HEDGE END, WEST END & BOTLEY Monday 12 January 2015 Case Officer Andy Grandfield

SITE: Land at Retail Park, Tollbar Way, Hedge End, , SO30 2UN

Ref. F/14/75520 Received: 04/11/2014 (08/01/2015)

APPLICANT: CBRE Lionbrook Property Fund

PROPOSAL: Construction of new retail unit (gross floor area 929 sqm) and alterations to car park and vehicle access point (for sale of pet related products with associated veterinary services facility)

AMENDMENTS: None

RECOMMENDATION:

Subject to: (1) Consideration of comments from Head of Housing and Environmental Health; (2) Additional information on the sequential test and retail impact; (3) Securing a section 106 agreement for contribution towards sustainable transport, environmental improvements to Town Centre/BID and off-site carbon fund (if BREEAM 'Excellent' is not achieved), Pets at Home to be first occupier of building.

PERMIT

CONDITIONS AND REASONS:

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the following plans numbered: PL 020 A, PL 021 B, PL 100 A, PL 101 A, PL 102, PL 200 A, PL 300, PL 301, PL350 A Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

(2) The development hereby permitted shall start no later than three years from the date of this decision. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

(3) No development shall start until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: a) details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building. b) the alignment, height and materials of all walls, fences and other means of enclosure c) the details and layout of foul sewers and surface water drains. d) plans including cross sections to show proposed ground levels and their relationship to existing levels both within the site and on immediately adjoining land. e) width, alignment, gradient, sight lines and type of construction proposed for any roads footpaths and accesses. f) the provision to be made for street lighting and/or external lighting. Lighting shall be designed and located to minimise light spillage and avoid impacting on flight corridors used by bats. g) a detailed landscaping scheme to cover all surfacing, trees and planting, including the green roof area . The development shall not be brought into use until the approved details have been fully implemented [unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority]. Reason: To limit the impact the development has on the locality.

(4) No construction or demolition work shall start until a Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Demolition and construction work shall only take place in accordance with the approved method statement which shall include: a) a programme and phasing of the demolition and construction work, including roads and footpaths; b) location of temporary site buildings, compounds, construction material and plant storage areas used during demolition and construction; c) the arrangements for the routing/ turning of lorries and details for construction traffic access to the site; d) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; e) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt generated by demolition and construction; f) a scheme for controlling noise and vibration from demolition and construction activities (to include piling); g) provision for storage, collection, and disposal of rubbish from the development during construction period; h) measures to prevent mud and dust on the highway during demolition and construction; i) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; j) temporary lighting; k) protection of pedestrian routes during construction; Reason: To limit the impact the development has on the amenity of the locality

(5) The development hereby approved shall be used for the sale of pets, pet food and all related pet products and ancillary pet care and treatment services and for no other purpose [including any other purpose in Class A1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning [Use Classes] Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification]. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to preserve the vitality and viability of local centres.

(6) No development shall start until a BREEAM 'excellent interim stage certificate and sustainability report [demonstrating how all of the essential requirements of the Eastleigh Borough Council adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’ are to be met] have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development meets the requirements of the adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’

(7) The development shall not be occupied [unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority] until a BREEAM 'excellent' final stage certificate and sustainability report [highlighting how all of the essential requirements of the Eastleigh Borough Council adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’ have been met] have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development meets the requirements of the adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’. Reason: To ensure the development meets the requirements of the adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’

(8) No burning of materials obtained by site clearance or any other source shall take place during the demolition, construction and fitting out process. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

(9) No construction, demolition or deliveries to the site shall take place during the construction period except between the hours of 0800 to 1800 Mondays to Fridays or 0900 to 1300 on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings.

(10) No development shall start until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall cover all hard and soft landscaping [including trees, hedges and boundary treatment] and shall provide details of timings for all landscaping and any future maintenance. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and to the appropriate British Standard. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the locality and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents.

(11) For a period of no less than 5 years after planting, any trees or plants which are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of the same species, size and number as originally approved in the landscaping scheme. Reason - In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

(12) The cycle storage facilities hereby approved shall be made available on site prior to the first occupation of the store and maintained and made available thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision of the required cycle storage on site.

(13) The works to the existing footpath/cycleway link and the new footpath/cycleway link in the north-east corner of the site must be completed and these links made available prior to the first occupation of the new store, and maintained thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision and retention of appropriate pedestrian/cycle links to the site.

(14) The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the car park has been constructed, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved plan. The approved parking area shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the turning, parking, loading and unloading of vehicles. Reason: To make provision for off street parking for the purpose of highway safety.

(15) The retail premises hereby permitted shall not be subdivided and used by separate retail operators and there shall be no concessions or construction of mezzanine floor space without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To preserve the vitality and viability of local centres.

Note to Applicant: It is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions and any obligations attached to this permission, the proposed development is acceptable because it will not materially harm the viability and vitality of town centres or highway safety, and it is in accordance with the policies and proposals of the development plan, as listed below, and after due regard to all other relevant material considerations including the National Planning Policy Framework and the emerging submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan [2011- 2029] the local planning authority is of the opinion that permission should be granted.

