Committee and Date Item

Central Planning Committee

23rd May 2013 10

Public

Development Management Report

Responsible Officer: Tim Rogers email: tim.rogers@shropshire.gov.uk Tel: 01743 258773 Fax: 01743 252619 Summary of Application Application Number: 13/00392/FUL Parish: Shrewsbury Town Council

Proposal: Erection of public house/restaurant; lodge hotel, hot food takeaway (with drive- through facilities) and associated works Site Address: Plot 3 (part) Battlefield Road Shrewsbury Shropshire SY1 4AG Applicant: Marston's Inns And Taverns Case Officer: Dyanne Humphreys email: [email protected]

Grid Ref: 351341 - 315965

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Shropshire Council 100049049. 2011 For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made. Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013

Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1.

Recommended Reason for Approval

The proposed development is acceptable in principle, is considered to be in accordance with the aims of the Development Plan that supports economic growth in this location and would have no significant impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre. The scale design and appearance of the proposal is considered appropriate given the context of the site and would have no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the locality. The proposal provides sufficient parking and turning space within the site and would have no adverse highway safety implications. The proposal therefore accords with Shropshire LDF policies CS1, CS2, CS6, CS13 and CS14. In arriving at this decision the Council has used its best endeavours to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner to secure an appropriate outcome as required in the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 187.

REPORT

1.0 THEPROPOSAL 1.1 This application is for the following:  Public house/restaurant;  27-bed 2-storey lodge hotel;  KFC outlet (with drive through);  114 car parking spaces across the site & 16 cycle spaces; and  Associated plant and works.

1.2 The application has been accompanied by the following supporting documents:  A Design & Access Statement (including details in respect of the energy and sustainability credentials of the buildings and waste minimisation);  A Transport Assessment;  Travel Plans;  Drainage Details;  Site Investigation;  Mechanical and Electrical Services Energy Recovery Statement and KFC Sustainability Statement;  Landscape Master Plan;  External Lighting Planning Layout; and  Mechanical Services Details Supply & Extract Ventilation and Mechanical Ventilation & Environmental Control Equipment.

1.3 Prior to the application being made the applicant undertook pre-application discussions with the Planning team and Highways Officer of the Council. The applicant also addressed the Shrewsbury Planning Liaison Group attended by the following parties:

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013  Shropshire Society of Architects;  Shrewsbury Town Centre Residents Association;  Access Group;  Shrewsbury Civic Society;  Shrewsbury Enterprise Partnership;  Shrewsbury Police Crime Prevention Design Officer;  Business Fire Safety Inspecting Officer;  Shrewsbury Town Council;  Shropshire Wildlife Trust;  Friends of the Earth; and  Shrewsbury Business Chamber.

1.4 The applicant has engaged in pre-applications discussions with the Council that have been positive.

2.0 SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION 2.1 The application site is located approximately 4km to the north east of Shrewsbury town centre forming part of a wider commercial and retail area. The application site measures approximately 1.09 hectares and comprises a vacant parcel of brownfield land.

2.2 The application site is accessed via an access road from Battlefield Road, the A5112, where there exists a mini roundabout serving the Tesco Extra Store, associated Petrol Filling Station (PFS) and the Harlescott Park and Ride facilities.

2.3 The application site comprises a vacant brownfield site of concrete hardstanding and scrubland within the urban limits of Shrewsbury town. The area surrounding the application site is generally commercial in nature with large retail facilities/units being predominant as well as commercial trade facilities.

2.4 Facilities in the local area and in close proximity to the application include the Harlescott Park and Ride facilities, Tesco Extra Store and PFS, car dealerships, industrial facilities including Stafford Bye Products and ABP Abattoir, McDonald’s fast food restaurant and drive through, local shops, Lidl and Aldi supermarkets, B&Q, Matalan and Staples and other retail facilities found at Sundorne Retail Park off Arlington Way.

2.5 There is a fall of 1 metre north to south across the site and there exists a raised earth mound to the front of the application site adjacent the existing access road.

3.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE/DELEGATED DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION 3.1 The application has been called-in by the Local member because the scheme has been judged to be locally controversial.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013 4.0 COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIONS 4.1.0 Consultee Comments 4.1.1 Shrewsbury Town Council – Comments Comment -Members have no objection to the principle of development per se. Members feel that the design of the building is not suitable for the area and that developers have not taken on board local comments made at previous meetings with the Planning Advisory Group.

Second comment (received 18th April 2013) - The Council’s comments were based upon the discussions at a recent Planning Liaison Group which had expressed concern over design and layout. It was also noted that nearby ABP had expressed objections on the basis that this was a semi-residential application in the industrial heartland of the town. Comments had also been raised by the Business Chamber about the impact on an already busy junction.

4.1.2 SC Drainage – No objection Following negotiations with the applicant’s drainage engineers SC Drainage team are satisfied that the drainage arrangements can be finalised post-decision and an appropriately worded condition has been included.

