Committee and date Item / Paper
South Planning Committee
7 9th June 2011 Public
Development Management Report
Application Number: 10/05316/FUL Parish: Bridgnorth Town Council
Grid Ref: 372972 - 292291
Proposal: Erection of one A1 retail (food) store with warehousing and delivery stores; associated parking, service arrangements and landscaping
Site Address: Chartwell Business Park Stourbridge Road Bridgnorth Shropshire
Applicant:
Case Officer: Richard Fortune email: [email protected]
1.0 THE PROPOSAL 1.1 The proposed food store would have a retail area of some 1286 square metres, with a total floor area footprint, including warehouse and delivery store area, of some 1666 square metres. The main body of the shallow dual pitched roof building would have a rectangular floor plan approximately 54.6 metres long by 29.5 metres wide and some 7.3 metres to the ridge (5.5 metres to the deep projecting eaves). Off the southeast facing side elevation would be a loading/delivery bay projection, some 6 metres by 8 metres, which would have a monopitch roof formed by a continuation of the main building roof. Wrapping around the north eastern corner of the building would be shallow pitched roof canopy, covering the main entrance doors and trolley park. The corner of the building where the canopy would be attached would feature a 5 metre long full height section of curtain wall glazing, which would extend for some 6.5 metres onto the north east elevation. A glazed entrance and exit area, some 3 metres by 5 metres, would be formed under the canopy.
1.2 The south west elevation would feature two small staff room windows and two pedestrian sized doors. There would be three glazed panels each about 4.9 metres wide by 2.4 metres wide in the north west elevation to supplement the full height entrance glazing. The north east elevation would contain, in addition to the area of full height glazing, a single pedestrian door in the main body of the building. The north east elevation of the loading/delivery bay would have a tall door opening and a pedestrian door. The external wall finishes would comprise of facing brickwork with contrasting feature banding to the lower wall areas. The upper wall areas would be of composite cladding panels, with the main roof area canopy being
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
of composite roof cladding panels. Indicative areas for signage are shown on the north east and north west elevations on the upper wall cladding areas in the vicinity of the public entrance to the store building.
1.3 The store building would be positional some 12 metres from the south western site boundary with a planting buffer shown on the slope down to the adjacent rock salt store building. Along the south eastern side of the site the delivery vehicle access would run parallel to adjacent serviced industrial land and would include a turning head/access. Car parking for 113 cars (including 4 disabled spaces) would be provided on the north eastern and north western side of the building. There would also be a cycle shelter provided. An existing vehicular access at the northern end of the site, connecting onto the existing estate road, would be used by the proposed store and shared with a retail warehouse unit (yet to be built). An area of landscaping is shown between the car park and access road, and between the car parks and the deliver area.
1.4 Following discussions and correspondence, the application has been amended to include a pedestrian crossing on Stourbridge Road to the west of the main access into Chartwell Business Park.
1.5 Much of the site for the proposed food store was included within planning application 08/0895 for the erection of four warehouse/retail units with associated parking, service arrangements and landscaping at Chartwell Park, Stourbridge Road, Bridgnorth. That application was granted planning permission as a departure at the 2nd February 2010 Committee meeting. The current proposal would replace two of these warehouse/retail units.
1.6 The current application has been submitted with the following technical reports:- • Planning and Retail Statement (incorporating Design & Access Statement) • Transport Assessment • Flood Risk Assessment
1.7 Elsewhere on this agenda is a report on application 10/04080/FUL for a class A1 retail food store, associated parking and landscaping at the former Bridgnorth College site, Stourbridge Road, Bridgnorth.
2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site comprises of some 0.96 hectares of currently vacant former industrial land adjoining Stourbridge Road. It forms part of a larger (5.19 ha) site allocated for industrial and business uses (classes B1, B2 and B8) in the Bridgnorth District Local Plan (BRID2).
2.2 The consent for retail/warehouse development described in paragraph 1.5 above has yet to be implemented and currently vacant plots adjoin the site within Chartwell Park. The junction onto Stourbridge Road was constructed as part of an early 1990’s permission. The existing estate road along the north eastern site boundary formed part of a February 2008 planning permission which also included works for plateauing of the land to form level serviced plots (ref 07/0994): These works have been completed. Existing commercial development in the form of the Craven Dunhill premises and a rock salt store adjoin the western site boundary.
