REPORT TO THE PLANNING REGULATORY BOARD TO BE HELD ON THE 21 FEBRUARY 2013
The following applications are submitted for your consideration. It is recommended that decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 be recorded as indicated.
INDEX PAGE 1 RB2012/1615 Demolition of existing warehouse building & erection of 9,177 Page 5 sq.ft. A1 retail unit with associated car parking & landscaping at ALBA/UPS Warehouse Unit, Cortonwood Drive, Brampton Bierlow for Budenny LLP. 2 RB2012/1617 Demolition of boundary wall and formation of new means of Page 25 access to replace existing and rebuild boundary wall at existing access at Mayfield Cottage, 61 Worksop Road, Aston for Mr. R. Turnbull. 3 RB2012/1637 Conservation Area Consent for demolition of part of boundary Page 32 wall to front at Mayfield Cottage, 61 Worksop Road, Aston for Mr. R. Turnbull. 4 RB2012/1676 Change of use to hot food takeaway (use class A5) at 9 High Page 38 Street, Swallownest for Pejis 2.
REPORT TO THE PLANNING REGULATORY BOARD TO BE HELD ON THE 21 FEBRUARY 2013
The following applications are submitted for your consideration. It is recommended that decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 be recorded as indicated.
Application Number RB2012/1615 Proposal and Demolition of existing warehouse building & erection of 9,177 Location sq.ft. A1 retail unit with associated car parking & landscaping at land at ALBA/UPS Warehouse Unit Cortonwood Drive Brampton Bierlow, S73 0UF. Recommendation Refuse
Site Description & Location
The application site consists of an area of 2.75 ha on Cortonwood Drive which is currently occupied by a large industrial unit (within Use Class B8) used as a UPS distribution centre with a floorspace of 13,400 sq.m. The building is a substantial structure and has a utilitarian appearance constructed predominantly of profiled cladding. There are a large number of loading bays are on the south west elevation of the building facing the existing retail park.
The site lies on the southern side of Cortonwood Drive and directly to the north east of existing retail units (Asda Living, Halfords and SCS).
To the north east of the application site is another large industrial building, whilst to the north on the opposite side of Cortonwood Drive is a smaller retail part consisting of three recently built retail units (Smyths toys, Dreams Beds and a vacant unit). Otherwise this section of Cortonwood Drive is predominantly characterised by large industrial and business units.
The main retail park lies to the south and consists of a Morrisons Supermarket, large DIY store (B&Q) and a number of smaller units including Next, Matalan, Sports Direct, Boots and Argos. There is also a McDonalds and Pizza Hut Restaurant.
The vehicular access to the site is via the Dearne Valley Parkway which runs to the north of the application site and provides access to the site via two roundabout junctions. The Dearne Valley Parkway lies within the neighbouring borough of Barnsley. The Trans-Pennine Trail crosses the Cortonwood Bypass close to the main roundabout to the north west of the application site.
The nearest residential properties lie to the south, east and north-east of the application site in Brampton at a higher level although there is no direct vehicular access from these residential areas there are a number of undefined footpaths running across adjacent land.
Background
There are numerous planning applications relating to the reclamation of the application site and surrounding industrial and retail park. The most recent applications related to the development of the site for the existing warehouse was made under the Enterprise Zone Planning Scheme:
RB2002/1387 – Details of the erection of a warehouse with ancillary offices (reserved by the Enterprise Zone Planning Scheme) – Granted
RB2002/1478 – Details of the erection of a distribution centre comprising a warehouse and ancillary offices (reserved by the Enterprise Zone Planning Scheme) – Granted
RB2005/0292 – Display of various wall mounted signs – Granted
Environmental Impact Assessment
The proposed development falls within the description contained at paragraph 10 (b) of Schedule 2 to the 2011 Regulations and meets the criteria set out in column 2 of the table in that Schedule. However the Borough Council as the relevant Local Planning Authority, having taken into account the criteria set out in Schedule 3 to the 2011 Regulations, is of the opinion that the development would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location.
Accordingly the authority has adopted the opinion that the development for which planning permission is sought is not EIA development as defined in the 2011 Regulations.
Proposal
This is a full planning application which proposes to demolish the existing building and redevelop the site for 6 retail units (Use Class A1 non food) totalling 9,177 sq.m. (98,781 sq.ft.) gross.
The proposed retail units range from 1,115 sq.m. to 2,320 sq.m. (12,000 to 25,000 sq.ft.). The proposal includes a car park to provide 309 car parking spaces.
The proposed building is in an L shaped form and is orientated with its main elevation facing onto the existing adjacent retail units and towards Cortonwood Drive thereby creating a continuation of the adjacent units. The proposal is to construct a portal frame and clad construction with materials to match with the adjacent units. The design of the units is typical of the surrounding retail park units of a modern design with large signage details on poles on the front elevation, brickwork to the ground floor and cladding on the upper part of the building.
The existing building is approximately 12 metres in height and the proposed retails units are proposed to be approximately 8 metres to the highest point.
The following documents have been submitted in support of the application:
• Design and Access Statement • Planning and Retail Statement • Air Quality Assessment • Lighting Strategy • Coal Mining Risk Assessment • Statement of Community Involvement • Transport Assessment • Employment Land Assessment • Updated Planning and Retail Statement • Updated Transport Assessment
Development Plan Allocation and Policy
01 RSS Policies
YH4 Regional cities and sub regional cities and towns YH7 Location of development SY1 South Yorkshire sub area ENV5 Energy E2 Town centre and major facilities E3 Land and premises for economic development T1 Personal travel reduction and modal shift T2 Parking
Although the above policies have been used in the appraisal of this proposal, the RSS is due to be revoked on the 22 February and the policies have been given little weight in the determination of the application.
02 UDP Policies
The site is allocated for industrial and business use in the Unitary Development Plan.
EC1.1 Safeguarding Exiting Industrial and Business Land EC3.1 Land Identified for Industrial and Business Use. EC3.3 Other Development within Business and Industrial Areas ENV2 Conserving the Environment ENV3.1 Development and the Environment T6 Location and Layout of Development ULT3.3 Energy Conservation
Other Material Considerations
National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27 th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “D evelopment that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision.
The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”
The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF and have been given due weight in the determination of this application.
Rotherham Employment Land Review 2010 Rotherham Town Centre Retail and Leisure Study 2010 Rotherham Retail and Leisure Study
Publicity
The application has been advertised by way of letters to neighbouring properties, site notice and press notice. One letter of objection has been received from Black Diamond Estates together with two letters of support from the three local ward members (via Councillor Roche) and the Barnsley and Rotherham Chamber of Commerce.
The grounds of objection are as follows:
• The proposal represents a significant amount of floorspace in an out of centre location contrary to the NPPF; • The sequential assessment appears to be inadequate; • The applicant has significantly underestimated sales density of the proposed development and therefore the prescribed impact of the development is also underestimated; • Rotherham town centre already has a high vacancy rate and the proposed development would reduce the attractiveness of the town centre to high street retailers; • The proposal would also have an effect on the regeneration project for Barnsley town centre and for Goldthorpe; • The proposal represents 3 times more floorspace that is identified to be needed in Rotherham up to 2027 and should therefore be refused on this basis alone.
The grounds for support are as follows:
• The proposed development will create employment for local people; • The proposal will give local people better shopping choice; • The development will bring regeneration to the local area.
Consultations
SYPTE has no objections
Police Architectural Liaison Officer has made suggestion as to how the scheme could meet Secured By Design.
Landscape Team has no objection to the proposed development.
Brampton Parish Council support the application on the basis that it would offer job opportunities for local people, it would increase retail choice and it is considered that the road situation is acceptable.
Barnsley MBC object to the proposal on the basis that the scheme is contrary to town centre planning policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) with regard to the application of the sequential approach and the likely impact on centres. In highway terms, Barnsley MBC are still considering the likely impact on the highway network following the receipt of additional information.
Appraisal
Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to -
(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90.
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 - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004.