4.1.3 SC Archaeology (Historic Environment) – No objection The proposed development site is located c. 500m south of the south-eastern corner of Shrewsbury Registered Battlefield (National Heritage List ref. 1000033). It is separated from it by the railway line and intervening commercial/ industrial development, and is currently occupied by hard standings and scrub on the edge of the former Shrewsbury Livestock Market site. In my opinion the impact of the proposed development on the setting of the Registered Battlefield will therefore be negligible, whilst the archaeological interest of the proposed development site itself is low- minimal. On this basis I therefore have no further comments to make on this application with respect to archaeological matters.

4.1.4 SC Trees – No objection Consulted: 13th February 2013 Reply Received : 14th February 2013 There are no protected or important amenity trees on site and a landscape scheme with new planting has been submitted. Therefore I have no objections on the grounds of trees.

4.1.5 SC Ecologist – No objection I have no ecological comments to make on this application.

4.1.6 SC Planning Policy – No objection On the basis of the merits of this stand-alone proposal the scheme would not be precluded by the current planning policy framework. The key policy considerations are:  NPPF Paragraphs 23-27  Core Strategy Policy CS2: Shrewsbury Development Strategy;

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013  Core Strategy Policy CS14: Managed Release of Employment Land;  Core Strategy Policy CS15: Town and Rural Centres. It is the view that the scope of the application does not conflict with these policies, although the broad thrust of Policies CS2 and CS15 are to enhance the vitality and viability of town centres. Although we would raise no policy objections to the proposal on its individual merits it would clearly be preferable for this site to have come forward as a cohesive package with adjoining uses, to ensure a suitable mix and diversity of uses as part of a co-ordinated approach for the site and neighbouring land.

4.1.7 SC Economic Development - Support The application will increase the mix of uses in the area as well as providing support services for those working in the adjacent Battlefield employment area (including meeting places/rooms) and those shoppers using the retail park and should be supported. The design of the scheme whilst acceptable reflects the retail park suburban character dominated by car parking. The option of linking the pub and the hotel could be explored to create more urban feel with a separate parking area.

4.1.8 SC Public Protection (Specialist) – No objection The site is bordered by two operations that are regulated by Environmental Permit, one by Shropshire Council and the other by the Environment Agency. Having reviewed the proposals subject to this application there do not appear to be any impacts from them that may have any adverse impact on the existing sites and the controls within the permits for the existing operations are adequate to mitigate any impact on the proposed development. I therefore have no further substantive comments to submit.

4.1.9 SC Highways DC I query service vehicles entering and leaving the site in a satisfactory manner. Apart for KFC there appears to be no provision for the Restaurant and Bed Lodge. It is not clear whether articulated vehicles can satisfactorily manoeuvre into and out of the development site off the service road. I would ask therefore that the applicant/agent clarify this issue together with swept path vehicle tracking to demonstrate the satisfactory manoeuvring of large type vehicles. How has the parking level been arrived at? (comments in response to Shrewsbury Business Chamber) Noted although I have no clue where this reference to 100 vehicles comes from?

4.2.0 Public Comments 4.2.1 The application has been advertised by Public Notice in the Shropshire Star; by site notice displayed on the application site, and 11 neighbours were sent notification letters. In response the Council has received 3 letters of objection from neighbours (2 residential and 1 commercial), and an objection from the Shrewsbury Business Chamber. Comments have also been received from the Shropshire Fire and Rescue officer. The main comments received from these interested parties are set out below. NB. All correspondence is available to view in full on Public Access.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013 4.2.2 Occupant of 43 Mayfield Close Battlefield - Objection Comment -Whilst I am not necessarily 100% against this application. I would ask that certain factors be heavily considered. I live off Battlefield Road and already have serious issues trying to pull out of my road onto the Battlefield Road due to weight of traffic, at certain times of day it is almost impossible, coupled with the speed that many drivers are doing - which is not the 30 MPH limit. We also already have large amounts of discarded McDonald’s wrappers, bags, and cups that people see fit to throw out of their car windows, littering Battlefield Road and blowing into my road. This is not only unsightly; but also a danger for those of us with pets. If yet more takeaways are going to be built then there needs to be a weekly litter pick up scheduled to deal with this - I don’t see why I should be collecting other people's litter due to their laziness. The traffic levels must also be addressed.

4.2.3 Occupant of 14 Stokesay Avenue - Objection Comment -Shropshire Council constantly lament the poor situation in the town centre with regard to businesses etc. and then continue to approve out of town facilities. Battlefield already has a hotel/restaurant/fast food/coffee shop complex at the roundabout. In addition there is a pub and a MacDonald’s within 300 metres of the roundabout. The Premier Inn has just opened in the town centre. There are out of town hotels at Dobbies and also Hampton by Hilton. How many of these facilities do we need? Have you looked at the capacity take-up/bookings of these current facilities? Not to mention the adverse effect all of these places have on our town centre. You are slowly killing the town centre and the small businesses and accommodation establishments will not survive. I recently went to Hereford - awful! The same old shops and same old chains/restaurants. Please do not do this to Shrewsbury.