The following development plan saved policies and emerging draft local plan policies are relevant to this decision and the conditions attached to it:

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (16) Saved Policies: 34.ES, 37.ES, 45.ES, 59.BE, 62.BE, 63.BE, 100.T, 104.T, 134.TC

Pre-submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 Policies: S1, S4, DM1, DM2, DM3, DM6, DM7, DM8, DM19, DM23, DM24, DM37

In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Eastleigh Borough Council takes a positive approach to the handling of development proposals so as to achieve, whenever possible, a positive outcome and to ensure all proposals are dealt with in a timely manner.

Under the Town and Country Planning [45] [England] Regulations 2012, a fee is now required for Discharge of Condition Applications. N.B. Conditions not fully discharged, invalidate the planning permission.

______

Report:

1. This application has been referred to Committee because it is a major development which is contrary to the Development Plan. A previous application for the same development on this site was considered by the committee in 2013.

The site and its surroundings

Description of application

2. The application seeks planning permission the construction of a retail warehouse for the sale of pet related products and associated veterinary services within the car park serving Hedge End Retail Park (Homebase/PC World/Currys). The proposed development also includes the creation of a service yard and alterations to the existing car park, with the loss of 100 parking spaces and the removal of existing trees within the car park. Alterations are proposed to the roundabout access to the site and additional pedestrian links are proposed from Tollbar Way in to the site.

3. The proposed store is to be occupied by Pets at Home, and would provide 929sqm of gross internal floor space, on a single level. It would be located on the southern part of the existing car park, The Marks & Spencer/Sainsbury development lies to the south of the site.

4. The application is accompanied by the following reports and technical assessments

• Planning & Retail Statement • Design & Access and Sustainability Statement • Transport Assessment

5. The proposal was screened in May 2013 under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011. Due to its scale being significantly under the thresholds set out in Schedule 2, the LPA concludes that an Environmental Statement is not required.

6. Screening was also undertaken to establish whether a Habitats Regulations Assessment is required. It was concluded that, with the mitigation proposed and conditions to control impacts, no significant likely impacts on any European Designated sites would occur as a result of the development and a full HRA is not required.

Relevant planning history

7. Permission for a Pets at Home Store on this site was refused in July 2013 for the following reasons;

• The proposed development would result in the creation of additional out of centre retail floor space and has failed to provide a satisfactory assessment of sequentially preferable sites and is therefore considered contrary to the general town-centre first strategy promoted in the NPPF and Saved Policy 134.TC of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011).

• The proposed development would result in a loss of parking spaces serving the existing and neighbouring retail units and would result in increased traffic movements to and from the site, leading to the potential for increased queuing at the access roundabouts, to the detriment of the local highway network. The proposals are therefore considered contrary to the guidance contained within Saved Policies 59.Be (v), 101.T and 104.T of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011).

8. Hedge End Retail Park - Outline planning permission in July 1995 for retail warehouses (Class A1) and garden centre. Reserved Matters was approved in September 1995. These planning permissions were separate to the permissions relating to the development of the Marks & Spencer/Sainsbury stores and as such, Hedge End Retail Park can be considered as a separate planning unit.

9. There have also been a number of other applications in recent years relating to the existing retail units within Hedge End Retail Park, including the sub- division of the Homebase store (January 2009) which was renewed in April 2012.

10. Within the wider area the following have been determined or under consideration;

• Site F Hamilton Business Park, Botley Road - planning permission granted for the erection of a retail warehouse for DIY/bulky goods in May 2013. The new store is to be occupied by Wickes

• Former Wickes Store, Tollbar Way – Variation of condition to extend the range of goods to be sold (TK Maxx the applicant). Currently under consideration

• Demolition of Wildern Mill and construction of 8,310 sqm (GEA) retail store for Next with car park at rear and access. Approved March 2013.

• Bradbeer Retail Park, Tollbar Way U/12/72177 Certificate of Lawfulness for retail sales of any goods within up to 49% of existing floor area of each unit (pursuant to original 1989 planning permission 28673/11). Granted at appeal May 2013.

Representations received

11. No letters of objection or comment were received.

Consultation responses

12. The Head of Regeneration & Planning Policy –

13. Policy - Objection on grounds of inadequate evidence to demonstrate that there are no suitable alternatives, viable and available sites within or on the edge of Eastleigh Town Centre or Hedge End District Centre. Not wholly convinced by the applicant’s review of retail impact and their contention that the scheme will reduce the need to travel but this is something that will need to be balanced against the creation of 25no. FTE jobs.

14. Design – With regards to sustainability, the scheme fails to secure BREEAM “excellent” proposing only to achieve a “Very Good” rating. Further evidence is to be sought on the SuDS car park details, emission reductions and trees.

15. The Head of Transportation & Engineering - No objection. The three sets of parking surveys have demonstrated that at the survey peaks clearly this represents adequate spare capacity with 170 parking spaces anticipated to be empty and available for the 'on-site uses entitled to park in this private car park'. The cycle shelter is a welcome addition. The proposed new junction has been auto tracked, and this demonstrates that adequate space for lorry movements (deliveries) is available. In line with the HCC Transport Contributions Policy, Developer Contributions will be required should the application be approved, as the development will result in additional multimodal trips on the local highway network. The contribution required, is £17,528.60 (+ indexation). HCC are to comment on the alterations to the roundabout.