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Permit as a departure, and subject to conditions.
4.0 REASON FOR DELEGATED DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION 4.1 The proposal is a major application and would be for a foodstore outside of the existing town centre. The recommendation, if accepted, would be a departure from the Development Plan.
5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 92/0598 – Outline application for the construction of a business park for use classes B1, B2 and B8 and for a bus depot and haulage yard: Granted 29.1.1993 5.2 93/0463 – Reserved matters for the erection of 11 industrial/commercial units: Approved 3.11.1993. Only the access off the Stourbridge Road included in the above approvals was carried out. 5.3 02/0583 – Erection of a non-food retail store and two trade workshops and associated works: Refused 7.1.2003 5.4 03/0370 – Erection of a non-food retail store and associated works: Refused 28.7.2003 5.5 07/0994 – Construction of spine road and plateauing of site: Permitted 29.2.2008 5.6 08/0895 – Erection of four warehouse/retail units with associated parking, service arrangements and landscaping: Permitted 3.2.2010
6.0 CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.1 Bridgnorth Town Council – Support application based on the information currently provided, but reserve the right to add further comments once Shropshire Council has carried out retail assessment. 6.2 SC Highways Development Control – No objection: Content with the combined access arrangements proposed with warehouse/retail units; parking layout is satisfactory, clarification sought of turning area for service yard; the principle of a pedestrian/toucan crossing between Faraday Drive and the Chartwell junction is considered satisfactory and the precise details can be dealt with by a Grampian Condition; a Travel Plan will be required and this could also be dealt with through a Grampian condition. 6.3 SC County Arboriculturalist – No objection 6.4 SC Drainage Engineer – No adverse comments 6.5 SC Public Protection – Recommend condition on any approval to address potential impact of ground gases and vapours. 6.6 SC Team Leader, Economy and Transport Policy – No objection: Applicants have demonstrated compliance with PPS4 sequential test; there are no sequentially preferable towns on edge of centre sites in Bridgnorth capable of accommodating the development proposed and out-of-centre sites can therefore be considered in these circumstances; it is accepted that the proposed site offers a suitable location for the development of a new food store, albeit one that is unlikely to encourage ‘linked trips’ with the town centre, particularly if enhanced public transport measures are not in place; applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the viability and vitality of the town centre, on the basis that the proposed floor space and the store will be a discount operator. The proposal complies with wider impact tests; the accessibility of the location by public transport has been discussed and negotiations with the
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
local transport provider have started. The proposal is on an allocated employment site, albeit on part of the site with an extant permission for non-employment uses, but excluding food retail. The broad principle of stimulating employment uses (B1, B2 and B8) on the rest of the site is accepted, although it is key that the rest of the site continues to be safeguarded for employment uses in line with the Shropshire Core Strategy.
6.7 Chief Fire Officer – Comments on access for five vehicles, water supplies and installation of sprinkler systems. 7.0 PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 3 Letter of support: • Would encourage employment in Bridgnorth and could attract more companies to locate in this park. • If town desires a new retail food store this site is far more beneficial than the proposal at the old college site, being further away from residential properties. • Would not increase traffic within Bridgnorth Town Centre. • Site able to deal with additional traffic generation far better than former college site. • Site would be less imposing visually than college site.
7.2 3 Objections comprising as follows: 1 neighbour objection: • Object to any more big stores in Bridgnorth: will kill our town. 7.2.1 Bridgnorth Civic Society – Object: • Does not accord with BRID2 policy for class B1, B2 and B8 Industrial and business uses of land. • Land is an existing employment commitment in the Council’s emerging Site Allocations and Management of Development document. • Consent 08/0895 for the 4 warehouse/retail units excludes food retail sales to ensure that the development would not impact upon the viability and vitality of the Bridgnorth Town shopping centres. • Can find nothing in the Agents Planning and Retail statement to justify claim there is no realistic prospect of the land or premises being used or redeveloped for employment purposes within the plan period; should justify why the scheme in planning permission 08/0895 is not now viable. • With closure of Novellis Bridgnorth should have employment sites available to respond quickly to industrial development opportunities. • If decide to grant the current scheme should ensure any interest in the retail warehouse scheme is not unreasonably refused. • Changes to convenience goods provision in Bridgnorth since 2006 have had little impact on overall amount of convenience floor space and the extension to the Sainsbury’s store would satisfy growth in quantative need for the foreseeable future, based on 2006 White Young Green retail study for BDC. • Need to take account of Aldi store application on former college site; cumulative impact of both stores would seem to be untenable. • Question assumptions made about turnover of stores, leading to trade loss for Sainsburys and the Co-op; trade loss of between 6% and 12% would be an adverse economic impact on existing town centres.
