1 in 100 year + climate change has been achieved.
7.9.13 The issues relating to the Water Framework Directive have been resolved through the removal of the lock, weir and marina, the potential flooding and contamination of the Garden Centre outside storage area has been overcome by remodelling and the sequential test has also been accepted. Therefore, overall, officers are confident that the proposals meet the requirements and policy objectives of the NPPF and PPS25 Practice Guide and these issues would not be grounds on which to refuse the application.
7.10 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
7.10.1 The NPPF states that ‘in determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected...where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation’.
7.10.2 The Environmental Statement (ES) which accompanies the application contains a section on archaeology and cultural heritage. The report considers that overall there will be a low sensitivity of identified features and low potential for finds. The ES states that for the purposes of this application a study area of 1km radius from the site was used to assess the character and significance of the local cultural heritage resource in relation to the proposals. From examination of a range of baseline data it has been determined that there has been no previous archaeological investigative work carried out within the site or it’s near vicinity. There is potential within the construction phase of the development to destroy or truncate any unknown archaeological deposits particularly during groundworks and piling operations. However, it is likely anything of archaeological significance will have already been previously destroyed during the extensive gravel extraction works previously undertaken. It is therefore proposed that an archaeological watching brief is undertaken where works potentially disturb unmade ground below the topsoil until/unless it becomes clear beyond reasonable doubt that no archaeological remains are present. It is not considered that there will be no direct or indirect impacts on archaeology during the post-construction phase.
Development Control Committee 61 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.10.3 The County Archaeological Advisor in her consultation response indicated that while excavation works had taken place on site it was clear from the Heritage Environmental Record (HER) that some areas may not have been subjected to quarrying and that investigation should initially be concentrated in these areas. She continued, stating that a watching brief was insufficient as mitigation and that while the potential impact on possible archaeological remains was not an over-riding constraint on the development a multi-phase condition would be more appropriate mitigation in this instance.
7.10.4 While it appears that the evidence suggests that there is limited potential for archaeological finds on the site, it is considered reasonable and necessary to add the condition requested by the County Archaeological Service to ensure that a robust methodology is applied before and after the construction phase.
7.11 Conditions and S106 obligations
7.11.1 A range of conditions have been set out below which go towards securing the benefits of the scheme and ensuring the development does not have an unacceptable impact on its surroundings. Those that have been requested by Statutory Agencies have been drawn up and agreed with them to ensure the proposals meet the requirements of the legislation and to afford the highest level of protection and mitigation.
7.11.2 The County Council Fire and Rescue Service has requested a contribution of £85,892.20 to ensure that standards are maintained across the county and that this sum will be utilised at the nearest fire station serving the development. A further request has been made for the installation of 12 fire hydrants across the site. The retail terraces and other buildings will be fitted with sprinkler systems and national fire safety codes will be followed in the construction of the development. Therefore, it is not considered reasonable to request this contribution given that no additional risk or burden will be placed on the service over and above that which any new development would make. It is considered appropriate for the development to have access to fire hydrants and a condition has been added to ensure this is delivered rather than to have this secured through a s106 contribution.
7.11.3 A contribution of £375,000 has been agreed with the Highways Authority to go towards public transport provision to and from the site which the County Council will procure and will be payable on commencement of the development.
7.11.4 The applicant will procure, by agreement, a Travel Plan Manager to liaise with tenants and the Highways Authority to promote and support the objectives of the Travel Plan. This will be required prior to the first retail occupation.
7.11.5 A Town Centre Manager contribution has been secured (£150,000 over 3 years) to help maximise the complementary benefits of the scheme and to minimise any potential adverse impacts as far as is feasible. This payment will be triggered on the commencement of the development.
7.11.6 The provision of the initial section of the Greenway link from the Pedestrian/Cycle bridge across the A45 to the town centre to end at the head of Crown Way has been agreed delivered either through the s106 or by way of the s278 agreement.
7.11.7 The applicant will provide a boathouse and visitor centre as part of the scheme, to agreed specification, which will be made available for occupation no later than the first occupation of any part of the retail elements of the development. The Boathouse will be made available for occupation within 12 months from the first occupation of any retail element of the development. The developer will secure tenants to operate the facilities in line with the recreational, leisure and amenity, objectives of the development.
