Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 15 January 2020

Subject: DC/2018/01775 Meols Cop Retail Park, Meols Cop Road, Southport

Proposal: Erection of a new retail building (Class A1) to be used as a 'Foodstore', petrol filling station including 'kiosk' and public recycling facility; alterations to access via Meols Cop Road and Foul Lane; provision of new car parking and reconfiguration of existing car park; hard and soft landscaping and associated infrastructure works following the demolition of the existing buildings

Applicant: BNP PARIBAS Agent: Mr. Timothy Price DEPOSITORY SERVICES Savills (UK) Ltd LIMITED AND BNP PARIBAS DEPOSITORY SERVICES (JERSEY) LIMITED BEING THE TRUSTEES FOR UBS TRITON NO 2 PROPERTY UNIT TRUST (JERSEY).

Report of: Chief Planning Officer Wards Affected: Norwood Ward

Is this a key decision? No Is it included in the Forward Plan? No

Exempt/Confidential No

Summary

The application is for a new ground floor level foodstore of 7,450 sq. metres, with car parking and access, a Petrol Filling Station (PFS), recycling facilities and landscaping following the demolition of three vacant retail units, to the south side of Argarmeols Close on the opposite side of Fine Jane’s Brook.

The application was originally considered by Members of Planning Committee on 31 July 2019, who were minded to approve subject to referral to the Secretary of State and the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the planning conditions set out within the report. Though the Secretary of State was satisfied that the Local Planning Authority may determine the application, and the Section 106 is completed, the decision notice has not been released.

Further information originally submitted by the applicant in May 2019 has now come to light, which clarifies the impacts of the development in relation to trip generation, and was not reported to Members at July 2019 Committee. As such it is considered appropriate to advise Planning Committee as to the relevance of this information, in order that they may take this into account prior to making their decision. Following a “called-in” inquiry that took place in 2015/16, planning permission was granted on 7 December 2016 by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for a foodstore of 11,089 sq. metres, elevated to first floor level, with revised car parking and access, a Petrol Filling Station, recycling facilities and landscaping following the demolition of three retail units in the same location. The 2016 permission has been lawfully commenced and as such this permission remains extant (i.e. valid) . This represents a “fall back” position now that it has been implemented and this is discussed later in the report and is referred to throughout the report as the “2016 planning permission” for the avoidance of doubt.

The “existing building” as referred to throughout the report comprises the proposed to be demolished Units 5A, 6 and 7.

This report confirms that the relevant material planning considerations have been fully re- assessed, and maintains the previous conclusion that there will be no significant adverse impacts resulting from the proposal subject to appropriate conditions and the provision of a Section 106 Agreement (already completed).

The application must be referred to the Secretary of State to comply with the requirement of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) Direction 2009 Part 5 as it amounts to development outside a town centre including retail use in an out-of-centre location, is not in accordance with one or more provisions of the development plan and consists of or includes the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is over 5,000 sq. metres gross of retail floor space.

Recommendation

That the application be referred to the Secretary of State for determination with a recommendation for approval subject to the provisions of a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the planning conditions set out at the end of the report.

The legal agreement will include:  Commitment to keeping the Lord Street store open for a minimum five-year period.  Commitment to local labour provision.

Contact Officer: Steve Matthews Tel: 0345 140 0845 Case Officer: Steve Faulkner Tel: 0345 140 0845 Email [email protected] Background Papers

The full planning application including all supporting documents, plans and reports can be viewed at www.sefton.gov.uk/planapps. Site Plan The Site

The site comprises land at the Meols Cop Retail Park, accessed via the roundabout junction with Foul Lane, Town Lane and Scarisbrick New Road. The retail park comprises around 19,000 sq. metres of multiple units including an existing foodstore. The application site comprises units 5A, 6 and 7 plus an existing area of car parking, servicing land and landscaping adjacent.

There is also a 12,000-sq. metre Tesco Extra food store south of the application site served off the Kew Roundabout, and Kew Retail Park amounting to around 8,000 sq. metres of retail. The site is 200 metres south of the former Kew ‘Park and Ride’ facility.

Fine Jane’s Brook and a public footpath run to the northern boundary dividing the site from residential dwellings at Argarmeols Close immediately to the north and there are playing fields to the west.

Relevant History

The site has been subject to a considerable number of applications in recent years; many for advertisements and minor alterations. The most relevant permission is for the foodstore approved by the Secretary of State in 2016 (DC/2014/00887), referred to above in the Summary and hereon as the ‘2016 permission’.

All pre-commencement conditions attached to the 2016 permission were discharged on 31 July 2019, under reference DC/2019/00820.

A Certificate of Lawfulness for proposed development was issued on 15 November 2019 under reference number DC/2019/01675 – this confirmed that the proposed installation of piled foundations to enable commencement of the 2016 permission would constitute lawful operations at the time the certificate was sought.

A total of five piled foundations were installed prior to 9 December 2019 – the expiry date of the 2016 permission – and consequently, a Certificate of Lawfulness for existing development was issued on 28 November 2019 under reference number DC/2019/01908. The 2016 permission is extant (i.e. valid) and capable of being fully implemented.

Consultation Responses

Highways Manager No objections subject to conditions.

Flooding and Drainage No objections subject to conditions.

Air Quality No objections Environmental Health No objections subject to conditions.

Contaminated Land Team No objections subject to conditions

Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS) No objections following receipt of bat emergence/re-entry survey.

Environment Agency No comments received.

United Utilities No objections subject to conditions and informatives.

Police Architectural Liaison Officer No objections.

Merseytravel No objection subject to conditions relating to car parking, travel plan, bus stop provisions and use of ‘dial-a-ride’ services.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue No objections subject to informatives.

Cadent Gas No objection though gas pipelines are identified within the site boundary and may be needed for easements and/or wayleaves.

Representations

Representations received prior to 31 July 2019

A petition was received containing 30 signatures endorsed by Councillor Pugh. The petition states that it is intended to afford the opportunity for a representative of Southport & Windsor Properties to speak.

2 representations received from residents of Argarmeols Close, objections have also been received from Asda, Southport & Windsor Properties, Aviva and Councillors Pugh and Dawson.

Objections are raised on the following grounds:

Retail/Town Centre Impacts - New retail impact assessments should be supplied, including updated Household Survey information, - Central 12 Southport Retail Park is a sequential alternative that may become available shortly, and has not been properly considered, - Condition 27 of the 2016 permission contains a restriction requiring Home Bargains to cease trading to avoid a breach, with a consequent impact on the “fall back” position, - True test of fall back is “occupation” as per White City Court case (Trafford Council, 2011), - Discharging of conditions on 2016 permission (expiring December 2019) does not constitute proof that it will be implemented, - Five-year provision for Sainsbury Lord Street foodstore remaining open is unenforceable and not compliant with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations, - Reduced store size requires reconsideration of trade draw from Asda at Central 12 and Morrisons at Winter Gardens, and figures not provided on a “like for like” basis, with the impact of the 2016 permission not considered with regard to current data, - New store should not be considered in absence of further Retail Strategy Review, - Restrictive conditions will not assist town centre and Meols Cop Retail Park will prove more attractive proposition for town centre retailers, with provision for concession units, - The applicant misled the 2016 Inquiry by saying the former Homebase store would be acquired through vacant possession, only for Homebase themselves to instigate the vacation – impacts on likelihood of fall back being implemented, - Application should not be determined until Retail Strategy Review has been updated. - No need for supermarket as area already well served, - May not create new jobs if merger (of Asda and Sainsburys) goes ahead and jobs are lost elsewhere in town, - Change in food store provision since previous approval with expansion of Aldi at Meols Cop and in Birkdale, added to home ordering, - Need to consider impact of possible new Aldi store in Tarleton, - No need for further petrol filling station, - No need for recycling facility, - Further assessment of footfall to Lord Street required.

Other impacts - Traffic, parking and highway safety impacts, increased congestion. - Lack of availability of suitable facilities for cyclists. - Need for further independent traffic modelling exercise with air quality monitoring. - Issues relating to Air Quality - Impact from construction piling on physical stability of nearby houses. - Scheme not felt to bring benefit to local area. Some objections also related to limited time to consider various reports and retail information, but these have now been in the public domain for an extended period, and there is no question of there being insufficient time for third parties to comment on the implications of the scheme in full.

Supporting/no objection 3 representations in support, as follows,

- Should be approved without delay, - Store is readily wanted by local community, - Job creation and improved choice/competition, - Long term vacancies likely on retail park if permission not forthcoming.

Since Planning Committee on 31 July 2019, further representations have been received as follows:

1 further representation in support, store much needed and should be approved without delay.

Representations received from Southport & Windsor Properties relating to concern over true levels of job creation, lack of further household survey information, and continued concern over whether “fall back” position may be relied upon.

In addition, further concerns have been raised relating to highway impacts, with S&W suggesting the following:

- The use of traffic data from 2015 is not appropriate for assessing a scheme in 2020. Therefore, new surveys should be commissioned. - The applicant should provide a full Traffic Impact Assessment using the revised data, including a new LINSIG assessment of the proposed signalised junction. - The trip rates proposed to assess the development should take into account TEMPRO growth. - Further clarity is required in relation to the distribution of existing and future traffic flows from the retail park, allowing for the new signalised junction.

The Chief Planning Officer has been informed that a further endorsed petition is to be submitted to allow for representative(s) of Southport & Windsor Properties to address Planning Committee.

Relevant National and Local Policies

The relevant policies are set out within the Sefton Local Plan adopted 2017, the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and the Supplementary Planning Document ‘Sustainable Travel and Development’ (June 2018). The application has been reviewed in the light of updates to Planning Practice Guidance ‘Retail’ dated 24 July 2019, which was subsequent to the production of the previous Planning Committee report. Nexus Planning have confirmed that none of the revisions affect the approach to assessing the planning application nor do they raise any new material planning considerations.

Assessment

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT AND ISSUES RELATING TO RETAIL IMPACT

The proposal seeks to redevelop a substantial quantum of existing floor space at the Meols Cop Retail Park. This comprises the following:

- Demolition of Units 5A, 6 and 7 – 10,440 sq. metres, including 429 sq. metres of mezzanine floorspace, - Construction of new building for A1 retail purposes – amounting to 7,492 sq. m gross and 4,705 sq. m net, - Reconfiguration of existing access point to Retail Park from Meols Cop Road, to create a new, signalised junction, - New service vehicle access point from Foul Lane and ground floor service area, - Reconfiguration of existing car park and ground level car parking to the front of the store, - Petrol Filling Station (PFS) and small retail kiosk measuring 104 square metres, - Public recycling facility, - Scheme of hard and soft landscaping works within and adjacent to the application site.

The main difference from the previous application is a reduction of 2,844 sq. metres of retail floorspace compared to the 2016 planning permission. Additionally, the store and all servicing will now be at ground level as opposed to previously being raised to first floor level ‘on stilts’.

The store would be ‘out of centre’ for the purpose of any assessment of retail impact and the principle of development would not be accepted unless the scheme is seen to comply with Paragraphs 86 and 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the relevant parts of Sefton Local Plan Policy ED2, which seeks to direct retail and other town centre uses towards the borough’s centres.

Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that, where regard is to be had to the statutory development plan in determining an application for planning permission, the determination shall be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In reaching a balanced planning conclusion on the proposals, the following matters arise.

RETAIL IMPACT AND IMPACT ON SOUTHPORT TOWN CENTRE A copy of Nexus’ full retail analysis is appended to this officer’s report, and an update provided within the report following a further survey of Southport Town Centre in December 2019. It can be confirmed that Nexus have had sight of all representations made on retail planning grounds prior to forming their conclusions. The main summary points are as follows: -

Sequential Test

As the proposal constitutes ‘out-of-town’ retail development, a ‘sequential test’ is applied, as required by both national and local policies, requiring applicants to demonstrate that there are no suitable alternatives either in town or edge of centre locations.

In terms of the application of the sequential test the Council’s retail consultants, Nexus Planning, have examined whether there are potential alternative sites and have concluded that there is not any sequentially preferable site which is available, suitable and for which the proposal would represent a viable form of development, even allowing for appropriate flexibility.

Several representations were received since the completion of the July 2019 Committee Report suggesting that Central 12 Retail Park represents a sequential alternative. Southport & Windsor Properties (SWP) commented that “the Asda lease expires December 2026. The Range lease ends November 2019, with the remainder of the units either vacant or tenants are holding over from expired leases. Apart from Asda, the retail park could literally empty overnight.” SWP also state that the landlord of Central 12 can secure vacant possession under the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act.

In response to Asda’s comments about the provision of concession units making the retail park a more attractive proposition, no such units are proposed in this instance, but condition 30 replicates the provisions previously agreed by the Secretary of State in limiting their floor area should any be proposed at a later date and it is felt appropriate to maintain this consistency.

Nexus have confirmed that should another retailer occupy any such concession unit this reduces turnover attributable to Sainsburys and in turn, the associated impacts.

The Chief Planning Officer has again approached the marketing agents for C12, Mason & Partners (MSP), and the position at the time of writing is as follows:

Unit 1 – the lease expired in November 2019 but remains occupied, and the parties are in negotiations over new lease terms. Their unit extends to 13,200 sq.ft. Unit 2 is currently vacant. Unit 3 (Boots) – 5 year lease from May 2018, with Tenant only option to break at Year 3 (expires May 2023). Unit 4 is currently vacant and MSP have a flexible lease arrangement with Poundland and are able to secure vacant possession if desired. Unit 5 (Next) – 5 year lease from December 2018 with Tenant only option to break at Year 3 (expires December 2023).

The applicant previously responded in July 2019 that vacant possession cannot be claimed until the leases expire. Only at the end of the lease term can a Landlord gain control of the premises and only if it can demonstrate a clear intention to redevelop the premises otherwise the Tenants benefit from an automatic right to renew. They say the Act is weighted in favour of Tenants rather than the position asserted by SWP.

Based on the above evidence, it is considered that the site would not be available in a reasonable timeframe having regard to the NPPF given the applicant’s intention to commence development at Meols Cop immediately, whether the 2016 permission or this application if granted.

The development at Central 12 of a scheme and a planning application could only begin from December 2021 onwards. It is the applicant’s estimate that a store at Central 12 could not be open and trading until mid-2024, and even that would depend on existing tenants breaking their current leases, no other tenants taking leases between now and December 2021, and no new lettings up to that same period.

The other information included with the representation from SWP confirms that other town centre/edge of centre operators are on long term leaseholds which are known to go beyond the normal five-year period against which retail impacts should be assessed. No representations have been received from the operators of these retail parks. The conclusion is that Central 12 is not available within a reasonable timeframe as a sequential alternative and reaffirms the position set out by Nexus in their retail analysis of June 2019 as appended to this report (paragraphs 3.19-3.26).

Even if Central 12 were to become available in a reasonable period, it is not considered that the shape and layout of the site would accommodate the development being proposed. Central 12 was designed specifically to achieve the optimum retail floorspace and car parking layout within the space available, and the applicants state that the replacement of Units 1-5 would achieve a store only two-thirds the size of that proposed at Meols Cop, with significantly less car parking serving it. The parking would also have to be shared with other existing units and would be insufficient to serve the needs of the retail park.

The front entrance to the store would also be largely obscured by the forward projection of Asda and the position of the detached units 9-11. If units 1-11 were all assembled, the store footprint could in theory be accommodated but there would be no practical means by which the required amount of car parking or servicing could be delivered.

During the 2016 called-in Inquiry a design concept was produced by SWP for a store at Tulketh Street, which was on a larger site but which was not considered suitable by the Inspector and, as the Nexus report confirms, is no longer available in any event. Neither Nexus or Savills are aware of any other examples of Sainsbury and Asda trading directly side-by-side anywhere else in the country and no such examples are put forward by third parties.

In the absence of there being any other suitable, available sites, the proposal therefore accords with the requirements of the sequential test set out in paragraphs 86 and 87 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Sefton Local Plan Policy ED2.

Impact Test

It is also necessary to meet the key tests set out in paragraph 89 of the NPPF, which concludes that an assessment is required to confirm:

- the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and - the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and the wider retail catchment (as applicable to the scale and nature of the scheme).

The applicant’s Retail Impact Assessment of September 2018 and subsequent update of December 2019 have been reviewed in detail by Nexus. This review has had regard to the two tests outlined above regarding the existing and future impact. In finalising their conclusion, there has been considerable clarification and testing of the impact assessment with the applicants.

Regarding the first part of the NPPF impact test, Nexus advise that the grant of planning permission for the proposed foodstore would not lead to a significant adverse impact in respect of existing, committed and planned public and private sector investment in centres within the catchment area.

There are no proposals being actively progressed within Southport town centre and Formby district centre for any development which would have a significant overlap with the application proposal in terms of the market it would serve and the needs it would meet. The June 2019 Nexus report has regard to other town centre initiatives, including the Southport Business Improvement District (BID) and has explained at paragraphs 4.19 and 4.20 why these are not undermined by the planning application proposal.

Regarding the second part of the test (relating to the vitality and viability of town centres), Nexus take the view that no other grocery operators’ stores would likely close because of the application proposal (grocery retailers would generally continue to trade strongly) and that the impact arising at comparison goods retailers would be limited. It should be added that grocery operators’ stores tend to trade against each other, rather than other retailers.

If planning permission is granted, the total expenditure expected to be diverted from the town centre from the sale of comparison goods is estimated to be in the order of 1.1% at 2023, and when convenience and comparison goods are considered together, the assessment identifies that the proposal would result in a trade diversion of around £7.90m out of a total turnover of around £310.35m, i.e. an impact of around 2.5%. – which results in a limited impact on Southport Town Centre.

However, this conclusion is subject to suitable retail restrictions covered by condition below and the Section 106 Agreement requiring the new store to cease trading should Sainsburys Lord Street close within five years of trading commencing.

Nexus also advise that there will be no significant reduction in linked trips to the centre as shoppers using the Sainsbury’s store at Meols Cop will still generally have reason to go into Southport town centre to purchase other goods and services.

In response to representations made on impact, the anticipated draw from other stores including Asda at Central 12 and Morrisons Winter Gardens is set out fully by the applicant’s September 2018 Retail Impact Assessment and has been thoroughly and independently reviewed by Nexus.

Asda have also commented (at the time of the July 2019 Committee) that any determination of the application minus an updated Retail Strategy Review would be premature and request deferral until such time that the findings have been reviewed and published. The current health of Southport town centre is considered in section 4 of the June 2019 Nexus Report. Nexus’ findings in respect of the acceptability of the impacts of the proposal are based on up to date evidence and the assessment recognises the declining performance of Southport town centre (in respect of its comparison goods offer). It is clear that the available up-to-date evidence enables the acceptability of the impacts arising from the proposal to be properly considered.

Representations also suggest that the suggested conditions relating to subdivision and convenience do nothing to protect the town centre and the remainder of the retail park will prove more attractive to town centre operators.

In response, it is considered that the conditions attached to this recommendation will help to safeguard the vitality and viability of Southport town centre, for reasons clearly set out in both this report and the June 2019 Nexus Report.

It should be emphasised that these are not the only restrictions in place for the units in question. The following conditions are attached to 97/0732 which was to vary conditions applicable to the retail park when originally granted.

1. The development shall be used for the retailing of DIY and/or garden goods, furniture, furnishings and household textiles, carpets and floor coverings, camping, boating and caravanning goods, motor and cycle goods, electrical and gas goods, office stationery and supplies, pets and associated pet products, maternity wear, baby goods, children’s shoes and clothes, toys and educational crafts, books and party equipment, sports wear and sports goods / equipment and accessories and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class A1 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning [Use Classes] Order 1987).

