Steven Abbott Associates LLP Chartered Town Planners

RETAIL AND PLANNING STATEMENT

Consolidated Property Group LLP

Mixed Use Development

Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton

December 2014

www.abbott-associates.co.uk

Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3

2. THE APPLICATION SITE AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 4

3. POLICY BACKGROUND ...... 7

4. SEQUENTIAL TEST ...... 14

5. IMPACT ...... 24

6. OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ...... 32

7. CONCLUSIONS ...... 37

APPENDICES

1. SITE LAYOUT PLAN

2. SPRING GARDENS SITE PLAN

3. RUSHDEN LAKES CALL-IN DECISION

4. SPRING GARDENS COMMITTEE REPORT

5. SPRING GARDENS OPTION PLANS

6. DEVELOPMENT COST APPRIASAL

7. RETAIL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8. EXPLANATORY NOTE ON TOURISM SPENDING

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 2 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. This Planning and Retail Statement is prepared by Steven Abbott Associates on behalf of Consolidated Property Group in respect of their planning application to develop the site of the former Buxton Water bottling plant. The submitted planning application seeks permission for the construction of a supermarket and a mixed use building including a hotel, restaurant, shops and cafes along with associated car parking, service arrangements and landscaping.

1.2. The application is supported by a number of technical reports which should be read alongside this Statement, namely:

 Design and Access Statement by WCEC Architects;

 Ecological Appraisal by Envirotech;

 Transportation Assessment by Cameron Rose Associates;

 Flood Risk Assessment by Waterman Structures Limited;

 Noise Assessment by Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Limited;

 Desk Study Assessment by Waterman Energy, Environment & Design Limited;

 Statement of Community Involvement by Dan Bramwell Associates; and

 Heritage Statement.

1.3. This Statement appraises the proposed development against the provisions and policies set out in national and local planning policy documents.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 3 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

2. THE APPLICATION SITE AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

APPLICATION SITE

2.1. The application site is located immediately north of Station Road, entirely within Buxton’s defined town centre. The site covers an area of 2.5 hectares and is situated on land between the main passenger railway line to the northwest and a freight rail line to the northeast, and Station Road to the south.

2.2. The site was previously occupied by Nestlé Water UK Ltd who used the site as the Buxton Water Bottling Plant.

2.3. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the site is currently taken from Station Road, via a shared access road which also serves the Railway Station and car park situated at the western end of the application site. This land is under the ownership of Network Rail, with whom discussions have been held regarding these development proposals. The train station is a Grade II Listed Structure, the focus of which is the fan light on Station Road, further west of the application site.

2.4. Although the site is located within the Town Centre boundary, the historic use is industrial which did not provide positive contribution to either the appearance or vitality of the town centre.

2.5. Adjacent to the application site (taking access from Station Road) is a stone-fronted Aldi store (1,291 sq m gross), albeit that the design of the store and its wider demise does follow a typical discounter format.

2.6. The remainder of the town centre is located south of Station Road. The south side of Station Road is retained by a high wall bounding the Spring Gardens development. The Spring Gardens development is comprised of a covered retail mall, with pay and display car parking managed by High Peak Borough Council. Further south is the main Spring Gardens shopping street, as well as other town centre uses found upon Market Street

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 4 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

and High Street. To the south-west of the site, with limited views, it is noted that there are heritage assets in the form of the Crescent, the Slopes and the Quadrant.

2.7. The existing bottling plant was first located on this site in 1987 when Buxton water was bought by Perrier UK. More recently, in 1992, Nestlé Water UK Ltd acquired the plant and continued the bottling of Buxton’s spring water up to the relocation to the Waterswallows Lane facility.

2.8. A large portion of the site sits on a plateau, elevated above Station Road and the Town Centre. As such, the site is highly visible from the south of Buxton.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.9. The proposed development comprises two main elements; the construction of a new supermarket of 4,662 sq m gross (2,964 sq m sales), and a mixed use building located on the Station Road frontage. The development is served by a single customer and service vehicle access on station road and includes a number of separate pedestrian accesses which link with the existing pedestrian crossings across Station Road and the train station. The site is served by 301 customer car parking spaces which include 21 disabled and 12 parent and child spaces. A layout plan is attached at Appendix 1.

2.10. The site is essentially split into two sections; the upper section contains the supermarket and 284 of the car parking spaces and the lower section contains the mixed use development and 17 car parking spaces.

2.11. The proposed supermarket is a single storey, at grade building, served by surface car parking to the front and side of the building. While the service access is shared with the customer access on Station Road, the service vehicles separate from customer traffic onto a dedicated service road around ten metres into the site.

2.12. The mixed use building on Station Road is four storeys tall and includes a pub / restaurant (632 sq m), a 60 bed hotel (2,139 sq m) and two retail / cafe units. These smaller units are 93 sq m and 353 sq m and are considered appropriate for a range of

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 5 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

Class A1 and A3 uses. The mixed use block is served by a further 17 car parking spaces and the units would be serviced from the car park.

2.13. There are a number of pedestrian and cycle routes through the site which are shown in detail in the Design and Access Statement. The pedestrian routes link with existing pedestrian crossings on Station Road and Charles Street and also link with Buxton Train Station. Cycle routes are proposed from Station Road to the cycle storage points located near the mixed use block and the supermarket.

2.14. A key aim of these proposals is to ensure that the development better integrates with the rest of the Town Centre so that it will operate as part of the town centre. In order to help achieve this, improvements to the existing linkages and new town centre signage is proposed to promote and maximise the opportunity for shoppers to link their trips. Full details of the proposed improvements are included within the submitted Transport Assessment.

2.15. The appearance of the scheme has been designed to take account of the local palette of materials and architectural themes present throughout Buxton but presents these themes in a high quality modern design. The design takes account of the key views of the site from the south of Buxton and its prominent location along Station Road, a key route through Buxton Town Centre.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 6 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

3. POLICY BACKGROUND

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

3.1. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was adopted on 27th March 2012.

3.2. The first of the key targets for securing economic growth identified by the NPPF is to create jobs and prosperity (para 18). The NPPF states that the Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support economic growth and that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system (para 19).

3.3. Paragraph 23 of the NPPF recognises that competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer is key to promoting competitive town centres.

3.4. NPPF requires applicants to undertake a sequential test (Paragraph 24) for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to- date Local Plan. 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.

3.5. In terms of impact (Paragraph 26), for retail development out of centre, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set threshold. If there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m. The assessment should include:

 Impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and

 The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 7 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

3.6. Annexe 1 of the NPPF deals with implementation of the policies within the document. The Annexe states that local authorities should take full account of the policies within the NPPF and update their local plans where relevant. For the twelve months following publication, full weight may be given to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the NPPF.

3.7. It is understood that the NPPF supports the determination of planning applications in line with local planning policies so long as they adopted since 2004 and are broadly in- line with the policies set out within the NPPF.

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY

High Peak Local Plan 2005

3.8. Under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, policies in the High Peak Local Plan 2005 were valid for a period of three years. Local Planning Authorities were invited by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to make an application to the Secretary of State to issue a direction to save selected Local Plan policies beyond this 3-year period.

3.9. High Peak Borough Council made the necessary application and the Secretary of State’s Direction came into effect on 31 March 2008. Accordingly, all Local Plan policies not saved do not to have any Development Plan status.

3.10. Policy GD4 of the Local Plan supports development that is sympathetic in terms of scale, layout, density, design and materials to the character of the area and where development will not have a detrimental effect on the area.

3.11. Policy GD5 requires that new development does not have an unacceptable impact on amenity in terms of issues such as noise or other pollution or traffic safety.

3.12. GD6 requires new development to contain a high standard of hard and soft landscaping that is in keeping with the local area. It should be noted that for this submission, the

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 8 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

matter of landscaping is not dealt with in detail and has been reserved for later consideration.

3.13. Policy BC1 requires that the external materials used in new buildings are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the local area.

3.14. Policy BC5 requires that development within Conservation Areas and their settings preserve or enhance the nature of the conservation area and that features such as buildings, views and open spaces that are important to the character of the Conservation Area are protected from harmful development.

3.15. Policy BC8 states that permission will not be granted for development that would materially harm the setting of a Listed Building.

3.16. Policy TC1 supports development within town centres that sustains and enhances the viability of the centre.

3.17. Policy TC3 supports the development of large retail stores within town centres provided that it is of satisfactory design, layout and has safe pedestrian linkages to existing facilities and would not undermine the vitality and viability of any nearby centre.

3.18. Policy TC4 supports the development outside of town centres provided there are no suitable sites within the centre, that there would not be a significantly adverse impact on that centre, that the scale of the development is well related to the centre and that the site is safely accessible by pedestrians and cyclists.

3.19. Policy TC15 identifies two regeneration areas in central Buxton. The application site falls within the Buxton Central regeneration area. The policy supports the regeneration of these areas including use for leisure, tourist and retail development. The Policy states that any development must be sympathetic to the character of the area, include pedestrian links to the existing town centre and are supported by adequate car parking.

3.20. Policy TR1 supports new development that with reduce the need to travel and widen transport choice for people and goods.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 9 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

3.21. Policy TR5 supports development that make safe and appropriate provision for access and egress by pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and the private car.

High Peak Local Plan Review

3.22. High Peak is currently preparing a replacement Local Plan. Consultation on the Plan has taken place and the publication of the submission version of the Plan along with the Examination in Public is expected later this year.

3.23. The new High Peak Local Plan will provide strategic planning guidance on matters such as housing, employment, the natural and historic environment, transport and retail. In addition, the new High Peak Local Plan will also include details of specific sites identified for future development or protection. The new Local Plan will cover the period from 2011 to 2031.