16. The Head of Countryside & Trees – Tree officer: No objection subject to replacement tree planting being secured.

17. The Head of Environmental Health – No comment received to date.

18. Hedge End Town Council has objected to the proposals on the grounds of overdevelopment and issues with access and traffic. Members were made aware that WEPC knew of additional units available for consideration.

19. West End Parish Council – objected on grounds of loss of 94 parking spaces, increase in traffic and excessive retail floor space. WEPC are aware of other possible empty retail units in the local vicinity available for example the Wickes site.

20. Economic Development Officer – No objection

21. Eastleigh Town Centre Partnership – No comment received to date

22. Crime Prevention Officer – No comment received to date

23. Highways – No objection

24. Eastleigh Access Group – no objection in principle but detailed comments provided requesting confirmation dropped kerbs provided at appropriate points on the footway, the use of paving slabs to reduce the number of joints (trip hazard), wider aisles internally and appropriate signage.

Policy context: designation applicable to site

Development plan saved policies, emerging local plan policies and SPD’s

National Planning Policy

25. The National Planning Policy Framework, published in March 2012, replaces all previous Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance. The guidance in the NPPF is a material consideration which must be taken into account when determining planning applications. The NPPF sets a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decisions on planning applications, this means: Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; or where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless the adverse impacts of the development would outweigh the benefits, or specific policies in the Framework imply the development should be restricted.

26. Relevant sections of the NPPF include the following:

• Paragraph 14 - sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision making this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting planning permission unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly outweigh the benefits. • Paragraph 17 - sets out core planning principles. Planning should, inter alia: o proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs; o always seek to secure high quality design; o support the transition to a low carbon future; o encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed; o actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling.

• Paragraphs 18 and 19 - define the Government’s commitment to securing economic growth and to ensuring that the planning system supports sustainable growth. • Paragraph 23 - seeks to promote the vitality of town centres as the heart of their communities. Planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centres providing consumer choice and allocate sites to meet retail and other needs. Appropriate edge-of-centre sites that are well- connected to the town centre should be allocated for town centre uses where suitable and viable town centre sites are not available. • Paragraph 24 - 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 and are not in accordance with an up-to-date local plan" noting that "When considering edge-of-centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre". It goes on to say that "Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale". • Paragraph 26 - requires that retail development over 2,500m2 (or an alternative, locally-set, threshold) outside town centres should be accompanied by an 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 …". • Paragraph 27 - advises that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impacts it should be refused. • Paragraph 34 - states that "Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised”. • Paragraph 35 - goes on to say "Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people".

National Planning Practice Guidance

27. Where material, this guidance should be afforded weight in the consideration of planning applications.

28. Determining a planning application – To the extent that development plan policies are material, a decision must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise. Where the plan is absent, silent or out of date, an application must be determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

29. Design – Good quality design is an integral part of sustainable development. Achieving good design is about creating places, buildings or spaces that work well for everyone, look good, will last well and adapt for the needs of future generations. Good design responds in a practical and creative way to both the function an identity of a place

30. Planning Obligations – these should mitigate the impact of unacceptable development in order to make it acceptable. Obligations should be directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.

Saved Policies of the Adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (EBLP 2001-2011)

31. In the adopted EBLPR the application site is within the urban edge but is not subject to any specific notation. There is therefore a presumption in favour of development or redevelopment subject to the specific relevant policies within the plan.

32. Saved Policy 134.TC is a criteria-based policy controls out-of-centre or edge- of-centre development:

• “Out-of-centre or edge-of-centre development for retail, leisure, office or other town centre uses will only be permitted if it meets all the following criteria: • there is a demonstrable need for the development; • there are no suitable, viable and available sites or premises for the proposed use within an existing centre or edge-of-centre location (in that order of preference) having demonstrated realistic flexibility on format, design and car parking provision and the scope for disaggregation; • it will not by itself or cumulatively with other recently completed or permitted schemes undermine any Council strategy to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of existing town centres and the roles of other centres; • It is genuinely accessible by a choice of means of transport, and • It will not increase the need to travel overall.”

33. Supporting text at paragraph 8.32 states that development permitted by this policy will have conditions attached limiting the range of goods which can be sold, restricting internal alterations that would increase trading floor space and restricting sub-division.

34. Although the adopted Local Plan is in a number of respects now out-of-date, the policies relating to retail development generally accord with the principles set out in the NPPF and remain justified by the more recent Southampton and Eastleigh Retail Study. They are accordingly still relevant. The NPPF does not, however, now include a demonstrable need test and this no longer needs to be shown.