2. No more than 15% of the total gross floorspace of the development shall be devoted to the sale of any one of the following product ranges: maternity wear, baby goods, children’s shoes and clothes, toys and educational crafts, books and party equipment, sports wear and sports goods / equipment and accessories.

The conditions apply to all units except for Units 2B, 2C and 3 (the latter through a Section 106 Agreement which transferred the retail restriction from Unit 2A) and were attached to safeguard town centre vitality and viability.

It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with the requirements of the impact test set out in paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Sefton Local Plan Policy ED2.

Update on Retail Matters since July 2019

The June 2019 Nexus assessment concluded that there would be no reason to refuse the planning application on retail planning policy grounds, and foud no significant adverse impacts would result on the vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre. This remains their position following an up to date review of retail matters undertaken since the previous Committee Report was published.

An updated survey of Southport town centre was carried out in December 2019 and has been re-assessed against the revised information submitted by the applicant. Although the number of vacancies identified now 127 is slightly different from that identified by the applicant (115), it is still 13 less than was first identified to be the case by Nexus when the centre was previously surveyed in January 2019, and on which the previous assessment had been reliant. It is therefore evident that these prevailing rates do not suggest a substantial decline in the performance of the centre in recent months.

The health check also reflects the most recent pedestrian count data provided for Southport, indicating a limited reduction in pedestrian traffic along Church Street and Lord Street between 2018 and 2019, and a larger reduction between 2017 and 2018. However, the updated health check assessment identifies that the performance of Southport town centre has been relatively stable in recent months (when compared with the previous health check assessment that the Council issued in 2019).

The June 2019 Nexus assessment found that, subject to the imposition of restrictive conditions and an undertaking for Sainsbury’s to continue to trade from Lord Street for a five year period, the Sainsbury’s planning application accorded with relevant retail and town centre planning policy.

Paragraph 4.80 of the Nexus assessment of June 2019 stated that: ‘…we believe that the application proposal can be accommodated without any significant land use consequences for Southport town centre (or any other defined centre). No grocery retailer would likely close (within the assessment period) as a consequence of the proposal and the impact on comparison goods retailers would be limited. Whilst the fragile health of Southport town centre is again recognised, we believe that the impacts arising from the proposal would not be of the significant adverse level which could merit the refusal of the application. In addition, there would be some benefit in terms of consumer choice arising from the provision of an additional food superstore.’

The updated health check demonstrates that concerns in respect of the health of Southport town centre have not abated since we reported in June 2019 but that there has been no further significant downturn in its performance. As such, it is considered that the above commentary in respect of the acceptability of the Meols Cop application remains accurate at the present time, even accounting for the imminent closure of Debenhams.

It is important to reiterate that the principal impacts arising from the proposal will be borne by similar food supermarkets and superstores in the surrounding area, which generally trade strongly. As a consequence of where the impacts will fall, Nexus remain of the view that the application proposal accords with the provisions of relevant retail planning policy, including paragraphs 86, 87, 89 and 90 of the NPPF.

The “fall back” position

It is officers’ view that the above sections demonstrate clearly that there are no significant adverse impacts arising on Southport Town Centre having regard to the relevant sequential and impact tests above. However, should the proposal in its present form give rise to concern over impacts, it is necessary to consider whether a “fall back” position exists.

In the light of there being no retail policy objection, it follows that the 2016 planning permission has limited relevance to the assessment of this current planning application, though it is still a relevant material planning consideration that the Council are obliged to consider.

R v Secretary of State for the Environment Ex p. Ahern (1988) confirms that the following points occur where the existence of a fall back position is raised:

(a) whether there is a fall back use which could be lawfully undertaken; (b) whether there is a likelihood or ‘real prospect’ of such a use occurring; and (c) if the answer to the second question is “yes”, a comparison must be made between the proposed development and the fall-back use.

Point (a) is clearly engaged as the 2016 permission has now been implemented, and has been certified as implemented via Certificates of Lawfulness issued under Sections 191 and 192 of the Act respectively. On point (b), Zurich Assurance Ltd (t/a Threadneedle Property Investments)) v North Lincolnshire Council [2012] confirms that there does not have to be a probable or even a high chance of the fall back occurring; it must only be more than a merely theoretical prospect. Even where the possibility of undertaking a lawful use is slight, that is sufficient to make the fall back position a material consideration and the weight to be attached to this is a matter for the members of Planning Committee.

It is known that there is a contractual obligation on the applicant under their original agreement to build the already approved store and Sainsbury’s to take a 25-year lease of the premises. A lead-in development programme supplied to the Council confirmed the applicant’s intention to commence development of the 2016 permission in the week commencing 16 September 2019.

During the current planning application process, the applicants also applied separately to discharge pre-commencement conditions on the 2016 permission and it was received the following month. The pre-commencement conditions were discharged on 31 July 2019 and allowed for a lawful start on site on or before 9 December 2019, and development has since been certified to have been commenced.

Taking the above factors in combination, point (b) is clearly engaged, and this is a relevant material consideration given that it provides for additional retail floorspace over and above that currently being considered.

It is claimed by representations received that the “fall back” position cannot be applied, as condition 27 of the 2016 permission would:

1. Prevent Home Bargains from using Unit 2C for the sale or display of convenience goods if the 2016 permission is implemented, or 2. Prevent Sainsburys from using the 2016 permission for the sale or display of convenience goods if Home Bargains have not ceased the same.

The condition was as follows:

“Apart from the development hereby permitted, no other retail unit on the retail park, as defined by the blue line on Drawing No 2012-002 A-PL-01 Rev B, shall be used for the sale or display of convenience goods.”

It is considered that a correct interpretation of the planning condition does not, and cannot, require the removal or cessation of a pre-existing retail unit. It is equally considered that it was not the Inspector’s intention to require an existing retailer to vacate.

The objectors contend otherwise but concede that the condition does not prevent implementation of the 2016 permission. Even if the objectors' interpretation of the condition is accepted the issue becomes whether the condition is varied (as the objectors consider would be necessary). It is considered more than a theoretical proposition that the condition could be varied following implementation of the 2016 permission. It is therefore concluded that even if the condition has the effect the objectors argue for it is a realistic prospect that subsequent to implementation the 2016 permission could be occupied.

One of the representations received relates to a retail development at White City in Trafford. This is a 2011 appeal decision at Trafford, where it was noted that none of the four major retail operators sustained an interest in delivering a consented scheme for the amalgamation of four units (three existing and one unimplemented). It was considered by the Inspector that the appeal proposal would result in harm, and that the fallback was unrealistic for these reasons.

The Zurich court case referred to above postdates the discussion of that appeal and confirms occupation not to be the true test. In addition to this, the current application and the 2016 permission are both designed around the requirements of a particular operator as opposed to the need for amalgamation and part construction. As such it is considered that the 2016 permission is a genuine ‘fall back position’, unlike White City where there was no identifiable interest.

It was also suggested by representations that the attempts to secure approval of planning conditions on the 2016 permission represented a late bid to maintain this as an extant permission. These conditions have since been determined and the Local Planning Authority can consider the implications of the 2016 permission vs the current application, without the need for further information in relation to contractor’s details, tender packages and a construction programme.

It has not been concluded at any stage that the information constitutes proof that the store will be built, but the information is considered sufficiently robust for a conclusion to be reached that the full building and occupation of the 2016 store is a realistic prospect.

In any event, the application has been considered on its own individual merits aside from the issue of fall back.

Based on the above considerations, if members accept the retail impacts arising from this planning application, it is simply a case of two planning permissions side by side, either of which may be acceptably brought forward.

The 2016 permission was estimated to have a 29.9% impact on convenience goods facilities within Southport’s Primary Shopping Area (PSA); this now compares to 18.7% for the current scheme. The original scheme was estimated to have a 1.5% impact on comparison goods facilities within Southport town centre as a whole; this compares to 1.1% for the current scheme.

It should therefore be apparent that the 2016 permission, affording a larger store than is currently proposed, would have the potential for greater impacts on Southport town centre and the PSA when compared with those now identified by the current proposal. In conclusion, if the current application is considered unacceptable, it is ultimately a matter for the decision maker as to the level of weight to be given to a fall-back position. In that respect, the Chief Planning Officer advises that, in combination, the contractual position explained above, the requirement on Sainsbury to take a 25 year lease, and the lawful commencement of the 2016 permission is considered sufficient to enable the conclusion that there is a “more than theoretical” prospect of the store approved in 2016 ultimately being built out and operated.

For these reasons, should members have concerns over the retail impacts of the current planning application, they are asked to afford appropriate weight to the provisions of the 2016 planning permission which remains extant. Possible merger of Sainsburys/Asda (early 2019)

Members are advised that at the time the application was received, Sainsbury and Asda were in the process of progressing a merger. This process led to significant uncertainty for the Council in the determination of the current planning application and was an impediment to the completion of Nexus’ initial retail advice to the Council.

In this regard, Council officers had a continuing dialogue with the CMA (Competition and Mergers Authority) staff about the timetable for issuing the final report and the CMA advised this would not be issued before the end of March 2019. As it turned out the final report was published on 25 April 2019. This was a situation that was totally beyond the Council’s control and necessarily delayed the final determination of the current planning application. The CMA findings have not allowed the merger to proceed.

There is no suggestion that the findings of the CMA will be challenged. Nexus have advised that a merger is unlikely to be pursued any further. Further, it is known that Sainsbury’s, Walmart and Asda have now mutually agreed to terminate their merger proposals consequent on the published CMA findings.

Conclusion on retail planning matters

The Nexus assessment and update note conclude that there is no reason to refuse the planning application on retail planning policy grounds, and finds no significant adverse impacts would result on the vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre. The Chief Planning Officer accepts these findings and as such there remains no conflict with the above NPPF considerations or Policies ED2 and SD2 of the Sefton Local Plan.

DESIGN AND LAYOUT CONSIDERATIONS

The main footprint of the foodstore measures between 70 and 85 metres in maximum/minimum depth when including the delivery access, and 96 metres in width fronting Meols Cop Road, positioned to the north end of the Retail Park. The entrance elevation is repositioned to align with the remaining retail frontages immediately to the south.

The foodstore has varying roof heights and projections, but the roof fronting Meols Cop Road is just under 8.5 metres in height, compared to the 2016 planning permission of 12 metres to eaves and 15 metres to ridge. The existing building to be demolished is 7.2 metres to eaves height and 12.5 metres to ridge, with a low hip.

The existing units to be demolished project a considerable distance closer to Meols Cop Road than those proposed. The current principal access to this same unit is south facing and the proposal would to turn this through 90 degrees to face in a westerly direction towards Meols Cop Road fully addressing the street frontage.

The proposed Petrol Filling Station (PFS) would be positioned between Meols Cop Road and the main foodstore entrance. The PFS is positioned such that it would not require customers using this facility alone to travel through the main customer car parks, whilst affording suitable access and connection should this be the preference.

Customer access to the store is either via car from the new signalised junction or on foot via the same, through pedestrian routes from the edge of Fine Jane’s Brook or from north of the PFS. The whole car park remains capable of use by vehicles wishing to visit both the proposed foodstore and other units within the Retail Park. Recycling facilities are proposed within a smaller section of the open car park to the frontage.

The store is proposed to be at ground floor level, with parking to the site frontage, unlike the current planning permission which provides for a store at first floor level with ‘undercroft’ car parking. Access for servicing is via Foul Lane which separates this activity from customers and reduces visual impacts from Meols Cop Road.

The design of the main building involves a mix of glazing, brick and cladding which are common features of the immediate locality whether on larger units within the retail park or the nearby residential dwellings to Argarmeols Close.

This approach would afford an attractive visual appearance when viewed from Meols Cop Road and will provide for a more expressive, responsive building than exists at present, set some 100 metres from the back edge of the highway when compared to the taller and more dominant existing building projecting forward.

The north elevation is mostly screened by the existing tree cover adjacent to Fine Jane’s Brook, screening off most of the lower part of the building from outlooks to residents on Argarmeols Close. The east elevation to Foul Lane is prominent but the blank, cladded elevations are little different to adjacent units.

The remaining south elevation of the proposal is almost entirely concealed by the side elevation of Unit 4, to which it would be adjacent, save for a short section to the rear that would project slightly beyond Unit 4 and would be visible from Foul Lane. The forward projection of five other units on the retail park will diminish the store’s impact from longer views. The design largely reflects the function of the building and the needs of servicing and store layout and is what would be expected of a food store proposed on this scale.

Landscaping proposals will reduce the visual impact of parking, and will also complement that already existing adjacent to Fine Jane’s Brook. Though not promoted by the applicant, as set out in other sections of the report, an acoustic fence is required to the northern boundary, and whilst there is concern that this will give rise to some unacceptable visual impacts, it will be set behind the recycling bank from most vantage points fronting Meols Cop Road and will also be viewed within the context of existing and proposed landscaping as described.

For the above reasons the scheme is considered fully compliant with the Sefton Local Plan Policies EQ2 and EQ9, and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (most notably Section 12 ‘Achieving Well Designed Places’). IMPACT ON THE LIVING CONDITIONS OF ADJACENT RESIDENTS

The main concern relates to the living conditions of residents at Argarmeols Close, north of Fine Jane’s Brook. Regard must be had to the height of the building and impact on sunlight/outlook, the impact of deliveries and other various activities on site, and the measures required to address concerns that may arise during the construction period. It is not considered that any other residential dwellings are directly affected by the proposals.

The rear boundary treatments to Argarmeols Close are in the order of 35-55 metres north of the site, this distance increasing in a west to east direction. These rear elevations all currently face the long projection of the rear of the vacant existing building.

The replacement building, would be of reduced footprint and slightly greater height than the existing building, as set out previously. However, it would be much reduced in height and footprint compared to the 2016 planning permission, in terms of its projection and its height.

The replacement building is set back significantly 103 metres from Meols Cop Road. This is considerably further than both the existing building and the 2016 permission. The reduced projection most benefits those who have the shorter existing distance between their rear elevations and those of the new building. The 2016 planning permission affords a much taller building than both that now proposed and the vacant existing building, and projects around 38 metres further towards Meols Cop Road than the current application proposes.

The reduced height of the building and its much lesser projection when compared to the 2016 permission is such that it will bring significant advantages to those residents in relation to long term outlook if it is assumed that most might prefer views across a more open aspect of the retail park than to a building of substantial height and projection. Indeed, this view is essentially supported by the absence of any representations that question the direct implications of visual impact of the finalised scheme on neighbouring properties.

The positioning of the building as stipulated by the 2016 permission was held by the Secretary of State not to have an adverse impact on nearby residents in terms of overshadowing or loss of light and in that respect a building of 40 metres less depth and a height close to half that of what was previously proposed could not be considered to cause harm. The nearest dwellings are nos. 22 and 24 and their rear elevations are 53 metres from the main (reduced height) elevation.

It is considered that outlooks are not adversely affected and there is sufficient distance between the north elevation of the building and the rear elevations of Argarmeols Close for there to be no unacceptable loss of privacy to residents. With all servicing proposed to take place from Foul Lane, and the 2016 planning permission subject to unrestricted 24-hour servicing, acoustic screening is required to be installed prior to the service yard first being brought into use.

Residents have also raised concern over the impact of the build phase on their dwellings. Whilst planning permission cannot be refused on the grounds of these impacts, conditions are employed to require applicants to submit a Construction Management Plan and a scheme of works to ensure that residents are informed fully in respect of piled foundations; these conditions were previously supported by the Secretary of State and are included again.

An acoustic fence had previously been proposed to the undercroft car park to ensure residents are not affected by noise from manoeuvring, parking and turning of cars. This requirement is also continued through the proposed planning conditions and extends from the eastern extreme of the recycling bank to the front corner of the store nearest Fine Jane’s Brook. The fence also assists in preventing car headlights shining through to these same dwellings.

Fencing is also proposed around the recycling area and adjacent to the PFS which reduces the impact of noise disturbance and lighting from these activities.

As is the case in relation to retail impact, if members have concerns over the impacts on living conditions of nearby occupants, they should afford considerable weight to the fact that the impacts are not seen to be as significant as those brought by the 2016 planning permission if built out and completed. This is again bearing in mind that there is a realistic prospect of the 2016 permission ultimately being built out and operated as set out above.

It is considered that these factors in combination acceptably address all concerns relating to impact on living conditions of nearby dwellings and the scheme therefore meets with the requirements of Sefton Local Plan policy EQ2 ‘Design’ and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, most notably Paragraph 127.

HIGHWAY SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY

The highways manager has confirmed that there are no objections to the current application as no harm results in highway safety terms, and there are no other significant transport-related implications. The traffic implications of the 2016 planning permission were discussed at the Inquiry into that application in 2015/16. The layout and principles of access are little different in the new application, but are summarised below.

Traffic Impact Assessment

The previous consent was for a food supermarket with a GIA (Gross Internal Area) of 10,942 square metres. The current application involves a smaller food supermarket with a GIA of 7,492 square metres. To establish suitable trip rates for the proposed development, reference has been made to the trip rates already accepted by the Highway Authority as part of the previous consented application for the site. These trip rates were applied to the revised development footprint to ascertain the likely vehicular trip impact. To use these trip rates is considered reasonable as the annual forecast growth rate for traffic in Sefton in the 5- year period 2015-2020 using the nationally recognised software Tempro 7 is identified as being only 1.015. The application of the Tempro 7 growth rates in this instance would result in only a very minor increase in the trip rates with the resultant forecast trips being still significantly less than that of the previously consented scheme.

The assessment showed that 814 two-way trips would be expected in the PM weekday peak hour (16:30-17:30) and 841 two-way trips would be expected in the Saturday peak hour (13:30-14:30). The assessment for the previously consented application showed that 1,007 two-way trips would be expected in the PM weekday peak hour (16:30-17:30) and 1,041two-way trips would be expected in the Saturday peak hour (13:30-14:30). This represents a reduction on the 2016 permission’s impact of 193 two-way trips in the PM weekday peak hour and 200 two-way trips in the Saturday peak hour.

A Supplementary Transport Note dated November 2018 was submitted on behalf of the applicant, which provided an analysis of the current proposal on its own merits irrespective of the 2016 application. This analysis included predicted trip rates taking account of forecast trade diversion and shows no material change between the 2016 Inquiry figures and those for 2018. With the use of this and the trip generation figures contained within the 2018 Transport Assessment, the Supplementary Transport Note has considered and summarised the traffic impact of the current proposal on the local highway network.

Within the Supplementary Transport Note, there are two tables which show the impact of the proposed development during the weekday pm peak and the Saturday peak for the site access and the wider highway network. The figures shown indicate that there is a slight reduction in traffic on the wider highway network and an increase in traffic for the site access in both the weekday pm and Saturday peaks when compared to the 2018 baseline figures. The Supplementary Transport Note concludes that as these forecast traffic generation figures are less than those identified in the 2016 permission and that as the modelling in 2016 demonstrated that the local highway network operated with minimal queuing and delay, there was no need to undertake any further detailed modelling assessments, including for future years.

It is considered that this is an acceptable position to take, and that the current application, as a stand-alone proposal, has been assessed and it has been demonstrated that the proposed development can be accommodated with minimal impact on the local highway network.

Vehicular/Pedestrian Access Arrangements It is proposed to alter the existing vehicular access arrangements on Meols Cop Road by closing off the existing vehicular access which allows traffic to turn left only into the site from Meols Cop Road and introducing a new traffic signal controlled junction catering for all vehicle movements. The previous consented application included an assessment, using LINSIG junction modelling software, which demonstrated that this proposed traffic signal controlled junction would operate within capacity. The design of this junction has been previously accepted by both the Highway Authority and the Planning Inspector as suitable to serve the previous approved food store development, which was significantly larger than that proposed in this application.