3.24. With regard to the weight that can and should be given to the policies contained within the emerging Local Plan, it should be noted that Annex 1 of the NPPF provides the following guidance:

“from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight40 to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

 the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);

 the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given);

 and the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”

3.25. Policy S1 of the Submission Local Plan sets out the sustainable development principles that should be applied to all new development. The principles include inter alia:

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 10 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

 Meeting development needs within existing communities;

 Making effective use of land through the re-use of land and ensuring appropriate building densities are achieved;

 Taking account of the character and townscape of local areas;

 Minimising the need to travel by promoting development in locations where the is access to a broad range of jobs and services that are easily accessible by all means of transport;

 Seeking to secure high quality, locally distinctive design and a high standard of amenity; and

 Maintaining a good range of services and facilities and ensuring infrastructure has the capacity to support development.

3.26. Policy S1a details the presumption in favour of sustainable development that forms the backbone of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.27. Policy S7 sets out the strategy for the Buxton Sub-Area. The key aims for the Buxton area relevant to this development are:

 supporting proposals that will contribute to the development of Buxton as a hub for cyclists;

 encouraging the growth of tourism including the provision of additional visitor accommodation; and

 supporting improvements to the range and quality of town centre retail and services.

3.28. Policy EQ1 sets out the Council’s approach to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The policy requires inter alia, that new development be designed to reduce energy consumption; promoting energy efficiency; supporting the use of sustainable design and

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 11 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

construction techniques; and supporting water efficiency standards to minimise water consumption.

3.29. Policy EQ5 requires that new development should be well designed and of a high quality that responds to local distinctiveness and a sense of place. The policy seeks to achieve this by requiring:

 development to respect the character and identity of High Peak’s townscapes;

 development to contribute positively to an area’s character, history and identity;

 that developments are easy to move through and around incorporating well integrated car parks, pedestrian routes and cycle routes; and

 the promotion of development that is accessible to all users.

3.30. Policy EQ6 seeks to conserve the district’s heritage assets. It this case, the relevant consideration is that new development that could affect the setting of a heritage asset should demonstrate how the proposal has taken account of the asset.

3.31. Policy EQ10 supports development proposed outside of areas of current or future flood risk which do not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

3.32. Policy CF1 sets out High Peak Council’s approach to retail and town centre development. The policy requires the application of the sequential test and an assessment of impact on any large retail development outside of a defined centre. The policy also supports development that provides a good range of shopping, food and drink uses and leisure facilities. The policy also supports development of a high quality design that help deliver regeneration programs.

3.33. Policy CF6 seeks to ensure that new development can be safely accessed in a sustainable manner.

3.34. Policy DS20 allocates 3.34 hectares of land as the Station Road and Spring Gardens Regeneration Area. The application site falls within the Regeneration Area. The policy

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 12 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

allocates the site for: “town centre regeneration uses, including residential, office, hotel and tourist accommodation, leisure and cultural related developments”. It is clear from the wording of the Policy that the list provided is not an exhaustive list of uses. Indeed, the policy goes on to say that applications for retail development outside the Primary Shopping Area (PSA) will require a sequential and impact assessment. Accordingly, it is recognised that retail development is considered to be compliant with the policy, provided that it can satisfactorily address the issues of the sequential test and impact.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 13 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

4. SEQUENTIAL TEST

INTRODUCTION

4.1. The site is located within the boundary of Buxton Town Centre and around 160 metres from the proposed Primary Shopping Area and around 200 metres from the Prime Retail Frontage. The site is linked to the town by pedestrian crossings over Station Road. Accordingly, the site is considered to be edge of centre for the purposes of the Test.

4.2. Discussions with High Peak Borough Council Officers prior to the submission of the application identified that the only site to be assessed under the sequential test is the car park of the Springfield Shopping Centre which was previously been the subject of a planning application by the Threadneedle Group. The site is shown on the plan attached at Appendix 2.

METHODOLOGY

4.3. With regard to the approach to be adopted for the Sequential Test, the position has been clarified in the recent Call-In Inquiry at Rushden. The development comprised a mixed retail and leisure scheme at Rushden Lakes including over 38,000 sq m of retail floorspace proved over three retail terraces and one large home and garden centre. In addition, the proposals included a number of restaurants, a visitor centre, a hotel and a leisure centre.

4.4. With regard to the Sequential Test, the Inspector clarifies a number of key methodological points first raised by the Dundee Supreme Court Case1. These are:

 When considering the suitability of alternative sites, the Test should consider sites that are “suitable for the development proposed by the applicant (para 8.43);

1 Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 14 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

 When considering the suitability of alternative sites, the applicant should not reduce the proposal to fit onto another site (paragraph 8.44);

 There is no requirement in the NPPF to consider disaggregating the proposed development onto a number of smaller sites (para 8.47);

 When considering the suitability of alternative sites, the issue of flexibility relates to: flexibility in a business model; use of multi level stores; flexible car parking arrangements; innovative servicing solutions; and a willingness to depart from standard formats (para 8.49); and

 When considering the availability of sites, the Test should consider only sites that are available at that time and not sites that are likely to become available during the remainder of the plan period or over a period of some years (para 8.55).

4.5. In his decision letter, the Secretary of State agrees with all of these conclusions. A copy of the Secretary of State’s decision letter and an extract of the Inspector’s Report are attached at Appendix 3.

SPRING GARDENS SHOPPING CENTRE CAR PARK

The Site

4.6. The Spring Gardens Shopping Centre is located within Buxton Town Centre, with the principal customer access located on Spring Gardens. Secondary accesses are located on the north and eastern ends of the development and provide access from the customer car park which wraps around the shopping centre.

4.7. The centre sits on the opposite side of Station Road to the application site and extends between Station Approach to the west and New Wye Street to the east. The Centre sits behind the main shopping frontage along Spring Gardens.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 15 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

4.8. The car park that serves the shopping centre also acts as the main town centre car park and is operated by High Peak Borough Council as a short stay pay and display car park and provides 422 spaces.

4.9. The site was previously the subject of a planning application for a similar mixed-use scheme to the one proposed by this application (ref: HPK/2009/0177). The application was withdrawn by the applicant prior to determination by planning committee following the publication of the Council’s report to committee which recommended that the application be refused. A copy of that report is attached at Appendix 4.

Potential Development

4.10. Having regard to the Rushden decision, it is clear that when considering the suitability of the Spring Gardens site it is appropriate to assess whether the entirety of the development proposed by the submitted application can be accommodated. It is clear that the Spring Garden site cannot accommodate the proposed development at grade, as any development would at the very least have to retain the car parking. Therefore, to accommodate the proposed floorspace, development of the Spring Gardens site would have to be over multiple storeys.

4.11. Using the previously submitted scheme as a base, architects WCEC have prepared some preliminary plans showing how the proposed floorspace could be accommodated on the Spring Gardens site. The plans are attached at Appendix 5.

4.12. With regard to the supermarket element of the development, the layout follows the previously submitted proposals with a two floors of car parking topped by a supermarket fronting onto Station Road. The store would be serviced from the ground floor car park with goods lifts through to the back of house storage area on the second floor. The store would be served by 217 spaces; 47 spaces on the ground floor and 170 on the first floor. The supermarket itself would have a sales area of 2,600 sq m which is around 12% smaller than the proposed development (2,964 sq m).

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 16 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

4.13. The Hotel, car park and retail block comprises a 60 bed hotel over four floors, 1,115 sq m of retail floorspace and 172 car parking spaces over four floors. This building would have the same massing as the withdrawn scheme.

Appraisal

Design and Heritage Concerns

4.14. As set out above, in order to accommodate the same development proposed by the submitted application, development of the Spring Gardens site would need to be of roughly the same scale as the Threadneedle scheme. Therefore, most of the issues relating to the visual impact of the scheme and its design would remain.

4.15. Objections from English Heritage and High Peak Borough Council’s Design and Conservation officer identified a number of significant issues with a development of this scale on this site in Buxton.

4.16. English Heritage noted that the proposed supermarket would impact upon the setting of the Crescent. In particular, the western elevation of the supermarket would be highly visible from the Crescent. Given the sites constraints, this would be the only possible location for the back-of-house storage element of the supermarket. The requirements of the service end of the store would leave a blank frontage with no activity as shown on the drawings attached at Appendix 5.

4.17. Accordingly, the impact on the Listed Crescent would remain a sensitive issue that could not be satisfactorily addressed given the site’s constraints.

4.18. Similarly, English Heritage we concerned over the impact of the multi-storey car park and hotel at the eastern end of the site. In their objection, English Heritage stressed the importance of the “gateway views” of Buxton when arriving from the west. At present, the roofscape of the Palace Hotel and the dome of the former hospital building are visible in the tree line. English Heritage also identified important views south over Buxton from the train line on Charles Street and of the Viaduct when travelling along Station Road.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 17 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

4.19. The scale of the development in this location (4 storeys high) would obliterate these views. The loss of these important “gateway” views into and across Buxton would clearly have a significant impact on the character of Buxton and the conservation area.

4.20. Given that the scale and massing of the car park / hotel building would remain largely unchanged, it is inconceivable that these impacts could be satisfactorily addressed. Accordingly, the development of the Spring Gardens site would raise significant heritage and conservation issues.

Accessibility

4.21. In terms of the potential to improve pedestrian linkages and permeability, the Spring Gardens site is the most important site in the Town Centre given the current problems in this area and the position of the site between the Primary Shopping Area and Buxton Train Station. Given the ability of the Spring Gardens site to address these issues, the onus on improving pedestrian linkages is correspondingly greater.

4.22. However, development of this nature will only create more impermeable buildings, thus reducing pedestrian accessibility between the town centre, the train station and application site thus prejudicing an important town centre regeneration opportunity.

4.23. Accordingly, the Spring Gardens site would not be suitable for development of this type and would be contrary to Policies TC3, TC15 and TR5 of the Local Plan and Polices EQ5 and DS20 of the Submission Local Plan.