Development Control Committee 62 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.11.8 The applicant will establish a construction apprenticeship & training scheme though Construction Futures and contribute £50,000 to secure 547 training weeks. The scheme will be for the duration of the construction phase and the payment will be triggered prior to the commencement of the development.
7.11.9 A contribution towards off-site highway improvements has been agreed between the applicant and the Highways Agency. A sum of £44,115 is required for a nil-detriment scheme to be provided for the Chowns Mill A45 junction.
7.11.10 The applicant will also cover any reasonable legal fees expended by the Council in the production and negotiation of the s106 agreement.
7.11.11 A planning obligation must comply with the following three tests as set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010:
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
7.11.12 Since 6th April 2010 regulation 122(2) CIL has required that a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if it is necessary to make the development in question acceptable in planning terms, is directly related to the development, and is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. This puts much of the previous guidance onto a statutory footing, whilst it has long been a requirement that an s106 planning obligation must be 'necessary' to the grant of permission.
7.11.13 The s106 obligations which have been requested as part of this planning application assessment have all been assessed against the three tests set out above and are deemed to be CIL compliant. The purpose of each obligation is set out in the attached Heads of Terms at Appendix 8
7.12 Overall Balance & Conclusions
7.12.1 Members will be aware that in reaching a decision they need to be mindful of s38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This requires that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The weight to be given to different material considerations also needs to be given careful deliberation.
7.12.2 As rehearsed above your officers do not consider that the application is fully in accordance with the Development Plan. It specifically does not meet what was envisaged by Policy 12: Distribution of Retail Development in the adopted Core Spatial Strategy for North Northamptonshire. However, your officers do believe that there is greater conformity with the NPPF and that the proposal meet the retail sequential and impact tests as set out within the revised national planning guidance.
7.12.3 As such, although the application is a departure from the Development Plan, your officers do not consider that this warrants refusal. Other material considerations need to be assessed and balanced in coming to a final conclusion and decision.
7.12.4 It has been stated previously that the emerging policy for North Northamptonshire, and certainly the view held locally, would be an enhanced role for Rushden, designating this as a growth town which would provide a focus for major co-ordinated regeneration and growth in employment, housing, comparison retail development and higher order facilities serving one or more districts. While only limited weight can be afford to this it demonstrates the local desire for Rushden to provide for more of its own needs both now and in the future.
Development Control Committee 63 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
7.12.5 It is also of note that a significant amount of local support has been voiced in favour of these proposals. There have been 23 responses supporting the scheme and only 7 objections from the general public. The Council has received several petitions with over 1,200 signatures of people supporting the development and the pre-application consultation undertaken by the applicant indicated that 86% of those canvassed were in support of the proposals. It therefore appears that there is significant local backing for the development to go ahead.
7.12.6 Of greater import are the other material considerations which your officers regard to be of significance in balancing the decision as to whether to grant planning consent. This report has considered all other material considerations and it has identified those which provide significant value and benefit to the community, these are principally; The regenerative effects of the scheme for the site and the town as a whole The employment opportunities generated by the development The enhancements to the environment and additional habitat management activities and access provided to the SPA/SSSI/Ramsar site The provision of recreation and leisure facilities to be accessible to the whole community, including a visitor centre for the Rushden Lakes development and wider Nene Valley and a boathouse. Enhanced tourist facilities helping to support existing visitor attractions and local businesses The provision and connectivity of considerable elements of the Greenway and Blueway project with provision of a pedestrian/cycleway across the A45 to better connect the town with the Nene Valley.
7.12.7 Your officers consider that all of these benefits are substantial and should carry significant weight in the consideration of this application. Furthermore, they do not think that the policy considerations or any other material considerations which weigh against the application are such that they outweigh these significant benefits. It is therefore the view of officers that there is no reason why planning permission cannot be granted for this application.
7.12.8 Other material consideration including the layout, design and sustainability principles of the development; transportation, highways and access issues; environmental concerns relating to the SPA/SSSI/Ramsar site; flood risk and site drainage and archaeology and cultural heritage issues have all been demonstrated that there would be no adverse impact as a result of the development. There would, therefore, be insufficient reasons for refusal on these grounds or on issues raised by objectors which have been fully considered.
7.12.9 It is therefore recommended that, subject to a legal agreement and the imposition of the conditions set out below (or variations thereof), and the reference of the application to the Secretary of State for his consideration as to whether the application will be ‘called in’ for his determination, planning permission is granted.