The new proposed signal controlled junction will include pedestrian facilities across the access to the store but not across Meols Cop Road as there is an existing TOUCAN crossing a short distance from the primary point of pedestrian access to the site, which will enable pedestrians to safely cross Meols Cop Road. This signal controlled junction will need to ensure the appropriate visibility splays for vehicles for all arms of the junction.

The existing bus stop (S61087) within the lay-by on the east side of Meols Cop Road will be relocated as part of the highway works for the new junction. It will need to be moved south of its current position, but not too close to the existing roundabout. The relocated bus stop will be located within the existing carriageway alignment of Meols Cop Road, rather than within a new lay-by and will require the installation of access kerbs, a raised footway area, new bus stop posts and timetable and appropriate carriageway markings.

A new vehicular access to serve the service yard will be introduced off Foul Lane. To accommodate this, it will be necessary to realign and reconstruct the pedestrian footway, together with the provision of flush kerbs and tactile paving.

The existing vehicular access to the retail park car parks from Foul Lane will be unaltered.

The main pedestrian access to the site will be from Meols Cop Road via a pedestrian link to the north of the petrol filling station or via the footway on the southern side of the new access road. Both pedestrian routes connect to good pedestrian links within the site. There is also pedestrian access to the front of the proposed store via a link to the footway/cycleway which links Foul Lane and Meols Cop Road to the north of the site.

Petrol Filling Station

It is recognised that there are already two existing petrol filling stations in very close proximity of this site, namely Tesco and BP. The petrol filling station which forms part of this development proposal will have 4 pumps, plus a forecourt area to accommodate several waiting vehicles in each lane. Given the other existing petrol filling stations in the area and the layout and configuration of the proposed petrol filling station, it is unlikely that significant queues would develop within the site which could cause congestion on the highway network.

Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) To ensure that free flowing traffic conditions along Meols Cop Road are not adversely affected by on-street parking, it will be necessary to introduce ‘No Waiting At Any Time’ restriction in the form of double yellow lines on both sides of Meols Cop Road from the junction of Kew Roundabout (New Foul Lane/Scarisbrick New Road) to the mid-point of the bridge over Fine Jane’s Brook.

It will also be necessary to revoke an existing Prohibition of Driving TRO that prevents the right turn into the site from Meols Cop Road.

Stopping-up Order and Adoption

The extent of the adopted public highway on the east side of Meols Cop Road is defined by the back edge of the footway, but includes the existing left turn lane which provides access to the existing car park. Given that this left turn lane will be removed as part of the proposal it will need to be ‘Stopped-up’ so that it can be incorporated within the site. As such, the applicant will need to make an application for a ‘Stopping up’ Order to the Highway Authority and give an undertaking to pay all costs involved.

The new traffic signal controlled junction will need to be dedicated to the highway authority for adoption under s278/38 of the Highways Act 1980. The exact extent can be agreed at a later stage; however, it is normal for the area to be defined along the back edge of the footway and by a line that would encompass all the traffic signal equipment.

The layout of the proposed vehicular access off Foul Lane which will serve the service yard will also result in an area that will need to be dedicated to the highway authority for adoption under s228 of the Highways Act 1980. Again, the exact extent of the area can be agreed at a later stage.

Parking

The proposed car parking provision for the proposed Sainsbury’s store consists of 391 spaces including 24 disabled spaces and 16 parent and child spaces. This is in addition to the 348 car parking spaces on the existing car parks within the retail park. This results in a total of 739 car parking spaces that will be available within the retail park.

The applicant has carried out a parking accumulation study to establish the parking demand for the proposed development. The TRICS trip rates, as developed for the previously consented store were used in the parking accumulation study for both the weekdays and Saturdays based on the 391 parking spaces being available. The study begins at 7am and continues until 10pm – weekdays and Saturday. The study indicates that during the weekday peak (17:00 – 18:00), the car park accumulation is forecast to be 175 vehicles or 45% occupancy of the car park and that during the Saturday peak (14:00 – 15:00), the car park accumulation is forecast to be 329 vehicles or 84% occupancy of the car park. The greatest car park usage on a weekday was forecast to be between 11:00 and 12:00 with a car park accumulation of 262 vehicles or 67% occupancy of the car park and on a Saturday the greatest car park usage was forecast to be between 12:00 and 13:00 with a car park accumulation of 358 vehicles or 91% occupancy of the car park. As such, this shows that the proposed 391 car parking spaces will be sufficient to accommodate the demand for parking resulting from the proposal. It should also be remembered that visitors to the new development will also have access to the additional 348 car parking spaces on the existing car parks within the retail park.

The car park layout, as proposed, has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.

It is proposed to provide cycle parking in the form of 25 ‘Sheffield’ cycle stands which when configured correctly can accommodate up to 50 bikes. This will be located close to the ground floor entrance of the store ensuring convenience and security through natural surveillance.

Electric Charging Points

It is proposed to provide 4 no. electric charging points within the car parking area which is acceptable.

Servicing

All deliveries to the store will take place within the proposed service yard accessed from Foul Lane. The applicant has provided tracking drawings to demonstrate that a 16.5m articulated vehicle, which is the largest that will access the yard, can safely access, manoeuvre within and leave the yard. In addition to the expected up to 10 normal deliveries per day that can be expected with a store of this size, the service yard will also cater for the vehicles associated with Groceries On-line operation that will be run from this store. Loading space and parking for up to 6 such vehicles is catered for. The applicant has also provided tracking drawings to demonstrate that a petrol tanker making deliveries to the petrol station can safely enter, leave and manoeuvre within the site.

Accessibility

The transport assessment considered in detail the level of accessibility for other modes of travel including walking, cycling and public transport to the site. The applicant has also submitted a MASA (Minimum Accessibility Standard Assessment) as part of the submission.

Pedestrians

Clearly defined pedestrian routes are identified on the submitted site layout plan (A-PL- 003 Rev A), which provides convenient, direct and safe connections between the store entrance, other retail units on the Meols Cop Retail Park, key points of pedestrian access from the surrounding highway network and nearby bus stops. There is an existing traffic signal controlled TOUCAN crossing on Meols Cop Road near to the northern boundary of the site.

The existing path adjacent to Fine Jane's Brook that runs between Meols Cop Road and Foul Lane and the site is unlit, approximately 2.0m wide and a section undulates quite significantly. Given the importance of this link in making the development site accessible for pedestrians it will be necessary for the development to include the comprehensive upgrade of this path so that it is 3.0m wide, level with an appropriate scheme of lighting.

Cyclists

The existing path adjacent to Fine Jane's Brook forms part of Sefton’s Strategic Cycle network providing excellent connections across this part of Southport. The improvements to the existing path as identified above will be of benefit to cyclists accessing the development.

Buses

At present the two existing bus stops near the proposed store on Meols Cop Road are served by the 44 service, which provides links to Formby and Crossens. There are also bus stops within easy walking distance on Scarisbrick New Road that are served by the 300 service that provides links to Southport, Lydiate, Bootle and Liverpool) and the 375/385 services that provide links to Southport, Ormskirk, Skelmersdale and Wigan.

It is intended that the existing southbound bus stop adjacent to the existing Homebase store will be retained in its current location and already has access kerbs, a raised footway area and a shelter.

The existing northbound stop on Meols Cop Road, to the north of Fine Jane’s Brook and adjacent to Meols Cop High School playing fields, has a shelter, but the stop will need to be upgraded with access kerbs and a raised footway area to make it fully accessible for wheelchair users and those with prams/buggies, etc.

The existing bus stop within the lay-by on the east side of Meols Cop Road will be removed and a replacement bus stop will be introduced within the existing carriageway alignment on the east side of Meols Cop Road, including the installation of access kerbs, a raised footway area, a new bus stop post and timetable and appropriate carriageway markings.

Taxis

Taxis play an important role in helping those without the use of a car in undertaking their main weekly food shopping. There is a lay-by close to the main entrance of the store which can be used for drop-off and pick up of customers by hackney carriage vehicles. The taxi rank will need to be marked out and signed in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.

Travel Plan

A Framework Travel Plan has been submitted to support the application. This Travel Plan will need to be developed and introduced for the development.

Construction Traffic Management Plan

A Construction Traffic Management Plan will be required to cover the construction of the development.

Representations on Highway Matters post July 2019

Since the previous report to Planning Committee in July 2019, further representations have been made relating to traffic impacts. These suggest that the use of traffic data from 2015 is not appropriate for assessing a scheme in 2020 and new surveys should be commissioned. This issue has been reviewed and no new developments or infrastructure changes have been identified that would have caused material changes in the traffic flow data since 2015. This position has been reinforced by reference to traffic data from 2018 for Meols Cop Road showing very little change from 2015 and a slight decrease from 2012.

It has been suggested that the applicant should provide a full Traffic Impact Assessment using the revised data, including a new LINSIG (industry standard) assessment of the proposed signalised junction. As traffic flows in the area remain effectively unchanged since 2015, the traffic impact assessment as previously submitted is considered to be satisfactory.

It is also suggested that the trip rates proposed to assess the development should take into account TEMPRO growth (TEMPRO is a program designed to project trips in an area over time for use in transport models). Although TEMPRO growth rates would usually be applied to background traffic rather than specific trip rates, applying the TEMPRO growth rates to the forecast trip generation for the development site results in only a very minor increase in trip rates which would not have any material effect on the operation of the highway network.

The final part of the representation suggested that further clarity is required in relation to the distribution of existing and future traffic flows from the retail park, allowing for the new signalised junction. Further information has been provided by the developer in relation to the trips associated with the existing retail park and the proportion that would use the new junction on Meols Cop Road. These trips were included in the previous junction modelling and assessment and are considered to be acceptable and can be accommodated within the operation of the new junction. As per retail impact and the living conditions of nearby occupants, if members have concerns over the impact of the proposals on highway safety and accessibility, they should afford considerable weight to the fact that the impacts are not seen to be as significant as those brought by the 2016 planning permission. This is again bearing in mind that there is a realistic prospect of the 2016 permission ultimately being built out and operated as set out above.

For the above reasons the scheme complies with Sefton Local Plan Policy EQ3 ‘Accessibility’, and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 109-111).

ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND BENEFITS

Though the reduced size of the store slightly reduces the number of job opportunities available when compared to the 2016 permission, the proposal is still expected to generate around 30 full-time and 170 part-time equivalent job opportunities (gross). This would be spread over a range of skills and the flexibility of jobs that may be offered within a supermarket is such that it will generate considerable job opportunity. The increase in wage earning population would potentially benefit other local businesses with more disposable income distributed in their stores.

The store will facilitate private sector investment in Southport of more than £15m. The Economic benefits delivered by the development were given significant weight by the Secretary of State when granting the 2016 permission. Paragraph 32 of his decision letter confirms:

“The Secretary of State concludes that the proposed development would contribute to economic growth and generate a significant number of new jobs both during the construction phase and once the store was operational. Even when set against the smaller number of jobs which may be lost at other stores as a result of the proposal, the Secretary of State affords this benefit significant weight.”

The store construction would also generate opportunities for local labour and the Section 106 Agreement contains measures requiring the applicant to undertake ‘reasonable endeavours’ to maximise opportunity in this respect.

Further representations have been received in relation to job creation and economic benefit. It is true that the application site delivers no jobs in its current, derelict and unoccupied form. The proposed store will also deliver less jobs than the 2016 permission, but the 2016 permission would also deliver less jobs than were envisaged at the point it was approved. It can be discerned from the 2016 submission that there were in the order of 30 employees in the Homebase store at that time.

Though the number of employees is estimated by the applicant, numbers cannot be confirmed on a precise basis and it is sufficient for members to be aware that it will deliver an increased number of jobs. There is no credible reason for the analysis of job creation to be any more detailed than that carried out by the Secretary of State above.

Representations have suggested that a full employment assessment should be provided on the basis that it was required for the new Aldi store on the former Birkdale Trading Estate. However, the circumstances are completely different, as the analysis was centred on land designated in the Local Plan for employment use and this was needed to justify the loss of employment land, and therein, a Section 106 contribution towards the re- provision. It was not specifically introduced as a discussion point to promote economic benefits brought about by the scheme, though the economic benefits were appropriately addressed as part of that scheme.

It is not considered accurate to conclude that if stores lose staff whether to another store, or for other reasons, they will close. It will more likely mean in practice they reconsider whether they are still required given the increasing efficiencies and automation prevalent in retail. Indeed, the whole concept of ‘overtrading’ reflects the reality that stores can lose some amount of trade without losing financial sustainability (of staff numbers or the entire store). The general increase in retailer efficiency and automation ties in with the lesser numbers now proposed by the current application.

As stated above, the secured planning obligation commits the applicant to local labour provisions through a recruitment training plan that will commit them to using Job Centres and other employment sources bringing people back into work rather than displacement from their current jobs.

The low barriers to entry to many of the employment positions created ensure that the development can directly address many ‘long term’ unemployed. It will also be noted that there is a legal provision for the applicant to utilise ‘reasonable endeavours’ in securing local labour resource.

As such, the development gives rise to several economic benefits and this weighs in favour of the proposal when having regard to Local Plan Policy SD2 ‘Principles of Sustainable Development’. The issues relating to the economic impact on Southport Town Centre are addressed in the retail assessment set out above.

IMPACTS ON CRIME AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

CCTV is to be installed to all areas of the car park, and at all access points to and from the site, ensuring there are no concealed areas affording easy opportunity for anti-social activity. Security lighting will be provided in and around the site perimeter and within service areas, and ATMs are positioned directly on the store frontage where users are visible from both the open car park and within the store atrium. These would be protected by industry standard ‘anti-ram’ bollards.

The agreed scheme of landscape maintenance will also ensure there are no concerns in respect of overgrown landscaping creating hiding places or gathering areas. The scheme therefore complies with the relevant aspects of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policies SD2 and EQ2 of the Sefton Local Plan.

AIR QUALITY

There are no objections to the proposal from the Environmental Health team. The condition requiring the Construction Management Plan (condition 7) makes provision for dust suppression during the construction period, and the development also makes provision for 4 no. electric vehicle charging points which will promote the use of electric vehicles. The scheme therefore complies with the relevant aspects of the NPPF and Policy EQ5 of the Sefton Local Plan.

FLOOD RISK ISSUES

The Lead Local Flood Authority have raised no objections subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the submitted Sustainable Drainage Strategy, and subject to it being fully constructed prior to the development being occupied. Subject to this the scheme complies with the relevant aspects of the NPPF (notably paragraphs 163 and 165), and Policy EQ8 of the Sefton Local Plan.

ECOLOGY

An extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report was submitted alongside the planning application, and though Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS) have advised that some of the survey data provided is out of date, the limited nature of habitat on-site i.e. mainly hard standing and buildings on a retail park is such that the report is acceptable.

The Habitats Regulations Assessment report outlines the test of likely significant effects and demonstrates that there will be no likely significant effects on Martin Mere Special Protection Area (SPA). The development site is 350m from Martin Mere Mosslands Biological Heritage Site (BHS) which is a non-statutory designated site. The BHS supports pink-footed geese which are a ‘qualifying feature’ of Martin Mere SPA.

The site is also relatively close to the following designated sites:

 Brook Farm Bridge Drains BHS – 350m from the site running along the edge of Martin Mere Mosslands BHS;  High Brows Farm Covert BHS – 750m southeast; and  Southport Old Links Golf Course – Local Wildlife Site 1km northeast.

The development is unlikely to harm the features for which the sites have been designated due to the separation distance and limited nature of habitats on the application site. A preliminary bat roost assessment was carried out alongside the application, and though this categorised the building as having low to negligible potential, the report recommended a further inspection by a suitably licenced bat worker as the potential roost features are considered suitable for crevice dwelling bats and, if insulation is present, then potentially hibernating bats. Following this work, seasonal surveys were carried out in May 2019 which confirmed that no bats were present. These surveys are acceptable to MEAS and, as a result, no further mitigation is necessary.

Conditions are also attached relating to felling of trees and shrubs outside the bird nesting and breeding season, as is a condition requiring that no works are carried out within 5 metres of the bank of Fine Jane’s Brook. This is to protect otter/water vole population during the construction. Though neither condition was regarded as necessary by the Secretary of State, the Chief Planning Officer considers they are important to ensure that the Local Planning Authority discharges its responsibilities as a competent authority.

The proposal is considered acceptable in relation to Paragraphs 176-177 of the NPPF and Policies NH1 and NH2 of the Sefton Local Plan.

CONTAMINATED LAND

The Council’s Contaminated Land team concluded on the previous application that there is no requirement for a full investigative remediation strategy. However, the presence of a nearby landfill is noted, as is the intersection through the site of a former railway line. In view of this, it was felt proportionate to require the measures to be addressed through a precautionary condition which requires further appraisal in the event of unexpected contamination being discovered during the works, and this was agreed by the Secretary of State in the 2016 planning permission.

The current application has been subject to a revised and updated appraisal, which now confirms that some contaminated land conditions will be required on the new permission. This notwithstanding, Paragraph 179 of the NPPF states that ‘Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.’

Subject to the above, the proposal gives rise to no conflict with Paragraphs 178-179 of the NPPF and Policy EQ6 of the Sefton Local Plan.

NOISE AND CONSTRUCTION ISSUES

The noise assessment was revised during the planning application and has been both written and assessed based on a potential 24-hour store opening.

The Technical Officer has concluded that in terms of delivery noise, plant and equipment and noise from the car park, there would be no adverse noise impacts within the vicinity, or on the living conditions of residents of Argarmeols Close. As stated earlier in the report, the servicing area would benefit from acoustic walling. The 2016 planning permission provides for acoustic fencing to the entirety of the Argarmeols Road boundary. Residents of Argarmeols Road have rear elevations around 40 metres from the rear elevation, and it is considered the acoustic fencing remains necessary as these residents remain the most sensitive receptors (i.e. would be the most likely to be affected by noise generated from the proposal) and a condition is attached.

Conditions are also recommended in respect of plant and equipment for the Petrol Filling Station component, a Construction Management Plan, and a restriction on the use of the recycling facility. Matters relating to piling operations will also be covered by condition, as was set out by the Secretary of State in detail previously.

The scheme is therefore considered to comply with the relevant aspects of the NPPF, notably Paragraph 170, and Policy EQ4 of the Sefton Local Plan.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

The applicant proposes several measures will be incorporated into the design of the building to reduce energy consumption and, in turn, carbon emissions:

- Inclusion of a combined heat and power unit (CHP); - High efficiency air source heat pumps; - Improved U values and glazing performance; - Bespoke design to maximise natural daylight and reduce the requirement for lighting; - Solar gain control measures; - LED lighting and adaptive lighting controls; - Demand controlled ventilation; and - Mitigate the need for high capacity cooling systems.

These measures are estimated by the applicant to exceed the current Building Regulations Energy Efficiency Standards by 47% and is set out by a detailed Energy Assessment Report accompanying the application.

As adherence to these measures is covered by condition, the scheme accords with the overarching objective of the NPPF, notably Paragraph 154, and Local Plan Policies SD2 and EQ7.

SECTION 106 PROVISIONS

It is considered necessary to secure potential benefits and mitigate potential harms arising from the scheme through a formal legal agreement. The agreement was completed on 31 October 2019.

The provisions of that agreement include: - a commitment to keeping the Lord Street Sainsbury’s store open for a minimum five-year period, and - a commitment to ‘reasonable endeavours’ for local labour provision, using local resources during the construction period and following store opening

The Section 106 to which the application would be subject is fully enforceable on the granting of planning permission, and the five-year provision is deemed suitable and necessary by Nexus Planning to ensure compliance with policy. The retail impacts have been considered in relation to their being realised within 5 years of the date of the planning application.