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
• If minded to grant consent, should consider conditions to restrict store to a particular trading format. • Would have expected more detail in the sequential approach to the site selection. • Suggest net gain in jobs would be less than 20 if 70% of the store’s projected turnover would come from other stores in Bridgnorth. • No convincing case made to depart from the planned allocation of the land. 7.2.2 Aldi Stores Ltd – Object: • Inaccessibility of Chartwell Park site, which has far less potential to attract shoppers though modes of transport other than the car in comparison with the former college site. • Second to driving, walking is the most popular mode of transport for food shopping and college site benefits from a well established pedestrian network; future housing planned on the site will also benefit from the proposed stores location. • No continuous footpath to Chartwell Park and path too narrow to cater for notable pedestrian movements. • 40mph speed limit by Chartwell Park, close to changes to the national speed limit creates unfavourable environment for pedestrians; would be a poor quality walking experience. • Only two buses directly pass the Chartwell site and no regular buses link that site to the town centre, in comparison with the College site which is within the recommended 400m walking distance of the frequent town centre services. • No certainty that the food store would have a catalytic effect for attracting employment investment to the remainder of the site; no section 106 obligation offered; in comparison there is a financial linkage at the college site between housing and retail, as confirmed in correspondence from Persimmon. • Should both proposals be permitted it is most likely that only the former college site proposal would be built because of the commercial advantage of that location.
8.0 AGENTS COMMENTS 8.1 • Proposal is to build a food store in lieu of the approved warehouse/retail units (Units 3a and 3b); units 1 and 2 would remain as per the February 2010 approval. • No retailer is yet contracted to take the proposed store but it is designed to meet the normal requirements of a low-cost/discount food retailer and thereby fulfil a sector of the convenience market not catered for by existing shops and stores in the town • Would enhance choice and competition to the benefit of local residents and result in a more sustainable pattern of shopping activity by reducing the need to travel to surrounding towns. • Design of proposed building consistent with the approved development and appropriate for the site and surroundings; it would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. • Foul water would be taken to existing sewer in Stourbridge Road
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
• Rainwater from roofs would be harvested for use within the building and on the landscape areas, but water usage would not be significant and any surplus would be taken to attenuation tanks prior to discharge to surface drains and the existing sewer. • Building will comply with current building regulations regarding conservation of fuel and power; will be constructed to improved insulation standards, reducing need for, or capacity of, any air conditioning. • Security would be achieved by open plan layout giving clear visibility from estate road; delivery area secured by 2.4 metre high palisade fencing, with similar fencing on site boundary to rock salt store; landscaping to be generally low level with trees; car park areas, delivery yard and footways will be illuminated to provide protection for building and safe access; anticipate tenants would install own CCTV system; decorative security bollards would be installed to the frontage of the unit. • High efficiency lighting would be positioned to limit light pollution. • Site within walking distance of the residential areas in Low Town and within reasonable cycle distance of the remainder of Bridgnorth; bus services are routed directly past the site giving connections to the centre of Bridgnorth, Wolverhampton and Telford; consider that opportunities for journeys to and from the site by sustainable modes relatively high. • Junction capacity adequate for the amount of traffic likely to be generated. • Will bring forward development of previously developed land which has been lying vacant for almost 20 years; will improve amenity and quality of area and situation for adjacent land owners and businesses. • Will provide catalyst for further development of the site, including the construction of approved units 1 and 2 and employment units on other parts of the site. • Anticipate that proposal would create the equivalent of 20 full time jobs • Lack of additional, modern retail floorspace, offering greater choice and competition, is undoubtedly a major factor in Bridgnorth’s poor retention of trade, as found in the 2006 retail study. • No suitable sites in town centre itself to accommodate proposal: Land east of High Street could only accommodate small scale development and access and servicing problems appear insurmountable; majestic cinema site constrained and not appropriate, suitable or available. • Edge of centre land at Old Smithfield has primary use as car park, consent for a DIY store and various ownerships, including land owned by Sainsburys; likelihood of land in this area coming forward for another food store is considered remote and not available for development within the assessment period. • No evidence that several small commercial and industrial sites in area are available, even if otherwise found suitable for retail purposes. • With regard to out of centre locations have been unable to identify a more suitable or appropriate site than the application land. • Note there is a planning application pending for an Aldi store on the former College site but this land is allocated for hotel and/or residential development in the adopted Local Plan and this should be more appropriately and effectively used for other land uses, such as housing: Consider the Chartwell site more appropriate for retail development than the