4.2.4 Shrewsbury Business Chamber – Objection On behalf of the Shrewsbury Business Chamber I am opposed to the development at this time until the North West Relief Road has been completed. This application should be reviewed in conjunction with further improvements to the infrastructure in this area to overcome the known extreme road congestion at certain times to road users. At such time when the recommendations have been implemented fully, and necessary work completed, the application may be resubmitted. As stated many times before and agreed by Council, a holistic study should be made of traffic movement in the area, as per the original funded TFI, and recommendations implemented. The area around Battlefield and Harlescott has been open to development without due consideration to the current volume of traffic and the post development volume of traffic in the area used by Business, Employees and Residents. The land sales in the area generated cash for the Council. I believe these monies have not been used to contribute to any infrastructure improvements to ensure free traffic flow. Another developer showing interest in this site was told by the local planning authority that the above mentioned site could only have a maximum of 100 (one hundred) vehicle movements per day until the North West Relief Road was completed. I am optimistic that local knowledge of the area and planning vision for the future will deliver the correct result for our Town.

4.2.5 Occupier of ABP (UK) Battlefield Road – Objection At the outset, ABP wishes to state the Company has consistently stated to officers

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013 of the Council that it does not object to the principle of compatible industrial type development in the vicinity of its site. The Company has also consistently stated that land uses that have potential to bring significant numbers of the general public to the immediate area of its Plant have the real potential to undermine the operational requirements of the Plant to the extent that over time the very viability of the Plant itself and thereby jobs could be threatened. The proposed development, incorporating a public house with outdoor eating and recreational facilities along with a hotel are the very type of land uses that have strong potential to attract significant numbers of the general public to the immediate vicinity of the Plant. For this reason ABP has no choice but to very strongly object to the proposed development. The reasons for objecting are set out in this Objection Statement. ABP is gravely concerned that the nature of the proposed user, bringing the general public into the immediate vicinity of the Plant will lead to direct and material conflict with the operational requirements of the Plant. The Company is extremely concerned that the proposal of itself and by reason of the precedent it would set would over time, of itself and in combination with similar developments threaten the very viability of the Plant. ABP has operated successfully on its present site since 1989. ABP is an employer not only of local significance, but of regional and indeed National importance. There are 510 people directly employed at the ABP Shrewsbury Plant. In addition, the Plant acts as an important sales outlet for the surrounding farming community with over 3,000 farmers registered to supply to the facility. In this way the Plant supports the rural farming community. In addition to direct employment, there is significant indirect employment provided by way of servicing for the Plant. The ABP Shrewsbury Plant provides the main family income for a very large number of families in important contributor to the success of not only the local economy, but also the regional economy. It is strongly contended that the proposed development fails the basic test of sustainability. The proposal, if permitted would positively undermine the ability of future generations to meet their needs. This is because the development proposed envisages building large "public-use" buildings i.e. public house and restaurants, with outdoor recreational and eating facilities as well as a hotel within c 100 metres of a major factory that is an employer of regional significance, that has been in place since the 1960's and owned and operated by ABP since 1989. Notwithstanding that the ABP Plant operates within all required licensing and regulatory requirements, the Company is strongly of the opinion that if permitted the proposed development would quickly lead to conflict between these two incompatible land uses. In very simple terms one could readily envisage the operators of the hotel and restaurant making complaints because they cannot let rooms or operate their public house / restaurant because customers are complaining of what are standard activities at the factory. It is our strongly held view that such conflict would arise notwithstanding that ABP Shrewsbury operates within all required licensing and regulatory requirements. ABP has said it would not object in principle to compatible industrial-type units in the vicinity of its Plant and this remains the case. By contrast, the proposed development has the potential to attract significant numbers of the public to tile immediate environs of the ABP Plant. Such development would essentially represent unsustainable development.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013 4.2.6 Shropshire Fire Officer – Comments Access for Emergency Fire Service Vehicles - It will be necessary to provide adequate access for emergency fire vehicles. For buildings other than private housing there should be sufficient access for fire service vehicles to within 45 metres of every point on the projected plan area or a percentage of the perimeter, whichever is less onerous. The percentage will be determined by the total floor area of the building. This issue will be dealt with at the Building Regulations stage of the development. However, the Fire Authority advise that early consideration is given to this matter. Water Supplies for Fire fighting - It has been identified that water supplies for fire fighting purposes will need to be provided on the development to ensure adequate fire safety measures. This can be achieved by the provision of fire hydrants on new or existing water mains or by other satisfactory means. It is recommended that these requirements are designed in by the developer at an early stage especially where new water mains are to be laid. Recommended Minimum Flow Rates and Location of Fire Hydrants - The Local Government Association (LGA)/Water UK National Guidance Document details the following rates as the minimum necessary for fire fighting, in particular risk categories where new developments are under construction. It is important to note that the current Building Regulations require an adequate water supply for fire- fighting. If any building has a compartment of 280m2 or more in area and there is no existing fire hydrant within 100 metres, a reasonable water supply must be available. Failure to comply with this requirement may prevent the applicant from obtaining a final certificate. Sprinkler Systems - Residential Premises In relation to the residential premises within the application, the benefit of installing a correctly designed sprinkler system which can detect and control a fire at an early stage of development will rapidly reduce the rate of production of heat and smoke. Evidence suggests that where fire sprinkler systems have been fitted, fire deaths have almost been eliminated, fire injuries reduced by over 80%, and a significant improvement in fire fighter safety achieved. In addition, property damage has been reduced by over 80% and where sprinklers are fitted there is a considerable reduction in the volume of water taken from service mains by the fire and rescue service for fire fighting. Accordingly, It is recommended that consideration is given to the installation of sprinkler systems within the residential properties that conform to the 'BS 9251:2005 - Sprinkler Systems for Residential and Domestic Occupancies - Code of Practice' published by the British Standards Institute.