The main considerations in the determination of this application are:
The principle of the development; Retail Issues Highway Issues Design and Visual Amenity
Principle
RS Policy E3 refers to Land and Premises for Economic Development states that: “Plans, strategies, investment decisions and programmes should make use of appropriately located previously developed land and current allocations, and ensure the availability of sufficient land and premises in sustainable locations to meet the needs of a modern economy…”
The application site is allocated for industrial and business use in the Unitary Development Plan. UDP Policy EC3.1 states that “Within areas allocated on the Proposals Map for industrial and business use, development proposals falling within Classes B1, B2 and B8 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, 1987 will be acceptable. Therefore a retail proposal does not accord with this policy.
UDP Policy EC3.3 deals with Other Development within Industrial Business Areas and states that: “Within the sites allocated for industrial and business use on the Proposals Map, other development will be accepted subject to no adverse effect on the character of the area or on residential amenity, adequate arrangements for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the proposed development and compatibility with adjacent existing and proposed land uses where it would provide significant employment and it can be shown that: (i) there are no suitable alternative locations available for the proposed development…”
The Planning and Retail Assessment states that the existing use of the site by UPS will cease in April 2014. That may be so but the site remains in active employment use. It would clearly be suitable for future employment use.
The supporting Planning and Retail Statement submitted by the applicant states that the existing industrial unit was constructed specifically to meet a particular operators specification. The current occupier has a lease which will expire in April 2014 and the application states that there are currently 27 full time employees but the fill capacity for the size of the building would be 85 full time employees. An Employment Land Assessment has been submitted in support of the application which reviews the market for employment sites and premises within the region and considers whether there is a reasonable prospect for the site to continue to be used for is allocated employment use.
The main findings of that report are:
1. The demand for distribution facilities is for premises in prime locations (i.e. A1, M1 and M18) and are competitively priced; 2. Evidence shows that there is a substantial supply of high quality properties in better locations and offering more favourable specifications; 3. The subject property was designed for a single operator rather than for general occupier standards and therefore has a number of weaknesses which affects is let-ability; 4. Consideration was given to the potential for renovation or redevelopment of the site for employment purposes; however, this option was dismissed on the grounds of poor market conditions for speculative employment uses, the site’s location and cost/viability issues.
Policy EC3.3 states that alternative uses of industrial and business areas will only be acceptable where there are no other suitable sites for the proposed development. In this case, it is clear that there are other sites available in neighbouring town centres which could accommodate the disaggregated proposal. In addition, there is no evidence in supporting statements that marketing of the site has taken place however in general it is considered that there are no immediate issues of under-supply of employment land and that in itself the loss of this site would not be detrimental to the Council’s employment land strategy.
It is accepted that the property has some limitations due to being built for a specific user which may be detrimental to its future re-use for distribution purposes. It is also agreed that marketing may be challenged; however it is clear that primary evidence through actual marketing has not been obtained.
It is considered that retail use on this site could provide employment opportunities. However it is also noted that appeal cases referred to in the England and Lyle assessment were refused on the basis that policy objectives aimed at protecting the retail role of centres outweighed the regeneration, employment and other benefits of the schemes.
On the basis of the information provided with the application, the Council do not consider that the site has no future employment prospects over the longer term, and it is clear that the immediate prospects of the site’s re-use have not been tested through marketing, however it is not considered that a refusal could be made based on the loss of employment land in this instance as there is an adequate supply of land within the Borough.
Retail Issues
The Council have commissioned planning consultants England & Lyle to carry out an independent Review of the applicant’s Planning and Retail Assessment, which was completed in December 2012. England & Lyle have advised on retail issues including the sequential assessment and retail impact. A response to the retail matters has now been submitted by the applicant to take account of the matters raised by England and Lyle. Additional advice has also been received from England and Lyle in response to this additional information.
RS Policy E2 refers to Town Centre and Major Facilities and states that: “Plans, strategies, investment decisions and programmes should strengthen the role and performance of existing city and town centres…”
It is acknowledged that the UDP Retail policies are out-of-date and that greater weight should be given to the NPPF. The application site is in an out-of-centre location and therefore to comply with the NPPF the proposed development must satisfy the sequential test and the impact test in relation to investment and the vitality and viability of centres.
Paragraph 24 of the NPPF requires the application of a sequential test to planning applications for ‘ main town centre uses which are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan. ’ The order of preference for the sequential approach remains unchanged from PPS4, namely:
(1) locations within existing town centres; (2) second, edge-of-centre locations, with preference given to accessible sites that are well-connected to the centre; and then (3) out-of-centre sites, where there are no in-centre or edge-of-centre sites available. Preference should be given to accessible sites that are well-connected to the town centre.
Paragraph 26 of the NPPF requires proposed retail developments in out-of-centre locations to be assessed against two impact criteria, the first of which replicates criterion (a) of Policy EC16.1 of PPS4, whilst the second combines criteria (b) and (d) of Policy EC16.1:
• the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private sector investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and • the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time when the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made.
In assessing retail proposals it is necessary to define a ‘catchment area’ from which the majority of the existing trade draw will be coming from and also to form the basis of assessing whether there are any more sequentially preferable sites than the one proposed. The original advice from England and Lyle concluded that the proposed catchment area did not adequately capture all of the trade that is drawn to Cortonwood at present and in particular it should include parts of the Barnsley Borough to the north of Rotherham and both Barnsley and Rotherham town centres. Additional information received has now extended the catchment area slightly but the applicant remains of the view that the catchment area should not include Rotherham town centre or Barnsley town centre. The advice from England and Lyle remains that the trade draw to the proposed development will be comparible to the trade draw to the existing retail park and in this regard there are people who do their shopping at Cortonwood from both Rotherham and Barnsley Urban Areas. Our opinion therfore remains therefore that it is realistic to include both Rotherham and Barnsley town centres in the catchment area.
In relation to investment in centres the most important consideration is the approval of the Barnsley Marketplace redevelopment scheme in Barnsley town centre. Paragraph 2.33 of the Planning and Retail Assessment refers to the revised proposals for the Marketplace scheme approved in September 2011. Barnsley town centre is not in the catchment area of the proposed development defined by the supporting Retail Assessment but it is considered that Barnsley town centre should be within the catchment area (which is dealt with below). Any harm to the implementation of Barnsley Marketplace scheme would be a relevant consideration in the application of the NPPF impact test.
In applying the NPPF test of impact on town centre vitality and viability, it is necessary to assess impact on centres in the wider Cortonwood catchment area. For instance there may be impact on Rotherham town centre which is outside the catchment area defined by the supporting Retail Assessment. Like Barnsley town centre, it is considered that Rotherham town centre should be included within the catchment area. Rotherham town centre may experience diversion of trade from areas such as Wath, Swinton and Rawmarsh which are within the Rotherham catchment area.
The NPPF advises that impact should be assessed up to five years from the time when the application is made or for major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made. The retail assessment by the supporting Retail Assessment uses an assessment year of 2017, based on a five year forecasting period. It is agreed that this appropriate and that the proposal is not a ‘major scheme’ in NPPF terms because it is considered that the full impact will be realised within 5 years.
The NPPF is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The proposed development must comply with the NPPF policies on retail and other town centre uses. Paragraph 27 of the NPPF states that “where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused.
Sequential Assessment
The application site is in an out-of-centre location and so sites which are more central (within centres or edge-of-centre) are sequentially preferable.
Paragraph 24 of the NPPF requires the application of a sequential test to planning applications for retail uses outside centres. It also requires that applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale in applying the sequential test. The Practice Guidance on the sequential approach emphasises the need for disaggregation to demonstrate a flexible approach.
Paragraph 6.35 of the Practice Guidance states:
“Some developments are comprised of a number of town centre uses. For example retail parks involving a range of retailers whilst mixed use developments can include retail, leisure, hotels and restaurants. In these cases, where edge of centre or out of centre locations are proposed, it will be relevant to consider whether any of the units proposed could be accommodated on more centrally located sites.”
The sequential assessment includes five sites in Wath-upon-Dearne and one site in Swinton. A consultation response from Barnsley Council has advised that there are no alternative sites in the catchment area in Hoyland, Wombwell and Goldthorpe. None of the sites identified is considered to be suitable, viable or available to accommodate the ‘baseline scheme’.
Whilst as mentioned above it is considered that Rotherham town centre should be included within the catchment area the applicant’s Retail Assessment does not include it within the ‘area of search’ and therefore has not considered any sequentially preferable sites within the town centre.