7.13 Appendices
1. North Northamptonshire Retail Capacity Study – Trade Draw Zones 2. Objection letters and reports from surrounding Shopping Centre Operators and Councils Bedford Borough Council Letter 20.04.12 BNP Paribas (CBRE Swansgate Centre) Letter 27.02.12 BNP Paribas (CBRE Swansgate Centre) Letter 13.05.12 BNP Paribas (CBRE Swansgate Centre) Letter 16.07.12 Corby Borough Council Letter 05.04.12 Corby Borough Council Letter & Report 25.04.12 Corby Borough Council Letter 23.07.12
Development Control Committee 64 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
Drivers Jonas Deloitte (L&G Grosvenor Centre) Letter & Report 04.04.12 Ellandi (PR Kettering Newlands Centre) Letter 10.05.12 Ellandi (PR Kettering Newlands Centre) Letter 17.08.12 Jones Lang LaSalle (Helical – Corby Town Centre) Letter 02.04.12 Jones Lang LaSalle (Helical – Corby Town Centre) Letter 12.07.12 Kettering Borough Council Letter & Report 24.05.12 Kettering Borough Council Letter 19.07.12 Legal & General Investment Management (Grosvenor Centre) Letter 14.03.12 Northampton Borough Council Letter 27.03.12 Northampton Borough Council Letter 08.05.12 Turley Associates (Ropemaker Properties – Riverside) Letter 16.05.12 West Northamptonshire Development Corporation Letter 18.04.12 3. GVA Final Report – Independent Assessment of the Retail Strategy for North Northamptonshire and Implications of Rushden Lakes Proposals – For NNJPU April 2012 4. White Young Green – Planning Application Reference 12/00010/FUL, Appraisal of Retail Planning Issues – August 2012 5. Flood Risk Sequential Test 6. Plan - Restriction of A1 retailing to Garden Centre & Retail Terrace A for related retailers 7. Plan – Environmental Constraints [GIS034A] 8. Section 106 Heads of Terms
8. Conditions/Reasons:
1. Application for approval of details of the appearance (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) in relation to the part of the site edged yellow on HPW Drawing 2654-70 Rev A , (hereinafter called “the outline development") must be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
2. The development of the site (other than that part of the site edged yellow on HPW Drawing 2654-70 Rev A “the outline development”) for which detailed permission is hereby granted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In accordance with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
3. The outline development shall be begun before the expiry of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: In accordance with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
4. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings and documents: Plan 1 (Rev A) Site Plan 1:5000 submitted to LPA 28.03.12 Plan 2: Blue Land Site Location Plan 1:12500 submitted to LPA 17.01.12 Plan 3: General Location 1:2500 submitted to LPA 17.01.12 10714-C106-D4 Levels Strategy Plan submitted to LPA 17.01.12 10714-C120-D2 Existing Levels submitted to LPA 17.01.12 2654-50 Rev B Proposed site plan submitted to LPA 01.06.12 2654-51 Garden Centre Elevations 2654-52 Garden Centre Section 2654-53 Retail Terrace A Elevations 2654-54 Retail Terrace B Elevations 2654-55 Retail Terrace C Elevations 2654-56 Retail Detail Elevations 2654-57 Anchor Store Typical Section 2654-58 Retail Terrace Typical Section
Development Control Committee 65 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
2654-59 Retail Terrace C Elevation in context 2654-60 Restaurant Plan, Elevations, Section 2654-61 Drive-thru Plan, Elevations, Section 2654-62 Visitor Centre Floor Plan 2654-63 Visitor Centre Elevations 2654-64 Rev A Boathouse Floor Plan submitted to LPA 21.03.12 2654-65 Boathouse Elevations 2654-66 Gatehouse Building Floor Plan 2654-67 Gatehouse Building Elevations 2654-70 Rev A Parts subject to Outline Application submitted to LPA 21.03.12 2654-71 Garden Centre Plan 2654-72 Retail Terrace A Plans 2654-73 Retail Terrace B Plans 2654-74 Retail Terrace C Plans Environment Statement [dated 20.12.11] Environment Statement Addendum (June 2012) submitted to LPA 23.06.12 Flood Risk Assessment [version F4] [dated May 2012] submitted to LPA 14.05.12 Transport Assessment [dated Dec 2011] Proposed Skew Bridge Roundabout 110277/SK/44 [dated 25.09.12] Addendum to TA - Highways Agency (March 2012) Addendum to TA – NCC (March 2012) Reason: To ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with this planning permission.