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
former College site. • Proposal would not adversely affect any known planned public or private investment. • Proposals would not have a significant impact on the trading levels of existing convenience stores and shops in the town centre, and thereby would not affect the vitality and viability of the centre; the improved consumer choice and the range and quality of the convenience retail offer cannot be fulfilled by a development within the town centre, or on the edge of it, due to the absence of suitable and available sites. • The extant permission for retail warehousing/trade counters on the site is a recognition that the site is appropriate and suitable for retail purposes. • Scheme would not prejudice the release of the remainder of the allocated industrial site for appropriate uses. • Will hopefully ‘pump-prime’ the development of the remainder of the overall site • Development would not harm amenities of neighbouring properties.
9.0 PLANNING POLICY 9.1 Central Government Guidance: PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG13 Transport PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control PPS25 Development and Flood Risk 9.2 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: RR3 Market Towns PA13 Out-of-Centre Retail Development QE3 Creating a high quality built environment for all T2 Reducing the need to travel 9.3 Shropshire Core Strategy: CS1 Strategic Approach CS3 The Market Towns and other key centres CS6 Sustainable Design and Development Principles CS15 Town and Rural Centres 9.4 Bridgnorth District Local Plan (saved policies): D6 Access and parking BRID2 Industrial site off Stourbridge Road 10.0 THE MAIN ISSUES • Principle of the development • Sequential site appraisal and scheme details • Impact upon the character and appearance of the area • Accessibility, Highway and pedestrian safety • Residential amenity • Contamination • Drainage
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
11.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL 11.1 Principle of Development 11.1.1 Policies CS1 and CS3 of the Core Strategy aim to support the revitalisation of Shropshire’s market towns, including Bridgnorth, developing their role as key service centres, providing employment and a range of facilities and services, accessible to their rural hinterlands. Policy CS15 identifies Bridgnorth as a ‘principal centre’ to serve local needs and the wider service and employment needs of the communities in the south east of Shropshire. The Policy encourages the provision of appropriate convenience and comparison retail, office and other town centre uses to support this role and function. It also identifies town centres as the preferred location for these uses taking account the key policy tests of the sequential site approach and impact assessment set out in PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth.
11.1.2 The application site is the subject of saved Local Plan policy BRID2 which allocates land which includes the current application site for industrial and business uses (classes B1, B2 and B8). The proposed class A1 use would not be in accordance with this policy. However at the 2nd February 2010 meeting of the South Planning Committee planning permission was given, as a departure, for the erection of four warehouse/retail units with associated parking, service arrangements and landscaping at this location on land which includes much of the current application site.(ref 08/0895). The summary of the reason for granting this consent on the decision notice states:-
“The proposed development would generate employment and provide an economic stimulus to the local economy and help encourage development of the rest of the site. With the extant permission for a DIY store at The Smithfield, there are no other sequentially preferable town centre of edge of centre sites for limited sales of non- food bulky goods. The development would not detract from the amenities of the area and would not be detrimental to highway safety.”
A condition is attached to that planning permission restricting the range of comparison gods which may be sold, to ensure that the scheme would not impact upon the viability and vitality of the Bridgnorth Town shopping centres. The assessment of retail capacity used in connection with that application was the retail study carried out for Bridgnorth District Council in 2006 by White Young Green in connection with the Local Plan. So while the principle of some retail development has been accepted at this location, a further review was needed in relation to whether food retail would be acceptable today.