The Inspector’s report for the 2016 permission found that there was no requirement for the applicant to enter into an agreement which provided for the continued operation of the existing Lord Street Sainsbury’s store, as she believed that this store would continue to be a viable business after the implementation of the Meols Cop proposal. As set out at Section 4 of the Nexus report, a different view has been reached this time for the following reasons:

- the most pertinent consideration relates not to the performance of the Lord Street Sainsbury’s after the implementation of a larger Sainsbury’s store at Meols Cop, but instead relates to whether Sainsbury’s would secure most profit from trading from one or two stores in Southport; and, - changes in the retail sector mean that retailers are being increasingly cautious in respect of the number of stores that they trade from.

In this context, given the uncertainty as to whether Sainsbury’s would wish to trade from two stores in such proximity in practice, the agreement is therefore considered to meet the relevance tests to provide for an acceptable planning permission. The Section 106 Agreement is not an incentive for Members to resolve to grant permission but serves a legitimate planning purpose when assessed against CIL. This remains the case following the further review of retail impacts.

OTHER MATTERS

The report addresses the key relevant issues raised by objectors and a series of planning conditions are considered to address numerous matters of concern before, during, or after the construction period.

The applicant is not required to demonstrate the need for the food store under the provisions of current policy. As the attached appraisal of retail issues confirms, it is only necessary to ensure impacts on planned investment and on the vitality and viability of town centres for the next five years are addressed. The impact of the new convenience store at Birkdale Trading Estate (Aldi) has been considered by the Nexus report.

In further response to representations made by Southport & Windsor Properties (SWP), they commented that the applicant confirmed in the 2016 Inquiry that an agreement had been reached with Homebase to secure vacant possession, but the vacation was instigated by Homebase themselves. SWP state that this means that the applicant should provide details of the agreement, as it is relevant to the fall-back position. Moreover, SWP state that the Council should require financial appraisals to confirm the 2016 permission to be a realistic proposition. The letter also continues to suggest that Central 12 should be tested further as a sequential alternative.

It is not considered necessary to have sight of any contractual arrangement with Homebase, nor an explanation of how the agreement came about. However, the 2016 planning permission has been implemented, with all pre-commencement conditions discharged, and is extant.

In any event, the proposed new store subject of this planning application will still be acceptable regardless of anything permitted previously, and would have a lesser impact than that resulting from the 2016 permission, as stated above.

A further letter was received from SWP on 13 May 2019, reiterating that the Council request sight of the legal agreements between Sainsburys/Homebase, financial appraisals and assessments for Central 12, and an independent chartered retail surveyor’s report on the current retail position in Southport. None of this was felt to be necessary, or relevant, for the same reasons as above – up to date explanatory memorandums detailing the development contracts have been supplied both for the 2016 permission and the current planning application (if approved) by the applicants.

The application has been thoroughly and rigorously assessed for impact on vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre and is acceptable.

It is pointed out through representations that a new Aldi discount foodstore has opened in Birkdale and a further one is now proposed at Tarleton (West Lancashire). It has been suggested that Home Bargains on the Kew Retail Park should also be factored into the assessments.

The Birkdale Aldi store has been factored into calculations within the updated Retail Impact Assessment, but it is not for this application to consider the impact of any proposed new store in Tarleton, which is due for consideration at West Lancashire’s Planning Committee meeting on 9 January; the onus would be on the applicant of that store to consider the relative impacts of consented food stores elsewhere.

Draft financial appraisals were issued by SWP suggesting that the conversion of Units 1-5 at Central 12 for a foodstore may be a viable proposition, but there would be a loss incurred in implementing the 2016 permission which would account for the current smaller store proposal.

SWP acknowledges that the appraisal relating to Meols Cop is based on a series of its own ‘assumptions’ or estimates, and does not contain any independent or verified evidence. It has not been tested or reviewed by officers and any response may raise sensitive matters relating to commercial confidentiality. Moreover, the Chief Planning Officer is satisfied that any lack of viability as may be identified by an independent review would likely be overridden by contractual obligations to implement. There is no need for viability assessment.

It is considered that the submissions should be afforded little to no weight for the above reasons but again due to the fundamental point that the fall back position is not being relied upon to make the development acceptable.

Aviva’s letter submitted prior to July 2019 Planning Committee expressed concern over the impact of the proposed development on Central 12. As explained above, new leases have been issued to Boots and Next which run to 2023, and discussion is continuing between the parties over a new lease in respect of Unit 1 as set out earlier, the principal test of retail impact still relates to the impact on Southport’s Primary Shopping Area, as was the case at Inquiry.

In the lead up to Planning Committee in July 2019, and after publication of the Committee Report, Councillor Pugh raised concerns that money has recently been pledged to town centres by the Liverpool City Region and Southport would receive in the order of £400,000. Concerns have also been raised over increased vacancy and reduced footfall, with reduced job creation compared to what was originally envisaged. Concern is being raised that Sainsbury will leave Southport town centre and other stores will follow. Concerns are also raised over air quality.

The Chief Planning Officer has noted that any monies as may be received do not represent existing planned or committed investment as is required for impact testing by the Framework or National Planning Practice Guidance. Issues of vacancies and footfall are already picked up by the Nexus report, issues of reduced job creation are explained above, and as set out elsewhere, the applicant is committing through a Section 106 Agreement to keep the Lord Street Sainsbury’s store open for a minimum five-year period following the opening of Meols Cop.

The remainder of the retail park is subject to various controls on what may be sold, as set out in the Committee Report and as affirmed by condition 31, and matters of air quality are already covered within the Committee Report, with impacts from the larger permitted store found to be acceptable by the Secretary of State.

Additionally, Nexus have taken account of the current Home Bargains store and condition 31 is designed to prevent further primary convenience retail from Units 2A & 2B.

The report concludes that there will be changes to the nature of traffic movement, but this will not be materially over and above existing levels and there is ample capacity in the existing network to accommodate traffic flows to and from the development.

As the Sainsbury-Asda merger is not now proceeding, no weight can be afforded to the suggestion that the stated job opportunities will not be created due to the merger. Correct naming of applicant

During the discussions relating to the Section 106 Agreement, it became apparent that there was an issue relating to the correct naming of the applicant. At the time of the application submission, the applicant was:

“BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES TRUST COMPANY LIMITED AND BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES TRUST COMPANY (JERSEY) LIMITED AS TRUSTESS FOR THE TRITON NO 2 PROPERTY UNIT TRUST (JERSEY) AND SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS LIMITED”

In an email dated 9 October 2019, the agents for the planning application, Savills, asked that the applicant details be updated to identify them as follows:

“BNP PARIBAS DEPOSITORY SERVICES LIMITED AND BNP PARIBAS DEPOSITORY SERVICES (JERSEY) LIMITED BEING THE TRUSTEES FOR UBS TRITON NO 2 PROPERTY UNIT TRUST (JERSEY).”

The applicant has since acknowledged that there was an error in the name noted on the planning application and that it should have noted the new company name on its submission. The Council’s concerns related to possible unforeseen issues that may have arisen out of the fact that the application was lodged in the wrong company name.

The Section 106 Agreement has been completed with the new company name noted. The office copy entries also refer to the new company name. As such, the only reference to the old (incorrect) company name is on the planning application. The landowner has indicated that the decision notice will need to be amended to note the new company name.

The Plymouth case (R. (on the application of Park Pharmacy Trust) v Plymouth City Council [2008] EWHC 445 (Admin)) follows the line of authority from Main v Swansea City Council (1985) 49 P. & C.R. 26.

In Main, the Court of Appeal (CA) determined that there was sufficient failure in the certificate to enable a court to quash the resulting grant in 'certain circumstances'. The defects were not such as to amount to a complete nullity and it was a matter of the Court's discretion whether relief should be granted.

In Plymouth, Sullivan J (as was) similarly declined to quash where there was an error in naming (as here). He concluded 'no possible basis' to quash because: (i) the LPA had been able to consider the merits, (ii) the LPA had been able to readily communicate with the applicant despite the error, and, (iii) no one had been prejudiced. In the Plymouth case, the LPA had knowledge of the error in the application prior to determining the application. The relevant officer in that case specifically advised the Committee that the error in the name “did not affect the planning process”. This advice was specifically found by Sullivan J to be 'entirely correct'.

It is considered appropriate to consider the principles contained within the Plymouth judgment prior to progressing the current application. Having regard to the judgement:

(i) The merits of the case have already been considered and through this updated Committee Report, are being re-considered in full, (ii) There has been no loss of communication with the applicants, who have been represented by Savills continually throughout both the processing of the planning application and the S106, and (iii) The naming error causes no prejudice to any party (including third parties) involved in the planning process, as the application has been consistently referred to throughout as an application for a new Sainsbury store. It is not considered that the name change would give rise to different matters being raised.

It is therefore safe to conclude that there is no offence to the principles set out by the Plymouth judgment. It follows that there is also no prejudice resulting from the way the application has been certified under Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

The naming error is not considered to be relevant to the planning decision.

NEED FOR REFERRAL

Under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, it is a requirement that this application, should members be minded to approve, be referred to the Secretary of State for their determination, as it amounts to development outside a town centre including retail use in an out-of-centre location, is not in accordance with one or more provisions of the development plan and consists of or includes the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is over 5,000 sq. metres gross of retail floor space. The recommendation is therefore subject to both the completion of the Section 106 Agreement and there being no objections from the Secretary of State. Though the application was referred following Planning Committee in July 2019, it will need to be referred again in the event of any further resolution from members that planning permission should be granted.

PLANNING CONDITIONS

The planning conditions are unaltered from the July 2019 Committee Report, but include specific controls on the sale of comparison/convenience floorspace and now confirm the correct plan number in respect of Condition 31. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

It is confirmed that the proposals have been subject to screening under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. The Council’s screening opinion was published on 13 September 2018 (DC/2018/01686) and confirmed that a full Environmental Impact Assessment was not required in this case.

PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION

As set out above, Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that, where regard is to be had to the statutory development plan in determining an application for planning permission, the determination shall be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

It is concluded that the proposed development would contribute to economic growth and generate a significant number of new jobs both during the construction phase and once the store is operational. This benefit can be afforded significant weight.

The proposal, despite being on a smaller scale than the 2016 planning permission, would increase the choice and variety of available convenience goods. The site is relatively accessible even though many would undertake their journeys by car. The design of the proposal is acceptable and would improve the overall appearance of the retail park. There is some moderate support for the proposals. These factors should be afforded a moderate degree of weight.

The proposal would not harm existing committed or planned investment but it is reasonable to acknowledge that it would have a small degree of adverse impact on the Primary Shopping Area of Southport and wider town centre, but this would be relatively small. The proposals as submitted can clearly be demonstrated to have no significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre, which is the test required by NPPF at paragraph 91. The assessment undertaken by Savills and the analysis from Nexus confirms there are no suitable sequential alternative sites. No existing foodstores would be likely to close and local consumer choice and trade would not be diminished because of the proposal.

The proposal would also afford opportunity for local labour and reinforce protection over the Lord Street store, this protection necessary to enable the recommendation to grant planning permission and ensuring that both the town centre store and this one trade concurrently.

Many of the objections received express concern over the impacts on Southport Town Centre, but these are fully addressed throughout the report and are not considered to afford sufficient weight leading to a conclusion that the application should be refused. Issues relating to retail and traffic impact have been re-assessed since the original Committee Report of July 2019 and the findings do not affect the conclusions previously reached in that report.

It is therefore clear that the proposal satisfies the economic, social and environmental roles of sustainable development and having had regard to the relevant provisions of the NPPF and the policies of the Sefton Local Plan, there are no other material planning considerations which would prevent the granting of planning permission.

The proposal would amount to sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF and Policy SD1 of the Sefton Local Plan. On this basis, it is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to referral to the Secretary of State, the provisions of the Section 106 Agreement completed 31 October 2019 and further referral of the application to the Secretary of State. RECOMMENDATION

Approve subject to:

A - Referral of application to Secretary of State, B - Provisions of Section 106 Agreement completed 31 October 2019, and; C - The following schedule of conditions:

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

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

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2012-002 A-PL-01 Site Location Plan; 2012-002 A-PL- 02 Existing Site Plan; 2012-002 A-PL-03 Proposed Site Plan Rev A; 2012-002 A- PL-04 Rev A; Proposed Ground Floor Store Layout; 2012-002 A-PL-08 Proposed Roof Plan; 2012-002 A-PL-10 Proposed Elevations; 2012-002 A-PL-11 Proposed Site Sections; 2012-002 A-PL-12 Proposed Petrol Filling Station 2012-002 A-PL- 13 Existing Roof Plan; 2012-002 A-PL-14 Existing Retail Elevations, Noise Impact Assessment Report September 2018 and March 2019 addendum, Landscape Management Plan 6549.LMP.003 September 2018.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development.

3) No development shall take place above slab level until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance.

4) A scheme of noise control for any plant and equipment to be installed on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to its installation. The scheme of noise control shall demonstrate compliance with the maximum noise emission limits set out in Section 15 of the Noise Impact Assessment Report by Hann Tucker (March 2019 addendum). The approved scheme shall be implemented and shall thereafter be retained and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users. 5) A scheme of odour control for any kitchen or other extraction systems shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to their installation. The approved odour control scheme shall be implemented on site before the extraction system is brought into operation. Thereafter it shall be retained and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and ensure an acceptable visual appearance.

6) The development hereby permitted shall not be open for trading until the following highway works have been completed:

Construction of the new vehicular access servicing the development from Foul Lane together with the realignment and reconstruction of the pedestrian footway and the installation of flush kerbs and tactile paving either side of the access. Closure of the redundant vehicular access on Meols Cop Road together with the realignment and reconstruction of the pedestrian footway. Construction of the new traffic signal controlled junction incorporating controlled pedestrian crossing facilities across the access to the car park. Removal of the existing bus stop within the lay-by on the east side of Meols Cop Road and introduction of a replacement bus stop within the existing carriageway alignment on the east side of Meols Cop Road, including the installation of access kerbs, a raised footway area, a new bus stop post and timetable and appropriate carriageway markings. Upgrading of the existing northbound stop on Meols Cop Road, to the north of Fine Jane’s Brook with access kerbs and a raised footway area. Reconstruction and widening to 3.0m of existing pedestrian/cycle path on the south side of Fine Jane’s Brook between Meols Cop Road and Foul Lane, including the provision of a scheme of lighting. Introduction of waiting restrictions on both sides of the section of Meols Cop Road between the Kew Roundabout and Fine Jane’s Brook.

Reason: To ensure that acceptable access is achieved to the development and to safeguard other highway users at all times.

7) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The CMS shall be carried out as approved and adhered to throughout the construction period. The CMS shall provide for:

The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors. Loading and unloading of plant and materials. Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development. The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate. The drainage of the site whilst ensuring the protection of the surface water system, including Fine Jane’s Brook, from pollutants, contamination and construction debris. Hours of working. Wheel washing facilities. Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction. A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works.

Reason: This is required prior to the commencement of development to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users during both the demolition and construction phase of the development.

8) No development shall take place until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CTMP shall include details of how construction traffic will be managed during the construction period to ensure the safety of highway users and the free flow of traffic on the highway network. The CTMP shall be carried out as approved and remain in place throughout the construction period.

Reason: This is required prior to the commencement of development to ensure the safety of highway users during both the demolition and construction phase of the development. If the details are not approved prior to commencement it will prejudice the safety of highway users.

9) A suitable 4m high acoustic barrier with a minimum mass of 12kg/m2 and a sound absorbing face shall be erected around the service yard as set out in the Noise Impact Assessment Report by Hann Tucker (September 2018 and addendum March 2019). The acoustic barrier shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and erected before the service yard becomes operational and retained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

10) No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall be based on sustainable drainage principles in accordance with the principles and provisions set out in the Flood Risk Assessment by Hadfield Cawkwell Davidson (August 2018). It shall also include details of future management and maintenance to ensure it remains effective for the lifetime of the development. The approved surface water drainage scheme shall be carried out before the store is open for trading and shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: These details are needed prior to the commencement of development in case design changes are necessary; to promote sustainable development, to secure proper drainage and to manage risk of flooding and pollution.

11) No development shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of foul sewerage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: These details are needed prior to the commencement of development in case design changes are necessary; to promote sustainable development, to secure proper drainage and to manage risk of flooding and pollution.

12) No development shall take place until details of an acoustic fence along the treatment of the northern boundary of the application site, to include acoustic mitigation around the car park and recycling centre (including its height, finish and density), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The acoustic fence shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details before the store is occupied and open for trading and shall thereafter be retained for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

13) No pile driving or ground compaction works shall take place unless details of the methodology to be employed; the hours and duration of the works; and how dust, vibration and noise is to be mitigated, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

14) The development hereby permitted shall not be open for trading until the Hackney Carriage lay-by as shown on Drawing No: 2012-002 A-PL-03 Rev A has been provided. An additional six spaces reserved for ‘accessible’ users must also be provided within the wider Retail park (defined by the blue line on Drawing No 2012- 002 A-PL-01). It shall thereafter be retained for its intended purpose for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate provision is made for Hackney Carriages in the interest of promoting alternative modes of travel. 15) The development hereby permitted shall not be open for trading until the areas for car parking and cycle parking and four electric vehicle charging points have been provided in accordance with the details on Drawing No: 2012-002 A-PL-03 Rev A. These parking areas shall be retained for their intended purpose during the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure that enough cycle parking is provided for the development in the interest of promoting non-car based modes of travel whilst facilitating the use of electric vehicles to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions.

16) The development hereby permitted shall not be open for trading until a Travel Plan Co-ordinator has been appointed. Within 6 months of the opening of the foodstore hereby permitted, a Travel Plan shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall follow the general principles, strategies, review and monitoring arrangements set out in the Framework Travel Plan V0.4, revised September 2018. The approved Travel Plan shall be in place for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: To meet sustainable transport objectives including a reduction in single occupancy car journeys and the increased use of public transport, walking & cycling.

17) All landscaping as shown on drawing nos. 6549.ASP.PP.1.0, 6549.ASP.PP.1.1, 6549.ASP.PP.1.2 (Planting Plans 1-3) and 6549.LMP.003 shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the store opening for trading. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. Reason: To ensure an acceptable visual appearance to the development.

18) The measures identified within the Landscape Management Plan submitted by Aspect Landscape Planning (September 2018) shall be carried out as approved and its provisions implemented during the lifetime of the development hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable visual appearance to the development.

19) No development shall take place above slab level until a scheme for refuse storage and recycling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out before the store is open for trading and shall be retained for so long as the retail use continues to operate.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate facilities are provided within the development for refuse storage and recycling. 20) The collection of waste from the recycling centre shall not be undertaken outside the hours of 0800 and 2000.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

21) The jet wash facility shall not be made available for operation outside the hours of 0800 and 2100.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

22) The air-line/compressor shall not be made available for operation outside the hours of 0700 and 2300. The noise level of any air-line compressor/tyre inflator shall not exceed 80dB(A) at 1 metre at any time.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

23) The noise level from any individual petrol pump shall not exceed 68 dBA at 1 metre at any time.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

24) No tree, shrub or hedgerow felling, or any vegetation management and/or cutting operations shall take place during the period 1st March to 31st August inclusive unless any such works are supervised at all times by a qualified professional ecologist.

Reason: To protect birds during their breeding season.

25) No development shall commence until a detailed scheme precluding the storage of building materials within a minimum of 5 metres of the top of the bank of Fine Jane’s Brook including details of methods of protection to this zone has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed measures shall be retained thereafter during the construction period.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation (water vole habitat).

26) The measures in the Energy Assessment Report and Ventilation Report by BSD in August 2018 shall be incorporated into the design of the store and shall be available for use before it is open for trading. The measures shall be retained for so long as the retail use continues to operate. Reason: To ensure that the development contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions using low carbon, decentralised and renewable energy measures.