5. The development shall comprise no more than: - 43,289 square metres gross floorspace within Use Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order - 112 bed hotel/conference centre and ancillary facilities Reason: To ensure that the development complies with the planning permission
6.No development shall commence until a foul water strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority. No building shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in accordance with the foul water strategy so approved unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding.
7. No development shall commence until a surface water strategy/flood risk assessment has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No building shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in accordance with the surface water strategy so approved unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local planning Authority. Reason: To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding.
8. No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological works has been implemented in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved by the Local planning Authority. This written scheme will include the following components, completion of which will trigger the phased discharging of the condition: -fieldwork in accordance with the agreed written scheme of investigation -post excavation assessment (to be submitted within 6 months of the completion of the field work, unless agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority -completion of post excavation analysis, preparation of site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Local planning Authority, completion of an archive report, and submission of a publication report to be completed within two years of the completion of the fieldwork, unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that features of archaeological interest are properly examined and recorded and that the development in compliance with the NPPF.
Development Control Committee 66 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
9. The development shall not commence until details of the following works (a, b and c) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until these works have been completed in accordance with the approved details: a) Improvements to the junction of the A45 known as Skew Bridge Roundabout as set out in Vectos drawing No 110277/SK/44 dated 25.09.12 Proposed Indicative Layout of A45 Roundabout and such amendments required by the Local Planning Authority as a result of the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit or otherwise approved by it in writing. b) The provision of an adoptable pedestrian/cycle bridge over the A45 dual carriageway connecting the A5001 Northampton Road, Rushden with the new adoptable site access road. c) Improvements to the footways of the A5001 Northampton Road and the U35247 Crown Way, Rushden to form a shared use footway/cycle track with appropriate dropped crossings between the proposed Toucan crossing on Northampton Road and the East Northamptonshire Greenway access off Crown Way, Rushden. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 13 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy
10. Prior to at least 3 months before the first occupation of any building notification in writing of the appointment of a Travel Plan Manager shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority (Northamptonshire County Council) Reason: To comply with North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 16 and NPPF 36.
11. An Annual Travel Plan Review to be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority (Northamptonshire County Council) for the duration of 5 years, from first retail occupation, to be approved in writing with any agreed actions implemented by the Travel Plan Manager. Reason: To comply with North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy Policy 16 and NPPF 36.
12. No development shall take place until a comprehensive landscaping scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. This landscaping scheme shall be implemented strictly in accordance with the approved details in the first planting season following the occupation of the development. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years of planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure a reasonable standard of development and visual amenity for the area.
13.Not withstanding the terms of the permission and detail shown on plan SK500 Rev D2 (Sept’11), no development of a lock and weir structure and marina shall be constructed between Skew Bridge Ski lake and the River Nene Reason: To ensure the integrity of the ski bridge lake and other lakes of the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar site.
14. No ground clearance works, tree felling, or vegetation removal shall take place during the main bird breeding season (April –June inclusive). If any such works are scheduled for March, July or August, a suitably qualified ecologist must carry out a comprehensive search of the affected area for nesting birds before the works commence. If active nests are found, ground clearance, tree felling or vegetation clearance around the nest (including a buffer area determined by the ecologist), will be avoided until the breeding attempt has ended as confirmed by the ecologist in writing. Reason: To avoid adverse impact on nesting birds in compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
Development Control Committee 67 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
15. No ground clearance works shall be undertaken within 100 metres of the heronry in the SSSI [shown on plan GIS034A Ecological Constraints Drawing] Appendix 7 to this report] between the period January – June each year. If any such works are scheduled for July and August a suitably qualified ecologist must carry out a comprehensive search of the affected area for nesting herons before the works commence. If active nests are found, ground clearance, tree felling or vegetation clearance within 100 metres of the heronry will be avoided until the breeding attempt has ended as confirmed by the ecologist in writing Reason: To avoid adverse impact on nesting birds in compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
16. The ski lake contained in the application site shall not be used by motorised craft at anytime except for safety boats. Within the ski lake boating shall be limited to the area shaded green [shown on plan [GIS034A Ecological Constraints Drawing] Appendix 7 to this report] between the 1st November and 31st March in any year. Reason: To protect the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar site in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
17. A 30 metre watercraft exclusion zone around the western island on Skew Ski Lake shown on plan [GIS034A Ecological Constraints Drawing] Appendix 7 to this report] shall be implemented once development has commenced and will be continued once the development is completed, to avoid disturbance to places of rest and shelter used by otters. In addition there shall be no boating activity permitted on Delta Lake, to avoid disturbance of the bird interest of the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar site. Reason: To comply with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