11.1.3 The key policy document through which the principle of a new food in Bridgnorth must be appraised is Government Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth. It includes key tests that applications for main town centres uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date Development Plan must pass. PPS4 indicates that applicants are no longer required to demonstrate a need for their proposals, and the absence of retail expenditure capacity (or ‘need’) is not in itself a valid ground for refusal. The key issue is whether new retail development would result in an over-provision of convenience floorspace and whether this level of over-provision would have a significant adverse impact on the Bridgnorth town centres. The Council
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
commissioned planning consultants, Nathaniel Litchfield and Partners (NLP) to provide analysis of this proposal, and that for the separate application at the former College Site (ref 10/04080/FUL) to provide analysis of the applicants’ key assumptions and data, to provide critiques of the applications having regard to the tests in PPS4. Their appraisal included assessing the cumulative impact of both food store proposals.
11.1.4 NLP comment that the key assumptions and data applied by the consultants in both applications appear to be generally reasonable. They conclude that with one discount food store the impact of trade diversion on existing stores in the Town Centres would be unlikely to lead to shop closures in the Town Centres, and thus would have no significant adverse impact. They comment:- “The negative impact of either discount food store will be £4.1million of trade diversion from the town centre to an out-of-centre location, i.e. a location where the opportunities for linked shopping trips and the use of public transport will be more limited than for trips to the town centre. This could result in more car travel and a reduction in the town centre’s overall vitality and viability. However in our view these negative impacts are out-weighed by the retail planning benefits of the introduction of a discount store in Bridgnorth. The proposals will increase customer choice and competition in Bridgnorth (three main supermarkets rather than two). The overall level of convenience goods expenditure retained in Bridgnorth will increase by £1.87 million, and this claw back of expenditure leakage will help reduce car travel.”
With regard to the scenario with two discount food stores NLP comment that the impact upon the turn over of the Sainsbury’s and Co-op stores would be unlikely to result in their closure, and the cumulative impact upon other convenience shops/stores is unlikely to lead to shop closures in the town centre. They conclude:-
“On balance, we do not consider that the cumulative impact of two new discount food stores would be “significant adverse” impacts under PPS4 guidance. However negative impacts and the benefits of two proposals would need to be considered carefully.
The marginal benefits of having two rather than one discount food store (e.g. choice of four supermarkets rather than three and additional convenience goods expenditure retention of +£0.88 million in Bridgnorth) will need to be judged against the increased trade diversion and impact on the town centre (i.e. an additional £3.15 million trade diversion). Most of the benefits (68%) of increased expenditure retention (claw back of expenditure leakage and reduced travel associated with this) will be achieved by one store.
The two stores would divert £7.25 million from the town centre to out-of-centre locations. While this may not constitute a significant adverse impact in terms of the closure and harm to existing food stores, it is a disbenefit. This impact would therefore need to be a factor in assessing the application, taking into consideration any other site-specific impacts arising from the proposed developments. Site specific benefits of each proposal e.g. in terms of regeneration and job creation will also need to be considered along with other negative impacts such as traffic generation, amenity issues and the loss of employment/development land.
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
If there are site specific adverse impacts for either application then the benefit of two stores rather than one is unlikely to out-weigh these impacts, bearing in mind the increased level of trade diversion from the town centre.
If the Council is minded to approve either food store, we consider that it would be reasonable for the Council to restrict the use of the stores to a discount operator via a legal agreement, in order to protect the town centre.”
The implication of this assessment of retail capacity is that the Council does not necessarily have to choose between this application and that submitted for the land at the former College site: The Town could support two discount food stores of the sizes proposed without having “significant adverse impacts” under PPS4 guidance. (The agents acting for the applicants in this case and the agents for the former College site application have independently come to the same conclusion). It is considered therefore that the principle of new food store capacity of this type in Bridgnorth cannot be resisted on retail capacity grounds and the focus must be on whether the proposed sites and the form of development would be acceptable. There are sufficient economic benefits, in terms of retaining trade currently being lost from the Bridgnorth area, to justify consideration being given to approving suitable site(s) for a deep discount food store as a Departure from the Development Plan if no suitable sites within policy are available/suitable.