5.0 THEMAINISSUES  Principle of development;  Impact of the use on surrounding residential properties and their amenity;  Impact on the highway/footpath network;  Impact on archaeology;  Impact on trees and biodiversity;  Other issues raised.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013 6.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL 6.1 Principle of development 6.1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework was published in March 2012 and replaces most of the existing national Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes therefore providing a new policy framework for both plan making and decision making at the local level.

6.1.2 The section of ‘Achieving Sustainable Development’ identifies that there are three dimensions to sustainable development – economic, social and environmental, and that these are mutually dependent.

6.1.3 Paragraph 14 confirms that at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread through both plan-making and decision-taking.

6.1.4 Paragraph 17 details the core planning principles explaining that planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development and that every effort should be 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. Planning should also seek to secure high quality design and support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate as well as seek to reuse previously developed (brownfield land), provided it is not of high environmental value.

6.1.5 Paragraph 21 states that investment in business should not be over-burdened by the combined requirements of planning policy expectations. Only where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the investment, vitality and viability of the existing town centre, should it be refused.

6.1.6 Paragraph 32 within the section on ‘Promoting Sustainable Transport’ notes that all developments that generate significant amounts of movements should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Decision should take account of whether:  the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;  safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and  improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe.

6.1.7 The section on ‘Decision-Taking’ with the NPPF notes that local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development (paragraph 186). Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible (paragraph 187).

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013

6.1.8 Shropshire LDF Core Strategy policies CS1and CS2 identify Shrewsbury as the focus for significant retail, office and employment development. Policy CS2 also supports the improvement of the Shrewsbury Northern Corridor in accordance with the aims of the Northern Corridor Regeneration Framework to enhance major existing commercial, employment and mixed use areas as a priority.

6.1.9 CS2 also recognises the need for the continuing development of high quality business parks on the edge of the town centre and the periphery of the town, including the Battlefield Enterprise Park, and the importance of the Sundorne retail park which has scope for enhancement and expansion.

6.1.10 Policy CS13 promotes Shropshire as a business investment location and a place for a range of business types to start up, invest and grow, and for Shrewsbury to develop its roles as the growth point and the main business, service and visitor centre.

6.1.11 CS14 outlines that a strategic supply of employment land and premises will be identified and managed and a portfolio of employment land and premises will be identified and maintained by protecting existing strategic employment land and premises and safeguarding sufficient land to facilitate the delivery of ancillary facilities, services or uses which support enterprise and economic growth especially in employment developments.

6.1.12 The proposed site is surrounded by a mix of uses including employment and retail and although not specifically identified as protected employment land it was previously designated as such under SABC policy EM2; this policy now carries little weight.

6.1.13 The site lies adjacent to the Battlefield Enterprise park and Industrial Estate which is allocated employment land under saved SABC policy EM1 and is near to the Sundorne Retail Park. It is also situated within the Shrewsbury Northern Corridor.

6.1.14 The policy framework highlighted above now needs to be applied to this scheme. The proposal will provide approximately 3245 square metres of floor space for mixed A3 Restaurants and cafés; A4 Drinking establishments; A5 Hot food takeaways; and C1 Hotels. Taking the positive approach promoted by the NPPF coupled with the brownfield status of this site within an area identified for employment and growth the principle of the development proposed is reasonable.

6.1.15 The representations received highlight two main concerns relating to the sustainability of the site and as such compliance with policy, these are:  that the proposed A3 A$ and A5 uses proposed will impact adversely on the vitality and viability of the town centre; and  the proposed uses are incompatible with the existing adjacent use undertaken by ABP UK (abattoir) and as such pressure my result for the abattoir to close/relocate.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013

6.1.16 In examining the first point the NPPF and LDF Policies CS2, CS14 and CS15 seek to enhance the vitality and viability of town centres. As A3, A4 and A5 uses are considered to be a ‘town centre’ uses their impact, being located outside of the principle retail core, needs to be considered. The threshold for requiring a Retail Impact Assessment is set out in paragraph 26 of the NPPF; it reads: “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 floor space threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sqm)…”

6.1.17 Whilst there is a stated intention in draft policy MD10 of the SAMDev document to have a locally set threshold of 500sqm, this can be given no weight at this time since it is still at the consultation stage and may be subject to change.