35. Other relevant saved EBLPR policies are:

• 28.ES – (Waste collection and recycling) – design and layout requirements in residential schemes for storage and collection of domestic waste and recyclables • 34.ES – (reducing greenhouse gases) – requires proposals to make an appropriate contribution towards the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by ensuring the most sustainable construction materials/methods, minimising energy demands, maximise energy from renewable sources • 35.ES – (contaminated land) – requires sufficient information to show that potentially contaminated land can and will be adequately remediated to a standard suitable for the proposed end use • 37.ES – (renewable energy and efficient use of resources) – requires consideration to issues of maximising energy efficiency, need to reduce water consumption, need to minimise waste, opportunities to extend the useful life of buildings/adaptability to other uses • 45.ES – (Sustainable drainage) – requires proposals to provide adequate surface water disposal measures, including source control measures and sustainable drainage systems • 59.BE – (Design Criteria) - general design criteria with which all proposals must comply • 62.BE – (Disabled access) – requires proposals to take account of needs of people with impaired mobility and/or vision • 63.BE (Criteria for car park design) – general design criteria for car parking associated with new development • 100. T – (Transport and new development) – requires developments to be well served by public transport, cycling and walking; requires measures to minimise impact of proposals; requires large generators of journeys to be located to minimise travel and provide choices of modes of transport; requires Transport Assessments where appropriate. • 102.T – new or improved access only permitted if it does not interfere with safety/function/standard of road network or have adverse environmental implications • 104.T – requires proposals to provide adequate off-highway parking up to the maximum standard • 190.IN – infrastructure provision – will only permit developments where adequate services and infrastructure available or can be provided

36. Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan 2013 - The application site does not lay within a Minerals Safeguarding Area.

Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2019

37. Following the recent first stage of the Local Plan inquiry, the Council are awaiting the inspector’s preliminary response on the soundness and status of the emerging local plan. Until receipt of this response the plan remains a material consideration.

38. This plan sets out the vision for the Borough in chapter 3. Point 8 states that: “…Eastleigh town centre and other district and local centres will be prosperous and thriving places serving the economic, community and cultural needs of residents and South Hampshire. Existing out-of-centre shopping facilities that serve the Borough and South Hampshire are likely to remain but will not include new retail development that threatens the other shopping centres in the Borough”.

39. Among the objectives of the Plan, objective xi promotes the regeneration of Eastleigh Town Centre and objective xii seeks to promote the regeneration of district and local centres, including Hedge End centre, “…ensuring that these provide a range of accessible retail, leisure, cultural and other community facilities and services”.

• Policy S1 – (Sustainable Development) – critieria (iii) states that to be sustainable, new development in the Borough should “…maintain and help to grow a high-performing local economy that benefits the borough, South Hampshire and the wider economy without adverse impacts on South Hampshire’s city centres, the quality of the local environment or local transport networks”. • Policy DM19 – states that “…retail development will be permitted in the defined centres as set out in the policies map”. It goes on to say that retail development over 500sqm will not be permitted outside these centres unless it is within the urban edge and will not “…by itself or cumulatively with other proposals undermine the vitality or viability of any existing centre”. The policy also requires a sequential test to be undertaken to examine alternative sites for the development and for sites to be sustainably located in terms of accessibility by modes of transport other than the private car. • The supporting text in para 5.87 explains that the Council “…seeks to focus retail activity within the defined town, district and local centres in the borough and to avoid developments outside these centres that would compromise their viability and vitality by drawing trade away from them. In applying the sequential test, consideration will be given to the impact on and opportunities within other retail centres outside of the Borough’s boundary, including the City of Southampton”.

40. Other relevant policies for consideration include:

• DM1 (general criteria for new development) – seeks high design quality and sustainability • DM2 (Environmentally Sustainable development) – all non-residential development should achieve BREEAM ‘excellent’ and incorporate energy efficient passive solar design principles, provision of significant proportion of energy from on-site low/zero carbon sources, connect to any existing near/adjacent low carbon local energy network unless unviable, contribute to the Council’s ‘allowable solutions’ low carbon projects where required, use sustainable construction materials, be designed to allow flexible uses, provide post-occupancy evaluation on sustainability • DM3 – encouragement of zero or low carbon energy • DM6 (sustainable surface water management) – provision of sustainable drainage systems • DM7 (pollution) – development to take account of possible air, water, land and light pollution • DM8 (telecommunications) – infrastructure to be incorporated within new developments • DM19 (retail) supported in defined areas and only supported outside these areas if demonstrated there are no suitable, viable and available sites; will not undermine the viability and vitality of existing centres and is accessible. • DM23 (general development criteria: transport) – proposals required to have safe and multi-modal access, contribute towards transport infrastructure, be accompanied by a Transport Assessment and be located sustainably • DM24 (parking) – off-highway parking required, overprovision of parking spaces only where this will assist overall viability and vitality of town centre. Proposals for new car parks considered only where it is the only way to serve new development and off-site highway improvements funded where necessary • DM37 (funding infrastructure) – developer must have made arrangements for provision of/contributions to improvement of infrastructure, services, facilities or amenities necessitated by development, via S106 and/or CIL when relevant arrangements are in place within the Borough.

Southampton and Eastleigh Retail Study 2011

41. As part of work on the new local plan for the borough, in 2010 the Council and Southampton City Council commissioned consultants GVA to provide advice on the need and capacity for new retail development across the area of the two authorities. The study included a detailed sample survey of household expenditure patterns across a defined catchment area.