11.2 Sequential Site Appraisal and Scheme Details 11.2.1 PPS4 indicates that proposals for retail development on sites outside existing centres should only be permitted if the sequential approach to site selection has been followed. A failure to demonstrate compliance with a sequential approach is sufficient to justify a refusal of planning permission. The first preference is for locations in appropriate existing centres that are, or are likely to become available during the plan period, followed by edge of centre sites and then out-of-centre sites. Each site identified must then be considered in terms of the likelihood of becoming available within a reasonable period of time; suitability for the proposed development; and viability for the proposed use. The agents have considered three sites in their original retail assessment, and a further six sites in their supplementary site assessment report of February 2011. (There is some overlap in the sites considered with those appraised in the application for the old college site.) Their conclusions that these sites are not available/suitable are accepted. It is considered that the applicants have met the requirements for sequential site assessment and, putting the issue of the former College site to one side, have satisfactorily demonstrated that there are no other sequentially preferable town centre or edge of centre sites which are suitable, available and viable, and capable of accommodating the proposed development.
11.2.2 Policy EC10 of PPS4 sets out criteria applicable to all applications for economic development, which include giving consideration to whether the proposal has been planned to limit carbon emissions and provide resilience to climate change; accessibility by a choice of means of transport and effect on traffic levels and congestion; securing design to improve the character and quality of the area; impact upon economic and physical regeneration and on local employment. These matters are addressed in the headings below.
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
11.3 Impact upon the character and appearance of the area 11.3.1 Core Strategy policy CS6 is compatible with policy EC10 of PPS4 in seeking to ensure that developments are energy efficient, respond to climate change and are appropriate in design to the local context. The design and access statement submitted sets out how energy and water efficiency, and security would be achieved by the proposed development. The external appearance of the proposed building would, in form and materials, be similar to that already approved for the warehouse/retail units on the adjacent plots. The use of shallow pitched roofs with deep overhanging eaves, with lower wall areas of brick coupled with cladding to the upper wall areas, in combination with the areas of full height glazing at the principal entrance corner to the building and the canopy over the entrance, would result in a building which would not detract from the visual amenities of the area. The setting of the building would also be enhanced by the proposed landscape treatment to the edge of the car park with the estate access road and planting along the south western site boundary. The precise materials and the details of the landscaping scheme would be the subject of conditions on any approval issued. No details of the proposed lighting scheme for the site are given on the site plan and would also need to be the subject of a planning condition, in the interests of visual amenity.
11.4 Accessibility, Highway and Pedestrian Safety 11.4.1 Saved Local Plan policy D6 requires the local road network and access to the site to be capable of safely accommodating the type and scale of traffic likely to be generated. The access onto the A458 Stourbridge Road already exists and the junction layout incorporates a right hand turning lane for vehicles turning into the site. SC Highways Development Control are content that the junction and local road network is adequate to accommodate the traffic likely to be generated by the proposed development and from industrial/commercial development on the adjacent land. The proposed parking provision would not conflict with the maximum parking standards of the former Bridgnorth District Council. In any event, Government Guidance, set out in PPG13 Transport, states that local authorities should not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish, other than in exceptional circumstances which might include for example where there are significant implications for road safety which cannot be resolved through the introduction or enforcement of on-street controls: No such exceptional circumstances are considered to apply to this case.
11.4.2 Core Strategy policy CS6 seeks to locate proposals likely to generate significant levels of traffic in accessible locations where opportunities for walking, cycling and the use of public transport can be maximised. This accords with PPS4 in seeking sites that are accessible by a choice of means of transport. Walking is acknowledged to the second most popular way of accessing food stores, after the private car. In comparison with the proposal for a food store at the former college site, this proposal is more distant from the dwellings off Stourbridge Road and in the Lodge Lane area, and is on the opposite side of the A458 road. The application has subsequently been amended to include a pedestrian crossing on the A458 between the site entrance and the Faraday Drive junction: This will address the safety issue of crossing the A- road but clearly has no impact upon the juxtaposition of the site with areas of housing in the town. It is acknowledged that there are bus stops in the vicinity of the junction into the site off Stourbridge Road, but these are
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
not on the frequent town circular bus route. A condition on any approval issued would require the submission of a travel plan to explore how non-car modes of access to the site may be enhanced.