6.1.18 Given the NPPF set the threshold at 2,500sqm and this is the figure we are required to work to until such time as a the Council adopts a locally set floor space threshold there is a supposition made that proposals with a floor area below 2,500sqm the impact is likely to be insignificant and as such does not warrant an assessment.

6.1.19 The town centre is well provided for with pubs, eateries and hotels. It is not anticipated that the A3 A4 and A5 uses proposed for this site would have a significantly adverse impact on those businesses operating from a Town Centre site to warrant a refusal on this basis. These operations will most likely complement those businesses within the town centre with visitors staying at the motel utilising both the on-site eateries and also those in the town centre.

6.1.20 Turning to the second issue. Concern has been raised from ABP UK that use of the site as proposed would undermine the operational requirements of the ABP plant and potentially impact on employment and would be in conflict with the land use policies outlined above. A substantive objection has been received from the company.

6.1.21 They state that the “…proposed development fails the basic test of sustainability. The proposal, if permitted would positively undermine the ability of future generations to meet their needs. This is because the development proposed envisages building large "public-use" buildings i.e. public house and restaurants, with outdoor recreational and eating facilities as well as a hotel within c 100 metres of a major factory that is an employer of regional significance, that has been in place since the 1960's and owned and operated by ABP since 1989. Notwithstanding that the ABP Plant operates within all required licensing and regulatory requirements, the Company is strongly of the opinion that if permitted the proposed development would quickly lead to conflict between these two incompatible land uses. In very simple terms one could readily envisage the operators of the hotel and restaurant making complaints because they cannot let rooms or operate their public house / restaurant because customers are complaining of what are standard activities at the factory. It is our strongly held view

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013 that such conflict would arise notwithstanding that ABP Shrewsbury operates within all required licensing and regulatory requirements.”

6.1.22 In their representations the company draws attention to the emphasis given in Policy CS13 to “… recognising the continued importance of farming for food production and supporting rural enterprise and diversification of the economy, in particular areas of economic activity associated with agricultural farm diversification, forestry, green tourism and leisure, food and drink processing, and promotion of local food supply chains. "

6.1.23 They further state: The importance of the food production sector not only to the local but also the regional economy is evident at the "Explanation" to Policy CS13 where it states - "The County is home to a significant number of national food and drink producers and many major food processors."

6.1.24 In response the applicant points out that the operations of the abattoir site are regulated by both the Council’s Public Protection team and also benefit from a license issued by the Environment Agency. The applicant asserts if the site is operating within the terms and conditions of its licence, overseen by the Environment Agency, no conflict will arise. It is only if the company is operating outside the terms and conditions specified with the license that any conflict will arise.

6.1.25 In this debate the Council can take further reassurance from the Council’s Public Protection team who comment “…there do not appear to be any impacts from them that may have any adverse impact on the existing sites and the controls within the permits for the existing operations are adequate to mitigate any impact on the proposed development. I therefore have no further substantive comments to submit.”

6.1.26 Whilst the concern of the adjacent business is understandable; their investment is considerable, they employ a large number of people and they make a significant contribution to the local and national economy which should not be undervalued. However, given decision-making is required to be evidence based, the evidence in this case indicates that the concerns expressed, whilst acknowledged and appreciated are however not supported by any evidence and appear to be unwarranted.

6.27 In summary, the use of this site for the purposes proposed is considered to comply with the aims of Policy CS1, CS2, CS13 and CS14 in promoting employment within the urban area of Shrewsbury on previously developed land adjacent to existing allocated employment land and existing industrial estates and business and retail parks. The provision of pub/restaurant and takeaway unit will provide facilities and services that will support existing employment development as well as visitors to the town. It is therefore considered that this proposal would enhance and support the existing mix of uses in the area and would not undermine the ability of existing surrounding business to operate successfully and therefore would not result in the loss of employment as suggested. The development is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013

6.2 Impact of the use on surrounding residential properties and their amenity 6.2.1 In response to this application 2 letter of objection have been received from nearby residential home-owners. Whilst one is concerned about the impact on the town centre, which has been addressed above, the other raises issues of traffic (to be addressed) and litter.

6.2.2 It is not within the remit of planning control to take account of litter potentially generated from a development. In decision-making the decision-maker should assume that businesses and their customers behave responsibly. Planning permission cannot reasonably be withheld because some parties may behave irresponsibly and not dispose of their litter correctly. This is not meant to belittle the concern, and it is acknowledged that the irresponsible disposal of litter is a wider social issue. To address this concern an informative has been included to advise the operators to take their responsibilities seriously regarding the safe disposal of wrappers from their products.

6.2.3 In terms of neighbourliness the development is sufficiently removed from the predominantly residential area to have any significant impact. Therefore in this regard the application is considered to be reasonable.

6.3 Impact on the highway/footpath network 6.3.1 The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment. This document examines the impact of the application proposals on the existing local highway network and accessibility of the site in relation to sustainable transport and local facilities; preapplication discussions took place with the Council’s Highways Development Control Officer.