Compromised Layout

4.24. When considering the suitability of a site for a particular development, it is appropriate to consider whether the site could adequately meet the same objectives as the proposed development. The reason in this case for providing a new supermarket on the edge of Buxton town centre is to effectively compete with the out-of-centre Morrison’s supermarket, which remains the dominant convenience offer in the town. In order to achieve that, any new supermarket must be able to offer shoppers a comparable and ideally, a more attractive shopping destination.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 18 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

4.25. The significant constraints on the Spring Gardens site mean that this simply isn’t possible on this site. Whereas the Morrison’s store offers shoppers a regular shaped and oriented store the Spring Gardens site could only offer a long narrow store which presents logistical problems for the operator as well as a less satisfactory shopping experience for the customer.

4.26. Furthermore, whereas the Morrison’s store is served by surface level parking, the Spring Gardens store would be served by two levels of car parking located below the store and accessed by escalators and lifts. This highly compromised arrangement will not be attractive to shoppers who would have to navigate the escalators and / or lifts to bring their shopping to their vehicle.

4.27. Split of car parking – only a small increase in numbers over existing spaces and is still significantly less than proposed on our site. Undersupply of parking. Only other option would be to park in the hotel block and there is no route through the development to allow shoppers to take their good back to their vehicle.

4.28. Having regard to the constrained nature of the development achievable on this site, it is considered that the store would fail to achieve any reasonable level of claw-back from the Morrison’s store and would be more likely to cannibalise trade from existing town centre retailers, thus undermining the reason for providing a new supermarket in Buxton. Given all of these factors, it is considered that such a scheme would not be attractive to operators and they would not be prepared to accept such a compromised development.

4.29. Overall, it is considered that the Spring Gardens site is not suitable for development of this scale.

Flood Risk

4.30. The River Wye runs through the site and although largely culverted, is exposed through part of the site. The site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3a and is consequently at a high risk of flooding.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 19 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

4.31. The Environment Agency raised a number of objections to the Threadneedle scheme: the development of the site will impede flood flow and reduce storage thereby increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere; and the development does not include a safe means of access/egress in the event of flooding.

4.32. These issues were not resolved prior to the application being withdrawn. As such, it is not clear whether these issues can be overcome.

4.33. With regard to the second objection, one possible solution would be to raise the finished floor levels allowing for egress above the flood level. The effectiveness of such a solution is considered to be questionable given that the surrounding land would still be at the lower level and at greater risk of flooding.

4.34. Notwithstanding this issue, raising the floor levels would have additional effects on the appropriateness of the scheme; the impact of the scheme on heritage assets has already been considered to be unacceptable, raising floor levels would only increase the overall height of the buildings, thus exacerbating the already significant impacts.

4.35. Accordingly, it is considered that the issues arising from flood risk make the site unsuitable for development of this scale.

Viability

4.36. The development shown at Appendix 5 is a very expensive scheme and is not one that could be built in the current economic climate. The Development Cost Appraisal attached at Appendix 6 shows the estimated cost of constructing the scheme. It should be noted that the cost of constructing the Spring Gardens scheme is around twice that of the application scheme. Furthermore, the Appraisal does not take into account additional costs such as diversion of mains services, abnormal foundation / ground works, retaining structures or below ground drainage storage / attenuation all of which are issues which are likely to be far greater cost here given levels and flooding issues than on the application site. As such, it is considered that the comparative construction cost would be even more significant than currently shown.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 20 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

4.37. As set out above, it is considered that given the highly constrained nature of the development, there would be a lack of tenant demand. Indeed, the main supermarket operators are no longer developing larger stores on stilts because the format is not popular with customers who prefer more traditional stores. Given the importance of the supermarket to the viability of a scheme of this type, the lack of an operator would clearly render the development unviable.

4.38. It is considered that these considerable viability concerns indicate that the Spring Gardens site is not suitable for this form of development.

Availability

4.39. In the Rushden Lakes case, the Inspector concludes that the Test should consider only sites that are available at that time and not sites that are likely to become available during the remainder of the plan period or over a period of some years.

4.40. In this case, the site is not available on the open market, and the availability of the site for development is complicated by the right’s of High Peak Borough Council to operate a town centre car park on the site.

4.41. In any event, since the previous application was withdrawn in 2009, the site’s owner has not shown any interest in developing the site. It is considered that due to a lack of tenant demand and the viability issues discussed, the site is not available for development.

CONCLUSIONS ON THE SEQUENTIAL TEST

4.42. During pre-application meetings with officers of High Peak Borough Council, it was been agreed that the only sequentially preferable site for this development is the Spring Gardens car park on the other side of Station Road. This site was previously the subject of an application for a similar development. That application was withdrawn by the applicant prior to determination but was recommended for refusal by the Council’s officers.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 21 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

4.43. The applicant has looked again at the Spring Gardens site and has prepared a scheme for a development of that same type as the application scheme. Having looked at the site, the scheme’s architects concluded that the best development approach would be a similar arrangement to the withdrawn application.

4.44. Considering the development option on the Spring Gardens site raised a number of key concerns:

 The scale of the development would lead to significant impacts on Buxton’s heritage assets: The orientation of the supermarket would have an impact on the setting of Crescent; and the scale of the hotel and car park block would obliterate a number of important views of and through Buxton;

 The Spring Gardens site is key to improving pedestrian permeability in Buxton Town Centre. Development of this nature would fail to improve pedestrian linkages and even reduce permeability;

 The layout of the supermarket would be severely compromised and would not be able to properly compete with Morrison’s. Furthermore, the arrangement would not be attractive to operators or shoppers;

 The site is in an area with a high risk of flooding and is likely to increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. Possible solutions only raise further problems for viability and impact on heritage assets;

 The scheme is not viable; construction costs are around twice that of the application scheme and there are likely to be considerable abnormal costs in developing the Spring Gardens site; and

 There are significant question marks over the availability of the scheme. The scheme is not on the market, and since the application was withdrawn, no further interest has been shown in bringing the site forward. Furthermore, High Peak Borough Council operate the town centre car park on the site.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 22 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

4.45. Having regard to the above, it is considered that the Spring Gardens site is not suitable for the development proposed by this application and neither is it currently available for development.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 23 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

5. IMPACT

IMPACT ON INVESTMENT IN CENTRES

5.1. Paragraph 26 of the NPPF states that the impact of a proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private sector investment in centres in the catchment area.

5.2. The only significant investment in Buxton Town Centre currently planned or underway is the restoration of the Crescent to create a luxury hotel and spa complex. It is understood that the plans are to create a 79 bedroom 5-star hotel with a thermal and natural mineral water spa. The development is utilising public funding to deliver the project.

5.3. The hotel proposed as part of the application submission is for a 60 bedroom budget hotel. It is clear that the two will cater to different aspects of Buxton’s tourist market. As a result it is considered that the proposed hotel would have absolutely no impact on the investment in the Crescent.

5.4. There is currently no identified retail driven investment projects in Buxton Town Centre and nor are there any such scheme identified in the Submission Local Plan other than the two key regeneration areas, of which the application site forms a part.

5.5. Accordingly, the application submission is a key investment project in Buxton Town Centre and its economy and there can be no impact on other investment in Buxton as a result of the proposed development.

IMPACT ON TOWN CENTRE VITALITY AND VIABILITY

5.6. Paragraph 26 of the NPPF states that the impact of a proposal on the vitality and viability, including consumer choice and trade in the town centre should be assessed up to five years from the time the application is made.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 24 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

Methodology

5.7. In line with the policy set out in the NPPF, the assessment of impact has been carried out over a five year period. The assessment of impact focuses upon the proposed convenience goods floorspace. In terms of comparison goods, the assessment assumes that all of the small Class A1 / A3 units will be operated by comparison goods retailers. While this is unlikely to be the case in reality (most of the units will be used for A3 purposes) the assessment provides a worst case scenario for comparison goods impact.

5.8. The study area is based on results of the household survey contained within the Quantitative Retail Study Update for High Peak Borough and Staffordshire Moorlands District Councils. Given the shopping patterns identified in that Study, it is considered appropriate to assess the impact of the development in relation to Zones 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Study.

5.9. The statistical tables assessing the likely impact on turnover and trade are attached at Appendix 7.

5.10. The first stage of assessing the likely impact of a proposed development is to estimate the likely turnover of that development. As there is no named operator for the supermarket, an average of the main three retailers not present in Buxton has been used. It has also been assumed that there will be an average floorspace split between convenience and comparison goods. For the sake of robustness, it has been assumed that all of the smaller units within the block fronting Station Road will be used for the sale of comparison goods. In reality, it is expected that the majority of these units will be used for cafes, restaurants and bars.

5.11. The sales density figures for both convenience and comparison goods and are derived from figures published by Verdict Retail Service. The figures are in 2012 prices.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 25 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

5.12. Estimations of growth in turnover of the proposed floorspace are in line with the Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report which adopts a no growth scenario2.

5.13. The table shows that during its first full year of trading the supermarket would be expected to turn over around £24m in convenience goods sales. Adopting the no- growth scenario used in the Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report, it is anticipated that this level of turnover will not change in the near future. Comparison goods turnover would be around £9.28 m, rising to around £10.3 m in 2019.

5.14. Current and future estimates of the population of each of the survey zones are set out at Table 2. Population estimates are taken from Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report and assume linear growth between test years.

5.15. Tables 3 and 4 sets out the level of personal spending on convenience and comparison goods and provides estimates of future levels of spending. Up-to-date data on personal spending has been taken from Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report. Estimates of future growth and special forms of trading (SFT) has been made using the growth rates set out in Experian’s Retail Planner Briefing Note 11.