It is considered that Barnsley town centre should also be included within the catchment area of the proposed development. If the proposed scheme is intended to meet the requirements of national retailers selling ‘non-bulky’ comparison goods that would normally be found in town centres as well as some out-of-centre locations, then suitable sites and premises may be available in Barnsley town centre or may become available in Barnsley town centre in the Marketplace scheme. It should be noted that the letter from Savills which forms Appendix 3 of the Planning and Retail Assessment acknowledges that new town centre schemes such as the ‘Marketplace’ in Barnsley will normally include an anchor store and have a range of major space units of between 1,000 and 2,000 sq.m. for ‘mini-anchor’ stores, usually fashion stores. This is the size of units proposed in the current application. The Savills’ letter also notes that the Cortonwood scheme is likely to attract retailers who will locate in both town centre and retail park locations, for example Boots and Next who are already present at Cortonwood. The sequential assessment does not take account of the potential for new retailer requirements for units of the size proposed to be met in Barnsley town centre, serving essentially the same catchment area.
It is evident that there are several sites within or on the edge of Barnsley town centre that should have been included in the sequential assessment: • The site of the Barnsley Marketplace scheme. This is an in-centre site with full planning permission. It is the location where most of the units proposed in the Cortonwood scheme could be located. • The Former YEB Depot Site. This is an edge-of-centre site with an extant retail permission that has not to date been implemented. It is available and suitable for the type of retail units proposed at Cortonwood. • The Heelis Street/ New Street site in an edge-of-centre location to the south of the town centre. This site has recently been granted permission for a superstore. It is suitable and still available for redevelopment until there is a firm commitment for a superstore development.
Units of the size proposed could also possibly be accommodated in other centres in the catchment area such as Hoyland, Wombwell, Goldthorpe and Mexborough. It should also be noted that the applicant’s sequential assessment includes only sites that may be redeveloped; it does not include any vacant premises in sites in the catchment area that could accommodate single uses of between 1,115 sq.m. and 2,320 sq.m. gross. Vacant units in these centres should be assessed if they are large enough, applying the principle of disaggregation of retail park proposals.
A recent Supreme Court case in Scotland clarifies the correct interpretation of the sequential approach, which has the same application in Scotland and England. In this case of Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council (March 2012) Tesco claimed that the Council had granted planning permission for an out-of-town Asda superstore on the basis of the test that no suitable site was available. Tesco argued that ‘suitable’ meant suitable for meeting identified deficiencies in retail provision in the area. The Council said it simply meant suitable for the development proposed by the applicant.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Council’s interpretation of ‘suitable’ but subject to the important qualification that the application of the sequential approach requires flexibility and realism from developers and retailers as well as planning authorities.
This is a landmark legal judgement. Although it may be used by developers to argue that more central sites are not suitable for the type of development proposed, the sequential assessment must demonstrate that a high level of flexibility has been applied in terms of the scale and format of development. In this instance a flexible approach would require that alternative sequentially preferable sites should be assessed for their suitability to accommodate the individual components of the scheme, not just the ‘critical mass’ of floorspace assessed by the applicants.
The Practice Guidance contains a Checklist on Adopting a Sequential Approach which asks: • Have all more central opportunities been considered/identified? • Has the assessment adopted a sufficiently flexible approach?
The supporting retail statement report concludes (paragraph 6.46) that:
“The additional retail floorspace will enhance Cortonwood as a local destination for those living in the area delivering an opportunity to shop closer to home. It is appropriate therefore that the search for sites be carried out within the local area and not beyond it.”
These comments contrast with the evidence that about half of the existing trade to Cortonwood comes from areas to the north within Barnsley Borough and another quarter of the trade comes from more distant parts of Barnsley Borough. Relatively little trade comes from areas within Rotherham Borough such as Wath and Swinton.
It is not considered that all more central opportunities have been identified and considered because the assessment has not adopted a sufficiently flexible approach. It is further considered that the reasons for not following the advice in the Practice Guidance on disaggregation have not been fully justified.
The applicants revised information argues that a sequential assessment has been carried out within the identified catchment area (which does not include Barnsley or Rotherham town centres) and an appropriate level of flexibility has been adopted to find suitable alternative sites. Notwithstanding the additional information submitted the applicants’ sequential site assessment does not meet the requirements of NPPF policy or the Practice Guidance. It does not take account of sequentially preferable sites and premises in centres in the catchment area that are capable of accommodating elements of the proposed scheme if it is disaggregated into separate units. Furthermore, the catchment area adopted for the sequential assessment is considered to be inadequate and therefore there are a number of sequentially preferable alternative sites within the catchment area identified by England and Lyle to accommodate the proposed development with a suitable level of flexibility.
Retail Impact
The NPPF ‘impact test’ requires evidence of: • the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private sector investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and • the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time when the application is made.
Impact has to be judged in relation to the vitality and viability of centres. Reference to recent appeal cases shows how the significance of trading impact has been interpreted in different circumstances. At one extreme the Inspector in the call-in Inquiry into the edge-of centre Flemingate redevelopment scheme in Beverley (approved April 2009) concluded that a 1.9% trading impact on comparison goods in the town centre was not unacceptable. At the other extreme, in a call-in case for a replacement Tesco store in Stoke-on-Trent (refused October 2010) an overall impact of 17% on trade in Newcastle- under-Lyme was judged to be “significant” with “clear evidence of significant adverse effects” even though the centre was assessed as being reasonably healthy. Between these extremes the significance of a trading impact depends on the level of trade diversion and the health of the centre affected.
An appeal was dismissed for an out-of-centre superstore in Worksop in February 2011. This was a Secretary of State decision, largely on the grounds that the proposed development failed the sequential test. There was a sequentially preferable site. But the Inspector and the Secretary of State also considered the impact of the proposal in terms of convenience goods. It was accepted that the convenience trading impact on Worksop town centre would be over 10% and that the town centre had an ‘average’ level of vitality and viability. It was agreed that the proposed superstore would have an adverse impact on the town centre but whether that impact would be significant was ‘arguable’. The Secretary of State concluded that the level of impact was not necessarily ‘significant’ but the adverse impact on the town centre remained a material consideration to be weighed in the overall balance. He also concluded that the harm to the policy objectives aimed at protecting the retail role of Worksop town centre outweighs the regeneration, employment and other benefits of the scheme.
As recently as 13th November 2012 an appeal was dismissed for a large supermarket of 3,529 sq.m. gross in Todmorden, Calderdale, to be operated by Asda. The appeal site is out-of-centre and is vacant and derelict. It is allocated for employment uses.
The Inspector considered that the impact of the proposal on convenience goods trade in the town centre would be more than 20%. Todmorden is a vital and viable town centre but the Inspector thought that the level of impact predicted could lead to a significant adverse impact on in-centre trade /turnover. He concluded that there would be a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Todmorden town centre, its role as a market town and committed and planned public and private investment within the centre. He also concluded that the proposal could be located on a sequentially more preferable site in the town.
Another case illustrates the issue of impact on investment in centres. In April 2009 an appeal was dismissed for an additional 2,230 sq.m. of mezzanine floorspace in a former Focus DIY store in Grand Junction Retail Park, Crewe, for occupation by Tesco HomePlus to sell a range of comparison goods. The site is out-of-centre. There was a Council resolution to grant planning permission for a town centre redevelopment scheme. The range of goods proposed in the application could be sold from this town centre scheme. There were a significant number of vacant shops in the town centre and the Inspector was cautious about allowing additional floorspace for the sale of comparison goods of the type proposed. The Inspector thought that the proposed development would not promote the vitality or viability of the town centre. The additional floorspace proposed could make the development of the allocated town centre site less likely to happen.
England & Lyle’s Review includes an independent assessment of the predicted impact of the proposals on nearby centres which is summarised below.
Rotherham town centre
England & Lyle predict a comparison goods trade diversion from Rotherham town centre of 7%. This would be a significant adverse impact on a centre that is performing poorly at present and shows many signs of weakness. The comparison goods turnover of Rotherham town centre is smaller than that of Parkgate Retail World and is smaller than that of Barnsley and Doncaster town centres. The town centre has already suffered serious harm from the out-of-centre retail park developments that have taken place at Parkgate Retail World and elsewhere in Rotherham, including Cortonwood. The amount of floorspace proposed in the current application would increase the comparison goods floorspace at Cortonwood by more than 9,000 sq.m. gross or almost 40%. It would be a significant increase. The loss of a further £4.6m of turnover from the town centre, at a time when the centre is in decline, would have a significant negative impact on the centre’s already fragile vitality and viability.