6.3.2 The applicant states: “The application site is located within an established commercial area where there exists large retail and employment areas accessed from Battlefield Road. The site is therefore ideally placed to serve those utilising the local commercial facilities and those working and living in the locality.”

6.3.3 “The site will be accessed via the existing access road (realigned) of the northern arm of the mini-roundabout that currently serves the Tesco Extra Store and those utilising the Park and Ride facilities.”

6.3.4 “The site is well served by public transport with frequent services available from existing bus stops within easy walking distance including those found at the Tesco Extra Store and at the park and ride. As such, it is already located in an area where there exists a good choice of travel by sustainable means and non-private car modes. It should however be noted that due to the nature of the proposals which includes a drive-through facility there will inevitably be car bourne movements to and from the site.”

6.3.5 “Facilities for pedestrians will be provided within the application site in the form of footways with connections being provided to the existing footways and crossing

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013 facilities found at the mini roundabout serving the Tesco Extra Store and existing Harlescott Park & Ride facilities. The site is therefore accessible on foot with it also being in close proximity to a number of bus stops providing regular services to the local centre and surroundings.”

6.3.6 “Cycle parking is to be provided on site with will be fully accessible to both staff and members of the public thereby promoting alternative means of sustainable transport. The level of cycle parking is considered practical for the development proposals.”

6.3.7 “The Transport Assessment also notes that not all trips will be totally new to the highway network with a proportion of trips to the public house/restaurant and KFC outlet being associated with those trips to the adjacent retail areas and food store (Tesco Extra) with pass by trips or linked trips comprising a large proportion of the overall trips and others transferring from similar facilities.”

6.3.8 “A total of 114 car parking spaces are to be provided across the application site including 7 dedicated disabled parking spaces. This provision is considered to be proportionate to the development and uses proposed as well as its location where there will inevitably be linked trips. The numbers are in themselves sufficient for the operational requirements of the public house/restaurant, lodge hotel and KFC outlet.”

6.3.9 “A Travel Plan has been prepared for Marston’s element of the application proposals, public house/restaurant, and KFC element, KFC outlet with drive- through facilities, which seek to set out a long term strategy for reducing dependence on travel by private car particularly for employees. The Travel Plans set out the measures that will be put in place to encourage sustainable access. Both Marston’s and KFC acknowledge their wider responsibilities to encourage sustainable development that will lead to the protection of the environment. Therefore, all future employees will be made aware of their Travel Plan responsibilities when they are appointed to ensure the Travel Plan objectives are affective upon occupation.”

6.3.10 The formal submission has been considered by the Council’s Highways Development Control and whilst no substantive response has been forthcoming the general view is that the proposal is acceptable. It is therefore considered that the application proposals fully accord with Policy CS8 of the adopted Core Strategy in relation to access to facilities and the provision of development in locations that are appropriate and accessible, and the general principles of sustainable development set out within the NPPF (2012).

6.4 Impact on archaeology 6.4.1 The application has been considered by the Council’s Archaeology Officer. The site has some association with the Shrewsbury Registered Battlefield due to its location. However, it is separated from the Battlefield by a railway line and intervening commercial/ industrial development. It is the opinion of the Council’s archaeologist that the likely impact on the setting of the Registered Battlefield will

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013 therefore be negligible. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with policy CS17 of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy.

6.5 Impact on trees and biodiversity 6.5.1 The scheme has been considered by the Council’s Tree Officer and the Planning Ecologist. It is concluded that the site offers little in respect of either of these areas of interest. As such the scheme is judged to be in accordance with policy CS17 of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy.

6.7 Otherissuesraised 6.7.1 The scheme has received comments from Shrewsbury Town Council expressing no objection in principle but commenting that “…the design of the building is not suitable for the area..” The applicant has attempted to resolve this concern with the Town Council, however, they offered no further clarification as to which building they were concerned about, and what aspect of the design the felt was inappropriate. It was also noted that the Town Council made this same response to 2 other current applications (including the application for advertisement consent for this site). As such this could not be constructively pursued.

6.7.2 It is the officer’s view that the design of each of the buildings being proposed within this scheme is appropriate to this site, and accordingly the Council have not asked the applicant to revisit any aspect of the design.

6.7.3 The application has been considered by the Council’s drainage team. The application was submitted with comprehensive drainage details including a surface water flood map and a Flood Risk Assessment. Negotiations have been on-going with the Council’s drainage team and the applicants’ drainage engineers and a post-decision condition is now considered reasonable to conclude these final details.