5.16. Table 5 sets out the total available expenditure generated by residents of the Study Area.

5.17. Table 6 details the convenience goods shopping patterns identified by the household survey in the Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report. The table also calculates the amount of money spent in each store by residents of the survey zone. An allowance for inflow to each store is made in-line with the level of spending from the other survey zones identified Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report. The table also makes an allowance for tourism spending. A note on methodology used to calculate tourism spend is attached at Appendix 8.

5.18. Table 7 calculates the turnover of nearby committed developments. The data is taken from the Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report.

2 Paragraph 2.19 of the Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report by GVA.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 26 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

5.19. Table 8 shows the estimated trade draw of the proposed supermarket. It has been assumed that the trade draw will largely accord with current shopping patterns, with the vast majority of trade originating from residents of Zone 5. Table 8a calculates the trade diversion of the committed developments.

5.20. Table 9 calculates the trade diverted from existing shops to the proposed supermarket based upon existing spending levels, shopping patterns and the trade draw set out in Table 7. The trade diversion has been weighted to take account of the fact that the supermarkets generally compete on a like-with-like basis. Given the size of the store proposed, it is considered that the key competitor will be the out-of-centre Morrison’s store in Buxton.

5.21. Table 10 calculates the cumulative impact of the proposed supermarket and the committed developments on the turnover of existing supermarkets and centres. The turnover of existing shopping facilities is derived from the household survey and growth is assumed to be consistent with current market shares.

5.22. The impact of the development is shown as the percentage reduction in turnover from expected levels. The table also shows the change in turnover from current levels.

5.23. Tables 11 to 13 carry out the impact assessment for the comparison goods floorspace based upon the existing shopping patterns identified in Appendix 3B of the Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report.

Appraisal of Impact

5.24. Buxton is generally a healthy town centre. A survey of Buxton undertaken in October 2014 found that within the adopted Prime Retail Frontage only four units stood vacant. This equates to a vacancy rate of just 3.4% in the PRF. The Local Plan Submission proposes to redraw the boundary as a Primary Shopping Area. This slightly larger area has seven vacant units, which equates to a 5% vacancy rate. Whether the PRF or the PSA is taken to be the most appropriate definition of the centre, it remains the case that the vacancy rate in Buxton is significantly below the national average of 10.1%.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 27 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

5.25. During visits to the town, footfall though Buxton Town Centre is generally high and the town attracts a significant number of tourist visitors in addition to local residents.

5.26. The town is also home to a number of key national multiple retailers such as: M&S; Waitrose; Next; WH Smith; Clarks; and Boots in addition to many others.

5.27. Having regard to the above, it is considered that Buxton Town Centre is generally healthy and continues to attract retailers and shoppers.

5.28. It is considered that the proposed supermarket will compete mainly with the out-of- centre Morrison’s. Indeed, providing a store that can properly compete with Morrison’s in terms of size, layout, offer, customer parking and price is a key target for the proposed development. It is also considered that there is likely to be some impact on the Aldi store given its increasing popularity and its proximity to the application site.

5.29. There is likely to be less direct competition with Waitrose given qualitative differences between Waitrose and the larger national operators who would run the proposed supermarket. Anecdotal evidence gathered from the public consultation exercise indicated that many local residents use Waitrose as a secondary main-food shopping destination; carrying out the bulk of their main food shop in another supermarket (usually Aldi) and finishing their shop at Waitrose. It is considered that the proposed supermarket would increase the opportunity for this trend to continue as shoppers using the proposed store would be more likely to link their trip with Waitrose than shoppers at Morrison’s given the obvious difference in distances involved.

5.30. As set out earlier, the proposed development includes a series of measure to improve pedestrian linkages with the Primary Shopping Area. It is believed that the combination of these improvements along with the increase footfall along Station Road generated by the development, particularly the mixed use building on Station Road, will help transform the way in which Station Road is perceived and used. Accordingly, the proposed development will encourage linked shopping trips to take place.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 28 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

5.31. Therefore, the claw-back of trade from the out-of-centre Morrison’s to the application site and the increased footfall in the centre generated by the supermarket and the other uses proposed will benefit the town centre. The spin-off trade generated through linked shopping trips that would have otherwise not have taken place will benefit the rest of the Primary Shopping Area.

5.32. As such, it is considered that the trade diversion identified in the statistical impact tables will be offset by the increase trade generated through linked shopping trips.

5.33. In terms of the impact on trade and turnover identified in Table 10, it should be remembered that this considers only the direct impact and does not estimate the increase in trade generated through linked shopping trips that has already been discussed. Therefore, the figures shown should be seen as a worst case scenario.

5.34. In terms of town centre retailers, the Table shows that the greatest impact will be felt by Waitrose (10.26%) with other retailers experiencing an impact of between 3% and 5%. The overall impact on Trade in 2019 would be around 8%.

5.35. The 2014 Retail Study Addendum Report adopts a “no growth” scenario for convenience goods retail sales densities3. In other words, the report’s authors consider that retailers should not anticipate any growth in sales in the short to medium term. On that basis, the final column of Table 10, the % Change in turnover from current levels becomes highly relevant.

5.36. Therefore, while Table 10 shows that Town Centre trade would see an impact of 8% if current market shares are retained, the impact when compared to expected trading levels under the “no growth” is much lower at under 2%.

5.37. Accordingly, when considering the impact of the development on Town Centre trade, the figure of 2% is the most relevant as it expresses the impact felt by the Town Centre on the basis that existing retailers would experience no growth (in-line with the Retail

3 Paragraph 2.19 of the of the Quantitative Retail Study Update – Addendum Report

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 29 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

Study Update) and that the current market share would be maintained through the introduction of the proposed supermarket.

5.38. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would have a 2% impact on the trade and turnover of the Town Centre. On this basis it is considered that the impact arising from the development is not significantly adverse and that the proposed development accords with the policies of the NPPF, Polices TC1, TC3, TC4 and TC15 of the Local Plan and Policies CF1 and DS20 of the Submission Local Plan Review.

5.39. Notwithstanding this conclusion, it is considered that an impact of 10% would not be considered to be significantly adverse. The bulk of the impact would be felt by Waitrose with most other retailers experiencing a much lower level of impact which is not considered to be significantly adverse. With regard to Waitrose, the Peak Sub-Region Retail and Town Centre Study 2009 identified that the Waitrose store was trading at a far lower level (£4.7 m)4 than the potential residual turnover identified in Table 10 (£13.25 m). Accordingly, it is considered that the level of impact identified is not likely to result in the closure of the Waitrose store. In any event, the impact on Waitrose will be mitigated by the likely increase in linked trips that otherwise wouldn’t occur through the claw-back of trade from the out-of-centre Morrison’s store.

5.40. In the light of the above, it is concluded that as Buxton Town Centre is relatively healthy, the low level of impact predicted (2%) would not be significantly adverse. Furthermore, any impact that would be experienced would be reduced through the increase in linked shopping trips that would take place following the claw-back of trade from the out-of- centre Morrison’s store. As such, it is considered that the proposed development accords with the policies of the NPPF, Polices TC1, TC3, TC4 and TC15 of the Local Plan and Policies CF1 and DS20 of the Submission Local Plan Review in this regard.

5.41. The assessment of the impact on comparison goods trading shows that even in the worst case scenario, where all of the smaller units are operated by comparison goods retailers,

4 Appendix 4a of the Peak Sub-Region Retail and Town Centre Study 2009

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 30 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

there would only be an impact of 2.3% on town centre turnover on the basis of a static market share.

5.42. When the residual turnover of Buxton Town Centre (£101.4 m) is compared to current trading levels, there would still be a 31% increase in turnover following the proposal coming forward. This is clearly a significant increase in turnover and is far in excess of the anticipated growth in retail sales densities identified in the Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report (circa 2% p.a.).

5.43. Finally, the estimation of the overall level of impact on Buxton Town Centre’s turnover shows that the town would experience less than 4% impact on trade, based on the assumption the town maintains its current market share. As discussed for the individual goods based assessments, this is considered to be a worst case scenario because by maintaining current market shares, traders will experience a far higher rate of growth than is predicted by sales density improvements. Furthermore, the town centre will benefit from the increased level of footfall generated by the proposed development.

5.44. It therefore follows that the impact felt by Buxton Town Centre should the proposed development be permitted is not significantly adverse. Accordingly, the proposed development passes the test of impact.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 31 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

6. OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

6.1. This section appraises the proposed development against the other policies set out in national and local policy documents summarised in Section 3 of this Statement.

SUSTAINABILITY

6.2. The proposed development involves the redevelopment of a prominent and important previously developed site within Buxton Town Centre. The development is a significant economic investment in Buxton and seeks to enhance the overall offer, diversity and attractiveness of the Town Centre.

6.3. The proposed development will use sustainable construction techniques and materials to reduce the impact of the development on the environment and employ a number of design features that will help reduce the energy required to operate the buildings.

6.4. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development accords with the provisions and policies set out in the NPPF, Policies S1 and EQ1 of the Submission Local Plan.

ECONOMIC GROWTH

6.5. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the NPPF highlight the importance of economic growth, the creation of jobs and the important role the planning system has to play in delivering this growth. These issues are echoed in Policy E1 of the Submission Local Plan.

6.6. In this regard, it should be noted that the proposed development represents a very significant investment in the economy of Buxton. In addition to the many construction related jobs that will be created by the development, a large number of permanent jobs will also be created.

6.7. Using the Employment Densities Guide (2nd Edition 2010) published by the Homes and Communities Agency, it is estimated that the proposed development will generate around 320 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs. It is considered that this is a significant benefit of the proposed development, and is one which should weigh heavily in its

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 32 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

favour. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development is compliant with the NPPF and Policy E1 of the Submission Local Plan in this regard.

DESIGN

6.8. The issues surrounding the design and scale of the proposed development is addressed in full detail in the submitted Design and Access Statement.