18. Before the commencement of development a detailed Access and Habitat Management Plan related to Skew Bridge Lake and Delta Pit Lake, (based on the submitted outline access and habitat management plan) including access to the land around these lakes, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Natural England. The approved Plan shall be implemented before any part of the development becomes operational or as otherwise might be agreed by the local planning authority in consultation with Natural England and thereafter maintained in accordance with the agreed Access and Habitat Management Plan. Reason: To ensure adequate protection and management of the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar site to facilitate public access to ensure it is compatible with wildlife conservation in compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
19. Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed plan of the measures to be taken to avoid harm to reptiles during the development and to provide appropriate mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
20. A clerk of works with appropriate ecological qualifications and experience (as agreed with the Local Planning Authority) shall be appointed to ensure development is undertaken in compliance with the Construction and Environment Management Plan and Access and Habitat Management Plan. The clerk of works shall be available at the site during all working hours during which construction is being carried out. Reason: To ensure that all necessary avoidance and mitigation measures incorporated in both plans are fully complied with.
21. Before the commencement of development a scheme for the external lighting of the development, which accords with the design principles in the Design Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All external lighting shall be of a type, fixed in a location and directed in a manner that avoids glare being
Development Control Committee 68 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012 directed towards the designated areas of wildlife especially to the SSSI and SPA/Ramsar Site. Reason: To protect the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar site in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
22. Prior to the commencement of development a list of construction operations that could cause disturbance to the wintering bird interest of the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar site must be provided to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in association with Natural England. Such construction operations shall not be undertaken between October to March (inclusive) each year. Reason: To protect the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar site in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
23. From the commencement of development there will be an annual monitoring survey in the area covered by the Access and Habitat Management Plan for reptiles, bats, otters, wintering and breeding birds which will continue on an annual basis until 5 years after the completion of all the development hereby permitted. The results of the monitoring survey are to be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority. Following consultation with the Natural England, should the monitoring survey show any significant decline in the populations on any of the above species due to the development then an additional management action plan to rectify the position will be submitted in writing to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Natural England and implemented in full. Reason: To monitor and address any unforeseen impacts to the interest features of the SSSI/SPA/RAMSAR site and other legally protected species in compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
24. Details of any external illuminated advertisements shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. This information shall include details of the size and positioning of the illuminated advertisement, technical specification of the lighting source to be used, (luminaire type; mounting height; aiming angles, luminaire profiles and details of the timer controls including proposed hours). The means of illumination of the advertisement the subject of this consent shall not be of a flashing or intermittent nature. The approved scheme shall be installed, maintained and operated in accordance with the approved details unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to the variation. Reason: to protect the appearance of the area, the environment and wildlife and local light- sensitive development from light pollution.
25. Details of any external lighting including during the construction phase shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. This information shall include a layout plan with beam orientation and schedule of equipment in the design (luminaire type; mounting height; aiming angles, luminaire profiles, a lighting contour map, and details of the timer controls including proposed hours). The means of illumination of the subject of this consent shall not be of a flashing or intermittent nature. The approved scheme shall be installed, maintained and operated in accordance with the approved details unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to the variation. Reason: In order to ensure adequate safety and security on site.
26. Light trespass shall not exceed a level of 5 Lux beyond 5 metres from the boundary of the site. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring light-sensitive development.
Development Control Committee 69 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
27. Before the development hereby permitted commences a scheme shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) which specifies the provisions to be made to protect the site from landfill gas due to the approved use. The agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the development coming into use and shall be maintained thereafter. No development approved by this planning permission shall commence until: a. A site investigation has been undertaken in accordance with details provided in sections 9.1.6 and 9.1.7 of the Land Quality Statement (Project no: 10714) submitted in support of this planning application and a risk assessment has been undertaken. The information required by this planning condition shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA. b. A Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements, including measures to minimise the impact on human health and structures has been submitted to the LPA. This should be approved by the LPA prior to that remediation being carried out on the site. c. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement. d. Upon completion of the remediation detailed in the Method Statement a report shall be submitted to the LPA that provides verification that the required works regarding landfill gas mitigation have been carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement. This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11’. Reason: In the interests of health and safety of those people using the site.