27) All external lighting on the building and within the site boundary shall be housed in full cut-off lanterns with an angle of elevation set no higher than 5 degrees from the horizontal to limit sky glow and glare.

Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring/adjacent occupiers and land users.

28) The foodstore hereby permitted shall be subject to the following floorspace restrictions:

The total gross internal floorspace shall not exceed 7,492 sqm including any mezzanine floorspace. The net retail floor area (excluding checkouts, lobbies, concessions, restaurants, customer toilets and walkways behind the checkouts) shall not exceed 4,705 sqm including any mezzanine floorspace. The total retail sales area for the sale and display of convenience goods shall not exceed 2,939 sqm including any mezzanine floorspace. The total retail sales area for the sale and display of comparison goods shall not exceed 1,765 sqm including any mezzanine floorspace.

Reason: To safeguard the vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre.

29) The development hereby permitted shall be used as a single unit and shall not be subdivided into two or more retail units without express planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre.

30) No more than 2 concession units shall be provided within the building hereby permitted and neither shall exceed 145 sqm gross internal floor area.

Reason: To safeguard the vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre.

31) Apart from the development hereby permitted and Unit 2C (Home Bargains), no other unit on the retail park, as defined by the blue line on Drawing No 2012-002 A-PL-01, shall be used for the sale and display of ‘food and drink’ goods. No unit other than the development hereby permitted shall be used for the primary sale and display of ‘food and drink’ goods (i.e. no more than 50% of net retail floor area) without express planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre. 32) No other retail unit on the retail park, as defined by the blue line on Drawing No 2012-002 A-PL-01, shall be further subdivided into two or more retail units without express planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To assist in safeguarding the vitality and viability of Southport Town Centre.

33) Prior to commencement of development a detailed remediation strategy to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks and the relevant pollutant linkages identified in the approved investigation and risk assessment, must be prepared and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

The strategy must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works, site management procedures and roles and responsibilities. The strategy must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 on completion of the development and commencement of its use.

In the event that the proposed remediation scheme involves the provision of a ground cover system a plan indicating the existing and proposed external ground levels on the application site shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, ecological systems, property and residential amenity and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

34) The approved remediation strategy must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation. Following completion of the remedial works identified in the approved remediation strategy, a verification report that demonstrates compliance with the agreed remediation objectives and criteria must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority, prior to commencement of use of the development.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, ecological systems, property and residential amenity and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. 35) In the event that previously unidentified contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development immediate contact must be made with the Local Planning Authority and works must cease in that area. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of the remedial works identified in the approved remediation strategy, verification of the works must be included in the verification report required by condition 34.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, ecological systems, property and residential amenity and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

Planning Application Reference DC/2018/01775, Proposed Foodstore and Petrol Filling Station, Meols Cop Retail Park

Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

on behalf of Sefton Council June 2019

Contact

Eastgate 2 Castle Street Castlefield Manchester M3 4LZ

T: 0161 819 6570 E: [email protected] Job reference no: 33813

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 4 2.0 Planning Policy Context ...... 10 3.0 The Sequential Test ...... 14 4.0 The Impact Test ...... 22 5.0 Summary and Recommendations ...... 41

Appendix A: 91 Lord Street Site Plan Appendix B: Cambridge Road, Churchtown Site Plan

Sefton Council 3

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

1.0 Introduction

Instruction

1.1 Sefton Council (hereafter referred to as ‘the Council’) has instructed Nexus Planning to provide advice in respect of planning application reference DC/2018/01775. The application provides for the demolition of three existing retail units and the erection of a Class A1 foodstore, petrol filling station with retail kiosk, and associated works at Meols Cop Retail Park in Southport. The application has been submitted by a joint applicant, comprising BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company Limited and BNP Paribas Securities Trust Company (Jersey) Limited as Trustees for the Triton No 2 Property Unit Trust (Jersey), and Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited.

1.2 The planning application is accompanied by a number of supporting documents, including a Planning Statement, which has been prepared by the applicant’s agent, Savills, and is dated September 2018, and a supplementary Technical Addendum, dated 14 November 2018, that relates to retail impact.

1.3 We can confirm that we have reviewed and had regard to all correspondence submitted to the Council of direct relevance to retail issues in drafting the advice that follows1.

1.4 The purpose of this appraisal is to consider the application proposal’s compliance with retail and town centre planning policy, as set out by the statutory development plan and by the revised National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’) (published March 2019).

Proposal, Application Site and Context

1.5 The application site forms part of the existing Meols Cop Retail Park in the eastern part of Southport. The retail park currently has 10 units and accommodates retailers such as Argos, Bensons for Beds, Currys PC World, Halfords, Harveys/Benson for Beds, Home Bargains, Oak Furnitureland and Topps Tiles. The three units proposed to be demolished to accommodate the proposal are Units 5a, 6 and 7, which form the northern part of the retail park and are currently vacant.

1.6 The site extends to approximately 3.2 hectares and is located off the B5276 at the eastern edge of

1 Including letters from Southport & Windsor Properties LLP to the Council dated 9 November 2018, 4 December 2018 and 15 May 2019, and letters from Pegasus Group (on behalf of Asda Stores Limited) to the Council dated 17 December 2018 and 6 March 2019

Sefton Council 4

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Southport. The site is bounded by Fine Jane’s Brook to the north, Foul Lane to the east, the remainder of Meols Cop Retail Park to the south, and by the B5276 to the west. We estimate that the most straightforward route to Southport’s primary shopping area is around 2.5 kilometres and, on this basis, the site is very clearly ‘out of centre’ for the purposes of the revised NPPF and the application of the sequential approach to development.

1.7 Section 3 of the submitted Planning Statement indicates that the proposed superstore would have a gross internal area measuring 7,492 sq.m, and a net sales area of 4,705 sq.m. The net sales area would accommodate 2,939 sq.m of convenience goods floorspace and 1,765 sq.m of comparison goods floorspace. Whilst paragraph 3.4 of the Planning Statement suggests that an element of flexibility will be required in order to facilitate changes in product ranges and seasonal fluctuations, the impact assessment that has been undertaken by Savills does not allow for any such flexibility. Our appraisal proceeds on the same basis and treats the identified sales areas as maximum figures.

1.8 In addition to the above, the planning application also provides for a retail kiosk with the petrol filling station, which Savills considers on the basis that it will have a gross internal area measuring 104 sq.m and a net sales area of 94 sq.m. The net sales area would accommodate 85 sq.m of convenience goods floorspace and 9 sq.m of comparison goods floorspace.

1.9 As the Council is well aware, the application site already benefits from planning permission (local planning authority reference DC/2014/00887 and PINS reference APP/M4320/V/15/3002637) for a larger food superstore, which was granted by the Secretary of State on 7 December 2016 subsequent to a ‘call in’ Inquiry (‘the 2016 permission’). We consider the extant planning permission below.

The 2016 Permission

1.10 The 2016 permission provides for a foodstore with a gross internal area of 10,942 sq.m and a net sales area of 5,574 sq.m2. The net sales area should not provide more than 3,809 sq.m of convenience goods floorspace and 1,765 sq.m of comparison goods floorspace. Conditions also preclude the subdivision of the unit and restrict the floorspace that can be occupied by concessions.

1.11 As such, it is evident that the current application proposal would provide a foodstore with:

2 It should be noted that whilst the gross internal area of the current proposal is substantially less than that provided for by the 2016 permission, the difference in the net sales area of the two is not as great.

Sefton Council 5

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

. 68.5% of the gross internal floorspace proposed by the 2016 permission; . 84.4% of the net sales proposed by the 2016 permission; . 77.2% of the convenience goods floorspace proposed by the 2016 permission; and . 100.0% of the comparison goods floorspace proposed by the 2016 permission.

1.12 To provide a context for the consideration of the current planning application, it is of some relevance to consider the comments of Inspector Downes in considering the previous proposal in her December 2016 report.

1.13 Inspector Downes’ comments are based around eight separate key considerations.

1.14 Consideration One of the Inspector’s report relates to the planning policy context and the approach to decision making. In this regard, we note that, whilst paragraph 318 of the 2016 Inspector’s report finds that the consideration of town centre vitality and viability in respect of the NPPF impact test relates to

the primary shopping area, paragraph 319 identifies that ‘…the wider town centre is clearly relevant to

the consideration of impact…’. We also note that paragraph 13 of the Secretary of State decision letter similarly confirms that the wider town centre area is of some relevance to the matter of impact.

1.15 Consideration Three relates to the vitality, viability and retail function of Southport town centre. In this regard, we note that:

. paragraph 338 of the 2016 Inspector’s report found that, whilst Southport’s vacancy rate is above the national average and does negatively impact on the appearance of the town centre, the amount of vacancies had fluctuated in the years preceding the Inquiry and Inspector Downes was

‘…not convinced that there is a discernible long term downward trend...’;

. paragraph 342 identified that pedestrian activity is reasonably good and that there have been

‘…ups and downs…’ in terms of the level of pedestrian traffic along Chapel Street and Lord Street;

. paragraph 344 concluded that Southport is a relatively vital and viable centre, and whilst there has been a deterioration in its performance in recent years, Inspector Downes finds that objectors’

suggestion that the centre is undergoing a spiral of decline is ‘…unreasonably pessimistic’;

. paragraph 378 concluded that the existing Sainsbury’s operation at Lord Street would remain a viable operation and effectively accepted that the proposed and existing Sainsbury’s stores would

Sefton Council 6

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

trade viably alongside one another; and

. paragraph 384 found that the loss of linked trips from foodstores proximate to the town centre to other operators within the town centre would be relatively low.

1.16 As a consequence of the above, Inspector Downes found at paragraphs 395 and 396 of her report that:

‘Southport town centre is relatively vital and viable and thrives on being both a shopping and a tourist destination. There are undoubted weaknesses and it was badly hit by the economic downturn, like many other similar towns in the North West. The number of empty units is clearly not ideal but the occupation of the Tulketh Street premises is good news for the town after its long period of vacancy. However, Southport’s recent performance is encouraging and the Council is now taking a pro-active stance in strengthening its position further. It is to be hoped that the British Home Stores premises will be occupied speedily in their prime pitch position in Chapel Street. I do not consider that the town is experiencing a spiral of decline as some observers have claimed. Although there is much work left and there is no room for complacency, this particular town centre seems to me to be sufficiently resilient to withstand the scale of impact that has been identified on its PSA and its wider town centre.

In conclusion, the application proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the PSA or on local consumer choice and trade in the wider town centre. It would thus accord with the Framework in this respect and comply with saved Policy CS1 in the UDP and Policies SD2 and ED2 (as proposed to be modified) in the emerging LP.’

1.17 Inspector Downes recommended that the proposal should be granted planning permission, subject to conditions, which was confirmed by the Secretary of State in his decision letter.

The Potential ‘Fall Back’ Position

1.18 The 2016 planning permission remains extant. In this regard, we note that paragraph 6.8 of Savills’ submitted Planning Statement identifies that:

‘In this instance, there is an extant planning permission which is capable of implementation subject to discharging any relevant conditions. If this current application is not subsequently approved by the Council, the owner of the site will revert to the extant development scheme which remains extant until 7 December 2019.’

1.19 However, whilst the applicant has consistently referred to a contractual obligation requiring the 2016 permission to be implemented, we are unaware of written confirmation being provided directly by

Sefton Council 7

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Sainsbury’s to confirm that it would trade from a store ‘on stilts’ with a gross internal area of 10,942 sq.m in the event that permission was refused for the current planning application. In this regard, we are aware that stores of such a format are typically no longer attractive to foodstore operators and the submission of the current application is reflective of the fact that such a store no longer fits with Sainsbury’s business model.

1.20 In considering the potential fall back position, we are also aware that operators, including Sainsbury’s, have elected not to occupy large format foodstores elsewhere, even after they were directly associated with a proposal and the development has been built out3.

1.21 However, it is also important to note that the materiality of a fall back position has been dealt with in numerous court judgments. In the case of R (Zurich Assurance Limited) v North Lincolnshire Council [2012] EWHC 3708 (Admin), Hickinbottom J (as was) concluded that:

‘The prospect of the fall back position does not have to be probable or even have a high chance of occurring; it has to be only more than a merely theoretical prospect. Where the possibility of the fall back position happening is “very slight indeed”, or merely “an outside chance”, that is sufficient to make the position a material consideration (see Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWCA Civ 33 at [20]-[21] per Sullivan LJ). Weight is, then, a matter for the planning committee.’

Whilst we believe there to be some doubt as to whether the 2016 planning permission would be built out and occupied by Sainsbury’s in practice, we are satisfied that there is more than an ‘outside chance’ of this occurring.

1.22 Given the above, it will be for the Council to consider the appropriate weight to apply to the fall back in determining the application. In doing so, it should be noted that the fall back provides for a development of a greater scale and that the current proposal should result in a lesser monetary trade diversion than the consented scheme.

1.23 Notwithstanding this, given that there is at least some uncertainty in respect of whether the 2016 permission would be implemented, we believe it is also appropriate to consider the new application afresh in the context of the current vitality and viability of Southport town centre (and taking into

3 Including Sainsbury’s proposed superstore at Middlehaven in Middlesbrough, which was substantially completed in 2015 but has never been occupied by the retailer.

Sefton Council 8

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

consideration other changes of circumstance since 2016).

Structure of Our Report

1.24 In the above context, our appraisal focuses on the proposal’s compliance with retail and town centre planning policy as set out by the statutory development plan and by the revised NPPF. General planning policy matters and wider material considerations fall outside the scope of our instruction, and it will be necessary for the Council to take appropriate account of such matters in its determination of the application.

1.25 Our report is structured as follows:

. Section 2 sets out the retail and town centre planning policy of relevance to the application proposal; . Section 3 considers the proposal in terms of the sequential approach to development; . Section 4 considers the acceptability of the likely impacts arising from the proposal; and . Section 5 sets out our conclusions in respect of the proposal’s compliance with retail and town centre planning policy.

Sefton Council 9

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

2.0 Planning Policy Context

2.1 We identify below the principal planning policies of relevance to retail and town centre matters.

National Planning Policy Framework

2.2 The most recent iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the revised NPPF’) was published in February 2019. It emphasises the Government’s commitment to securing economic growth and building a strong, responsive and competitive economy. With regard to the assessment of proposals for main town centre development, the revised NPPF provides two principal national policy tests relating to the sequential approach to development and to impact.

2.3 In respect of the first of the two tests, paragraph 86 of the revised NPPF states that local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in accordance with an up-to-date plan.

2.4 Paragraph 86 goes on to state that:

‘Main town centre uses should be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations; and only if suitable sites are not available (or expected to become available within a reasonable period) should out of centre sites be considered.’

2.5 Paragraph 87 then identifies that:

‘When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites which are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale, so that opportunities to utilise suitable town centre or edge of centre sites are fully explored.’

2.6 Paragraph 89 of the NPPF sets out a twin impact test, stating that:

‘When assessing applications for retail and leisure development outside town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq.m of gross floorspace). This should include assessment of:

Sefton Council 10

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

. the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and . the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider retail catchment (as applicable to the scale and nature of the scheme).’

2.7 Paragraph 90 indicates that, where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have a significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused. However, this direction cannot extinguish the requirement set out in statute to first consider development plan policy and then all material considerations in assessing the ‘planning balance’ when making a decision.

Adopted Development Plan

2.8 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that:

‘…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.’

2.9 The statutory development plan in this instance is the Local Plan for Sefton, which was adopted in April 2017.

2.10 The Local Plan Policies Map identifies that the application site forms part of a designated retail park, with Policy ED2 being of particular relevance.

2.11 Policy ED2 relates to retail and other main town centre uses, and sets out the tests to be applied to such development. The policy sets out a hierarchy for development (with Bootle and Southport town centres at the top) and provides a sequential test which indicates that:

‘Proposals for all retail, leisure and other main town centre uses will be subject to a sequential approach to development. This will require applications for town centre uses to be located firstly in:

a. Primary Shopping Area (retail uses only), then b. Town, district and local centres (in accordance with the hierarchy in part 1) c. Edge of centre locations, and d. Only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered.

Sefton Council 11

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

When considering new proposals in out of centre locations, preference will be given to accessible sites that are well connected to a defined centre in accordance with part 1 of the policy. For retail uses, if there are no accessible out of centre sites that are well connected to a defined centre, preference will be given to the existing retail parks (as shown on the Policies Map).’

2.12 It is therefore evident from the above that the Council’s sequential test differentiates between the primary shopping area and the rest of the town centre, and identifies a preference for development to be located at out of centre retail parks over other out of centre sites (where both fail to connect well to an identified centre).

2.13 In respect of the matter of impact, Policy ED2 indicates that a threshold of 500 sq.m applies in this instance. Accordingly, proposals for more than 500 sq.m will need to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the impact test.

2.14 In this regard, Policy ED2 indicates that retail proposals should demonstrate that:

. they would not have a significant adverse impact on the delivery of existing, committed and planned public and private investment within any identified centre; and . no significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of any existing centre will arise from the proposed development, including to local consumer choice and trade in defined centres and wider area, for up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the date of submission.

2.15 The above development plan impact test is considered to be broadly similar to that set out at paragraph 89 of the NPPF.

2.16 In addition to the above, we note that Policy SD2 sets out principles for sustainable development in

Sefton Borough and identifies a requirement to ‘…help Sefton’s town and local centres to diversify and

thrive…’. Whilst the policy indicates that development proposals will be assessed taking into account this principle, there is no further direct retail test linked to the policy.

Overview in Respect of Relevant Retail and Town Centre Planning Policy

2.17 Paragraph 213 of Annex 1 of the revised NPPF indicates that due weight should be given to relevant

Sefton Council 12

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

policies in existing plans according to their consistency with the NPPF (the more similar the policies, the greater the weight that may be given).

2.18 In this instance, the development plan sequential test differentiates between retail parks and other out of centre site (when no accessible out of centre sites can be found) and between the primary shopping area and wider town centre, in a manner that departs somewhat from national planning policy. As such, we believe that it is appropriate to first consider the proposal in accordance with the wording of the tests as set out in the NPPF. We then return to the matter of the proposal’s compliance with the relevant retail policies of the development plan in the concluding Section 5 of the report.

Sefton Council 13

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

3.0 The Sequential Test

Requirements of the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance

3.1 Paragraph 86 of the revised NPPF sets out the order of preference in applying the sequential approach. The first preference is for main town centre uses development to locate in town centres, followed then by edge of centre locations, and only if no other suitable sites are available should out of centre sites be considered. Paragraph 87 indicates that, when considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.

3.2 Additional guidance on the application of the sequential approach is provided by the Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres Planning Practice Guidance (‘the Town Centres PPG’).

3.3 Paragraph 010 of the Town Centres PPG4 provides a ‘checklist’ for the application of the sequential test in decision taking. It indicates the following considerations:

. With due regard to the requirement to demonstrate flexibility, has the suitability of more central sites to accommodate the proposal been considered? Where the proposal would be located in an edge of centre or out of centre location, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Any associated reasoning should be set out clearly. . Is there scope for flexibility in the format and/or scale of the proposal? It is not necessary to demonstrate that a potential town centre or edge of centre site can accommodate precisely the scale and form of development being proposed, but rather to consider what contribution more central sites are able to make individually to accommodate the proposal. . If there are no suitable sequentially preferable locations, the sequential test is passed.