6.9. The Design and Access Statement demonstrates how the layout, scale and siting of the development have been considered and developed though appreciation of the local area, and the view to and from the site. The Design and Access Statement also demonstrates how local architectural styles features have been incorporated into the design of the scheme to ensure that the development respects and reflects the character of Buxton while providing a high quality, modern development.

6.10. Having regard to the above, it is concluded that the proposed development is compliant with Policies GD 4, BC1 and TC 3 of the Local Plan and Policy EQ5 of the Submission Local Plan in this regard. Furthermore, the development accords with the key design principles laid out in the Station Road Design Framework SPD.

AMENITY

6.11. The submitted Noise Assessment considers the potential impact of the proposed development upon nearby residents, specifically the potential impact of the service yard to the supermarket on residents living on Railway Terrace and Nunbrook Grove. The Assessment concludes that the predicted noise impact from the proposed supermarket on the nearest dwellings is predominantly insignificant due to distance of separation and the intervening topography.

6.12. Having regard to the above, it is concluded that the proposed development fully accords with Policy GD5 of the Local Plan.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 33 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

CONSERVATION AND HERITAGE

6.13. The issues relating to the potential impact of the proposed development on nearby heritage assets is dealt with in detail by the submitted Heritage Appraisal. The appraisal concludes that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on nearby heritage assets.

6.14. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development is therefore compliant with the NPPF, Policies BC5 and BC8 of the Local Plan and Policy EQ6 of the Submission Local Plan in this regard.

REGENERATION

6.15. The application is allocated as a key regeneration site in both the Current Local Plan and the Submission Local Plan. The adopted Local Plan Policy (TC15) specifically supports the inclusion of retail, leisure and tourist floorspace as part of a comprehensive redevelopment proposal. The proposed development is a comprehensive redevelopment of the land available to the north of Station Road and represents the most appropriate, commercially viable scheme to deliver regeneration on this important site in Buxton Town Centre. Accordingly, the proposed development is fully compliant with the adopted Policy TC15.

6.16. Policy DS20 of the Submission Local Plan supports the redevelopment of the application site for “town centre regeneration uses”. As noted in Section 3, the policy states that any application for retail floorspace must comply with the sequential and impact tests which have been addressed in Sections 4 and 5 of this Statement. Accordingly, the development complies with Policy D20.

TRANSPORT AND ACCESSIBILITY

6.17. Full details relating to transportation and the accessibility of the site are set out in the Transport Assessment. As set out previously in this Statement, A key aim of these proposals is to ensure that the development better integrates with the rest of the Town

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 34 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

Centre so that it will operate as part of the town centre. In order to help achieve this, improvements to the existing linkages and new town centre signage is proposed to promote and maximise the opportunity for shoppers to link their trips.

6.18. It is believed that the combination of these improvements, along with the increase footfall along Station Road generated by the development, particularly the mixed use building on the frontage of Station Road, will transform the way in which Station Road is perceived and used. Station Road is currently seen as a barrier to movement because of a combination of two factors; vehicular traffic and the lack of pedestrian activity.

6.19. The presence of vehicular traffic is not a barrier in of itself; many town and city centres are crossed by busy roads that do not act as barriers to pedestrian movement. The difference here is the lack of existing pedestrian movement along and across Station Road. By increasing pedestrian activity along the road, particularly by the mixed use building and by the Buxton Station, shoppers and visitors to Buxton will begin to see Station Road not as a barren barrier to movement but as another road that runs through the centre that is well used by other visitors.

6.20. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development accords with Policies TR1 and 5 of the Local Plan and Policy CF6 of the Submission Local Plan.

CONCLUSIONS ON OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

6.21. Having regard to the above it is concluded that the proposed development accords with National policy set out in the NPPF and with adopted and emerging local policy set out in the High Peak Local Plan and the Submission Local Plan with regards to:

 Sustainability;

 Economic growth;

 Design;

 Amenity;

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 35 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

 Heritage and Conservation;

 Regeneration; and

 Transportation.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 36 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

7. CONCLUSIONS

INTRODUCTION

7.1. The application site is located immediately north of Station Road, entirely within Buxton’s defined town centre. The site covers an area of 2.5 hectares and is situated on land between the main passenger railway line to the northwest and a freight rail line to the northeast, and Station Road to the south. The site was previously occupied by Nestlé Water UK Ltd who used the site as the Buxton Water Bottling Plant.

7.2. The proposed development comprises two main elements; the construction of a new supermarket of 4,662 sq m gross (2,964 sq m sales), and a mixed use building located on the Station Road frontage. The development is served by a single customer and service vehicle access on station road and includes a number of separate pedestrian accesses which link with the existing pedestrian crossings across Station Road and the train station. The site is served by 301 customer car parking spaces which include 21 disabled and 12 parent and child spaces.

7.3. The proposed supermarket is a single storey, at grade building, served by surface car parking to the front and side of the building. While the service access is shared with the customer access on Station Road. The mixed use building on Station Road is four storeys tall and includes a pub / restaurant, a 60 bed hotel and two retail / cafe units.

7.4. The proposed pedestrian routes link with existing pedestrian crossings on Station Road and Charles Street and also link with Buxton Train Station. Cycle routes are proposed from Station Road to the cycle storage points located near the mixed use block and the supermarket.

7.5. A key aim of these proposals is to ensure that the development better integrates with the rest of the Town Centre so that it will operate as part of the town centre. In order to help achieve this, improvements to the existing linkages and new town centre signage is proposed to promote and maximise the opportunity for shoppers to link their trips.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 37 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

7.6. The appearance of the scheme has been designed to take account of the local palette of materials and architectural themes present throughout Buxton but presents these themes in a high quality modern design. The design takes account of the key views of the site from the south of Buxton and its prominent location along Station Road, a key route through Buxton Town Centre.

THE SEQUENTIAL TEST

7.7. During pre-application meetings with officers of High Peak Borough Council, it was been agreed that the only sequentially preferable site for this development is the Spring Gardens car park on the other side of Station Road. This site was previously the subject of an application for a similar development. That application was withdrawn by the applicant prior to determination but was recommended for refusal by the Council’s officers.

7.8. The applicant has looked again at the Spring Gardens site and has prepared a scheme for a development of that same type as the application scheme. Having looked at the site, the scheme’s architects concluded that the best development approach would be a similar arrangement to the withdrawn application.

7.9. Considering the development option on the Spring Gardens site raised a number of key concerns:

 The Spring Gardens site is key to improving pedestrian permeability in Buxton Town Centre. Development of this nature would fail to improve pedestrian linkages and even reduce permeability;

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 38 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

 The scheme is not viable; construction costs are around twice that of the application scheme and there are likely to be considerable abnormal costs in developing the Spring Gardens site; and

7.10. Having regard to the above, it is considered that the Spring Gardens site is not suitable for the development proposed by this application and neither is it currently available for development.

IMPACT

7.11. The assessment of impact is based upon the Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report which was published by the Council in February 2014 and forms part of the evidence base for the emerging High Peak Local Plan.

7.12. The assessment of impact is based upon the town’s existing retailers maintaining their current market share prior to the proposed development coming forward. On this basis, the assessment concludes that the convenience retail sector in the town would experience an impact of around 8% while the comparison goods sector would bear an impact of 2.3%.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 39 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

7.13. However, with regard to convenience goods, The 2014 Retail Study Addendum Report adopts a “no growth” scenario for convenience goods retail sales densities5. In other words, the report’s authors consider that retailers should not anticipate any growth in sales in the short to medium term. Therefore, when the residual turnover of the Town Centre is compared to turnover under the “no growth” scenario, the level of impact is under 2%.

7.14. The estimation of the overall level of impact on Buxton Town Centre’s turnover shows that the town would experience around a 3.6% impact on trade, based on the assumption the town maintains its current market share.

7.15. It is considered that these figures represent a worst case scenario as they do not take account of the likely level of spin-off trade that would benefit the Town Centre as a result of an increase linked shopping trips between the application proposal and the Town Centre.

7.16. To put the overall impact figures in context, the health of Buxton town centre has been considered. Using the data within the Quantitative Retail Study Addendum Report and additional site visits, it is concluded that Buxton is a generally healthy town centre with few vacancies within the retail core, a number of key national multiple retail in occupation and generally high levels of footfall within the centre.

7.17. Having regard to the above, it is considered that the likely levels of impact identified by the Impact Assessment are not significantly adverse. Accordingly, the proposed development complies with national and local planning policy in this regard.

OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

7.18. It is considered that the proposed development represents the sustainable re-use of land, will use sustainable construction techniques and design features to reduce energy consumption and will encourage sustainable modes of transport by focusing retail and leisure development close to existing public transport hubs and the Town Centre.

5 Paragraph 2.19 of the of the Quantitative Retail Study Update – Addendum Report

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 40 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

7.19. The proposed development constitutes a significant investment in Buxton’s economy and will generate around 320 FTE jobs.

7.20. The proposed development represents the highest quality, modern design using local materials and design features to ensure the development is respectful to its surroundings and will also not have an adverse impact on nearby heritage assets.

7.21. The Noise Assessment submitted with this application shows that there would be no significantly adverse impact on the amenity of local residents as a result of the proposed development.

7.22. The application is allocated as a key regeneration site in both the Current Local Plan and the Submission Local Plan. The adopted Local Plan Policy (TC15) specifically supports the inclusion of retail, leisure and tourist floorspace as part of a comprehensive redevelopment proposal. The development also complies with Policy DS20 supports “town centre regeneration uses”. The proposed development is a comprehensive redevelopment of the land available to the north of Station Road and represents the most appropriate, commercially viable scheme to deliver regeneration on this important site in Buxton Town Centre.

7.23. Improvements to the existing linkages and new town centre signage is proposed to promote and maximise the opportunity for shoppers to link their trips. It is believed that the combination of these improvements along with the increase footfall along Station Road generated by the development, particularly the mixed use building on the frontage of Station Road, will help transform the way in which Station Road is perceived and used. Station Road is currently seen as a barrier to movement because of a combination of two factors; vehicular traffic and the lack of pedestrian activity.