28.Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme and timetable for the provision of 12 fire hydrants shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Chief Fire Officer and the provision of fire hydrants shall be made in accordance with the scheme and timetable. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development
29.Development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: Waste Management Strategy and Waste Audit. Reason: To comply with policy CS7 of the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework
30.The Waste Management Strategy for neighbourhood development should take the form of a detailed written report (including accompanying layout and design plans) and must address: a) identification of responsible person (including contact details), b) description of the development (proposed buildings, site area, curtilage, future use, and occupancy), c) estimation of the type and quantity of wastes anticipated to be produced during occupation of the development, d) identification of appropriate neighbourhood waste management design features (internal and / or external) and facilities, e) demonstrate adequate space and access provisions for waste management features and facilities, f) assessment of neighbourhood waste management facility capacity, g) demonstrate how the provision of facilities and design features: i. is in accordance with the SPD principles, other relevant Plan policies, and the Northamptonshire Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy, ii. complements and contributes towards the existing waste management infrastructure network and sustainable waste management, and h) requirement and provision made for ongoing facility management and maintenance, including the collection and use of recycled & composted materials. Reason: To comply with policy CS7 of the Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework
Development Control Committee 70 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
31.The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (dated May 2012, Rev F4) undertaken by Campbell Reith, with particular attention to the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: · Provision of compensatory flood storage as set out on Drawing No. C102 (Rev D9) and Drawing No. C103 (Rev D8). Finished floor levels are set no lower than 40.20 m above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation, and subsequently operated and maintained in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements set out within the FRA, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason: To prevent the increased risk and impact of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants, surrounding area and third parties in accordance with the NPPF and Policy 13 (q) of the Core Strategy for North Northamptonshire.
32. No buildings shall be constructed in the area of the site identified as pre-development flood zones 2 and 3 as shown in the submitted FRA until the floodplain compensation scheme as shown Drawing No. C102 (Rev D9) and Drawing No. C103 (Rev D8) is completed. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding elsewhere by ensuring that compensatory storage of flood water is provided.
33. No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the submitted drainage strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run- off generated up to and including the 1% critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. Any attenuation required should include an allowable for climate change. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include: · Demonstration that the NPPF and CIRIA hierarchy of drainage has been followed. · Detailed surface water design drawings and supporting calculations. · Consideration of overland flood flows. Overland floodwater should be routed away from vulnerable areas. For acceptable depths and rates of flow, please refer to Environment Agency and Defra document FD2320/TR2 “Flood Risk Assessment Guidance for New Development Phase 2”. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site in accordance with the NPPF and Policy 13(q) of the Core Strategy for North Northamptonshire
34.Development shall not begin until a detailed scheme for the ownership and maintenance of the surface water drainage assets for the lifetime of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To manage the risk of flooding, pollution and detriment to public amenity through provision of suitable water infrastructure in accordance with the NPPF and Policy 13(q), the Core Strategy for North Northamptonshire and the Anglian River Basin Management Plan.
35.Development shall not begin until a detailed scheme for the maintenance of the areas of floodplain compensation for the lifetime of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The floodplain compensation shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter. Reason: To manage the risk of flooding and to ensure that areas of floodplain compensation remain operational at all times in accordance with the NPPF and Policy 13(q) of the Core Strategy for North Northamptonshire.
36. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: Infiltration drainage is not appropriate for this site due to the land quality and shallow groundwater table.
Development Control Committee 71 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
37.Prior to the commencement of any part of the development hereby permitted, a Construction and Environment Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction and Environment Management Plan shall include and specify the provision to be made for the following: i) Overall strategy for managing environmental impacts which will arise during construction; ii) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; iii) Control of noise emanating from the site during the construction period; iv) Hours of construction work for the development; v) A daily log of all vehicles attracted to the site shall be kept and made available for inspection at the request of the local planning authority. vi) Contractors’ compounds, materials storage and other storage arrangements, cranes and plant, equipment and related temporary infrastructure; vii) Designation, layout and design of construction access and egress points; viii) Internal site circulation routes; ix) Directional signage (on and off site); x) Provision for emergency vehicles; xi) Provision for all site operatives, visitors and construction vehicles loading and unloading plant and materials; xii) Provision for all site operatives, visitors and construction vehicles for parking and tuning within the site during the construction period; xiii) Detail of measures to prevent mud and other such material mitigating onto the highway from construction period; xiv) And other similar debris on the adjacent public highways; xv) Routing agreement for construction traffic, xvi) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development within the site; xvii) Enclosure of phase or development parcel development sites or development parcels and the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; xviii) Waste audit and scheme for waste minimisation and recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works. The approved Construction Managment Plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period and the approved measures shall be retained for the duration of the construction works. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity, highway safety and visual amenity in accordance with Policy 13 and 16 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).