3.4 Savills sets out its findings in respect of the sequential approach to development at Section 5 of its Planning Statement. Paragraph 5.11 of the Planning Statement indicates that Savills’ area of search for the sequential test is focused around Southport town centre due to identified operator and consumer demand, the scale of the proposed development, and due to its intended role and function. Paragraph

4 Reference ID: 2b-016-20140306, revision date 6 March 2014.

Sefton Council 14

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

5.9 states that sequential alternative sites should be considered on the basis of whether they are capable of accommodating the form of development proposed (allowing for flexibility in format and scale), rather than there being any requirement to disaggregate elements of the proposal so that it can be made to fit on alternative sites.

3.5 In respect of the area of search, it is accepted that the needs that the application proposal seeks to meet principally arise in the town of Southport. It is considered highly unlikely that an operator of a food superstore of the scale proposed would trade from any centre that is not highly accessible to most of Southport’s residents. As such, we believe it unlikely that sites in or around Ainsdale district centre could support the proposal. In addition, we are unaware of any sites in or around Birkdale or Churchtown district centres that offer any realistic potential to accommodate the proposal. Consequently, we accept that Southport town centre is the focus of the sequential site search.

3.6 In respect of the matter of flexibility and the issue of disaggregation, we note that:

. In the Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13 Supreme Court Judgment, Lord Hope gave specific consideration to the meaning of ‘suitable’ in respect of the application of the sequential test. At paragraph 38 of the Dundee Judgment Lord Hope concludes that:

‘...the issue of suitability is directed to the developer’s proposals, not some alternative scheme which might be suggested by the planning authority. I do not think that this is in the least surprising, as developments of this kind are generated by the developer’s assessment of the market that he seeks to serve. If they do not meet the sequential approach criteria, bearing in mind the need for flexibility and realism…they will be rejected. But these criteria are designed for use in the real world in which developers wish to operate, not some artificial world in which they have no interest in doing so.’ (Our emphasis.)

. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over England and both the Courts and the Secretary of State have found the Dundee Judgment to be of relevant to the English planning system. In this regard, we note the Judgment in the case of R (Zurich Assurance Limited) v North Lincolnshire Council

[2012] EWHC 3708 (Admin) which similarly identifies, at paragraph 61, that it is ‘...important to

mark that developers, and planning authorities, work in the real world.’ (Our emphasis.)

. The interpretation of ‘suitability’ was also considered by Inspector Stephens in his report commending the grant of planning permission for proposed retail development at Rushden Lakes

Sefton Council 15

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

(PINS reference APP/G2815/V/12/2190175). With specific regard to disaggregation, paragraph 8.47 of the Inspector’s report states that:

‘There is no longer any such requirement stated in the NPPF... Had the Government intended to retain disaggregation as a requirement it would and should have explicitly stated this in the NPPF. If it had been intended to carry on with the requirement then all that would have been required is the addition of the word “disaggregation” at the end of NPPF [24].’

. There has been discussion in some quarters as to whether this conclusion applies specifically at Rushden Lakes or more generally, and the subsequent Braintree Secretary of State decision (PINS reference APP/Z1510/A/14/2219101) provides clarification on the matter. The Inspector at paragraph 449 of the Braintree decision reports that the view of the Secretary of State at Rushden Lakes:

‘...was not qualified in any way other than by reference to the two report paragraphs from which it derived. While one of these paragraphs dealt with specific aspects of the proposal, the other dealt with the intention of national policy in paragraph 24 of the Framework following the demise of PPS4. And that paragraph was not specific to the site or to the proposal in any way.’

Paragraph 450 goes on to state that:

‘If the Secretary of State had wanted to qualify his statement on disaggregation in any way, that could have been achieved very simply by the addition of words such as ‘in this case’. Indeed, the variety of uses in the RL [Rushden Lakes] proposal and the fact that the proposal included retail units, rather than one large retail unit, would have afforded more rather than less opportunity for some disaggregation if that had been an aim.’ (Our emphasis.)

The Secretary of State confirms at paragraph 9 of the Braintree decision letter that ‘...he agrees

with the Inspector’s assessment regarding the sequential test at paragraph 24 of the Framework (IR443-467).’

3.7 As such, the Secretary of State’s stated position is that there is no general requirement to disaggregate the constituent elements of proposals for main town centre uses as part of the sequential test. Accepting this, we note the Inspector’s comments in reporting on the recovered SoS decision which allowed an appeal for very large-scale main town centre uses at Tollgate Village in Stanway, Essex (PINS reference APP/A1530/W/16/3147039).

Sefton Council 16

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

3.8 The Tollgate Village Inspector’s report indicates that, in particular circumstances, there may be some need to consider the matter of disaggregation. Paragraph 12.3.11 of the report states that:

‘In this case there is no evidence that the proposed format is necessary or fundamental to the proposal. Whilst the proposal is in outline, not a single retailer has been identified, and the size and location of units within the site has not been established and there is no defined timescale or phasing. It is difficult to conceive of a more open ended proposal. The parameters established by plans show a greater level of gross floor space than permission has been sought for. Most importantly the Appellants have themselves

disaggregated within the appeal site with three distinct zones. DZ1 and DZ3 are some distance apart. In these circumstances disaggregation within the sequential test would be justified.’ (Our emphasis.)

3.9 At Tollgate Village, the application was in outline and there were no specific operators associated with the proposal and the application itself was disaggregated across separate sites. The circumstances apparent at Tollgate are entirely different to those that apply in this instance.

3.10 The revised NPPF does not provide any additional policy clarification which impacts on the relevance of the above interpretations. As such, two conclusions can be drawn from the above.

3.11 Firstly, sequential alternative sites should be assessed on the basis of whether they meet the ‘real world requirements’ of a development of this nature. As such, any alternative site must be capable of supporting a food superstore of a scale that can compete with existing stores, such as the Tesco Extra at Meols Cop.

3.12 Secondly, there is no general requirement for an applicant to disaggregate elements of their proposal in order that it can fit on alternative sites. This could lead us to conclude that sequential alternative sites should be considered on the basis of whether they can accommodate all parts of the application proposal (i.e. foodstore and petrol filling station, given that the latter use includes retail floorspace).

3.13 However, we are aware that some recent appeal decisions5 have emphasised a need for decision makers to demonstrate flexibility in respect of format when considering the sequential test. In this regard, we are aware that, of the three existing food superstores in the Southport area, one (this being the Asda at Central 12 Retail Park) does not have a petrol filling station. Whilst it is relatively uncommon for a large food superstore not to be accompanied by a petrol filling station, we adopt a cautious approach

5 Including the recovered appeal in respect of a proposed District Centre development at Land North of Honiton Road and West of Fitzroy Road in Exeter (PINS reference APP/Y1110/W/15/3005333).

Sefton Council 17

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

and consider sequential alternatives on the basis of whether they would be able to accommodate a large format food superstore (with associated car parking).

3.14 In this instance, this is a largely a theoretical concern, but proceed accordingly in our below assessment.

Consideration of Sequential Alternative Sites

3.15 Savills identifies four potential alternative sites from paragraph 5.15 of its Planning Statement. These sites comprise:

. Units on Tulketh Street; . Central 12 Shopping Park; . Land North of Lord Street/West of Coronation Walk; and . the Former BHS, Chapel Street.

3.16 We consider the availability and suitability of each of these sites below.

Units on Tulketh Street

3.17 The Tulketh Street site comprises the ground floor of the multi-storey car park that was previously occupied by Waitrose (and, before that, by Morrisons). The site was considered by Inspector Downes at paragraph 322 of her 2016 Inspector’s report, which states:

‘…by June 2016 the site had been purchased by Sports Direct and planning permission had been secured for the use of part of the premises as a gym. The Applicants did not consider that this site would be sufficient in size but, in any event, all now accept that it is no longer available.’

3.18 Subsequent to the publication of Inspector Downes’ report, the building has been occupied by Sports Direct, USC, Flannels and Everlast gym. As such, the site remains unavailable to accommodate the application proposal and can be discounted accordingly.

Central 12 Shopping Park

3.19 Units 7 and 8 of Central 12 Shopping Park are occupied by The Range. The website6 of the retained agent for the Shopping Park, CSP, suggests that the premises are not currently available. We are

6 www.cspretail.com, consulted on 17 May 2019.

Sefton Council 18

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

unaware of any information that indicates that the premises are likely to become available.

3.20 In addition, we note that CSP identifies that Units 7 and 8 provide 2,069 sq.m of floorspace. Whilst we believe that this relates to the ground floor level and not the mezzanine floorspace above, it is clear that the Units 7 and 8 are not comparable in scale and format to the application proposal.

3.21 In considering the 2016 permission, Inspector Downes considered whether Units 7 and 8 offered any potential as a sequential alternative site, with paragraph 322 of the 2016 Inspector’s report concluding

that the premises were ‘clearly not suitable’ to accommodate the proposal. This remains the case for this proposal as well.

3.22 We note that the Council has recently received correspondence from Southport & Windsor Properties LLP, dated 13 May 2019, in respect of the Meols Cop application proposal which suggests that:

‘The applicant should assess whether redevelopment of the five units adjacent to Asda [at Central 12 Retail Park] could accommodate the store, either at ground floor level or on stilts.’

3.23 This would appear to be a reference to Units 1 (currently occupied by Outfit), 2 (currently being marketed to let), 3 (occupied by Boots), 4 (occupied by Poundland), and 5 (occupied by Next).

3.24 Southport & Windsor’s correspondence goes on to state that Central 12 is in a ‘…perilous state with the

majority of tenants holding over and not committing to new leases.’ Notwithstanding this suggestion, only one of the units identified by Southport & Windsor as having potential to accommodate the application proposal is currently being marketed and the remainder continue to be operated by national multiples. Moreover, there has been no suggestion from any party (not least the owner of Central 12 Retail Park) that plans are afoot to make a site of sufficient size available at the retail park.

3.25 For the moment, the largest unit at Central 12 Shopping Park that is listed by CSP as being available is the abovementioned Unit 2, which comprises 937 sq.m.

3.26 As a consequence, we believe it to be clear that there are no units at Central 12 that are both available (or expected to become available with a reasonable period) and suitable to accommodate the proposal.

Sefton Council 19

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Land North of Lord Street/West of Coronation Walk

3.27 The third site considered by Savills comprises land bounded by Lord Street, Coronation Walk, Kingsway and Promenade. There are a number of different uses currently on the site and, at the time of the Inquiry, a smaller site (relating to the B&M Bargains premises and associated car park at 91 Lord Street) was being promoted by Southport & Windsor Properties LLP as a suitable site to accommodate a foodstore development. The larger site comprises approximately 0.98 hectares and the 91 Lord Street site comprises approximately 0.56 hectares.

3.28 We understand that the wider site is in a variety of land ownerships and, as such, we do not believe that it is available to accommodate the application proposal. In any event, the wider site is substantially smaller than the application site, and could not accommodate a broadly similar form of development, even allowing for flexibility. It follows that the smaller site is also not suitable to accommodate the application proposal.

The Former BHS, Chapel Street

3.29 The former BHS at 19 Chapel Street closed its doors in July 2016. Whilst we understand that the premises were the subject of a short-term let around Christmas 2018, the unit is currently unoccupied.

3.30 The unit provides retail accommodation over three levels and has a ground floor footprint of 1,360 sq.m7. There is no proximate surface car parking.

3.31 Given the limitations of the unit, we concur with the findings of the 2016 Inspector’s report which identified that:

‘…its layout over several floors and its restricted size would not make it a suitable candidate for a foodstore of the type envisaged by the Applicants.’

3.32 Whilst the current application provides for a smaller scheme, 19 Chapel Street remains very clearly unsuitable to accommodate a substantial food superstore.

Conclusion in Respect of the NPPF Sequential Test

3.33 We believe that centres within the Southport built up area represent the appropriate focus for the

7 As identified by Experian Goad.

Sefton Council 20

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

sequential search and we have reviewed all sites identified by Savills that are proximate to Southport town centre. We do not consider that any of these sites are both available and suitable to accommodate the application proposal.

3.34 We are familiar with the area and are unaware of any other sequentially preferable sites that offer any realistic potential, either in and around Southport town centre or in proximity to any other centre across the wider Southport area. We therefore find that the application proposal conforms to the requirements of the sequential test as articulated by paragraphs 86 and 87 of the NPPF.

Sefton Council 21

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

4.0 The Impact Test

Requirements of the NPPF and the Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres PPG

4.1 Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF indicate that application proposals for retail and leisure development should be refused planning permission where a significant adverse impact is likely to arise from development.

4.2 In assessing the significance of impacts arising from development, it is necessary to reflect upon the advice set out in the Town Centres PPG. In this regard, paragraph 017 states that8:

‘A judgement as to whether the likely adverse impacts are significant can only be reached in light of local circumstances. For example in areas where there are high levels of vacancy and limited retailer demand, even very modest trade diversion from a new development may lead to a significant adverse impact.’ (Our emphasis.)

4.3 It should also be recognised that impacts will arise with all retail developments, but that these will not always be unacceptable, not least because development often enhances choice, competition and innovation. It is therefore necessary to differentiate between those developments that will have an impact and those that will undermine the future vitality and viability of established centres, i.e. have a ‘significant adverse’ impact.

4.4 Paragraph 016 of the Town Centres PPG is also of some relevance in considering how the impact test should be applied. It states that:

‘As a guiding principle impact should be assessed on a like-for-like basis in respect of that particular sector (e.g. it may not be appropriate to compare the impact of an out of centre DIY store with small scale town- centre stores as they would normally not compete directly). Retail uses tend to compete with their most comparable competitive facilities.’

4.5 In this case, the applicant seeks to bring forward a further main food shopping destination. Facilities of a comparable nature in the Southport area include the Tesco Extra at Town Lane, the Morrisons at Winter Gardens, the Asda at Central 12 Shopping Park and the existing Sainsbury’s at Lord Street. The

8 Reference ID: 2b-017-20140306, revision date 6 March 2014.

Sefton Council 22

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Aldi at Meols Cop and the Lidl at Virginia Street are also able to meet some main food shopping needs, as is the new Aldi at Liverpool Road in Birkdale.

4.6 Given the location of such stores, we consider Southport town centre to be the principal centre impacted by the application proposal. However, we note that Southport & Windsor Properties submitted representations to the Council during its consideration of the previous Meols Cop Sainsbury’s planning application which suggested that the grant of planning permission could have a prejudicial impact on its aspiration to bring forward a site for development in Churchtown. The same issue was also considered in the Proof of Evidence submitted by Mr Gerard Carney of Southport & Windsor Properties at the 2016 Inquiry. As such, we also give some consideration to Churchtown in our assessment of impact.

4.7 The two key impact tests identified by paragraph 89 of the revised NPPF are considered below. The tests relate to:

. 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 retail catchment (as applicable to the scale and nature of the scheme).

4.8 The compliance of the proposal with each of the two strands of the test is set out below.

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

4.9 Mr Carney of Southport & Windsor Properties has previously raised concerns in respect of the potential of an additional food superstore at Meols Cop to impact on two sites that it has identified as having potential to accommodate food retailers, namely:

. 91 Lord Street (forming part of the Land North of Lord Street/West of Coronation Walk site considered as part of the sequential test), which measures approximately 0.56 hectares; and . Cambridge Road, Churchtown, which measures approximately 0.43 hectares.

4.10 We append to this report (at Appendices A and B) the site plans previously provided as part of Mr

Sefton Council 23

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Carney’s August 2015 Proof of Evidence in order to confirm the extent of the above sites.

4.11 Paragraph 2.1 of Mr Carney’s Proof of Evidence identifies that Southport & Windsor LLP owns the freehold of 91 Lord Street, and that Morrisons has a head lease, which expires in December 2025, with B&M occupying the premises on an underlease.

4.12 Paragraph 2.2 of Mr Carney’s Proof of Evidence states that Booths supermarkets have a requirement for a new store in Southport and that its preference is for a redevelopment of 91 Lord Street. In this regard, we are aware that it has been previously suggested by Southport & Windsor that Morrisons may not provide vacant possession of the site for another foodstore operator should planning permission be granted for a further competing facility at Meols Cop.

4.13 However, we are not aware of Booths (or any other operator) confirming an interest in 91 Lord Street. Indeed, we are aware of an October 2014 email exchange between Booths’ agent9 and Savills which

indicates that 91 Lord Street ‘isn’t for them’.

4.14 Mr Carney’s Proof of Evidence also considers the Cambridge Road site in Churchtown. Paragraph 2.9 of that Proof of Evidence indicates that Southport & Windsor LLP owns or controls eight freehold interests and, as such, has assembled a site to accommodate a foodstore.

4.15 Paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11 go on to state that:

‘The site was assembled to accommodate a number of possible redevelopment schemes, all anchored by a food store of some nature, ranging from a more limited convenience store, to a 1,500 sq.m store intended for Marks and Spencers or alternatively as a 1,750 sq.m discount food store, with significant interest from Aldi, Lidl and Netto.

In relation to Churchtown, on the balance of probabilities, the scheme would still secure a food store led redevelopment, if Sainsbury’s are granted consent.’

4.16 We have made enquiries of Sefton’s planning officers and have undertaken a search of the planning register, and are unaware of any correspondence or planning application that indicates that the position has materially changed in respect of the redevelopment of either site. Southport & Windsor has submitted correspondence dated 9 November 2018, 4 December 2018 and 15 May 2019 in respect

9 Email from Danny Pinkus of Robert Pinkus & Co to Charles Greenhalgh of Savills dated 13 October 2014.

Sefton Council 24

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

of the current application. Southport & Windsor’s correspondence does not introduce any new information in respect of the above two sites.

4.17 As such, we believe that Inspector Downes’ conclusions in respect of the two sites in recommending the approval of the 2016 permission remain of relevance. Paragraph 345 of her report dealt with the two sites briskly, stating that:

‘Whether or not Booths remains engaged with the Lord Street site is not very clear. Even if it is there is no evidence that occupation of the site by Booths would be influenced by the outcome of the application scheme. As for the Churchtown site it would appear that an offer has been made by a discount food retailer but that the owner has not accepted it. It is therefore difficult to understand how the application proposal has had a negative effect on this potential investor.’

4.18 We are unaware of any further evidence which suggests that the grant of a further planning permission for a food superstore at Meols Cop would impact on the delivery of development at either of these sites.

4.19 More generally, we are aware that the Council has applied to the Government’s Future High Street Fund in order to secure investment to benefit the future vitality of Southport and Crosby town centres. In addition, the Southport Business Improvement District10 (‘BID’) continues to fund programmes and initiatives to improve the attractiveness of the town centre and help generate additional footfall. Sefton Council and Southport BID are also working together in respect of a second round funding bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund in June 2019. The Council’s website11 indicates that:

‘If successful, this would enable the full delivery of a townscape heritage project for Southport Town Centre for the next 5 years, the funding would specifically be for:

. Structural and external repair of historic buildings; . Reinstatement of authentic architectural features (e.g. traditional shopfronts, windows); . Works to bring vacant floor space in historic buildings back into use; . Training and skills development, for example: helping building contractors to understand the correct methods for the repair of historic buildings.’

10 Which is an independent organisation that represents the interests of more than 950 businesses in Southport town centre. 11 www.sefton.gov.uk/planning-building-control/conservation-and-heritage/southport-townscape-heritage- project.aspx, consulted on 17 May 2019.

Sefton Council 25

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

4.20 We do not believe that the realisation of such general investment would be directly linked to the grant of planning permission for the proposed foodstore at Meols Cop. However, such investment is tied up with the ongoing general vitality and viability of Southport town centre which we consider below.

4.21 As a consequence of the above, we conclude that proposal conforms to the requirements of the first strand of the NPPF impact test.

The Impact of the Proposal on Town Centre Vitality and Viability, Including Local Consumer Choice and Trade in the Town Centre and Wider Area

4.22 Savills sets out its approach to trade diversion impact in its Technical Addendum of November 2018. We set out below our appraisal of the principal inputs and assumptions relied upon by Savills, before then providing our recommendations in respect of the second part of the impact test.