7.24. Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed development accords with all other aspects of national and local planning policy.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 41 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS Retail and Planning Statement Consolidated Property Group LLP Mixed Use Development Former Nestle Bottling Plant, Buxton December 2014

THE PLANNING BALANCE

7.25. Having regard to the conclusions of this report and the other technical assessments submitted with the planning application, it is concluded that the proposed development accords with all policies and provisions of national and local planning policy and should therefore be granted planning permission.

7.26. Notwithstanding the conformity with the Development Plan, the proposed development will bring significant benefits to Buxton Town Centre and the local economy which should be given significant weight in the decision making process. The investment in the local economy, improvements to town centre signage, the re-use of an important vacant site within the town centre and the potential for improving linkages across Station Road all weigh heavily in favour of the proposed development.

7.27. Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed development should be supported by High Peak Borough Council as an important regenerative development which brings with it the potential to bring about major improvements to Buxton Town Centre.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 42 Ref: 2462/KJ/RPS c This drawing is copyright and shall not be reproduced nor used for any to check and verify all dimensions on site. Any discrepancies be other purpose without the written permission of Architects. This drawing must be read in conjunction with all other related drawings and documentation. It is the contractors responsibility to ensure full compliance with the Building Regulations. Do not scale from this drawing, use figured dimensions only. It is the contractors responsibility reported immediately. IF IN DOUBT ASK. Materials not in conformity with relevant British or European Standards/Codes of practice or materials known to be deleterious health & safety must not be used or specified on this project. 50m 25 10 5 1:500 0 Cycle Parking

S T U O K C E H

9 b

, 6 Garden

Patio

e B Tank c WCEC ARCHITECTS - DISCLAIMER:

This drawing is copyright and shall not be reproduced nor used for any other purpose without the written permission of the Architects. This drawing must be read in conjunction with all other related drawings and documentation. It is the contractors responsibility to ensure full compliance with the Building Regulations. Do not scale from this TH 9.0m drawing, use figured dimensions only. It is the contractors responsibility G= to check and verify all dimensions on site. Any discrepancies to be MG reported immediately. Bed 01 Bed 03 IF IN DOUBT ASK. Bed 21 Linen Materials not in conformity with relevant British or European Bed 30 Standards/Codes of practice or materials known to be deleterious to Bed 29 Lift Bed 20 Bed 22 Bed 28 health & safety must not be used or specified on this project. Bed 27 GPO Depot Bed 26 Bed 25 Bed 02 Bed 19 Bed 24 Bed 04 Top of Tree Canopy Bed 23 Bed 05 G= Level = 313.0m Store Bed 06 MG Bed 07 G= XREF'S IN THIS DRAWING Bed 18 Bed 08 MG Bed 09 G= Bed 10 0.6m Bed 11 G= Bed 12 Top ofLevel Tree Canopy= 311.4m Bed 17 Bed 13 0.4m Bed 14 G= Bed 15 MG Bed 16 N LB

Typical Upper Floor Plan Site Area Service Yard 6.14 Acres 2.486 Ha

El Sub Sta

Cage 7 Space Dotcom Marshalling

Warehouse

Gross Ext Building 50,181 sqft (4,662 sqm) Proposed Foodstore Dotcom

Nett Sales 31,903 sqft (2,964 sqm)

SP SP SP

MP 19

ATM CHECKOUTS

G= Path MG TH 8.8m

Tks G= MG TH Trolleys 5m

ENT

Cycle Parking

STAFF8 PARKING SPACES

292 CAR PARKING SPACES RETAINING WALL (309 CAR PARKING SPACES TOTAL) Wr Pt C 31.10.14 Hotel & Retail block layout amended, Red line boundary updated. DG/DC RETAINING WALL 17 CAR PARKING SPACES B 31.10.14 Red line boundary amended. DG/DC

Peak Rail Servicing A 16.10.14 Red line boundary amended WF/DC Additional landscaping added

No. Date Description Drwn/Chkd By RETAINING WALL CLIENT CONSOLIDATED PROPERTY Cycle Parking GROUP Garden Patio 3,800 sqft GIA Hotel Entrance 1,000 Unit Lobby & PROJECT sqft GIA Reception Existing ALDI Site. STATION ROAD, BUXTON Unit ICU 60 Bedrooms at first & ICU second floor

6,800 sqft GIA Pub RETAINING WALL TITLE PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT PLAN Elec

Station Car Park Lp

RETAINING WALL DRAWING STATUS PLANNING BUS STOP STATION ROAD Elec Elec TL DRAWN DG CHECKED DC Elec SCALE Lp Lp 1:500 @ A1 1:1000 @ A3 STATION ROAD Lp DATE Elec OCTOBER 2014 TL Elec Lp

Elec

Lp STATION ROAD wcec architects BUS STOP Carrwood Court, Carrwood Road

Sp Sheepbridge, Chesterfield, S41 9QB

t: 01246 260261, e: [email protected], www.wcec.co.uk

JOB NO. DRAWING NO. REV Site Plan 0 5 10 25 50m 13-191 PL-03 C 1:500

Appendix 2 Sequential Test: Spring Gardens

Wr Pt

Buxton Station

STATION ROAD

Ward Bdy

Posts Car Park

The Spring Gardens Centre El Sub Sta MEWS

Car Park Quadrant Cott River Wye STATION 7 12 NEW WYE STREET 11

APPROACH 8

River Wye 3

16 16 Car Park 292.9m The SpringCentre Gardens 6b El Sub Sta 6a

THE QUADRANT STREET

20a

Bank 20a WYE 6

6 WYE STREET 77 1 81 83

79 2 2

1 1

LB El Sub Sta 12 87

8 6 8 8 6 8 89 91 95 85 21 75 The Colonnade 67 PH 71 73 65 69 21a 61 55 287.6m 47 to 51 37 45

5 SPRING GARDENS

TCBs

6 6 39

78 78 74

33 74

72 72

82 82 68 Grove Hotel 68

76 76 66 66 1

0m 25mGrove 50m 75m 1 Job Centre 70 27 70

7 288.9m

62 62

64 64

52 52

a 25 a 50 50

48 48

50 50

Steven Abbot t Associates LLP Chartered Town Planners

Appendix 3 Roy Pinnock Our Ref: APP/G2815/V/12/2190175 SNR Dentons UK LLP Your Ref: MFXB/95642.00002 One Fleet Place LONDON EC4M 7WS 11 June 2014

Dear Sir

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77 APPLICATION BY LXB RP (RUSHDEN) LIMITED LAND ADJACENT SKEW BRIDGE SKI SLOPE, NORTHAMPTON ROAD, RUSHDEN APPLICATION REF: EN/12/00010/FUL 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Harold Stephens BA MPhil Dip TP MRTPI FRSA, who held a public local inquiry on 25-28 June, 2-5 July and 9-12 July 2013 into your client’s hybrid planning application comprising: a full application for the erection of a home and garden centre, retail units, drive thru restaurant, gatehouse, lakeside visitor centre, restaurants, boathouse, together with proposals for access and an outline application for the erection of a hotel, crèche and leisure club with some matters reserved (appearance); plus removal of ski slope and associated levelling, landscaping, habitat management and improvement works, vehicular access and servicing proposals together with the provision of car and cycle parking and a bus stop (application Ref. EN/12/00010/FUL dated 20 December 2011).

2. On 7 January 2013, the Secretary of State directed, in pursuance of Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that your client’s application be referred to him instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority, East Northamptonshire District Council (“the Council”). Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision

3. The Inspector recommended that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendations. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to the IR.

Jean Nowak, Decision Officer Tel: 0303 444 1626 Planning Casework Email: [email protected] Department for Communities and Local Government 1/J1, Eland House Bressenden Place London, SW1E 5DU Procedural matters

4. For the reasons set out in IR1.5, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that no procedural unfairness arose as a consequence of the submission on the last day of the inquiry of a Unilateral Planning Obligation concerning the provision of an improved bus service (IR1.4-1.5).

5. The Secretary of State has had regard to correspondence submitted too late to be considered by the Inspector, as set out in Annex B to this letter. He has carefully considered these representations but, as they do not raise new matters that would affect his decision, he has not considered it necessary to circulate them to all parties. Furthermore, the Secretary of State wrote to the main inquiry parties on 10 March 2014, inviting comment on the Planning Guidance which was published on 6 March and on any material change in circumstances, fact or policy, which may have arisen since the close of the inquiry which the parties considered relevant. The responses received were circulated for further comment on 7 April. A list of the representations received is set out in Annex C to this letter. The Secretary of State has carefully considered these but is satisfied that they do no raise any new material considerations sufficient to affect the decision in this case. Copies of the representations listed in Annexes B and C can be made available on written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter.

6. The Secretary of State notes (IR1.12 and 8.2) that planning permission for a business park was granted in 2002 on the whole of the previously developed land, and that this permission, along with succeeding permissions which remain extant, include a pedestrian and cycle bridge across the A45 and a condition requiring an Access and Management Plan for the ski lake and its immediate environs.

7. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the Environmental Statement, in conjunction with the supplementary environmental information (as set out in IR1.22), meets the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 and provides the data and information required to adequately assess the impacts on the environment of the proposed development (IR1.23). Policy considerations

8. In determining these applications, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan consists of the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 2008 (NNJCS) and the saved policies of the East Northampton Local Plan (1996) (LP). The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies most relevant to this case are those set out at IR1.26-1.31. He notes that the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD identifies the application site as a “Sand and gravel safeguarding area” (Policy CS10); but agrees with the Inspector that, given that the principle of development on the site is already established through earlier consents, the site’s current designation as a Minerals Safeguarding Area under Policy CS10 is less relevant in this case (IR1.33). 9. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); the associated Planning Guidance; and the Nene Valley Strategic Plan.