Wath upon Dearne
The predicted comparison goods trade diversion from Wath upon Dearne of 3% represents a small loss of turnover of £0.1m. Wath is a small centre with a range of small independent shops. The trade diversion from Wath is simply because it is the centre closest to Cortonwood and the new shops proposed are likely to attract some local residents who currently shop in Wath. However, existing shops are unlikely to be affected to a significant degree and the overall vitality and viability of the centre should be strong enough to withstand greater competition with Cortonwood.
Wombwell
Wombwell is a relatively large centre with a strong representation of comparison goods shops including multiples. The centre has a better than average level of vitality and viability. The predicted comparison goods trading impact is 11% which would in some circumstances be considered to be acceptable. Wombwell does not have a role for bulky goods shopping because of the presence of the Wombwell Lane Retail Park. It is also not anchored by a large supermarket. Therefore it depends mostly on non-bulky comparison goods shopping, selling clothes, jewellery, pharmacy items, furniture, electrical goods, hardware, etc. Although the centre’s vitality and viability is relatively good, it is vulnerable to a large trade diversion in non-bulky comparison shopping. There would be strong competition from new retail units at Cortonwood which would weaken Wombwell’s vitality and viability and that the likely trading impact on Wombwell would be a significant adverse impact.
Goldthorpe
Goldthorpe has a good representation of comparison goods shops but there are no multiples. It has an average level of vitality and viability. The Barnsley Smaller Centres Study shows that the Goldthorpe catchment area has a leakage of 96% of expenditure in comparison goods, predominantly to Barnsley town centre and also to Cortonwood Retail Park. The Study considered that there is little possibility of stemming the leakage in comparison goods because Goldthorpe is not large enough to support a higher level of comparison goods shopping and it is reasonable for shoppers to go to Barnsley town centre for most of their comparison shopping needs. The predicted comparison goods trading impact of 11% on Goldthorpe would weaken a centre that needs to be improved. Although its comparison goods shops are independents, they sell clothes, furniture, household goods, pharmacy goods, etc. and they would face competition from new retail units at Cortonwood. England & Lyle believe the likely trading impact on Goldthorpe would be a significant adverse impact.
Hoyland
Hoyland is a relatively small centre with a limited range of comparison goods shops, selling clothes, pet products, pharmacy items, furniture, hardware, etc. Its vitality and viability is slightly better than average, with a low vacancy rate. The predicted comparison goods trading impact of 5% on Hoyland is lower than in Wombwell and Goldthorpe. It is a level of trade diversion that would not normally be considered to be significant, unless a centre has a low level of vitality and viability. In the case of Hoyland the centre has a localised role and it is sufficiently strong to withstand competition from the proposed development without significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the centre.
Barnsley town centre
The predicted comparison goods trade diversion from Barnsley town centre is 5%. In absolute terms it represents a trade diversion of £16.0m which is much higher than the predicted trade diversion from Rotherham town centre. But this is relative to a larger comparison turnover in Barnsley. Barnsley is a stronger town centre than Rotherham and it should be better able to withstand increased competition from Cortonwood. However, the town centre remains vulnerable to competing retail developments which could hinder the centre’s regeneration when the retail economy is fragile. England & Lyle believe that the vitality and viability of Barnsley town centre would not be significantly affected by the proposed development but there are serious concerns about the effect on investment in the Marketplace scheme which is considered below.
Doncaster town centre
The predicted comparison goods trade diversion from Doncaster town centre of 2% would not represent a significant adverse impact on the centre. Doncaster is a relatively strong town centre, despite the recent increase in vacancies, and the level of impact estimated is unlikely to harm its vitality and viability significantly.
Investment in Centres
The NPPF (paragraph 26) requires an assessment of the impact of a retail proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in centres in the catchment area of the proposal.
The Planning and Retail Assessment states that the development of additional floorspace at Cortonwood will not jeopardise the investment planned for Barnsley town centre. It also comments that the same conclusion can be reached for Rotherham town centre. The report states (paragraph 6.47) that “the role that Cortonwood has and its location can coexist with that of Barnsley and Rotherham”. There are no current plans for new investment in Rotherham town centre and England & Lyle’s advice on the impact on investment in centres is limited to Barnsley.
The £125m Barnsley Marketplace project has full planning approval. The scheme includes:
• a department store to be operated by Debenhams • a 7 screen cinema to be operated by Odeon • 35 retail and leisure units • 800 car parking spaces, and • an extended market hall.
The project will create a new retail core for the town, replacing the existing Metropolitan shopping centre. It will provide large, modern and well configured units, which will primarily attract stores not currently represented in Barnsley, thus providing a significantly better retail offer for the town. The scheme should make a significant difference to the attractiveness of the town centre.
The successful development of the Marketplace scheme is essential to the future vitality and viability of Barnsley town centre. Any new development outside the town centre that could prejudice the implementation of the scheme or delay its construction should be resisted.
It is considered that the proposal for more than an additional 9,000 sq.m. gross floorspace in non-bulky comparison goods at Cortonwood in units of 1,115 sq.m. to 2,320 sq.m. would have a negative effect on the committed and planned public and private investment in Barnsley town centre, contrary to policy in the NPPF. The Cortonwood proposals are intended to attract the type of retailer that would be expected to trade in the Marketplace project. There is unlikely to be sufficient retail demand within the Barnsley catchment area, which includes Cortonwood, to accommodate the same new retailers in both locations. The establishment of these retailers at Cortonwood prior to the completion of the Marketplace scheme would seriously prejudice the successful implementation of the scheme.
In line with the NPPF paragraph 27 it is necessary to make a judgement about whether the levels of impact arising from the proposed development would represent a “significant adverse impact” that would justify refusal of the planning application.
The Planning and Retail Assessment (paragraph 6.48) states that: “The trade that will support the proposed floorspace will be diverted predominantly from existing out-of-centre retail parks and shopping centres. There will be only a small amount of trade diversion from the town centres of Barnsley and Rotherham. Similarly diversion from the district and town centres will be small. This is on the basis of the differing role and function of these centres when compared with that of a retail park.”
The Council considers, however that although there would be trade diversion from the out-of centre Parkgate Retail World and Meadowhall, and from existing stores at Cortonwood, more than half of the predicted trade diversion would be from the town centres of Rotherham and Barnsley, with further smaller trade diversions from Doncaster town centre and Sheffield city centre. The trading impact on Rotherham town centre would be significant because the town centre has a poor level of vitality and viability and is vulnerable to further decline if it loses the amount of turnover that is predicted from existing shops.
The trade diversions from Wombwell and Goldthorpe are relatively small in absolute terms but they would be likely to also have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of these smaller centres. The trading impact on Barnsley town centre would not significantly harm the overall vitality and viability of the town centre but it is likely to have a significant negative effect on planned investment in the Barnsley Marketplace scheme which is essential to the future vitality and viability of the town centre.
Additional information received from applicant
As set out above, the agent has submitted additional information on retail matters in response to issues raised by England and Lyle during the assessment of the original application and its supporting information.
The additional retail information concludes that:
• The catchment area has been adjusted to extend northwards and to the west for the purpose of carrying out a sensitivity test. The additional areas do not extend to include the Barnsley Urban Area and Barnsley Town Centre. There is no evidence to support the view that Rotherham Town Centre should be included within the Cortonwood catchment area.
• The sequential assessment carried out complies with the requirements of the NPPF and there are no sites available or viable to accommodate the proposed development allowing for an appropriate level of flexibility within the catchment area.
• An analysis has been carried out which considers the implications of including additional areas within the catchment area but there is no evidence to support the notion that the trade draw of the proposal will be the same as that for the existing retail park. It gives no consideration to the reason for jouneys to Cortonwood or the character of the floorpsace proposed. No evidence is presented to suggest that the assumptions contained within the applicant’s Planning and Retail Assessment are not realistic.
• Impact on Rotherham Town Centre, Goldthorpe, Wombwell and Wath upon Dearne has been considered in the context of the information provided in terms of the vitality and viability of these centres. The extent to which trade will be diverted from the above centres will not result in a significant adverse impact to the vitality and viability of those centres.