11.5 Impact upon economic and physical regeneration and local employment 11.5.1 Although there is no retailer yet contracted to take on the proposed store, the agent anticipates that it would create the equivalent of 20 full time jobs. A major part of the applicants justification for food store in this location is that it would act as a catalyst for the development of the surrounding serviced industrial land. A similar argument was advanced in 2009 when the application for four warehouse/retail units was submitted (ref 08/0895). That application was granted consent in February 2010 (having been delayed due to the Environment Agency insisting on a flood risk assessment). It was queried with the agent why, in what has only been a relatively short period of time, his clients had concluded that the full approved warehouse/retail unit scheme would not be the stimulus to encourage the development of the rest of the site. He has responded that the warehouse/retail unit application was made at a time when the new estate road and infrastructure was being carried out and when proposals were being formulated for the Evans Easyspace enterprise centre development in conjunction with Advantage West Midlands. It was hoped that, in combination, these factors would stimulate interest in the park. This has not proven to be the case and they state that, apart from the abolition of Advantage West Midlands, the present economic considerations are having a major and damaging impact upon the future development of the site and it is vitally important that landowners are able to take advantage of whatever interest comes forward. Their clients have held discussions with a number of parties who might be interested in taking one of the approved units but in the absence of other activity on the park and, in particular, the lack of an ‘anchor’ unit has meant that none have been prepared to proceed to contract. The applicants’ view is that a food store would act as an ‘anchor’ unit resulting from retail operator interest.
11.5.2 The Council’s Team Leader – Economy and Transport Policy accepts that the erection of a food store here could act as an ‘anchor’ as the applicants suggest. He considers also that such a consent would not compromise the rest of the employment allocation of saved Local Plan policy BRID2. There is no linkage proposed between the provision of a food store and, for example, erection of the warehouse/retail unit(s). In any approval issued it would be left to the market to see if the foodstore would indeed act as a catalyst.
11.6 Impact on neighbours/residential amenity 11.6.1 Core Strategy policy CS6 requires regard to be paid to safeguarding residential and local amenity. There are no conditions attached to planning permission 08/0895 for the warehouse/retail units in respect of delivery times as it was considered that the site was sufficiently distant from the nearest residential properties to cause no undue harm to neighbour amenity: It is considered that the same approach can be adopted with this proposal. There is however a condition requiring a noise assessment and this would be pertinent for a food store in respect of any external plant required.
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
11.7 Contamination 11.7.1 The Chartwell site adjoins a landfill site, although the application site is located away from the boundary with the landfill. A report was submitted with the estate road/groundworks application which recommended precautionary landfill measures be included in detailed developments of individual plots. This requirement can be conditioned on any approval issued.
11.8 Drainage 11.8.1 The main drainage infrastructure for the whole site has been dealt with through conditions on planning permission 07/0994 for the construction of the spine road and plateauing of the site. The flood risk assessment submitted with the current application is an update of that provided with the warehouse/retail unit application to which the Environment Agency raised no objection. An addendum addresses the change to the boundary of plot 3 and the change to the location of the attenuation facility which has been approved. It is considered that these changes have had no changes on the matters addressed in the assessment. A condition on any approval issued will require the precise surface water drainage details for the proposed building to be approved.
12.0 CONCLUSION 12.1 There is retail capacity and economic benefits to the area that would justify consent for a deep discount food store on a suitable site. The cumulative impact of this proposal, together with that for the former College site, would have no significant adverse impacts under PPS4 guidance and would not affect the vitality and viability of the existing centres. The retail use would have to be restricted to a discount operator and, at the time of writing this report, consideration is being given to whether this restriction should be via a legal agreement or condition.
12.2 The sequential site appraisal has established that there is no in centre or edge of centre site suitable or available to accommodate the proposal and the most suitable out of centre sites are the former College site and this site. It is considered that the former College site proposal is preferable, particularly in terms of its better connectivity to residential areas. However it is accepted that this proposal has the potential to stimulate economic development at Chartwell Park and the benefits that would bring. The existing consent for the use of the land to accommodate warehouse/retail units, albeit with a limitation on what may be retailed, is also a significant material consideration. It is considered therefore, in the light of the retail capacity assessment, and the benefits unique to each scheme, that planning permission could be given for this proposal even if consent is also given for the former College site scheme.
12.3 The proposed development would not detract from the visual amenities of the area, would not be detrimental to highway safety and would not unduly harm residential amenity. Issues relating to contamination and drainage can be addressed by planning conditions.
12.4 There is no known planned public or private investment which is likely to be adversely affected by the proposed development; there are no sites allocated for retail development outside the town centres with which the proposal would conflict.