6.7.4 Comments have also been received from the Shropshire Fire Officer; these are detailed in paragraph 4.2.6 above. These matters of detail are assessed within the Building Regulations, and as such fall outside the remit of planning. An informative has been included to pass the advice offered onto the applicant.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 It is acknowledged that this application has attracted an objection from ABP (UK) and additionally the Shrewsbury Business Chamber and their concerns have been taken into account in arriving at a recommendation. However, the NPPF makes it clear that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It is acknowledged that the objectors make the point that they do not believe the development to be sustainable because of the adverse impact they argue it will have on their business. However, decisions have to be taken based on the evidence available and in relation to this issue the Council’s Public Protection officer has raised no objections. It would therefore be unreasonable to resist the scheme on the grounds put forward by the objector.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013 7.2 The land is allocated for employment generating uses. The applicant states that they expected the proposed public house/restaurant and hotel to generate employment numbers in the region of 50 – 60, and the KFC restaurant to create up to 40 new employees split between full time and part time members of staff and office accommodation creating in the region of 5 – 8 additional posts. The proposed uses will therefore generate local employment through the provision of both full and part time jobs during the day and evening.

7.3 The uses proposed will generate employment which whilst strictly not employment uses within the limits of those defined as business uses, (i.e. B1, B2 and B8), will contribute to the overall aims and objectives of the spatial polities detailed within the Council’s Core Strategy and the NPPF.

7.4 The site is located where both employees and customers can access the site by a variety of transport modes. No objection has been received from the Council’s Highways Development Control team to indicate that the highway network cannot accommodate the likely traffic to be generated by this scheme.

7.5 Overall, the scheme is considered to be acceptable and this view is supported by the Council’s Planning Policy team. Conditions to cover the areas of detail that require some refinement are to be included; the scheme is recommended for approval.

8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT AND OPPORTUNITIES APPRAISAL 8.1 Risk Management There are two principal risks associated with this recommendation as follows:  As with any planning decision the applicant has a right of appeal if they disagree with the decision and/or the imposition of conditions. Costs can be awarded irrespective of the mechanism for hearing the appeal - written representations, a hearing or inquiry.  The decision is challenged by way of a Judicial Review by a third party. The courts become involved when there is a misinterpretation or misapplication of policy or some breach of the rules of procedure or the principles of natural justice. However their role is to review the way the authorities reach decisions, rather than to make a decision on the planning issues themselves, although they will interfere where the decision is so unreasonable as to be irrational or perverse. Therefore they are concerned with the legality of the decision, not its planning merits. A challenge by way of Judicial Review must be a) promptly and b) in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose first arose. Both of these risks need to be balanced against the risk of not proceeding to determine the application. In this scenario there is also a right of appeal against non-determination for application for which costs can also be awarded.

8.2 Human Rights Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013 First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact on residents. This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

8.3 Equalities The concern of planning law is to regulate the use of land in the interests of the public at large, rather than those of any particular group. Equality will be one of a number of ‘relevant considerations’ that need to be weighed in planning committee members’ minds under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1970.

9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are likely financial implications of the decision and/or imposition of conditions is challenged by a planning appeal or judicial review. The costs of defending any decision will be met by the authority and will vary dependant on the scale and nature of the proposal. The financial implications of any decision are not a material planning consideration and should not be "weighed" in planning committee members' mind when reaching a decision.

10.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 10.1 RELEVANT POLICIES NPPF Shropshire Core Strategy; Policy CS1: Strategic Approach; Policy CS2: Shrewsbury Development Strategy; Policy CS6: Sustainable Design and Development Principles; Policy CS8: Facilities, Services and Infrastructure Provision; Policy CS9: Infrastructure Contributions; Policy CS13: Economic Development, Enterprise and Employment; Policy CS14: Managed Release of Employment Land; Policy CS15: Town and Rural Centres; Policy CS16: Tourism, Culture and Leisure; Policy CS17: Environmental Networks; and Policy CS18: Sustainable Water Management.

10.2 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY PREAPP/12/00160 180 Cover Pub/Restaurant - Feasibility POSITIVE ADVICE GIVEN 2nd May 2012

12/05031/FUL Re-alignment of access road and highway works to facilitate future development and erection of sub-station GRANT 30th January 2013

13/00392/FUL Erection of public house/restaurant; lodge hotel, hot food takeaway (with drive-through facilities) and associated works PENDING

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013

13/00393/ADV Display of one internally illuminated pylon sign; internally illuminated building signage, internally illuminated sign box, directional ground signs and bay signs PENDING

11.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

List of Background Papers: 12/05031/FUL; and 13/00392/FUL.

Cabinet Member (Portfolio Holder) – Cllr M. Price

Local Member – Cllr Malcolm Price

Appendices – APPENDIX 1 - Conditions

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013

APPENDIX 1

Conditions

STANDARD CONDITION(S)

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

Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (As amended).

2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans and drawings.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.

CONDITION(S) THAT REQUIRE APPROVAL BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT COMMENCES

3. No development shall take place on site until full details and calculations of the proposed surface and foul water drainage for the relevant phase of the development have been submitted to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Drainage details and calculations of the access road and car park included in the relevant phase of the development should be provided. This should indicate that the proposed gullies / kerb drains will be able to transfer the 1 in 100 year + climate change storm event into the attenuation system efficiently, or provide a plan indicating where exceedance flows will be stored prior to entering the attenuation system. This is to ensure that any such flows are managed on site. The discharge of any such flows across the adjacent land would not be permitted and would mean that the proposed tank is not being used. Confirmation that these exceedance flows will not flood any adjacent property. The approved schemes shall be completed before each relevant phase of the development is used. Reason: To ensure satisfactory surface water drainage of the site and to minimise flood risk elsewhere as a result of the development and also to ensure that the foul water drainage system complies with the Building Regulations H2.