10. In determining this application, the Secretary of State has also had regard to the Emerging Draft North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031, which he notes envisages an enhanced role for Rushden (IR1.34), and the emerging Four Towns Plan (IR1.35). However, for the reasons given in IR8.6, he agrees with the Inspector that little weight can be afforded to these plans.

Main issues

Development plan and sustainable development

11. For the reasons in IR8.8-8.9, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the application is not in accordance with the NNJCS spatial strategy, particularly Policies 1 and 12 (IR8.9 and 8.13-8.14). However, he also agrees with the Inspector that there are other parts of the NNJCS with which the application is wholly in accordance, including The Vision for North Northamptonshire (IR8.10). He agrees with the Inspector that the development would assist in meeting the vision by delivering jobs for which there is a step- change requirement; delivering investment in services and facilities which would assist in making North Northamptonshire a “more self-sufficient area” and better able to meet the needs of the growing population in the south of that area; regenerating Rushden; and enhancing the environment of Rushden Lakes and the Nene Valley (IR8.10). He also agrees that the proposals accord with most of the objectives for realising the vision in the NNJCS, notably 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9; and that the proposals are also in broad compliance with Policies 5, 8 and 13 (IR8.12).

12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that a founding principle of the NNJCS is to increase the self sufficiency of North Northamptonshire (IR8.11); and he notes that paragraph 3.11 of the NNJCS and Policy 12 expressly provide for applications to be considered on their merits against tests which recognise the importance of retaining expenditure there (IR8.11). The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector (IR8.15) that, for the reasons in IR8.16-8.29, Policies 1 and 2 of the NNJCS are out of date; and, for the reasons in IR8.22-8.28, that Policy 12 of the NNJCS is also out of date (IR8.22). The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that the NNJCS has failed to deliver the growth necessary to enhance the self sufficiency of the area (IR8.30); and that, in so far as the adopted LP contains/relies on the allocation of the application site as an employment commitment, it is also not up-to-date. The Secretary of State also notes that the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit (NNJPU) has not been able to agree a retail strategy for the emerging NNJCS (IR8.32-8.33). Conclusion on development plan

13. For the reasons set out above and in IR8.34, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, while the proposal would accord with a number of development plan policies and objectives, it would not wholly accord with the NNJCS spatial strategy and therefore would not be in accordance with the development plan as a whole. However, he also agrees with the Inspector that the key policies and provisions in the adopted development plan are out-of- date; and that, applying paragraphs 18 to 219 of the Framework as a whole, the proposal amounts to sustainable development which, as local people have themselves indicated, would achieve positive improvements in the quality of the built and natural environment and in their quality of life. Vitality of town centres

14. For the reasons given in IR8.37-8.42, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions on the need and scale tests. Sequential test

15. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the application site is out of centre and that the sequential test would be satisfied if “suitable [in or edge of centre] sites are not available”, albeit that that involves consideration of the question of “flexibility” (IR8.43). Furthermore, having regard to the arguments put forward by the Inspector at IR8.44-8.48, the Secretary of State agrees with his conclusion at IR8.48 that the sequential test relates entirely to the application proposal and whether it can be accommodated on an actual alternative site (eg a town centre site).The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions on the sequential test in IR8.48. He notes that the Framework requires developers to demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale (IR8.49); and that the new Planning Guidance asks decision- makers to consider whether there is scope for flexibility in the format and/or scale of a proposal, making it clear that 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.

16. Having regard to this, and for the reasons in IR8.50, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the applicant has demonstrated flexibility on format and scale and that the whole scheme could not realistically be moved to another location. He agrees with the Inspector that there is no requirement to disaggregate (IR8.47 and 8.51) and, for the reasons in IR8.51, he also agrees that it would be inappropriate for a significant part of the Rushden Lakes scheme to be located in Northampton (8.51).

17. For the reasons in IR8.52-8.53, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR8.54) that it is sensible to identify an area of search for sequentially superior sites encompassing zones 9-11; and, for the reasons in IR8.55-8.57, he agrees (IR8.58) that there is no suitable and available sequentially superior site. Impact test

18. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions in IR8.59 with regard to the impact test. (i) Existing, committed and planned public and private investment

19. For the reasons in IR8.61, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is no evidence that any planned investment in Wellingborough is being actively progressed, that any plans have reached further than embryonic stage, or that any developer is committed. The Secretary of State has had regard to GL Hearn’s letter of 28 March on behalf of Kennedy Wilson, the owners of the Swansgate Shopping Centre in Wellingborough (as listed at Annex C), but he does not consider this suggests the situation regarding planned investment in Wellingborough has changed since the close of the inquiry. He also notes that Wellingborough Chamber of Commerce and Wellingborough Borough Council fully support the Rushden Lakes proposal (IR8.61).

20. With regard to Northampton, having carefully considered the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions regarding the Grosvenor Centre in IR8.62-8.65, the Secretary of State agrees with his conclusion in IR8.66 and, like the Inspector, is not persuaded that a grant of planning permission at Rushden Lakes would preclude future investment at the Grosvenor Centre on the grounds of viability (IR8.66).

21. For the reasons in IR8.67, and having regard to Corby Borough Council’s letter of 25 March (as listed in Annex C), the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is no compelling evidence of any significant adverse effect on planned investment in Corby; and he notes that all the retail impact analysis demonstrates that the measured effect on Corby is very small. For the reasons given at IR8.68, and having regard to Maples Teesdale’s letters of 31 March and 14 April 2014 on behalf of PR Kettering Ltd (as listed in Annex C), the Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that, although there is some policy support for improvements in Kettering, there is no evidence of any scheme being progressed for comprehensive redevelopment as set out in the Area Action Plan or that the situation regarding planned investment there has changed significantly since the close of the inquiry. (ii) Impact on town centre vitality and viability

22. For the reasons in IR8.70, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that it is unlikely that substantial numbers of people living in Northampton and beyond would be drawn to Rushden Lakes. He also agrees (IR8.71) that, at present, there is significant leakage of comparison goods expenditure from Rushden, its home zone and all the other zones in North Northamptonshire; that Rushden and the other towns in North Northamptonshire are failing to provide sufficient choice and quality in their comparison goods offer; and that their residents travel further afield for comparison goods shopping counter to the fundamental strategic objective of the NNJCS to retain more of such expenditure within North Northamptonshire. The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that, for the reasons given in IR8.72, this outflow of expenditure results in an overall disbenefit to the local community.

23. The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector (IR8.73) that it is relevant to note that, over half way through the NNJCS period, the growth earmarked for Wellingborough has not been achieved and that, in the context for considering the retail impact of Rushden Lakes, Terraces B and C are no larger than the amount of floorspace that the NNJCS allocates to Wellingborough to increase retention of trade within North Northamptonshire.

24. For the reasons in IR8.74-8.79, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the Local Authority Consortium’s estimated turnover is too high to be realistic (IR8.79); and that its judgement is based on disproportionate differentials between town centres and out of centre retail parks (IR8.82). The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that, for the reasons given at IR 8.86, the effect on Corby, Kettering and Northampton town centres would not be significant (IR8.86), and that, although the effect on Wellingborough is more finely balanced, Wellingborough Borough Council has not withheld its support for Rushden Lakes on the grounds of adverse retail impact. Conclusion on vitality of town centres

25. For the reasons set out above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR8.87 that consideration of the terms of the Framework and the Planning Guidance does not indicate that planning permission should be refused in this case (IR8.87). Sustainable transport and accessibility to jobs, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling; and reducing the need to travel, especially by car

26. For the reasons in IR8.88–8.92, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, in terms of paragraph 34 of the Framework, the decision maker should look to what is practicable in the particular circumstances of the site and its location (IR8.90); that the sequential test in paragraph 24 of the Framework contains a preference for well-connected sites, not an absolute requirement (IR8.91); and that there is a very full Statement of Common Ground reflecting extensive agreement on transport matters (IR8.92).

27. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the new footbridge would reconnect the town with the Lakes, joining together the employment, residential and retail uses and that the appellant’s 2km walking catchment area is reasonable (IR8.93). He also notes that the Ramblers Association has welcomed the improved pedestrian and cyclist access (IR8.95); and he agrees that cycling use would increase with improved connections planned not just by the appellant but also in conjunction with the WEAST development at Wellingborough and the continuing improvements planned along the Nene Valley (IR8.96).

28. On the basis of the evidence before him, and for the reasons in IR8.99, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the application site is not as accessible as might be expected for a development of its size and type, although the enhancements to bus provision proposed by the appellant would significantly improve accessibility (IR8.99). He agrees with the Inspector that it is necessary to provide a new half hourly bus service seven days a week as provided in the Unilateral Planning Obligation as this is more likely to activate modal shift from cars to public transport (IR8.99). He notes that Northamptonshire County Council expects the new bus service to continue long term and to be self-funding; and he agrees with the Inspector that, with the new bus service provision in place, there would be a strong linkage both to the town centre and to a significant number of towns within the local area - providing an appropriate and sustainable alternative to the use of the private car in accordance with the aspirations of national planning policy (IR8.100).

29. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposed improvements to the Skew Bridge Roundabout would be beneficial for users of the road network (IR8.101).

30. For the reasons in IR8.102, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposals would bring significant benefits in terms of trip reduction and carbon saving (IR8.102).

31. For the reasons set out above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR8.103) that the proposals would be consistent with Government policy for promoting more sustainable transport, as set out in the Framework.

Protected species and biodiversity

32. For the reasons in IR8.105-8.111, and having particular regard to the views of Natural England, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposed development would bring significant nature conservation benefits.