42. The study projected an increase in comparison goods expenditure of 84% over the 2011 to 2026 period, but noted the anticipated growth in internet retailing, citing an increase to 7% of retail sales in 2010. Current indications are that this has already increased to 15% in a little over two years. Whilst noting the impact of the economic recession, the study anticipated a resumption of growth to previous levels in 2012. That can now be seen to have been very optimistic, with many commentators now predicting little growth in the economy for several more years.

43. On the basis of these forecasts, the study concluded that the retail demand would justify significant additional comparison goods retail floor space in Southampton city centre (although not as much as has been planned for in the City Council’s core strategy) and some limited additional floor space in Eastleigh town centre.

44. Noting that Eastleigh town centre faced increasing competition from Southampton and Winchester city centres, and notwithstanding the anticipated increased demand, the study concluded that “we do not consider that there is any need to plan for additional out-of-centre floor space capacity” and that “the Council should consider carefully proposals for additional out-of-centre retail provision which could potentially undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre”.

45. In relation to ‘bulky goods’ retailing, the study concluded that “we have not identified any apparent need for additional bulky goods provision”.

46. Having regard to the optimistic economic growth forecasts used in the study and the likely under-estimate of the growth in internet retailing, it would seem to be prudent to regard the anticipated growth in comparison goods expenditure in shops as unlikely to materialise and for extreme caution to be exercised in the consideration of proposals for additional out-of-centre retail floor space.

PUSH Spatial Strategy

47. Recognising that the economic position of the country had changed considerably since the SEP was prepared, the authorities within the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH), including Eastleigh Borough Council, approved a revised economic strategy for the sub-region in 2010 which took account of the continuing recession and the reduced levels of growth that could be anticipated. The strategy noted that the retail sector and the jobs that it sustains are crucial to the sub-region.

48. The economic strategy was followed in October 2012 by the joint preparation and adoption of a revised spatial strategy for the area. The South Hampshire Strategy (SHS) is not a statutory plan but is a jointly agreed and approved framework to inform and support the preparation of statutory plans. It accords with the principles of the NPPF and fulfils a part of the duty to cooperate between authorities enshrined in the Localism Act.

49. The economic development and spatial strategies for south Hampshire seek to raise economic output by pursuing a strategy of development led by sustainable economic growth and urban regeneration. The SHS sets out employment floor space requirements for the individual authorities across south Hampshire based on the economic growth strategy forecasts. These seek to ensure that economic growth is not constrained by a lack of land for employment development.

50. The strategy maintains the principle of ‘town centres first‘ as set out in earlier plans and in the NPPF. The strategy acknowledges earlier (2005) estimates of the need for additional comparison goods floor space in south Hampshire but notes that the economic recession and the growth of internet retailing point to a cautious approach to planning for future retail expansion and that “No need has been identified for any new out-of-centre shopping schemes or large-scale extensions to existing ones up to 2026. The role and regeneration of city/town centres should not be undermined by an expansion of such development”. Policy 10, inter alia, states that “The expansion of out-of-centre retailing and leisure development will be restricted”.

Supplementary Planning Documents

• Quality Places (November 2011) • Environmentally Sustainable Development (March 2009) • Planning Obligations (July 2008)

Assessment of proposal: Development plan and / or legislative background

51. Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states: “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”.

Principle

52. The application site lies within the urban edge, in a part of Hedge End that is characterised by out-of-town retail parks. The new store is proposed in an area of car park area which currently serves the existing retail units.

53. The application itself seeks permission for the construction of a new retail unit, (Use Class A1), to be occupied by Pets at Home. The proposed new store would provide 929sqm gross internal floor space on a single level, providing pets and pet related products, as well as full pet care and treatment facilities which itself would include a reception, waiting area, treatment rooms, operating theatre and recovery room, as well as a pet grooming parlour. The net sales area is calculated at 630 sqm. No external retail sales area is proposed. It is anticipated that the new store would create 25 full and part time jobs.

54. The application states that the proposed store is intended to fill a gap in the catchment of the Pets at Home’s existing representation in the Eastleigh- Southampton area. A key requirement for the business model for the proposed occupants, Pets at Home, is a “…large floor-plate unit, capable of accommodating various bulky product ranges and other facilities under one roof”. The Pets at Home business model requires new stores to be relatively large to accommodate pet display areas, product display areas, wide circulation spaces, areas for ‘companion care’ and back of house and storage areas. The products stocked fall into two main categories – pet foods and non- food pet products. Most pet food is dry and sold in medium to large bags, (15- 20kg in size). Non-food products include bulky items such as tanks for fish and reptiles, bird cages and hutches for small animals.

55. In order to meet these needs, the supporting information states that reducing the proposed store size to anything below 929sqm (of which 630sqm is retail floor space) would affect the product offer that Pets at Home could accommodate within the store. The proposed store is approximately 10% smaller than comparable Pets at Home stores in the locality.

56. The proposed new store would constitute additional retail floor space within Hedge End, in an out-of-centre location and would result in the loss of existing car parking spaces within the existing retail park. The Planning Policy & Implementation Manager has raised concerns that the scheme has failed to fully consider other town centre sites (sequential test) within Eastleigh or Hedge End and therefore is contrary to national and local planning policy. She remains unconvinced that the proposals would not undermine the viability of Eastleigh Town Centre and believes the sequential test has not been applied correctly.