CONDITION(S) THAT REQUIRE APPROVAL DURING THE CONSTRUCTION/PRIOR TO THE OCCUPATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

4. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced with others of species, size and number as originally approved, by the end of the first available planting season. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013

Informatives

1. By virtue of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, your attention is drawn to the following statutory provisions and Code of Practice relating to the needs of disabled people: Sections 4, 7 and 8A of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, Disability Discrimination Act 1995, BSI Code of Practice BS5810:1979 relating to Access for Disabled to Buildings, and the Building Regulations 1992 Approved Document M. Please ensure that you are taking account of these requirements.

2. It is recommended that the applicant investigate ways of incorporating techniques of ‘Sustainable Urban Drainage’ into this development. These will help to minimise the impact of the development with features such as porous parking, detention ponds, grass swales and infiltration trenches. This will maintain the recharge of groundwater resources, reduce large fluctuations in river flows during rainfall and stop pollutants from road runoff from entering watercourses. Further information can be obtained from the Environment Agency.

3. THIS PERMISSION DOES NOT CONVEY A BUILDING REGULATIONS APPROVAL under the Building Regulations 2010. The works may also require Building Regulations approval. If you have not already done so, you should contact the Council's Building Control Section on 01743 252430 or 01743 252440.

4. Access for Emergency Fire Service Vehicles - It will be necessary to provide adequate access for emergency fire vehicles. For buildings other than private housing there should be sufficient access for fire service vehicles to within 45 metres of every point on the projected plan area or a percentage of the perimeter, whichever is less onerous. The percentage will be determined by the total floor area of the building. For housing, there should be access for a pumping appliance to within 45 metres of all points within the dwelling. This issue will be dealt with at the Building Regulations stage of the development. However, the Fire Authority advise that early consideration is given to this matter. 'THE BUILDING REGULATIONS, 2000 (2006 EDITION) FIRE SAFETY APPROVED DOCUMENT B5.' provides details of typical fire service appliance specifications.

Water Supplies for Fire fighting - It has been identified that water supplies for fire fighting purposes will need to be provided on the development to ensure adequate fire safety measures. This can be achieved by the provision of fire hydrants on new or existing water mains or by other satisfactory means. It is recommended that these requirements are designed in by the developer at an early stage especially where new water mains are to be laid.

Recommended Minimum Flow Rates and Location of Fire Hydrants - The Local Government Association (LGA)/Water UK National Guidance Document details the following rates as the minimum necessary for fire fighting, in particular risk categories where new developments are under construction. 1. Housing - Minimum of 8 l/sec (480 l/min) for detached or semi-detached of not more than two floors up to 35 l/sec (2100 l/min) for units of more than two floors, from any single hydrant on the development.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee: 23rd May 2013 2. Industry (industrial estates) - It is recommended that the water supply infrastructure should provide as follows with the mains network on site normally being at least 150mm nominal diameter: . Up to one hectare minimum of 20 l/sec (1200 l/min) . One to two hectares minimum of 35 l/sec (2100 l/min) . Two to three hectares minimum of 50 l/sec (3000 l/min) . Over three hectares minimum of 75 l/sec (4500 l/min) It is important to note that the current Building Regulations require an adequate water supply for fire fighting. If any building has a compartment of 280m2 or more in area and there is no existing fire hydrant within 100 metres, a reasonable water supply must be available. Failure to comply with this requirement may prevent the applicant from obtaining a final certificate.

Sprinkler Systems - Residential Premises - In relation to the residential premises within the application, the benefit of installing a correctly designed sprinkler system which can detect and control a fire at an early stage of development will rapidly reduce the rate of production of heat and smoke. Evidence suggests that where fire sprinkler systems have been fitted, fire deaths have almost been eliminated, fire injuries reduced by over 80%, and a significant improvement in fire fighter safety achieved. In addition, property damage has been reduced by over 80% and where sprinklers are fitted there is a considerable reduction in the volume of water taken from service mains by the fire and rescue service for fire fighting. Accordingly, It is recommended that consideration is given to the installation of sprinkler systems within the residential properties that conform to the 'BS 9251:2005 - Sprinkler Systems for Residential and Domestic Occupancies - Code of Practice' published by the British Standards Institute. Further guidance on residential sprinkler systems can be obtained by contacting the British Automatic Sprinkler Association Ltd on 01353 659187 or their web site www.basa.org.uk

5. NOTE TO APPLICANT: You are hereby reminded that all litter and other packaging generated from these permitted operations should be disposed of responsibly. It is especially important that fast-food establishments impress upon their customers the importance of disposing of litter appropriately,

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773