Assessment Period

4.23 Savills undertakes its impact assessment at the test years of 2021 (detailed impact assessment) and 2023 (summary assessment relating to Southport’s primary shopping area). Paragraph 017 of the Town Centres PPG specifically directs that the design year for impact testing should be the year that the proposal has achieved a ‘mature’ trading pattern. It states that this is conventionally taken to be the second full calendar year of trading after the opening of a new retail development. We consider that a development of this nature would likely commence trading around 2021 and, on this basis, 2023 could well equate to the second full calendar year of trading.

4.24 We undertake our own assessment of the retail impacts arising from the application below, adopting 2023 as the relevant impact test year.

Baseline Position

4.25 Page 2 of Savills’ Technical Addendum indicates that its impact assessment is informed by the household survey which underpinned the most recently published Sefton Retail Strategy Review (published October 2015). We are aware that this survey was undertaken by NEMS Market Research and was undertaken in September 2015.

4.26 In considering this approach, we note that paragraph 015 of the Town Centres PPG indicates that:

Sefton Council 26

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

‘The impact test should be undertaken in a proportionate and locally appropriate way, drawing on existing information where possible.’

4.27 In this instance, whilst the survey was undertaken more than three years ago, it was found to provide a robust position in respect of shopping patterns at the ‘call in’ Inquiry. As such, we believe that it provides an acceptable basis to consider trade diversion impacts given that the main food shopping provision in Southport is broadly similar to that which was trading at the time of Inspector Downes’ consideration of the previous proposal. The principal difference relates to the Aldi foodstore at Birkdale, which opened in November 2018. We return to this matter and the manner in which it is dealt with by Savills below.

4.28 In terms of Savills’ general approach, we note that:

. the catchment area for the purpose of the retail impact assessment comprises Retail Strategy Review Zones S, F and O, with an allowance made for inflow from both the remainder of the Study Area12 and from outside of the Study Area13; . Experian data (2017 issue) has been used to generate population and expenditure estimates; and . Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 15 (published December 2017) has been used to source allowances in respect of future growth to 2023 and special forms of trading.

4.29 Since Savills’ Technical Addendum was issued in November 2018, Experian has published new population and expenditure data, and has updated its assumptions in respect of future expenditure growth and the proportion of expenditure that will be committed through special forms of trading through the publication of Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 16. We have sourced the most up to date Experian data in order to inform a Retail Strategy Review Update for Sefton Council which will be published this summer, and can confirm that both the data and the forecast level of growth to 2023 remain similar to those utilised by Savills.

4.30 In addition, we note that Table 1b of Appendix 1 of the Technical Addendum estimates the convenience goods turnover of existing destinations on the basis that:

12 Based on the findings of the 2015 household survey. 13 Based on the tourism inflow assumptions utilised by Tim Price of Savills at Inquiry for the previous application, which were found by the Inspector, at paragraph 356 of her report, to be ‘not unreasonable’.

Sefton Council 27

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

. in Zone S, 84.6% of convenience goods turnover is assigned to main food shopping trips and 15.4% is assigned to top-up food shopping trips; . in Zone F, 82.2% of convenience goods turnover is assigned to main food shopping trips and 17.8% is assigned to top-up food shopping trips; and . in Zone O, 77.0% of convenience goods turnover is assigned to main food shopping trips and 23.0% is assigned to top-up shopping trips.

4.31 Whilst this approach allows for a greater proportion of convenience goods to be committed through main food shopping trips than would ordinarily be the case14, the approach is derived from findings of the household survey and was previously accepted as providing a robust position by Inspector Downes. In addition, the assignment of a relatively low level of convenience goods expenditure to top up shopping actually acts to reduce the turnover of the principal foodstore within the primary shopping area, this being the Sainsbury’s at Lord Street. As such, Savills’ methodology provides for a relatively cautious assessment of the convenience goods impact that arises within Southport’s primary shopping area.

4.32 Given the above, we can confirm that the baseline trading position of existing retail destinations as established by Appendices 1 and 2 of Savills’ Technical Assessment provides an appropriate basis upon which to determine the application proposal.

Turnover of the Application Proposal

4.33 Savills’ assessment of the turnover of the application proposal is set out at Table 6 of Appendix 1 of its Technical Assessment (in respect of convenience goods) and Table 4 of Appendix 2 (comparison goods). Savills’ tables suggest that 3,025 sq.m of floorspace is dedicated to convenience goods sales and 1,765 sq.m to comparison goods sales. It is evident that the comparison goods figure fails to make an allowance for retail floorspace associated with the petrol filling station kiosk and we make a very minor adjustment to the comparison goods sales floorspace figure15 to account for this.

4.34 Savills indicates that the sales densities applied in estimating the turnover of the application proposal are derived from Verdict 2017 data. However, the use of the most up to date 2018 GlobalData16 estimate of Sainsbury’s sales densities provides a greater convenience goods turnover for the store and

14 It is often assumed that around 75% of convenience goods expenditure is committed through main food. 15 Which increases to 1,774 sq.m as a result. 16 ‘Convenience and Comparison Goods Sales Densities of Major Grocers – 2018e’, GlobalData, September 2018.

Sefton Council 28

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

a lesser comparison goods turnover. We provide our own assessment of the turnover of the application proposal using the most up to date sales density data below at Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Estimated Convenience and Comparison Goods Turnover of Sainsbury’s Application Proposal 2019 Sales 2019 2021 2023 Net Sales Floorspace Density Turnover Turnover Turnover Area (sq.m) (£ per sq.m) (£m) (£m) (£m) Convenience 3,025 11,121 33.64 33.84 33.98 Comparison 1,774 8,026 14.24 15.00 15.70 Total 4,799 47.88 48.85 49.68 Note: Floorspace from Savills’ Technical Addendum; sales density derived from GlobalData 2018 estimate; allowance to changes in sales efficiency in accordance with recommendations provided at Tables 4a and 4b of Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 16; includes petrol filling station kiosk floorspace; 2016 prices

4.35 We proceed on the basis that the application proposal would have a convenience goods turnover of around £33.98m17 and a comparison goods turnover of around £15.70m at 2023.

Estimated Turnover of Commitments

4.36 Savills identifies a single commitment of relevance, this being planning permission reference DC/2017/00417, which relates to the development of the Aldi store at Liverpool Road in Birkdale (which, as identified above, has now commenced trading).

4.37 We note from Table 8 of Appendix 1 of Savills’ Technical Addendum that it estimates that the store would have a convenience goods turnover of £9.36m at design year 2021. Whilst Savills does not identify how this turnover has been arrived at, it is both below our expectations and below that set out by Aldi itself in its application submission18.

4.38 We provide our own estimate of the turnover of the Aldi store below at Table 4.2. The comparison goods turnover of the Aldi is limited and is not considered to be of material relevance to this planning application. We estimate that the Aldi store would have a convenience goods turnover in the order of £11.28m at 2023.

17 In 2016 prices, as is every subsequent monetary reference, unless stated. 18 Table 1 of Appendix 3 of the Planning and Retail Statement of March 2017 submitted on behalf of Aldi Stores Limited indicates that the store would have a convenience goods turnover of around £11.50m at 2021 in 2015 prices.

Sefton Council 29

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Table 4.2: Estimated Convenience and Comparison Goods Turnover of Aldi Application Proposal 2019 Sales 2019 2021 2023 Net Sales Floorspace Density Turnover Turnover Turnover Area (sq.m) (£ per sq.m) (£m) (£m) (£m) Convenience 1,084 10,299 11.16 11.23 11.28 Comparison 271 7,311 1.98 2.09 2.18 Total 1,355 - 13.15 13.32 13.46 Note: Floorspace from application documents; sales density derived from GlobalData 2018 estimate; allowance to changes in sales efficiency in accordance with recommendations provided at Tables 4a and 4b of Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 16; 2016 prices

4.39 In addition to the above, we note that a planning application (reference DC/2019/00687) has been submitted to allow The Range at Central 12 Shopping Park to sell food goods from no more than 186 sq.m of the net sales area. This application remains undetermined and relates to such a small area that we do not believe it to be of material relevance to the determination of the Meols Cop planning application.

Patterns of Trade Drawn and Diversion

4.40 The patterns of trade draw (i.e. the origin of the proposed store’s turnover) and trade diversion (i.e. the stores from which the turnover is diverted) utilised by Savills remain consistent with the approach deemed acceptable by Inspector Downes in recommending that planning permission be granted for the previous proposal. As such, we are of the view that Savills’ general approach in undertaking its retail impact assessment is appropriate.

4.41 However, as we have identified above, we believe that Savills’ assessment, as set out in its Technical Addendum, no longer represents the up to date position in terms of the turnover of the proposed Sainsbury’s and implemented Aldi foodstores.

4.42 We provide below an updated position of the likely convenience goods impacts arising at existing retail destinations in and around Southport’s primary shopping areas as a consequence of the proposal. The identified level of monetary trade diversion does not sum to the total convenience goods turnover of the application proposal, as we do not consider destinations outside of defined centres in our below assessment as these are of lesser relevance in planning policy terms. Notwithstanding this, we do not believe that there would be any general weakening in respect of out of centre retail provision and provision within other centres across the wider catchment as a consequence of the proposal.

Sefton Council 30

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

4.43 As identified in the below Table 4.3, we continue to share Savills’ view19 that the application proposal will divert around 35.0% of its 2023 convenience goods turnover of £33.98m from The Tesco Extra at Town Lane, 17.5% from the Asda at Central 12 Shopping Park, 13.5% from the Morrisons at Winter

Gardens, and 13.0% from the Sainsbury’s at Lord Street.

Table 4.3: Estimated Convenience Goods Trade Diversion Impacts Arising at Destinations Proximate to Southport Town Centre at 2023 Trade Trade Pre- Diversion Residual T’over of Diversion Residual Solus Impact T’over of Cumulative Destination to T’over Proposal to T’over Impact T’over Aldi (%) Impact (%) Birkdale (£m) (%) Proposal (£m) (%) (£m) Aldi (£m) (£m) Southport PSA M&S, Chapel St 2.65 0.0% 0.00 2.65 0.0% 0.00 2.65 0.0% 0.0% Sainsbury’s Lord St 19.85 4.5% 0.51 19.34 13.0% 4.42 14.93 22.8% 24.8% Local Shops, Southport TC 3.51 0.5% 0.06 3.45 1.0% 0.34 3.11 9.8% 11.3%

Outside Southport PSA Farmfoods, Lord St 1.51 0.0% 0.00 1.51 0.0% 0.00 1.51 0.0% 0.0% Iceland, King St 0.25 0.0% 0.00 0.25 0.0% 0.00 0.25 0.0% 0.0% Morrisons, Winter Gardens 31.29 11.0% 1.24 30.05 13.5% 4.59 25.46 15.3% 18.6% Asda, C12 Shopping Park 39.69 11.0% 1.24 38.45 17.5% 5.95 32.50 15.5% 18.1% Lidl, Virginia St 12.25 9.0% 1.01 11.24 2.0% 0.68 10.56 6.0% 13.8% Tesco Express, Eastbank St 0.37 0.0% 0.00 0.37 0.0% 0.00 0.37 0.0% 0.0% Total 36.0% 4.06 47.0% 15.97 Note: Underlying patterns of trade diversion derived from How Planning and Retail Statement of March 2017 in respect of the Birkdale Aldi and from Savills Technical Addendum in respect of the Sainsbury’s Meols Cop proposal, both of which are considered to be generally representative of how the respective stores would trade in practice; trade diversion does not sum to 100% of turnover as table only includes destinations within and around Southport town centre; 2016 prices

4.44 In considering how much convenience goods trade will migrate from each store (and the ongoing viability of each store), it is appropriate to consider the performance of each store. Table 4.3 identifies that the greatest impact within (or close to) the town centre would arise at the Sainsbury’s at Lord Street (the impact equating to 22.8% of its convenience goods pre-impact turnover), followed then by the Asda at Central 12 (15.5% impact) and the Morrisons at Winter Gardens (15.3% impact).

4.45 Of these three stores, the Sainsbury’s benefits from direct ‘policy protection’ by virtue of its location within Southport’s primary shopping area. Impacts at other locations in and around Southport town centre would be very limited. In particular, we believe that retailers such as Farmfoods and Iceland (which lie outside of Southport’s primary shopping area) would not be the subject of any discernible level of trade diversion. In considering such retailers, it should be noted that household surveys tend to be less exact in identifying the turnover of smaller stores and it is highly likely that stores such as Farmfoods, Iceland and M&S trade in a more robust manner than the survey suggests.

19 Which was accepted by the Inspector at Inquiry.

Sefton Council 31

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

4.46 Whilst slightly greater impacts arise when the application proposal is considered in association with the Birkdale Aldi (which has now commenced trading), it is important to reflect on the ongoing viability of foodstores in proximity to Southport town centre in order to form a view on the acceptability of impacts.

4.47 As the Table 4.4 goes on to demonstrate, the three stores in and around Southport town centre which would be the recipient of the greatest impact would continue to trade around their expected convenience goods ‘benchmark’ level20. Weaker stores would be unlikely to be the subject of any substantial monetary diversion. Given that the convenience goods turnover of a foodstore is the most accurate barometer of its performance, we believe that the identified post-impact turnovers of the principal foodstores are generally indicative of their ongoing viability. The only concern we have is in

respect of the existing Sainsbury’s store at Lord Street, which we consider in greater detail below.

Table 4.4: Post-Impact Convenience Goods Turnover Relative to Benchmark of Destinations Proximate to Southport Town Centre at 2023 Post- Sales Performance Convenience Benchmark Impact Density Against Destination Goods Sales Turnover Turnover (£ per Benchmark Area (sq.m) (£m) (£m) sq.m) (%) Southport PSA M&S, Chapel St 2.65 642 10,350 6.64 40% Sainsbury’s Lord St 14.93 1,174 11,551 13.56 110% Local Shops, Southport TC 3.11 2,950 3,000 8.85 35%

Outside Southport PSA Farmfoods, Lord St 1.51 279 6,969 1.94 78% Iceland, King St 0.25 518 6,777 3.51 7% Morrisons, Winter Gardens 25.46 1,987 12,503 24.84 102% Asda, C12 Shopping Park 32.50 2,533 13,495 34.18 95% Lidl, Virginia St 10.56 743 9,981 7.42 142% Tesco Express, Eastbank St 0.37 224 13,631 3.05 12% Note: Convenience goods sales areas derived from Savills Technical Appendix and are consistent with those accepted at Inquiry; sales densities derived from GlobalData 2018 estimate; allowance to changes in sales efficiency in accordance with recommendations provided at Tables 4a and 4b of Experian Retail Planner Briefing Note 16; 2016 prices

4.48 We also provide a revised impact assessment in relation to comparison goods below. In this regard, we once more find Savills’ general assumptions in respect of trade diversion to be credible, but have updated its assessment to account for our estimated comparison goods turnover of the application proposal (as set out above at Table 4.1). Given that the application of a more up to date comparison goods sales density for Sainsbury’s actually results in a lesser turnover for the store, the comparison goods impact arising at Southport town centre is actually slightly less than that identified by Savills.

20 This being the turnover of the store based on the company average sales density.

Sefton Council 32

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

4.49 Our revised impact assessment suggests that around £3.19m of comparison goods expenditure would be diverted from Southport town centre at 2023. Additional expenditure would be diverted from Central 12 Shopping Park (which would be the subject of an estimated monetary diversion of around £3.99m) and Ocean Plaza (an estimated trade diversion of around £0.80m). Whilst these latter two destinations are located within the wider town centre, they are not the within the primary shopping area. As a consequence, they are not the subject of the direct ‘policy protection’ provided by paragraph 89 of the NPPF. The comparison goods impact arising at the town centre – which we identify to be in the order of 1.1% at 2023 – is accepted as being limited.

Table 4.5: Estimated Comparison Goods Trade Diversion Impacts at 2023 Trade Pre-Impact Turnover Diversion Destination Turnover of Proposal Impact (%) to Birkdale (£m) (%) Aldi (£m) Southport PSA Town Centre Shops 284.34 20.0% 3.14 1.1%

Outside Southport PSA Central 12 Shopping Park 37.15 25.0% 3.93 10.6% Ocean Plaza 5.10 5.0% 0.79 15.4% 50.0% 7.86 Note: Underlying patterns of trade diversion derived from Savills’ Technical Addendum, which is considered to be generally representative of how the respective stores would trade in practice; the comparison goods turnover of Southport town centre is accepted as being an approximation of the turnover of the primary shopping area, given that the very large majority of town centre retailers are located in this area; trade diversion does not sum to 100% of turnover as table only includes destinations within and around Southport town centre; 2016 prices

4.50 In order to consider the acceptability of the above identified impacts, it is relevant to consider the up to date performance of the town centre.

Performance of Southport Town Centre

4.51 The current performance of Southport town centre has been considered as part of the Sefton Retail Strategy Review Update, which will be published shortly.

4.52 The Retail Strategy Review Update identifies some matters of concern in terms of the performance of the centre, which we summarise below.

Vacancy Rate

4.53 Our survey of the centre of January 2019 indicates that the vacancy rate21 in respect of floorspace and

21 Based on the town centre as identified by Experian Goad.

Sefton Council 33

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

units has increased in recent years. In this regard, the proportion of Southport town centre floorspace that is vacant has increased from 13.6% at 201122, to 15.0% at 201523, and then to 15.3% at January 2019. The proportion of units that are vacant has been the subject of a greater overall increase from 13.4% at 2011 to 18.0% at 2019, albeit with a more positive result (of 13.1%) being recorded in 2015.

4.54 Given the above, it is evident that the position in respect of vacancies is worsening and, in our view, is at a level that gives some cause for concern. However, it is evident that the vacancy rate is increasing as a direct consequence of issues in respect of the strength of the comparison goods retail sector, and that destinations within and at the edge of Southport town centre continue to accommodate a good range of convenience goods retailers, which generally trade well.

Retailer Representation

4.55 As ever, the position in respect of retailer representation is fluid and new retailers have been attracted to the centre in recent years (notably through the refurbishment of premises at Tulketh Street which accommodate Sports Direct, Flannels, USC and Everlast gym). However, the town centre has been unable to retain some leading comparison goods operators and others plan to leave the town. In particular, the decision by H&M to close its store on Chapel Street in December 2016, is of concern given that it is the type of modern retailer which helps a centre remain relevant.

4.56 It was announced in April 2019 that the Debenhams’ store at Lord Street in Southport will close by 2020. Whilst this closure is part of a national programme which seeks to revive the operator, the loss of the store will still impact on the vitality of Lord Street and the overall health of the town centre. It is also regrettable that the BHS unit at Chapel Street has remained vacant since the operator vacated the premises in July 2016.

4.57 As a consequence of the above, we believe that the comparison goods offer of Southport town centre has weakened in recent years and it will be important to try to ensure that the offer does not erode further.

Footfall

4.58 Automated Springboard counters have recorded pedestrian movements in Chapel Street and Lord

22 Derived from the Sefton Retail Strategy Review Update 2012. 23 Derived from the Sefton Retail Strategy Review 2015.

Sefton Council 34

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Street since January 2014. The cumulative monthly total movements have been relatively consistent over this time, albeit there was a decrease in pedestrian footfall across 2018. The most recent pedestrian footfall data for 2016, 2017 and 2018 is set out below.