57. In order to determine whether the principle of the proposed development is acceptable, consideration must therefore be given to these issues.

Retail Impact

58. The NPPF, in paragraph 26, states that local planning authorities, when assessing applications for retail development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, should require a retail impact assessment if the development is over a locally set threshold or in the absence of any such figure, in excess of 2,500sqm. With a total gross floor space of 929sqm, the proposed new store falls below the 2,500sqm threshold and as such, a full retail impact assessment is not required in support of this application.

Sequential Test

59. Paragraph 24 of the NPPF, in full, provides the following guidance: “…Local Planning Authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. 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 should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.”

60. This is supported by Policy 134.TC of the adopted local plan, which is a criteria based policy which seeks to control out-of-centre or edge-of-centre development: However, criterion (i) of this policy is not consistent with the NPPF for there is no requirement for the applicant to demonstrate a ‘need’ for the proposed retail floor space. As such this criterion is not relevant. Emerging policy DM19 advocates the same approach to site identification.

61. The applicant has provided additional evidence in the form of an updated sequential test and case law in support of the choice of this site. To demonstrate flexibility their search for sites has been updated to include vacant units between 750 – 1000sqm and within the Hedge End and Bitterne Village district centre. Eastleigh Town Centre was not considered an appropriate location due to a Pets at Home store operating from Channon Retail Park, thus a second store within Eastleigh town centre is not commercially acceptable. Notwithstanding that, the largest vacant unit within Eastleigh town centre is in the Swan Centre and at 630sqm falls below the minimum threshold.

62. The updated sequential test has demonstrated that there are no vacant stores of suitable size within either Hedge End or Bitterne, nor that there are car parks that operate well below capacity on which a store could be constructed without undermining the ongoing operation and functionality of the centres. There is no requirement to consider alternative out of town locations, but the sequential test has reviewed the availability of the vacant stores which had not been undertaken for the refused scheme. Previously vacant stores (in Bradbeers and the former Wickes store) now have end users and are no longer available.

63. Further evidence has been sought to support the applicant’s opinion that there are no suitable, viable and available sites or premises for the proposed use within an existing centre or edge-of-centre location (in that order of preference), having demonstrated realistic flexibility on format, design and car parking provision and the scope for disaggregation.

64. In accordance with the guidance in the (unsaved) supporting text to policy 134.TC (para 8.32) major development permitted by Policy 134.TC will have conditions attached limiting the range of goods which can be sold, restricting internal alterations leading to an increase in net trading floor space and restricting sub-division if they are required to prevent the development changing in character such that it would not have been permitted. It is reasonable to apply such a restrictive condition to this scheme.

65. The Planning Policy & Implementation Manager has advised that based on catchment area of shoppers set out in Southampton & Eastleigh Retail Study (GVA, 2011) the sequential test should consider in detail Eastleigh Town Centre as a suitable alternative. It is recognised that Pets at Home already has a store within Eastleigh that it does not wish to compete, however, there is no policy protection afforded to the Channon Retail Park as it is an out-of- centre location, so the continued viability of a main town centre use at Channon Retail Park is not in-itself a land-use planning concern. Further, the sequential test is thought to be flawed for it fails to consider expansion opportunities to Hedge End district centre and that evidence has not been provided to demonstrate there are no viable alternatives to the proposal, as no information of relative development costs has been submitted to justify this assertion.

66. The applicants are preparing a response to the Policy concerns and this will be reported to members at committee.

Existing and Proposed Investment

67. There is no current evidence of significant investment in Eastleigh town centre or other nearby centres that would be likely to be affected by the applicant’s proposals.

Vitality and Viability

68. In accordance with paragraph 26 of the NPPF, an assessment of the retail impact of the proposed development is not required as it falls below the 2,500 sqm threshold. However, a brief retail statement is required by para 8.31 in support of policy 134.TC.

69. The new store is being proposed specifically for the use of Pets at Home, who already have stores in Eastleigh, Southampton, Fareham and Winchester. Given the nature of the proposal, the supporting evidence suggests principal trade diversion will be from similar large pet and pet product stores or supermarkets including their own stores to which customers are travelling from the Hedge End area. The retail statement suggests that the turnover of the proposed stores (£1.9m in 2019) would have a minimal impact on Eastleigh if applying a worst case scenario it drew all its trade from customers visiting Eastleigh, equating to an economic impact of only 1.1%. Slightly higher percentages would be experienced under the worst case scenario for Bitterne (2.8%) or Hedge End (5%).

70. The Planning Policy & Implementation Manager agrees that there would be little impact on Hedge End district centre but the impact of this application on Eastleigh town centre needs to be considered in cumulative terms, based on other out-of-centre retail development in Hedge End, including the opening of the recent Next store. It is suggested the scheme could undermine the Council’s strategy of supporting the vitality and viability of Eastleigh Town Centre by providing an even more substantial alternative “centre” for those shoppers from the eastern part of the Town Centre’s catchment. A response from the applicant to these concerns has been sought.