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community.
First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact on residents.
This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.
Environment Appraisal Documents listed in the report Risk Management Appraisal None Community / Consultations Appraisal Undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. Portfolio Holder: Economic Growth and Prosperity Mike Owen / Mal Price Deputy: John Hurst-Knight Local Member Cllr. William Parr Cllr. Christian Lea
Reason for Approval
The economic benefits to the area resulting from the provision of a deep discount food store on this site are considered sufficient to justify an approval as a departure from the Development Plan. The proposal would not detract from the visual amenities of the area, would not be detrimental to highway safety and would not unduly harm residential amenity.
Conditions
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (As amended).
2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans and drawings.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
STANDARD CONDITION(S)
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (As amended).
2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans and drawings.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.
CONDITION(S) THAT REQUIRE APPROVAL BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT COMMENCES
3. No built development shall commence until details of all external materials, including hard surfacing, have been first submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the development is satisfactory.
4. No development approved by this permission shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority a scheme of landscaping and these works shall be carried out as approved. The submitted scheme shall include:
Means of enclosure Hard surfacing materials Minor artefacts and structures Planting plans Written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) Schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate Implementation timetables
Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscape design.
5. Before development commences details of landfill gas protection measures to be incorporated into the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To safeguard the development from landfill gas.
6. Before development commences details of insulation and energy efficiency measures to be incorporated in the construction of the building shall be submitted to and approved in
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of resource and energy efficiency.
7. Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, using sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.
The scheme shall also include details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality and to ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system.
8. A Travel Plan for the food store hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the construction of the food store. The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented on the food store being first brought into use and shall thereafter be maintained.
Reason: In order to minimise the use of the private car and promote the use of sustainable modes of transport in accordance with the guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 13-"Transport".
CONDITION(S) THAT REQUIRE APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE OCCUPATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT
9. The building shall not be brought into use until the associated car park area shown on the approved plans has been constructed, surfaced and drained in accordance with details approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The parking spaces shall thereafter be kept clear and maintained at all times for that purpose.
Reason: To provide for the parking of vehicles, associated with the development, off the highway in the interests of highway safety.
10. The building shall not be brought into use until the servicing/loading/unloading area shown on the approved plans has been constructed, surfaced and drained in accordance with details approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The area shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than servicing/loading/unloading.
Reason: To provide for servicing/loading/unloading of vehicles off the adjacent highway in the interests of highway safety.
11. Before the building is first brought into use details of the design and positioning of external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
12. Before the food store hereby approved is first brought into use a controlled crossing and associated footway to link the development shall be installed and fully operational across the Stourbridge Road. Details of their position and specification shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The controlled crossing and associated footway link shall be carried out in accordance with such details as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to provide a safe pedestrian crossing for customers of the store, in the interests of highway safety and to encourage alternative modes of access to the private car.
13. Before any external plant associated with the food store is installed details of the equipment, including a noise assessment relating to noise output when in operation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any measures proposed in the approved noise assessment shall be incorporated into the development before the external plant is first brought into use and shall thereafter be maintained in place.
Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of the area.
CONDITION(S) THAT ARE RELEVANT FOR THE LIFETIME OF THE DEVELOPMENT
14. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and to a reasonable standard in accordance with the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standard 4428:1989. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced with others of species, size and number as originally approved, by the end of the first available planting season.
Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs.
15. The following restrictions apply to the first and subsequent occupation of the retail store hereby permitted: 1) The convenience goods sold from the store will consist predominantly (ie more than 50%) own label products. 2) At any given time the range of convenience product lines sold from the store will not exceed 1,500. 3) No separate franchises will operate within the store. 4) There will be no service counters within the store. 5) The store will not incorporate a cafeteria or restaurant. 6) The store will not sell tobacco products, newspapers or magazines.
Reason: To safeguard the viability and vitality of the existing shopping centres.
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665
South Planning Committee : 9th June 2011
16. There shall be no increase in the area of retail floor space shown on the approved drawings without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to safeguard the viability and vitality of the Bridgnorth Town Shopping Centres.
17. There shall be no storage of goods, materials or waste of any description other than within the building (or within any area set aside for storage on the approved plans).
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Shropshire Council 100049049. 2010 For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made.
Contact Stuart Thomas (01743) 252665