• No evidence is presented which supports the view that there is unlikely to be sufficient retail demand for the Cortonwood proposal and the Barnsley Marketplace sceme. Consideration of this scheme and indeed expenditure growth confirms that there is capacity for both and in any event, a significant majority of the units at the Marketplace scheme will be occupied by retails that would not operate from a retail park.
• The tests set out in the NPPF are met.
Highways Issues
RS Policies T1 states that:
“The Region will aim to reduce travel demand, traffic growth and congestion, shift to modes with lower environmental impacts, and improve journey time reliability. This will require a range of complementary measures from land-use and transport policies through to measures that discourage inappropriate car use, encourage the use of lower- emission vehicles, reduce energy consumption, secure air quality improvement, improve public transport and accessibility by non-car modes, and promote the highest standards of safety and personal security.
RS Policy T2 refers more specifically to parking and states that:
“The use of maximum parking standards for new developments in line with, or more restrictive than, Table 13.5. The maximum standards for the Regional Cities and Sub Regional Cities and Towns are for all parts of those urban areas but in some parts, including the city and town centres, significantly more restrictive standards than set out in Table 13.5 should be applied.”
Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that:
“All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions 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 development are severe.”
UDP Policy T6 refers to the location and layout of development and requires regard to be had to:
“(i) land-uses are consolidated within existing commercial centres and settlement patterns which are already well served by transport infrastructure, (ii) major trip generating land-uses, such as major employment, leisure, retail and high density residential developments, are located in close proximity to public transport interchanges and service corridors, (iii) the development of sites which cause unacceptable traffic congestion on motorways, and local approach roads and trunk roads is avoided, (iv) development patterns, where appropriate, provide opportunities for living close to places of work, and (v) a range of services and facilities are available in villages and local centres with safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities.
In addition, the detailed layout of development should have regard to accessibility by private car, public transport, service vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists and people with disabilities.”
Whilst the site is located within Rotherham Metropolitan Borough the highway network which serves it is entirely within the Barnsley Metropolitan District and Barnsley MBC is the relevant Highway Authority. The site is located off the A6195, a strategic and key route within the borough.
As Highway Authority, Barnsley MBC are already aware of some issues with the route, in particular Cortonwood, Broomhill and Cathill roundabouts where there is extensive queuing at peak times, and in the case of Broomhill and Cathill are operating at or over capacity.
There were some areas of concern within the submitted information and it was originally considered that insufficient information has been submitted to enable a detailed assessment of the potential impact on the highway network, whether there are any mitigation measures which would ameliorate the impact of the development, or whether the development would result in a “residual cumulative impact” which would be classed as “severe” as set out by the NPPF. However a supplementary Transport Assessment has now been received in support of the application. This document assesses the impact of the proposed development on the Cortonwood, Broomhill and Cathill roundabouts as requested by Barnsley MBC. The findings of the revised TA are that the volume of traffic likely to be generated by the proposed development has been assessed and the operation of Broomhill and Cathill roundabouts has been analysed. The TA concludes that the junctions remain within capacity during the peak times and the traffic generated by the proposed non food retail development does not materially affect the junction operation.
Recent discussions with Barnsley MBC have indicated that there are still concerns regarding the capacity of junctions near to the retail park but Barnsley are still assessing the additional information received.
In terms of accessibility, pedestrian access to the site from the local area is restricted to informal paths, many of which are steep in gradient. The layout of the business park is such that it encourages car trips between outlets. Indeed, the proposed layout precludes pedestrian linkage to the adjacent retail development. Pedestrian accessibility is therefore considered to be minimal rather than “adequate” as stated in the Transport Assessment.
Whilst public transport information has been submitted, the adequacy of the assessment is questioned as two of the three services only operate ever hour, and none of the services operate in the evening or on a Sunday. The other services referred to are on Knollbeck Lane, some 600m away and rely on a link being created by a separate residential development which showed a link from Cortonwood Drive to Knollbeck Lane which has now lapsed. It should also be noted that there are towns within the retail catchment area, for example Goldthorpe, which do not have the benefit of a service to the business park.
The Trans Pennine Trail (TPT) crosses the site access road close to its junction with the Cortonwood roundabout. Pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians all currently experience difficulties crossing at this point at peak times due to the speed and volume of vehicles entering and exiting the business park and queuing vehicles. An alternative siting of the TPT close to Cortonwood roundabout has been suggested by Trans Pennine Trail Officers and the applicant has now offered a commuted sum of £30,000 towards the relocation of the TPT and a new crossing on Wath Road.
In terms of the layout of the car park, the proposed number of car parking spaces accords with the Council’s car parking standards although no mention of cycle parking is made. However, the car park does not connect to the existing car park adjacent and the proposed traffic barriers would, if in operation during trading hours, result in further queuing.
Design and Visual Amenity
Paragraphs 56 and 57of the NPPF state that:
“The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people... It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.”
In addition Policy ENV3.1 of the UDP requires development to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design.
The application site lies within an area which immediately consists of a number of large industrial buildings to the north and with the exception of the Post Office building to the south of the site, these buildings have a typically utilitarian appearance. To the south is the Cortonwood Retail Park; these units are large structures of modern appearance with large shop fronts at a low level and cladding to the upper structure of the building. The units are characterised by large signage structures which tend to have a consistent appearance.
The proposed units are very similar in style and scale to those on the adjacent retail park with large shop fronts with cladding on the upper part of the building and large signage displays. Whilst the site is currently occupied by a large industrial building, it is abutted by the modern retail buildings. The proposed development is considered to represent an appropriate scale of building and design which would sit in an acceptable manner with the surrounding built form. It is therefore considered that the scale and design of the proposed development accords with the NPPF and UDP Policy ENV3.1.
Conclusion
In conclusion, in terms of the principle of the development the Council do not consider that the site has no future employment prospects over the longer term, and it is clear that the immediate prospects of the site’s re-use have not been tested through marketing, however it is not considered that a refusal could be made based on the loss of employment land in this instance as there is an adequate supply of land within the Borough. Furthermore, UDP Policy EC3.3 is not a justification for allowing large-scale retail development on land allocated for employment uses. The application site, as part of Cortonwood Business Park, is allocated for employment use, not retail use. If any retail use is to be acceptable on this site, it would have to be restricted to bulky goods retailing but the current application is for non-bulky goods retail warehousing.
Turning to retail matters, and firstly to the sequential test which is required by paragraph 24 of the NPPF. It is not considered that all more central opportunities have been identified and considered because the assessment has not adopted a sufficiently flexible approach. It is further considered that the reasons for not following the advice in the Practice Guidance on disaggregation have not been fully justified.
Secondly, paragraph 26 of the NPPF requires an assessment of the impact of proposed out of centre development on both existing planned and committed investment and also on the town centre vitality and viability.
The Council considers that although there would be trade diversion from the out-of centre Parkgate Retail World and Meadowhall, and from existing stores at Cortonwood, more than half of the predicted trade diversion would be from the town centres of Rotherham and Barnsley, with further smaller trade diversions from Doncaster town centre and Sheffield city centre. The trading impact on Rotherham town centre would be significant because the town centre has a poor level of vitality and viability and is vulnerable to further decline if it loses the amount of turnover that is predicted from existing shops.
The trade diversions from Wombwell and Goldthorpe are relatively small in absolute terms but they would be likely to also have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of these smaller centres. The trading impact on Barnsley town centre would not significantly harm the overall vitality and viability of the town centre but it is likely to have a significant negative effect on planned investment in the Barnsley Marketplace scheme which is essential to the future vitality and viability of the town centre.
The NPPF is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Paragraph 27 of the NPPF states that “where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused”. In this instance the decision should clearly be based on the balance of positive benefits of future employment on the application site against the negative impacts that are considered to arise from allowing out-of-centre retail development of the scale proposed in this application. It is considered that the negative impacts upon both Rotherham and Barnsley do outweigh any positive benefits arising in terms of employment.
Reasons for Refusal
01 The proposed development would be located on an out of centre site as defined by the NPPF. The Council considers that the submitted sequential assessment fails to adequately assess all available sequentially preferable sites in Rotherham and Barnsley town centres and is therefore contrary to NPPF paragraphs 24 and 27.