71. Although the applicant has adopted a “worst case scenario” (i.e. all trade would be drawn from Eastleigh town centre) in identifying a 1.1% impact on Eastleigh Town Centre, in reality the impact on individual centres is likely to be negligible, as it would be spread across existing retailers such as independent pet shops which may tend to be more specialised, supermarkets, garden centres and existing Pets at Home stores.

72. Whilst acknowledging the concerns raised by policy officers, each application must be considered on its own merits and due to the relatively modest level of floor space being proposed, the application is well below the threshold that requires detailed retail impact analysis. The applicants have provided an assessment, the findings of which are reasonable. A restrictive condition can also be applied to control the nature of goods sold/services offered and any material change to that retail offer would require planning permission. As such, the proposals are considered to comply with the aims of the NPPF, Saved Policy 134.TC(iii) of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) and Policy DM19 of the Pre-Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011- 2029.

Consumer Choice

73. The proposed new store will offer the same range of products as is currently available in the existing Pets at Home stores such as that in Eastleigh. The proposed new store is aimed at filling a gap in Pets at Home’s coverage of this area of the country and to that extent, consumer choice in respect of pet products/services available in the local area will be improved.

Employment

74. The social, economic and environmental sustainability of the proposal are relevant material considerations and there are benefits which include the creation of 25 FTE jobs in addition to the short term construction employment it generates.

Siting, Design & Layout

75. The design of the proposed building has not altered from that original proposed. It would cover a footprint of approximately 31.5m x 31.5m, and would have a curved ‘green roof’ design, with an elevated section running along the central area of the roof which contains roof lights, providing natural light to the interior of the building. At its highest point, the roof will measure 11.6m in height.

76. The front elevation will face north, addressing the car park area serving the retail park as a whole, mirroring the existing units on the opposite side of the car park. It would contain a large glazed entrance area with signage above. The side elevations have high level glazing and the servicing area lies at the rear of the store, with associated doors and louvers in the rear elevation. The proposed external materials would be a combination of masonry block work, timber and aluminium cladding and glazing.

77. The existing retail park contains a number of trees and areas of landscaping positioned within the car park area. In order to construct the proposed store, one of the groups of existing trees would need to be removed. Landscaping proposals have been submitted to show an increased level of replacement tree planting, both to compensate for the trees being removed and also to help soften the overall appearance of the site and provide a stronger sense of setting for the new building. In total, 28 new trees are to be planted within and on the edge of the car park.

78. Overall, the more contemporary design proposed and the improvements to the landscaping proposals result would result in the addition of an interesting and high quality building to the existing retail park, which helps to raise the overall character and appearance of the site. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with the guidance contained within Saved Policy 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) and Policy DM1 of the Pre- Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029.

Highway Issues

79. The previous application was refused on grounds it would result in a loss of parking spaces serving the existing and neighbouring retail units and would result in increased traffic movements to and from the site, leading to the potential for increased queuing at the access roundabouts.

80. The proposal is supported by a detailed Transport Statement, updated following the refusal. This report concludes that while the development may result in a modest increase in the number of shopping trips, the new unit is likely to lead to a reduction in total vehicle mileage, as the proposed store will help to fill the void between catchment areas for the existing stores at Eastleigh and Fareham.

81. The proposals would result in an overall reduction of 100 parking spaces, leaving a total of 323 customer spaces plus an increase from 25 to 31 staff spaces. Following the HCC Parking Standards being revoked there is no formal parking requirement, but based on former standards the Hedge End Retail Park would have required 299 spaces, thus this there would be an over provision with the store constructed. The surveys undertaken in April 2012 demonstrate a 57% peak occupancy usage (based on the new store being built). Following the refusal of the original scheme, further surveys were undertaken in June 2013, including spot checks on the Sainsbury/Marks & Spencer car park to review their occupancy levels. The levels of occupancy were similar to the April statistics, demonstrating their robustness.

82. Hedge End Retail Park was granted planning permission as a separate and distinct entity to the neighbouring Marks & Spencers/Sainsburys development. As such, it is not required to provide overspill parking to cater for users of these stores. The parking provision for the Retail Park is designed to cater for the floor space of the existing units and the users of these stores. While there may be an element of overspill parking, this is an informal arrangement and not required as part of the planning permission for the Retail Park itself. However, the evidence provided demonstrates that there is spare capacity within the wider retail park at present and this would remain the case once the store is constructed.

83. In response to member’s concerns regarding increased queuing on the roundabouts leading in to the site, the applicants have explored the option of providing a new access off Tollbar Way or improving the existing roundabouts. Junction capacity checks have been undertaken as well as additional traffic surveys of the roundabouts in July 2014, allowing a detailed understanding of the traffic movements and driver behaviour. An evaluation of this additional evidence has shown that the roundabout would operate within capacity but modifications to the location of the give way markings, improving pedestrian facilities and increasing the radius on the site’s entry would benefit vehicle movement and positively influence driver behaviour.

84. Cycle storage is provided to the north-east of the store entrance and delivers improvements to the existing pedestrian access from Tollbar Way, with this path being widened and straightened, and also includes the provision of a new pedestrian access from Tollbar Way adjacent to the Currys/PC world unit in the north-east corner of the site.