38. The approved Construction and Environment Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period and the approved measures shall be retained for the duration of the construction works. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity, highway safety and visual amenity in accordance with Policy 13 and 16 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (2008).
39. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and County Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, the following shall apply – i) The use of the Garden Centre and Retail Terrace A hereby approved [shown on Plan No. 2654-50 rev B] shall be restricted to the sale of goods and services normally sold at a garden centre or associated activities which for the avoidance of doubt shall include – Core Garden Centre Goods and Services a) Good and services related to gardens and gardening; b) Horticultural products, trees, plants, shrubs, house plants and flowers of any type; c) Garden equipment, tools and accessories;
Development Control Committee 72 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
d) Barbeques and their accessories; e) Outdoor garden furniture; f) Sheds, garden buildings and outdoor garden play equipment; g) Fencing, trellis and landscaping materials;
None Core Garden Centre Goods and Services h) Conservatories; i) Conservatory furniture, furnishing and accessories; j) Swimming pools and associates equipment; k) Aquatics, water garden equipment and their accessories; l) Pictures, frames and prints; m) Books – including gardening, leisure, hobby, travel, sports and coffee table books and other literature other than fiction; n) Pets, pet accessories, pet care and advice; o) Hobbies, toys and crafts p) Baskets, wicker work and country crafts; q) Christmas decorations, trees and gifts; r) China, glass and gifts s) Home table top items and kitchen accessories t) Soft furnishings; u) Outdoor and country pursuits and equipment e.g. fishing, equestrian, hiking, climbing etc; v) Camping equipment and supplies; w) Outdoor clothing and footwear; x) Restaurant, coffee shop and children’s play area
ii) The area of the Garden Centre hereby approved shown [hatched in Green on plan No. 2654-50 rev B Appendix 6] shall also comprise the plant and external sales and display area for the garden centre. 50% of the floorspace of the Garden Centre building [delinated by the blue line within the hatched area on the plan] shall be retained for the sale of Core Garden Centre Goods and Services at all times. iii) The buildings outlined [in Blue on [plan No. 2654-50 rev B] shall not be subdivided without the prior consent in writing by the Local Planning Authority iv) No variation of this Condition or to the unit size of any of the buildings shall take place without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. v) The Plan referred to within this condition is drawing No. 2654-50 rev B and is appended to this report as Appendix 6 Reason: To ensure that the development does not adversely affect the vitality and viability of the town centre of Rushden and to comply with NPPF and NNCSS policies
40. The scheme overall shall achieve, at least, the BREEAM rating “very good” as set out in the Sustainable Design and Energy Statement December 2011. A post construction BREEAM assessment/report shall be submitted in writing and approved by the Local Planning Authority, no later than 6 months after first occupation of each building or block of units, as developed, to assess the performance of the scheme against the BREEAM rating. Reason: In the interests of energy efficiency and sustainable construction in accordance with policy 14 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy.
41. Prior to the commencement of development a Low Zero Carbon (LZC) Implementation Strategy shall be submitted in writing and approved by the Local Planning Authority carried out by an independent energy specialist to demonstrate and agree the most appropriate combination of LZC energy sources for the development, as outlined in the Energy Statement dated Nov 2011, in order to achieve a target of meeting at least 30% of the demand for energy on site. Reasons for excluding potential technologies should be given including technical and economic viability assessments supporting actual target if less than 30%. Reason: In the interests of energy efficiency and sustainable construction n accordance with policy 14 of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 2008.
Development Control Committee 73 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
42. Prior to any development commencing full details of the repair works to the "bailey bridge" and the programming of such works shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory refurbishment of the existing bailey bridge to provide pedestrian and cycle access across the River Nene in accordance with the objectives and requirements of core strategy policies.