02 The Council considers that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centres within the catchment area including Rotherham, Wombwell and Goldthorpe and would also have a negative impact on the planned investment in Barnsley town centre contrary to paragraph 27 of the NPPF.
Application Number RB2012/1617 Proposal and Demolition of boundary wall and formation of new means of Location access to replace existing and rebuild boundary wall at existing access, at Mayfield Cottage 61 Worksop Road Aston, S62 2EB
Recommendation Grant subject to conditions
Site Description & Location
The site of application is a large detached house in the heart of Aston Conservation Area. The curtilage is defined by a 2m high stone wall at the front of the site located at the back edge of the highway footpath. The property shares a vehicular access point with the adjacent property, No 63, at the eastern end of the site frontage with Worksop Road. Adjacent to the site is a residential property (The Grange) which is a Grade II Listed Building.
Background
RB2000/0269 Replacement of flat roof with pitched roof and reconstruction of boundary wall. Granted Conditionally.
RB2000/0439 Conservation Area Consent for reconstruction of front garden wall back from edge of footpath to increase visibility of oncoming traffic. Granted.
RB2005/0738 Detached Garage. Refused.
The proposals are also the subject of a current related application for Conservation Area consent (RB2012/1637) also on this agenda.
Proposal
The original proposals were insufficient to determine the application and additional details were requested including elevational details of the wall as proposed and the submission of a Heritage Statement.
The application is for the stopping up of the vehicular access to number 61, replacing it with a pedestrian access, and the creation of a new vehicular access at the western end of the site frontage. The original submission indicated a 3m wide access point, with pillars either side, at the back edge of the highway footpath. The amended proposals show that new access would require the demolition of approximately 5 m of the existing wall, with the gates set back 5m from the road channel level. The gates would be 3m with splays either side to afford some intervisibilty between pedestrians and vehicular traffic leaving the site.
The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement and a Heritage Statement.
The Design and Access Statement: Indicates that the existing access is located on a blind bend and is extremely dangerous. The relocated access would incorporate the existing wrought Iron gates and the existing stone would be re-used to be sympathetic to the existing character of the area.
Heritage Statement: Is very similar to the Design and Access Statement, and indicates that the proposals would re-use existing gates and materials to reflect the character of the existing wall.
Development Plan Allocation and Policy
The site is allocated for residential purposes and within the Aston Conservation Area on the Unitary Development Plan.
ENV 2.8 Settings and Curtilages of listed Buildings. ENV2.11: Development in Conservation Areas ENV3.1 Development and the Environment
Other Material Considerations
National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27 th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “D evelopment that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision.
The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”
The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF and have been given due weight in the determination of this application.
Supplementary Planning Guidance - Environment Guidance 3: Development in Conservation Areas.
Publicity
The application was advertised on site and in the press, as affecting the character of the Conservation Area and affecting the setting of the nearby listed building and adjoining were residents notified. Residents and objectors were re-consulted once the additional information and amended plans were submitted and the application was re-publicised.
Six letters of objection were received in relation to the original submission, including one from the Aston Parish Council and one from Parish Councillor Mrs H Jacks.
Points raised by residents are: - Proposals are for a more dangerous access. - Appropriate materials and mortar should be used. - Would change appearance of Conservation Area. - Set a precedent.
Aston Parish Council: - Demolition of ancient wall. - Detriment to street scene and character of Conservation Area. -No improvement to road safety.
Parish Councillor Mrs H Jacks: - Change character of Conservation Area and destroy some of the heritage of the village. - Walls are vernacular to the village and should be retained. - Walls are part of local history. Any alteration would be detrimental and a retrograde step.
With regard to the re-consultation following the submission of the additional information, at the time of writing this report, one additional letter had been received from one of the original objectors. Points raised were: -No improvement to the Conservation Area. -No improvement to visibility.
Consultations
Streetpride (Transportation and Highways): Indicates, that whilst the new proposed access does not fully accord with current visibility standards, it is of superior standard to the existing access, which is to be closed. On this basis, the proposed access indicated on the submitted site plan can be supported in road safety terms since it will have significantly improved visibility in the direction of nearside approaching traffic. Visibility in the opposite direction i.e. to the east, will be substandard if measured to the nearside kerbline but vehicles approaching from that direction should be on the far side of Worksop Road. Vehicular turning facilities are available within the site.
In view of the above, the application can be supported in road safety terms subject to the proposed access being constructed as indicated on the submitted “site plan”, and the existing vehicular access being permanently closed to vehicles.
Appraisal
Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to -
(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90.
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 - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004.
The existing property shares an access point with an adjacent house (No. 63) fronting Worksop Road in Aston Conservation Area. The two existing accesses are severely sub-standard in terms of visibility. The proposals seek to replace the existing vehicular access to number 61 with a pedestrian access, and create a new vehicular access at the western end of the site frontage.
The main considerations are therefore:
1. The effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 2. The effect on the setting of the adjacent listed building. 3. The effect on highway safety.
1. The effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Policy ENV2.11: Development in Conservation Areas states that development must have regard for the historic and visual amenities of Conservation Areas and that the Council will not permit development including demolition which would adversely affect their architectural or historic character or visual amenity, except that very limited exceptions to this policy may be accepted when compelling justification exists.
ENV3.1 Development and the Environment, states that development will be required to have a positive effect on the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design.
Supplementary Planning Guidance Environment Guidance 3: Development in Conservation Areas. Garden walls can form an integral part of the Conservation Area’s character. Repair and rebuilding of these walls should be sympathetic, in a matching material and in a suitable mortar.
The NPPF notes at paragraph 56 that: “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.” Paragraph 64 adds that: Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.”
Paragraph 132 of the NPPF adds that: “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.” It is considered that the proposed changes would be acceptable, and sympathetic to the character and appearance of the Conservation area, in terms of the materials and coursing of the wall and the type of gates to be installed. In respect of the proposed demolition, the wall is prominent and forms part of the character of the Conservation Area. However, the new sections of wall will reflect the height colour coursing and texture of the existing albeit in a different configuration, and would not therefore have an adverse impact on the character of the Conservation Area. Consequently, subject to the safeguard of appropriate conditions, it is considered that the proposals would be in accordance with Policies ENV2.11 Development in Conservation Areas, ENV3.1 Development and the Environment, Supplementary Planning Guidance Environment Guidance 3: Development in Conservation Areas, of the Unitary Development Plan and advice in Paragraph 56, 64 and 132 of the NPPF.
2. The effect on the setting of the adjacent listed building. Policy ENV 2.8 Settings and Curtilages of Listed Buildings states that the Council will resist development proposals which detrimentally affect the setting of a listed building or are harmful to its curtilage structures in order to preserve its setting and historical context.
Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states: In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of amongst other things: ● the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
The adjacent listed building known as The Grange, is a substantial Grade II listed building, set back from the highway and surrounded by a 2m high Ashlar stone wall. The application site is bounded by a natural stone wall of a similar height and appearance, and abuts the wall to The Grange. The proposals would demolish part of the wall immediately adjacent The Grange and provide a new vehicular access comprising 3.m wide gates, set back 5.0m from the highway, and splayed either side to the back edge of footpath. The gates would be wrought iron, removed from the existing vehicular access, which are attractive and appropriate to the Conservation Area. The walling with be re-used materials from the existing wall, coursed to match the original. The new pedestrian access would have a wrought iron gate to match the existing one.
The proposed changes would affect the setting of a listed building. However, given the existing position of the building, set back approximately 13m and behind a 2m high wall, and the appropriate nature of the changes in terms of the materials and coursing of the proposed wall, and the quality of the gates to be used, it is not considered that there would be any detriment to the setting of the listed building or harm to its curtilage structures. It is therefore considered that the proposals would be in accordance with Policy ENV2.8 Settings and Curtilages of Listed Buildings, of the Unitary Development Plan and advice in Paragraphs 131 of the NPPF.
3. The effect on highway safety. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF amongst other things states that plans and decisions should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people. The application site has an existing vehicular access, with severely restricted visibility on a heavily trafficked highway. The proposals would, by way of their configuration and location, provide a new vehicular access with significantly improved visibility, to the material benefit of highway safety. The Transportation Unit concurs with this view.