85. Paragraph 22 of the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. The Head of Engineering and HCC Highways have raised no objection to the proposals on highway safety grounds.

86. Overall, the proposals are considered to comply with the guidance contained within Saved Policy 100.T of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001- 2011) and Policy DM23 of the Pre-Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029.

Sustainability

87. The scheme is supported by a Sustainability Statement and BREEAM pre- construction assessments, which states the scheme would achieve a BREEAM rating of ‘very good’

88. The Council’s ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’ SPD sets a number of criteria which the proposals are required to meet in order to ensure the delivery of more sustainable forms of development and carbon reduction measures. This guidance requires all non-residential development which exceeds 500sqm external floor space to achieve BREEAM level ‘excellent’ and 15% carbon reduction from January 2012, as well as a number of other measures relating to grey water recycling, rainwater harvesting, tree planting, sustainable drainage and passive solar gain.

89. This document builds on the guidance contained within Saved Policy 34.ES of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) and Policy DM2 of the Pre-Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, which require development proposals to deliver sustainable development on the ground.

90. Justification has been sought from the applicant as to why an “excellent” rating cannot be achieved. If it can be successfully demonstrated that an excellent rating is not achievable, a contribution to off-site carbon reduction measures would be sought.

91. The proposed new store will have a green roof, which achieves approximately 70% coverage of the roof – a detailed condition is recommended requiring full details of the planting mix to be used on the roof. The curved design of the roof means that areas of the green roof will be visible within the car park, creating a positive addition to the appearance of the site as a whole and reinforcing the sustainability credentials of the building, which is welcomed. This feature also assists with reducing surface water run-off, as the roof will hold the rain water and slow the volume of run off. The design and orientation of the building also respond to the issues of passive solar gain, to ensure comfortable internal conditions year round.

92. Subject to further evidence related to achieving BREEAM “excellent” the proposals are considered to comply with the aim of the NPPF to ensure the delivery of sustainable development and the guidance contained within Saved Policy 34.ES of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011) and Policy DM2 of the Pre-Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029. If Excellent is agreed by officers as genuinely unachievable in this instance, recommended S106 terms include the requirement for off-site carbon fund contributions in lieu. Conditions 6 and 7 would also need amending to require “Very Good” instead.

Planning Obligation/considerations

93. In accordance with the guidance contained within the NPPF, Saved Policies 74.H, 101.T, 147.OS and 191.IN of the adopted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan Review (2001-2011), Policies DM32 and DM37 of the Submission Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029, the Council’s ‘Planning Obligations’ SPD and the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations, there is a requirement for developers’ contributions to ensure on and off-site provision for facilities and infrastructure made necessary by the development, or to mitigate against any increased need/pressure on existing facilities. Contributions / Obligations towards the provision of the following infrastructure have been sought and would be secured via a Section 106 agreement index linked as per the Planning Obligations

• Contributions towards Environmental Improvements to Eastleigh Town Centre • Sustainability: BREEAM excellent (or if agreed that only Very Good is achieved a contribution to off-site carbon reduction measures). • Sustainable Transport Infrastructure allocated to schemes in the local vicinity which are either of benefit to the users of the proposed development, or go to militate against issues caused by the development. • Pets at Home to be first occupants of building.

94. The projects and measures identified for contribution expenditure will comply with the 3 tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy 2010, in that the monies would go towards the projects which are directly related to the development, and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development. The contributions would be index-linked to ensure the contributions rise in line with the costs of providing the identified projects/measures. The obligations sought are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and to meet the needs generated by the new residents and the potential impact on existing services and facilities.

95. Section 143 of the Localism Act amends Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act to make local financial considerations an explicit consideration in the determination of planning applications.

96. The applicant has yet to confirm that these contributions will be secured.

Other material considerations

97. Also of relevance is the Submitted Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011 - 2029, July 2014. While not yet adopted it does carry weight by virtue of being intended as the current local plan’s replacement. With regards to this application, the new policies essentially echo those of the current plan and are not considered to affect the recommendation put forward.

Conclusion

98. The policy concerns regarding the creation of additional out-of-town retail floor space are noted. However, the guidance contained within the NPPF and development plan policies do not state that such development is unacceptable – the guidance stresses the need to demonstrate that there are no other sequentially preferable sites available. Due to the size of the proposed store, there is not a requirement for a retail impact assessment to be undertaken.

99. It is therefore considered that the application has complied with this requirement and on balance, given the relatively modest area of floor space proposed and the lack of any alternative, sequentially preferable sites/premises it is considered that the proposed development has complied with the requirements of national and local planning policy, and is acceptable in principle. The proposed development will also result in the creation of 25 new jobs in the local area and see the delivery of a high quality, sustainable building which will raise the character of the existing retail park. The proposals will also result in improved pedestrian links in the immediate area, which are welcomed.

100. However, it is noted that the additional information is required regarding the sequential test and retail impact, in addition to the applicant agreeing to the Heads of Terms of the S106 Agreement. At the time of writing this report this information has not been received and as such Members will be updated on these issues at the committee meeting.