43. An easement of 3 metres should be provided either side of the pipeline as shown on the drawing 17469 dated Aug 2012. At no time shall any non demountable buildings or structures be erected within this corridor. Reason: to protect the safety and integrity of the national grid pipeline.
Informatives
1. Please note that an application to discharge the above conditions may be required. Please ensure that you allow sufficient time for your application to be determined prior to implementing your permission. An approximate timescale of 8 weeks is required. For full details please visit http://www.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/conditions
2. Anglian Water has assets close to or crossing this site or there are assets subject to an adoption agreement, therefore the site layout should take this into account and accommodate those assets within either prospectively adoptable highways or public open space. If this is not practicable then the sewers will need to be diverted at the developers cost under Section 185 of the water industry Act 1991, or, in the case of apparatus under an adoption agreement, liaise with the owners of the apparatus. It should be noted that the diversion works should normally be completed before development can commence.
3. An application to discharge trade effluent must be made to Anglian Water and must have been obtained before any discharge of trade effluent can be made to the public sewer. Anglian Water recommends that petrol/oil interceptors be fitted in all car parks/ washing/repair facilities. Failure to enforce the effective use of such facilities could result in pollution of the local water course and may constitute an offence. Anglian Water also recommends the installation of properly maintained fat traps on all catering establishments. Failure to do so may result in this and other properties suffering blocked drains, sewerage flooding and consequential environmental and amenity impact and may also constitute an offence under Section 111 of the Water Industry Act 1991.
4. Areas of open space and part of the car parking provision are designated areas of ‘floodplain compensation’ and designed to flood in higher order flood events as shown on Drawing No. C102 (Rev D9) and Drawing No. C103 (Rev D8). It is recommended that appropriate signage is provided as part of the development, which informs the users of the areas susceptibility to flooding and the identified evacuation routes.
5. Flood Defence Consent Notwithstanding the planning permission(s) that may be granted or extant on the site, any proposed works affecting statutory main rivers, within the indicative floodplain or within the byelaw distance requires the prior written consent of the Environment Agency under the relevant statutory legislation and current land drainage byelaws. It should not be assumed that such consent will automatically be forthcoming, and the applicant should consult with the Environment Agency at the earliest opportunity in order to determine and secure formal flood defence consent for the proposed works as appropriate.
Development Control Committee 74 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012
6. National Grid has assets on the site and require the developer to minimise any crossing points of pipelines, and where unavoidable protection must be installed as per National Grid spec, at their cost. The legal easement across the pipeline, for NG access, is 3m either side of the pipeline. Minimum building distances are at the discretion of the Land Use Planning Department.
7. If any stone crushing and screening activities are carried out on site the operator must hold a Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 permit.
8. Highways Informatives: The implementation of Off Site Highway Works or any works that may affect the existing highway requires the explicit written permission of the local highway authority and the Highways Agency. Such permission would be issued subject to the completion of an agreement under section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended) and any subsidiary agreement under either Section 4 or Section 6 of the Highways Act 1980, as determined by the local highway authority and the Highways Agency. Full engineering, drainage and other related constructional details would need to be submitted for the approval of the local highway authority and Highways Agency. The details would be subject to a full technical and safety audits which may result in changes or amendments to the details shown indicatively on the planning approved details.
The Applicant is advised to gain the full technical approval of the local highways authority and Highways Agency prior to the submission of such approved details to the local planning authority to facilitate the discharge of the associated planning conditions. Failure to do so will delay the discharge of conditions.
Commencement of works on the highway will also be the subject of appropriate Road Booking Space on each of the roads affected. This is a minimum of 3 months but may be more if other planned works are programmed. Road Space for the A45 Trunk Road and Skew Bridge Roundabout would be obtained from the Highways Agency or their appointed Contractor. Road Space for local highway authority roads, (Crown Way, Northampton Road and the existing road into the development site) is Northamptonshire County Council. Any Temporary Road Closures to facilitate construction must be agreed with the local highway authority and the Highways Agency in good time. Full closures of the A45 will require a substantial lead in to ensure that any diversion routes are clear and available for use.
The Applicant is reminded that their proposals rely upon Traffic Regulation Notices which are subject to consultations outside the planning system. The results of the consultations should not be assumed. The determining authority is the County Council.
Development Control Committee 75 of 75 Date printed 10 October 2012