Table 4.3a: Aggregated Recorded Pedestrian Movements on Chapel Street and Lord Street Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2016 722,137 877,235 1,085,211 980,474 997,001 1,337,486 2017 763,855 880,683 1,133,269 975,261 1,132,373 1,355,620 2018 703,819 812,626 1,061,340 884,264 1,035,795 1,329,626

Table 4.3b: Aggregated Recorded Pedestrian Movements on Chapel Street and Lord Street Year Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 2016 1,138,107 1,136,654 1,350,468 938,855 799,049 1,195,035 12,557,712 2017 1,101,755 1,132,826 1,342,068 997,109 965,324 1,154,185 12,934,328 2018 1,071,332 1,011,761 1,202,288 945,134 869,084 1,051,048 11,978,117 Source: Springboard pedestrian counters on Chapel Street and Lord Street

4.59 Table 4.3 identifies a relatively substantial reduction in footfall in 2018 compared to the two preceding years. The number of recorded pedestrian movements in 2018 is 956,211 fewer than recorded in 2017 (representing a decrease of 7.4% over the 12 month period), and 579,595 fewer than recorded in 2016 (representing a decrease of 4.6% over the two year period).

4.60 Whilst we are aware that footfall counts can fluctuate due to local circumstances and one-off events24, we have made enquiries of Council officers and have not been made aware of any such occurrences which could explain why footfall has reduced in 2018.

Conclusion

4.61 Southport remains an attractive, historic seaside town, with a decent range of shops and services. However, the comparison goods offer of the town centre has decreased in recent years, which is exemplified by the loss of some important retailers and an increasing vacancy rate. Due to the weakening of the comparison goods sector in centre, other uses – including leisure and convenience goods retail – are of increasing importance in underpinning the centre and in driving footfall. It should be noted that this deterioration in performance has occurred during a time of great strain for the retail sector as a whole.

24 Including hoardings around shops, resurfacing works and events.

Sefton Council 35

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

4.62 Paragraph 395 of the Inspector’s report relating to the previous ‘call in’ Inquiry found that:

. the number of empty units in the centre is not ideal; and . there would be benefit in the BHS premises being reoccupied quickly.

4.63 As we have identified above, the position in respect of vacancies has worsened over time and the BHS unit has remained vacant. In addition, further comparison goods retailers have been lost from the town centre and footfall in 2018 was down on that recorded across the two previous years.

4.64 As a consequence of the above, we believe that the health of Southport town centre is generally more fragile than at the time of the 2016 Inquiry. However, it is important to note that the convenience goods offer in and around the town centre is extensive and generally trades strongly. The strength of the grocery provision is of particular relevance to the determination of the current planning application.

The Acceptability of Identified Impacts

4.65 In considering the acceptability of the proposal, it is important to form a view not just on the current health of the town centre, but to also consider whether the proposal would result in a material adverse impact.

4.66 In this regard, we give weight to the following matters.

4.67 Firstly, the large majority of the convenience goods turnover of the proposal would be diverted from similar main food shopping destinations. Broadly comparable foodstores in and around Southport town centre – most notably the Asda, Morrisons and existing Sainsbury’s stores – would trade around benchmark level subsequent to the implementation of both the application proposal and the Aldi store at Birkdale (which has now commenced trading). Our assessment estimates that: the Asda would trade at around 94% of company average benchmark; the Morrisons at around 102% of benchmark; and, the Sainsbury’s at around 109% of benchmark. We are satisfied that any other convenience goods impacts arising at any other ‘in centre’ destination25 would be of limited magnitude.

4.68 Secondly, in terms of comparison goods, only a very limited amount of expenditure would be diverted from Southport town centre as a consequence of the application proposal. Our revised impact assessment suggests that comparison goods retailers within Southport town centre would be the

25 Including Formby District Centre and other retailers in Southport town centre.

Sefton Council 36

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

subject of an estimated 1.1% impact. When convenience and comparison goods are considered in

aggregate, our assessment identifies that the proposal would result in a trade diversion of around £7.90m out of a total turnover of around £310.35m, i.e. an impact of around 2.5%.

4.69 Thirdly, we note that the any potential reduction in custom attracted to Southport town centre through the loss of linked trips associated with existing central foodstores was considered in detail at the Inquiry. In this regard, we note that Inspector Downes found at paragraph 382 of her report that Meols Cop is a relatively easy journey by car to the town centre, thereby suggesting that those undertaking food shopping at the new Sainsbury’s store would continue to travel into the town centre to buy other goods and services. At paragraph 374 of her report, Inspector Downes concluded that:

‘My conclusion is that in this case, due to the particular local circumstances involved, the loss of linked trips is likely to be relatively low. This would be an additional consideration to take into account but its effect would not be particularly significant in my opinion.’

4.70 We are similarly of the view that any loss of linked trips would not, in practice, be significant.

4.71 Whilst we reiterate that the health of Southport town centre is fragile, we believe that the above impacts are generally limited in terms of their magnitude. Importantly, we do not believe that comparison goods operators will be the subject of a material level of diversion and convenience goods operators (whilst being the subject of a larger trade diversion impact) will generally trade well subsequent to the implementation of the application proposal.

4.72 However, in considering the performance of existing foodstores, it is relevant to give particular attention to the likelihood of the Sainsbury’s at Lord Street continuing to trade subsequent to the implementation of the Meols Cop store.

4.73 We note that Inspector Downes considered this matter in her report and found, at paragraph 370, that

the post-impact performance of the Lord Street Sainsbury’s would be representative of a ‘viable

business’. As a consequence of this, she determined that it was not necessary for the applicant to enter into a planning obligation which would require Sainsbury’s to continue to trade from its Lord Street store for a defined period subsequent to the new Meols Cop store opening. Notwithstanding the findings of the Inspector (and the Secretary of State in his decision letter), we note that Sainsbury’s did actually commit to an agreement to continue to trade from Lord Street for a five year period as part of the existing planning permission.

Sefton Council 37

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

4.74 On reflection, we believe that the more pertinent consideration relates not to whether an impact assessment suggests that the Lord Street Sainsbury’s would have an acceptable turnover subsequent to the implementation of the Meols Cop store, but instead to whether Sainsbury’s would secure most profit from trading one or two stores in Southport.

4.75 Clearly, this is a matter which is difficult to predict through a traditional retail impact assessment. However, in the current grocery market, the ‘big four’ operators are generally cautious in terms of opening new stores and have collectively closed a number of supermarkets in recent years. We are aware that Sainsbury’s itself has, on at least one occasion in recent years, chosen not to open a new store even though it has been substantially built out26. The viability of new superstores in the current market can be marginal and we are not convinced, based on the available expenditure in the area and the increasing role of discount foodstores in meeting shopping needs in Southport, that there will be an ongoing requirement for Sainsbury’s to trade from two stores in close proximity to one another.

4.76 We note that Inspector Downes did find, at paragraph 377 of her report that ‘The consequences [of the

application proposal] for the Lord Street Sainsbury’s are an important part of the impact consideration.’ We agree. As a consequence of our uncertainty in respect of whether Sainsbury’s would wish to trade from two stores in Southport subsequent to the implementation of the Meols Cop proposal, we recommend that the Council again secures an obligation in order to ensure that the two stores trade concurrently for a given period of time. Whilst there would be benefit in providing for this dual representation in the town for as long a period as possible, we are aware that the agreement associated with the current extant planning permission relates to a five year period (from the Meols Cop store commencing trading). In addition, we are aware that paragraph 349 of Inspector Downes’ report suggests that, should such an obligation be required, a five year provision would be sufficient.

4.77 As a consequence of all of the above, we believe that, should the Council be minded to grant planning permission, it would be appropriate to again require a planning obligation to ensure that the Lord Street Sainsbury’s continues to trade for a period of five years subsequent to the opening of its Meols Cop store.

4.78 In addition, we note that Inspector Downes had some concern that the introduction of a large food superstore may have some potential to increase and broaden the overall attraction of Meols Cop Retail

26 Sainsbury’s announced in 2015 that it would not move into its new store at Middlehaven in Middlesbrough despite construction being substantially completed.

Sefton Council 38

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Park as a retail destination. In this regard, paragraph 388 of Inspector Downes’ report states that:

‘It seems to me that a convenience outlet like Marks and Spencer could widen the appeal of the retail park and it is evident that it does trade in such locations alongside larger foodstores. It is also acknowledged that further subdivision of existing units would have the potential to allow smaller High Street comparison goods retailers to become established…’

4.79 As a consequence, of the above the extant planning permission provides conditions precluding the sale or display of convenience goods from any other unit at Meols Cop Retail Park (Condition 27) and prohibiting the sub-division of other units (Condition 28). In our view, the imposition of such conditions remains appropriate (albeit we recommend that it is made clear that the prohibition of other convenience goods floorspace relates to additional floorspace and not to existing convenience goods floorspace at the retail park).

4.80 Subject to the above, we believe that the application proposal can be accommodated without any significant land use consequences for Southport town centre (or any other defined centre). No grocery retailer would likely close (within the assessment period) as a consequence of the proposal and the impact on comparison goods retailers would be limited. Whilst the fragile health of Southport town centre is again recognised, we believe that the impacts arising from the proposal would not be of the significant adverse level which could merit the refusal of the application. In addition, there would be some benefit in terms of consumer choice arising from the provision of an additional food superstore.

4.81 As a consequence, we find that the proposal conforms to the requirements of paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF, subject to the imposition of restrictive conditions and a planning obligation that provides for the continued operation of the existing Sainsbury’s foodstore at Lord Street for a five year period from the opening of its Meols Cop store. Planning conditions should:

. restrict the maximum convenience and comparison goods net sales areas (and overall sales area) in accordance with the quanta of floorspace proposed by the applicant; . preclude the subdivision of the proposed foodstore to ensure that it trades in the manner considered by this appraisal report; . preclude the subdivision of existing premises at Meols Cop Retail Park to ensure that the retail park does not materially evolve to trade more directly against Southport town centre as a consequence of the current application proposal; and preclude any additional existing floorspace in other units at Meols Cop Retail Park being used for

Sefton Council 39

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

the sale or display of convenience goods.

Sefton Council 40

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

5.0 Summary and Recommendations

5.1 Planning application reference DC/2018/01775 seeks planning permission for the demolition of three existing retail units and the erection of a Class A1 foodstore, petrol filling station with retail kiosk, and associated works at Meols Cop Retail Park in Southport. The application site lies around 2.5 kilometres from Southport’s primary shopping area and is ‘out of centre’ for the purposes of retail planning policy. The proposed foodstore would have a net sales area of 4,704 sq.m (of which 2,939 sq.m would be dedicated to the sale of convenience goods, and 1,765 sq.m to the sale of comparison goods). A further 94 sq.m of retail sales floorspace would be provided by the petrol filling station’s retail kiosk.

5.2 Paragraph 90 of the NPPF indicates that planning applications for retail uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan should be refused planning permission where they fail to satisfy the requirements of the sequential approach or are likely to result in a significant adverse impact.

5.3 In respect of the sequential approach to development, we have reviewed all the sites considered by Savills and do not believe that any are both available and suitable to accommodate the application proposal, even allowing for appropriate flexibility. We are unaware of any other sequential sites offering realistic potential to accommodate the proposal and, as such, find that it accords with the requirements of paragraphs 86 and 87 of the NPPF.

5.4 With regard to the first part of the NPPF impact test, we do not believe that the grant of planning permission for the proposed foodstore would lead to a significant adverse impact in respect of existing, committed and planned public and private sector investment. Indeed, we are unaware of any proposals being actively progressed within Southport town centre and Formby district centre for any development which would have a significant overlap with the application proposal in terms of the market it would serve and the needs it would meet.

5.5 In terms of the second part of the test (relating to the vitality and viability of town centres), our review of Savills’ submitted retail impact assessment has confirmed that no other grocery operators’ stores would likely close as a consequence of the application proposal (grocery retailers would generally continue to trade strongly) and that the impact arising at comparison goods retailers would be limited. Furthermore, we do not believe that there will be any significant reduction in linked trips to the centre as shopper using the Sainsbury’s at Meols Cop will still generally have reason to go into Southport

Sefton Council 41

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

town centre to purchase other goods and services. Our assessment is predicated on the imposition of the restrictive conditions and planning obligation which we have outlined in the preceding Section 4 of this report. In addition, there will be some positive benefit to the proposal in increasing consumer choice in the area (albeit Southport is an area that is already well provided for in terms of foodstores).

5.6 Local Plan Policy ED2 sets out an impact test that is generally consistent with the NPPF and a sequential test that provides some deviation from national planning policy in terms of how it prioritises sites. Notwithstanding this difference in policy approach, we also find that the proposal conforms to the requirements of Policy ED2 (subject again to the imposition of restrictive conditions and the planning obligation).

5.7 Local Plan Policy SD2 identifies that development should help support Sefton’s town and local centres to diversify and thrive. However, there is no policy mechanism to indicate how this would be achieved or how the policy would be breached (other than that set out at Policy ED2) and we do not believe that any perceived conflict with the general thrust of this policy could likely support the refusal of planning permission.

5.8 It is clearly necessary for the Council to consider all relevant planning policy and material considerations in reaching a decision to grant planning permission. Notwithstanding this, we conclude that the refusal of planning permission for this application proposal would not be supported on retail and town centre planning policy grounds.

Sefton Council 42

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Appendix A: 91 Lord Street Site Plan

Sefton Council 43

THIS DRAWING IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND MUST NOT BE COPIED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF R G PARTNERSHIP 8.8m LIMITED. NO DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE SCALED FROM THIS DRAWING. ALL l e t o DIMENSIONS AND SIZES TO BE CHECKED ON SITE. NORTH POINTS SHOWN H

n o t ARE INDICATIVE. © f li C l a y o R SITE SPECIFIC HAZARDS

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CDM REGULATIONS 2007 THE FOLLOWING SIGNIFICANT RESIDUAL HAZARDS HAVE NOT BEEN DESIGNED OUT OF THIS PROJECT AND MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY CONTRACTORS PLANNING TO UNDERTAKE THE WORKS SHOWN ON THIS El DRAWING: Sub Sta

Car Park 1

SM 6 E SP LA Shelter NA 8.2m DE Slo ping 5 maso nry 0 2 9.1m 7.3m R O

Y A 1

L 4

T 4

E 2 3 R 1 R A C E 1

PH 6 2 1

0 0

1 9 8

7 1 2 5 t o 3

1 3 Club 5 6 1 1

o 1 t 1a 0 4 3 1 4 C 1 O R O N A T I 1 8 4 O 1

N o

5 t

1 7

3

W 1 3 A

T 1 L E PH E

K R

1 5 T 1 6 3 S 1 D R O L 9 4 2 1 7

2

1

5 3 3 2 1

6.4m 2 o 1 t

c 5 1

1

b 3 2 1

a 1 TCBs 2 7 0 1

9 9 o t 5 0 1

The Two PH Brewers 7 9 (PH) o t

3 9 BM 6.03m

1 9 K I N G S W A Y REV. DATE NOTES INIT. Supermarket

CLIENT / PROJECT SOUTHPORT & WINDSOR

6

o t K PROPERTIES LLP 1 C I R E DUKE STREET R D A A G R A 91 LORD STREET, SOUTHPORT P n g d

. DRAWING TITLE 4

1 7 - 5 2

2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6

\ Supermarket 8 s t e e h

S 9 E

- D SITE PLAN

1 \ 1 El SubSta A

5 R 2 A 2 P 6

\ 0 2 K 0

3 C

6 I

- 3 R 1

0 R STATUS

2 A

6 G \ 6.1m s n g g n FOR INFORMATION d

0 i \

: d

P l 5 i NOTES: u DATE DRAWN SCALE @ A3 B 5.8m 1

0 e : l Site Area 0.5635 ha 1 b 30.09.14 CRC 1:1250 1 : b 0 i 1 R

7 PROJECT UNIT CI / SFB TYPE & REVISION 6 T 4 E s NUMBER / BLOCK CODE NUMBER LETTER 1

0 E d PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2 R r / 9 a

9 T 1 v 0 5 S / 1 2 e DRAWING NO. 0 2 l

3 3 D u Food Store 3419m² / 36,800ft² 2 R o B O 7 O 5 P 1 L Parking 183 spaces 6225 14

3 TCBs 2 9 1 Site Location Plans L GA Plans P Elevations E 1 1 7 Sections S Details D Prefix; Colour C 7 LB t 5 e

e MANCHESTER LONDON GLASGOW r

t 1 S

3 d

r 8 6.1m o 105 MANCHESTER ROAD L

1 9

, BURY t r o p LANCASHIRE h t u o BL9 0TD S Hotel

T. 0161 797 6000 n o t l r a h c

. W. www.rgp.uk.com s i r h E. [email protected] c

Proposed Foodstore, Meols Cop Retail Park Appraisal of Retail and Town Centre Issues

Appendix B: Cambridge Road, Churchtown Site Plan

Sefton Council 44

² E C INIT.

LETTER REVISION GLASGOW Elevations Prefix; Colour 1:1250 / 23,000 ft SCALE @ A4 20 ² TYPE & NUMBER P D

CRC CODE GA Plans Details LONDON CI / SFB DRAWN

UNIT L S / BLOCK NOTES DATE 30.09.14 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN PROPERTIES LLP CAMBRIDGE ROAD,CHURCHTOWN DRAWING TITLE STATUS DATE PROJECT NUMBER DRAWING NO. 9555 Site Location Plans Sections MANCHESTER 105 MANCHESTER ROAD BURY LANCASHIRE BL9 0TD T. 0161 797 6000 W. www.rgp.uk.com E. [email protected] THIS DRAWING IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND MUST NOT BE COPIED OR BE COPIED NOT AND MUST BY COPYRIGHT IS PROTECTED DRAWING THIS R G PARTNERSHIP CONSENT OF THE WRITTEN WITHOUT REPRODUCED ALL THIS DRAWING. SCALED FROM ARE TO BE NO DIMENSIONS LIMITED. POINTS SHOWN ON SITE. NORTH TO BE CHECKED AND SIZES DIMENSIONS © ARE INDICATIVE. THE CDM REGULATIONS 2007 WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF IN ACCORDANCE HAVE NOT BEEN SIGNIFICANT RESIDUAL HAZARDS THE FOLLOWING NOTES: INTO CONSIDERATION THIS PROJECT AND MUST BE TAKEN DESIGNED OUT OF WORKS SHOWN ON THIS PLANNING TO UNDERTAKE THE BY CONTRACTORS 0.434 ha Site Area DRAWING: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: m Food Store 2,136.8 Parking 76 spaces REV. CLIENT / PROJECT SOUTHPORT & WINDSOR

4 N 1 a 1 M a rs h s id e R o a d 2 M e th o d is t C h u rc h

L B

b

1

a 1

S M

T C B

1 2 1 1 1 9 1 1 3 to 1 1 1

5 .5 m 1 2 5

1 2 7

d y rd B W a C R

M a s 5 5 .8 m t 1 3

T C B

S h e lte r B a n k

0

4

1

3 1 8

2

4

1

D

A P C

O

R

E

G

D I 1 1 4

3 1

R 9

B M 1

4 A 3

C 5

1 4 5

1 4 7

B a n k

1

2

6

a

0

8

7

6

6 a 1

1

4

7 1 1 4 9

6 .1 m

186 to 178

2 4

6

6 4 m D O. A

K R R 2 9 A 1 N M

D E

1

2

1

1

. ,

.

t l i t i / / : : \ \ : \ \ \ \ t

r r r - r - - - s s c a c c e a a e e o h h n n o h u h 6 6 1 8 4 1 g d b d o 0 2 9 0 0 3 9 0 4 1 3 4 1 3 0 9 n g d 0 5 9 0 0 5 9 0 0 1 5 5 5 9 9 9 5 5 9 h n g d 0 2 5 P S C C R w m

Nexus Planning Manchester

Eastgate 2 Castle Street Castlefield Manchester M3 4LZ

T: 0161 819 6570 nexusplanning.co.uk