Conclusion
The demolition of a small section of the existing wall, in conjunction with the proposals would, by way of their configuration, location, materials and coursing of the wall and the type of gates to be used, have a positive effect on highway safety and have minimal adverse effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or the setting of the nearby Listed Building. The proposals are therefore in accordance with Policies ENV2.8 Curtilages and Settings of Listed Buildings, ENV2.11 Development in Conservation Areas, ENV3.1 Development and the Environment, Supplementary Planning Guidance Environment Guidance 3: Development in Conservation Areas, of the Unitary Development Plan and advice in the NPPF.
Conditions 01 The works to which this consent relates shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.
Reason In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
02 The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications as shown on the approved plans (as set out below) except as shall be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Plan titled Amended Layout Details)(received 22-01-2013)
Reason To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt.
03 The existing stone shall where practicable be used in the construction of the new element of the wall hereby and samples of any additional material shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Policies ENV2.11 Development in Conservation Areas, ENV3.1 Development and the Environment, Supplementary Planning Guidance Environment Guidance 3: Development in Conservation Areas, of the Unitary Development Plan and advice in the NPPF.
04 When the proposed access has been brought into use, the existing vehicular access at the western end of the site frontage on the approved plan shall be permanently closed and the footpath reinstated in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason In the interests of road safety.
Application Number RB2012/1637 Proposal and Conservation Area Consent for demolition of part of boundary Location wall to front at Mayfield Cottage 61 Worksop Road Aston, S62 2EB.
Recommendation Grant subject to conditions
Site Description & Location
The site of application is a large detached house in the heart of Aston Conservation Area. The curtilage is defined by a 2m high stone wall at the front of the site at the back edge of the highway footpath. The property shares a vehicular access point with the adjacent property, No 63, at the eastern end of the site frontage with Worksop Road. Adjacent to the site is a residential property (The Grange) which is a Grade II Listed Building.
Background
RB2000/0269 Replacement of flat roof with pitched roof and reconstruction of boundary wall. Granted Conditionally.
RB2000/0439 Conservation Area Consent for reconstruction of front garden wall back from edge of footpath to increase visibility of oncoming traffic. Granted.
RB2005/0738 Detached Garage. Refused.
The proposals are also the subject of a current related application for planning permission (RB2012/1617) also on this agenda.
Proposal
The original proposals were insufficient to determine the application and additional details were requested, including elevational details of the wall as proposed and the submission of a Heritage Statement.
The application is for the stopping up of the vehicular access to number 61, replacing it with a pedestrian access, and the creation of a new vehicular access at the western end of the site frontage. The original submission indicated a 3m wide access point, with pillars either side, at the back edge of the highway footpath. The amended proposals show that new access would require the demolition of approximately 5 m of the existing wall, with the gates set back 5m from the road channel level. The gates would be 3m with splays either side to afford some intervisibilty between pedestrians and vehicular traffic leaving the site.
The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement and a Heritage Statement.
Design and Access Statement: Indicates that the existing access is located on a blind bend and is extremely dangerous. The new access would incorporate the existing wrought Iron gates and the existing stone would be re-used to be sympathetic to the existing character of the area.
Heritage Statement: Is very similar to the Design and Access Statement, and indicates that the proposals would re-use existing gates and materials to reflect the character of the existing wall. No comments are made relating to the demolition.
Development Plan Allocation and Policy
The site is allocated for residential purposes and within the Aston Conservation Area on the Unitary Development Plan.
ENV 2.8 Settings and Curtilages of listed Buildings. ENV2.11: Development in Conservation Areas ENV3.1 Development and the Environment
Other Material Considerations
National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27 th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “D evelopment that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision.
The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”
The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF and have been given due weight in the determination of this application.
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Environment Guidance 3: Development in Conservation Areas.
Publicity
The application was advertised on site and in the press, as affecting the character of the Conservation Area and affecting the setting of the nearby listed building and adjoining were residents notified. Residents and objectors were re-consulted once the additional information was submitted and the application was re-publicised.
Six letters of objection were received in relation to the original submission, including one from the Aston Parish Council and one from Parish Councillor Mrs H Jacks.
Points raised by residents are: - Proposals are for a more dangerous access. - Appropriate materials and mortar should be used. - Would change appearance of Conservation Area. - Set a precedent.
Aston Parish Council: - Demolition of ancient wall. - Detriment to street scene and character of Conservation Area. -No improvement to road safety.
Parish Councillor Mrs H Jacks: - Change character of Conservation Area and destroy some of the heritage of the village. - Walls are vernacular to the village and should be retained. - Walls are part of local history. Any alteration would be detrimental and a retrograde step.
With regard to the re-consultation following the submission of the additional information/amended plans, at the time of writing this report, one additional ;letter of objection had been received. Points raised were: -No improvement to the Conservation Area. -No improvement to visibility.
Consultations
No relevant comments received.
Appraisal
Where an application is made to a Local Planning Authority for Conservation Area Consent …..In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to -
(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any other material considerations. - S. 74 TCP (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
The existing property shares an access point with an adjacent house (No. 63) fronting Worksop Road in Aston Conservation Area. The two existing accesses are severely sub-standard in terms of visibility. The proposals seek to replace the existing vehicular access to number 61 with a pedestrian access, and create a new vehicular access at the western end of the site frontage. This application relates to the requirement for Conservation Area consent for the demolition of a section of wall.
The main considerations are therefore:
4. The effect of the demolition on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 5. The effect of the demolition on the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed building.
1. The effect of the demolition on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Policy ENV2.11: Development in Conservation Areas, states that development must have regard for the historic and visual amenities of Conservation Areas and that the Council will not permit development including demolition which would adversely affect their architectural or historic character or visual amenity, except that very limited exceptions to this policy may be accepted when compelling justification exists.
Supplementary Planning Guidance - Environment Guidance 3: Development in Conservation Areas, states that garden walls can form an integral part of the Conservation Area’s character. Repair and rebuilding of these walls should be sympathetic, in a matching material and in a suitable mortar. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states: “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.“
It is considered that in respect of the proposed demolition, the wall is prominent and forms part of the character of the Conservation Area. However, the new sections of wall will reflect the height colour coursing and texture of the existing albeit in a different configuration, and it is not considered that it would have a significant adverse impact on the character of the Conservation Area. Any impact would be outweighed by the benefits associated with the improved access arrangement for the property.
Consequently, subject to the safeguard of appropriate conditions, it is considered that the proposals would be in accordance with Policies ENV2.11 Development in Conservation Areas, , Supplementary Planning Guidance Environment Guidance 3: Development in Conservation Areas, of the Unitary Development Plan and advice in Paragraph 132 of the NPPF.
2. The effect on the setting of the adjacent listed building. Policy ENV 2.8 Settings and Curtilages of Listed Buildings states that the Council will resist development proposals which detrimentally affect the setting of a listed building or are harmful to its curtilage structures in order to preserve its setting and historical context.
Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states: In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of amongst other things: ● the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
The adjacent listed building known as The Grange, is a substantial Grade II listed building, set back from the highway and surrounded by a 2m high Ashlar stone wall. The application site is bounded by a natural stone wall of a similar height and appearance, and abuts the wall to The Grange. The proposals would demolish part of the wall immediately adjacent The Grange and provide a new vehicular access comprising 3.m wide gates, set back 5.0m from the highway, and splayed either side to the back edge of footpath. The gates would be wrought iron, removed from the existing vehicular access, which are attractive and appropriate to the Conservation Area. The walling with be re-used materials from the existing wall, coursed to match the original. The new pedestrian access would have a wrought iron gate to match the existing one.
The proposed changes would affect the setting of a listed building. However, given the existing position of the building, set back approximately 13m and behind a 2m high wall, and the appropriate nature of the changes in terms of the materials and coursing of the proposed wall, and the quality of the gates to be used, it is not considered that there would be any detriment to the setting of the listed building or harm to its curtilage structures. It is therefore considered that the proposals would be in accordance with Policy ENV2.8 Settings and Curtilages of Listed Buildings, of the Unitary Development Plan and advice in Paragraph 131 of the NPPF.
Conclusion
The demolition of a section of the existing wall, in conjunction with the proposals would, by way of their configuration, location, materials and coursing of the wall and the type of gates to be used, have no adverse effect on the character of the Conservation Area or the setting of the nearby Listed Building, in accordance with Policies ENV 2.8 Settings and Curtilages of Listed Buildings, ENV2.11 Development in Conservation Areas, Supplementary Planning Guidance Environment Guidance 3: Development in Conservation Areas, of the Unitary Development Plan and advice in the NPPF. Any impact would be outweighed by the benefits associated with the improved access arrangement for the property.
Conditions 01 The works to which this consent relates shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.
Reason In order to comply with the requirements of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
2. The demolition of the wall shall not take place before a contract for carrying out works on the rebuilding of the wall and access gates, as approved by planning permission RB2012/1617, has been made and the Local Planning Authority has been informed in writing.
Reason To preserve the character and appearance of the Aston Conservation Area, in accordance with Policy ENV 2.11 Development in Conservation Areas of the Unitary Development Plan and advice in Paragraph 132 of the NPPF.
3. The consent hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the demolition shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications as shown on the approved plans (as set out below) except as shall be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Plan titled Amended Layout Details)(received 22-01-2013)
Reason To define the consent and for the avoidance of doubt.
Application Number RB2012/ 1676 Proposal and Change of use to hot food takeaway (use class A5), 9 High Location Street, Swallownest, S26 4TT
Recommendation Refuse
Site Description & Location
The site of application is 9 High Street Swallownest, an existing A2 unit previously used as a photography studio and before then the Hallifax Bank. The unit has two off street parking spaces to the front as well as parking to a rear courtyard shared by a number of properties. To the first floor of the property is an office associated with the unit.
To the east of the unit is a vacant residential site with full planning permission for 11 flats (RB2011/1166). To the west are two residential terrace houses followed by a beauty studio, all the properties share a rear courtyard accessed off the High Street.
Background
RH1971/6914 - Construction of a vehicular access – Granted
RB1977/3078 - Use of shop as accountants office – GRANTED
RB1989/0215 - Extension to provide staffroom & toilets accommodation - GRANTED
Proposal
The applicant is seeking planning permission for the change of use of the building from a financial and professional services business (use class A2) to a hot food takeaway (use class A5). The first floor is an office associated with the original A2 use, the applicant has indicated that they intend to use the area as a store room.
The applicant has stated that the intended opening hours are: 17:00 – 24:00 hrs all week including bank holidays. Following discussions with Officers the applicant has agreed to reduce the hours of operation to 17:00 - 23:00hrs.
Development Plan Allocation and Policy
The application site is allocated for Retail Use (Town Centre) within the adopted Rotherham Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The application has been assessed against the following policies:
ENV3.7 Control of Pollution RET6 Local Shopping Provision
Other Material Considerations
National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27 th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “D evelopment that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision.
The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”
The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF and have been given due weight in the determination of this application. .
Publicity
Adjacent neighbouring properties have been notified in writing and a site notice has been posted outside the premises. Six representations have been received objecting to the application on the following grounds:
• Create additional traffic • Lack of parking • Encourage rubbish/litter which will increase and attract flies & vermin • Result in smell, traffic noise and general disturbance • Other hot takeaways in the area and no more are needed
Three objectors have requested the Right to Speak at the meeting.
Consultations
Streetpride (Transportation & Highways): Notes that the premises are located within the village centre with good access to public transport facilities. Whilst on-street car parking facilities are available within the surrounding highways, the highway immediately fronting the site is subject to waiting restrictions. This being the case and bearing in mind the existing use (building society) the Transportation Unit are of the opinion that a refusal of planning permission on highway grounds could not be justified in this instance.
Neighbourhood & Adult Services (Environmental Health): Notes that the area in general is mixed residential/commercial in nature. However there are residential properties in close proximity to the site and some commercial but they only open during the day. The closest late night commercial is the Swallownest Fish Bar which opens until 11pm on a Friday. Approximately 100 metres to the left of the above premises is an already existing Peji’s 2 takeaway which opens late seven days a week. To the right of the premises approximately 100 metres away is the Oak Inn public house which tends to be used by youths/young patrons who are likely to use the above premises late on.
Environmental Health further note that the area has a reputation for youths congregating outside such commercial premises and causing noise and anti social behaviour problems for the Local Safer Neighbourhood Team. There is potential for noise and anti social behaviour disamenity to neighbouring properties if the premises were to open till midnight seven days a week. In the light of the above, Environmental Health recommend that if planning permission is granted in relation to this application, the premises should only be open to customers between the hours of 17:00-23:00 hrs Mondays to Sundays.
Appraisal
Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to -
(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90.
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 - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004.
The application proposes a change of use from a office use (A2) to a hot food take away (Use Class A5). The main considerations in the determination of this application are:
• Principle of development • Neighbouring residential amenity • Highway safety
Principle of development
The application site lies within the Retail (Town Centre) of Swallownest in a stretch of dwellings and commercial units. UDP Policy RET6 Local Shopping Provision seeks to retain existing local retail shops serving local communities and opposes changes from retail use to other uses unless it can be demonstrated that the retail use is no longer viable.
Paragraph 23 of the NPPF states that Local Authorities should: ‘promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer and which reflect the individuality of town centres.’ Paragraph 70 adds that planning decisions should guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day to day needs.
In this instance the premises are not used for A1 retail purposes (being an A2 use) and the previous use (photography studio) served a wide location rather than the immediate community. As such the change of use to an A5 unit in this retail allocation is considered acceptable and it is not considered necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that the A2 use is no longer viable. Therefore the proposal is not in conflict with UDP Policy RET 6 or guidance contained within the NPPF.
Neighbouring residential amenity
The application proposes to the change the use of the property to a hot food takeaway opening until 11pm in the evening Monday to Sunday. Policy ENV3.7 ’Control of Pollution’ states that: “The Council, in consultation with other appropriate agencies, will seek to minimise the adverse effects of nuisance, disturbance and pollution associated with development and transport.” In addition the NPPF notes at paragraph 123 that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development, they should mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.
The application site lies within the Retail (Town Centre) of Swallownest though the surrounding area is predominately residential in nature given the adjoining terrace houses and the flats granted (though not built) on the adjacent land. It is separating from the main shopping area where there are few other late night opening businesses, such as other take-aways or pubs. Whilst an A2 use of the property might provide limited evening trade, and the applicant has agreed to reduce his opening hours until 11pm, it is considered that a hot food takeaway has the potential to attract a large degree of trade late into the evenings. In addition with parking to the front, albeit limited, there will be activity immediately adjacent to the adjoining terrace house which could harm the amenity of the occupiers therein late at night. Environmental Health have confirmed that many takeaways in the area have problems with youths hanging around late at night, which has been raised by a number of objectors. Whilst Environmental Health indicate that the use until 11pm would be acceptable, (subject to additional conditions relating to a litter bin and flue details), it is considered that due to the proximity of adjoining dwellings the proposed takeaway use late in the evening would lead to significant harm to neighbouring amenity. It is not considered that such amenity harm can be resolved through a condition.
It is therefore considered that this activity in this location will harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents by way of noise and general disturbance in the evenings. As such the proposal is contrary to UDP Policy 3.7 Control of Pollution and paragraph 123 of the NPPF.
Highway safety
The Council’s Transportation Unit have assessed the proposal and consider that parking demand for a hot food take away is not dissimilar to previous uses and the site lies within a sustainable location with good pedestrian and public transport links. With the above in mind it is considered that a reason for refusal on highway grounds could not be justified in this instance.
Conclusion
In conclusion taking of all of the above into account it is considered that the proposed change of use if implemented would result in noise and general disturbance to occupiers of nearby residential properties contrary to UDP Policy ENV3.7 and the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF. Therefore it is recommended that the application be refused.
Reason for Refusal
01 The Council considers that the proposed change of use would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential properties by virtue of increased noise and general disturbance in the evenings. As such the proposal is contrary to the guidance set out in Paragraph 123 of the NPPF and Unitary Development Plan Policy ENV3.7 Control of Pollution.
POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT
Whilst the applicant entered into pre application discussions with the Local Planning Authority these identified that it is not possible to support a scheme of this nature nor would any amendments make it acceptable. The application was submitted on the basis of these discussions and it was not considered to be in accordance with the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework resulting in this refusal.