Other benefits

33. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR8.112) that the proposal would result in significant tourism and recreation benefits (IR8.113-8.114); and would also create a significant number of jobs (IR8.115-8.116). He also notes (IR8.117) that there is considerable public support for the proposals (IR8.117); and he agrees with the Inspector that the proposed layout of the development would maximise the enjoyment of the Lakes.

The planning balance

34. Having carefully considered the Inspector’s analysis and comments, the Secretary of State agrees that a number of benefits would result from the proposed development, including the creation of jobs and the provision of the boathouse and recreational access to the Lakes (IR8.130). He agrees with the Inspector that these are important community benefits and that the boathouse would contribute to the development of tourism in the Nene Valley (IR8.130). He notes that the Wildlife Trust has confirmed that its involvement would secure improved opportunities for bird-watching, walking, angling and boating, and that access would be managed and provided through the land it manages to link up with the greenways of the wider Nene Valley (IR8130). He agrees with the Inspector that this would all accord with Policy 5 of the NNJCS and the Nene Valley Strategic Plan (IR8.130).

35. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the other benefits of the proposed development include: the regeneration of the previously developed site to the benefit of the self-sufficiency of the town and surrounding areas; the provision of jobs and benefit to the local economy; the enhancement of the environment and ecological benefit; the provision of leisure and recreation facilities; enhanced tourist facilities; connection of the town with the countryside via the new pedestrian and cycle links, including the provision of a bridge over the A45; considerable vehicle mileage savings by access to a quality local shopping destination in circumstances where currently long journeys are needed, thereby minimising the need to travel; and improved public transport provision (IR8.132). However, he also agrees with the Inspector that the application site is not as accessible as might be expected for a development of its size and type, while also agreeing that the proposed enhancements to bus provision would significantly improve accessibility (IR8.99).

36. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the applicant has demonstrated flexibility on format and scale (IR8.50); that the whole scheme could not realistically be moved to another location (IR8.50); and that there is no suitable and available sequentially superior site (IR8.58). He also agrees that at present there is significant leakage of comparison goods expenditure from Rushden, its home zone and all the other zones in North Northamptonshire; that Rushden and the other towns in North Northamptonshire are failing to provide sufficient choice and quality in their comparison goods offer, whether in centre or edge/out of centre (IR8.71). He also agrees that, for most of the town centres, the impact of the proposed development on their vitality and viability would not be significant, although in the case of Wellingborough the effect would be more finely balanced (IR8.86). For the reasons set out in IR8.131, he agrees with the Inspector that the proposal is sustainable development and, like the Inspector, he ascribes significant weight to this in the planning balance.

37. While the proposal would accord with a number of development plan policies and objectives, the Secretary of State agrees that it would not wholly accord with the NNJCS spatial strategy, particularly Policies 1 and 12, and therefore would not be in accordance with the development plan as a whole (IR8.34). However, he agrees with the Inspector that the key policies and provisions in the adopted development plan are out-of-date (IR8.34); and that the proposal would ensure a better life for the people of Rushden and North Northamptonshire (IR8.34). He is satisfied that the failure to accord with the development plan as a whole would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. Conditions and planning obligations

38. The Secretary of State has considered the annex of conditions attached to the IR and the reasons for the suggested conditions set out at IR8.118-8-120. He is satisfied that the proposed conditions are reasonable and necessary and meet the tests of paragraph 206 of the Framework.

39. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on the Planning Obligation Agreement and the Unilateral Planning Obligation in IR8.121-8.129. For the reasons set out in IR8.129, he agrees with the Inspector that it is necessary to provide a new half hourly bus service seven days a week as provided in the Unilateral Planning Obligation. Overall, he agrees with the Inspector that the provisions in the Planning Obligation Agreement and the Unilateral Planning obligation are necessary and meet the tests of Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010 and paragraph 204 of the Framework (IR8.129). Overall conclusions

40. The Secretary of State concludes that while the proposal would accord with a number of development plan policies and objectives it would not wholly accord with the NNJCS spatial strategy, particularly Policies 1 and 12, and therefore would not be in accordance with the development plan as a whole. However, he considers that the key policies and provisions in the adopted development plan are out-of-date. He also concludes that the benefits of the proposed development are not clearly outweighed by adverse impacts, and that there are no other material considerations which indicate that planning permission should be refused. Formal Decision

41. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby grants full planning permission for: the erection of a home and garden centre, retail units, drive thru restaurant, gatehouse, lakeside visitor centre, restaurants, boathouse, together with proposals for access and outline planning permission for the erection of a hotel, crèche and leisure club with some matters reserved (appearance); plus removal of ski slope and associated levelling, landscaping, habitat management and improvement works, vehicular access and servicing proposals together with the provision of car and cycle parking and a bus stop (application Ref. EN/12/00010/FUL dated 20 December 2011) subject to the conditions listed at Annex A to this letter.

42. An applicant for any consent, agreement or approval required by a condition of this permission for agreement of reserved matters has a statutory right of appeal to the Secretary of State if consent, agreement or approval is refused or granted conditionally or if the Local Planning Authority fail to give notice of their decision within the prescribed period. 43. This letter does not convey any approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Right to challenge the decision

44. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter.

45. A copy of this letter has been sent to East Northamptonshire District Council, Northampton Borough Council, Kettering Borough Council, Corby Borough Council, Wellingborough Council, Deloittes, Peter Bone MP, Derek Clark MEP, Philip Hollobone MP, Andy Sawford MP, Michael Ellis MP, and Brian Binley MP. A notification letter has been sent to all other parties who asked to be informed of the decision. Yours faithfully

Jean Nowak Authorised by Secretary of State to sign in that behalf Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by Harold Stephens BA MPhil Dip TP MRTPI FRSA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Date: 14 November 2013

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Application by LXB RP (Rushden) Limited

Local Planning Authority: East Northamptonshire Council

Inquiry held on 25 -28 June, 2-5 and 9-12 July 2013

Land adjacent Skew Bridge ski slope, Northampton Road, Rushden NN10 6AP

File Ref: APP/G2815/V/12/2190175

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Report: Land adjacent Skew Bridge ski slope, Northampton Road, Rushden (APP/G2815/V/12/2190175)

Issue (b) the extent to which the proposed development accords with the NPPF, in particular Section 2, which relates to ensuring the vitality of town centres.

8.35 It has already been noted that Section 2 of the NPPF requires that needs for retail uses are “met in full” and are not “compromised by limited site availability”. This applies with particular force in circumstances where there is a deliberate development plan policy support for a drive to further self- sufficiency by clawing back expenditure that is currently leaking out of North Northamptonshire [3.32].

8.36 The NPPF [24, 26 and 27] sets out but two tests at the decision-making stage: a sequential test and an impact test. The whole of NPPF [23] deals explicitly and exclusively with “planning policies” and what should happen: “In drawing up Local Plans…” Although highly relevant to determining whether the NNJCS is up to date, the NPPF [23] does not purport to, and does not set, any tests for decision-taking. The paragraph stresses the “town centres first” approach to plan-making but when it comes to making a decision on a planning application then one has to turn to NPPF [24, 26 and 27] which deal explicitly with assessing applications. In other words, if a proposal meets these two tests then necessarily it is consistent with the town centres first approach [2.22].

8.37 It is clear that there cannot be a read across from the plan making NPPF [23] some form of additional test for decision-taking that a proposal must honour the hierarchy of town centres still less some form of test of “appropriate scale” which is not mentioned in NPPF [23]. Plainly, if the two tests are passed an application will be consistent with the NPPF [2.23].

8.38 The objectors seem bent on re-introducing additional need and scale tests; such an approach is misconceived. With regards to scale, the approach in the NPPF is clearly not to limit growth by reference to a separate test of scale. If an individual proposal is unacceptably large then it would be likely to fail the impact test and thus be harmful. If the scale of a proposal is not such as to give rise to harmful impacts, then the intention is clearly that it should not be refused simply on the grounds of scale. Scale in itself is not relevant [2.23-2.27, 3.33, 5.42-5.60]. 8.39 Legal & General suggests that the sequential test should have regard to the hierarchy of settlements. However, for reasons already explained, the adopted settlement hierarchy is itself out of date certainly as it applies to Rushden. Simply placing the old policy from PPS4 alongside the up-to-date policy in the NPPF demonstrates that these contentions are misleading. The notion of a hierarchy of town centres does not feature in the sequential or impact tests [2.28, 3.33, 5.42-5.60].

8.40 In terms of need, if there is no quantitative local need or capacity for a development, such that it has the effect of drawing in significant levels of

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page | 198 Report: Land adjacent Skew Bridge ski slope, Northampton Road, Rushden (APP/G2815/V/12/2190175)

trade from a wide catchment area, any harm that results to neighbouring centres would manifest itself under the impact test; there is no requirement for a separate free-standing test of need and none is included in the NPPF [3.34, 5.42- 5.60]. 8.41 Despite the passing of the free-standing need and scale tests, objectors seek to maintain them by reference to the PG. Indeed Mr Jones sought to justify this approach by explaining that in his view when national policy is abandoned by the SoS, the good practice adopted by practitioners in the furtherance of the superseded policy should nevertheless survive as a material consideration in its own right. Such an approach is wholly misconceived [3.35, 5.42- 5.60].

8.42 It is clear that the PG is only material where the policy in the NPPF reflects that in previous policy in PPS4. The PG was only ever intended as guidance and must not be read as mandatory rules. Bearing in mind the recent Telford case it must be approached with caution. Although the PG is still extant, it too may have been revoked at the time of the SoS’s decision. To continue to have regard to it in these circumstances would be wholly perverse, especially where it is being deployed to attempt to resurrect through old guidance policy which has now deceased [2.24, 3.35, 4.52].

Sequential Test

8.43 The sequential test relevant to decision-taking is found at NPPF [24]. From the evidence that is before me the application site is out of centre, and the test would be satisfied if “suitable [in or edge of centre] sites are not available”. There are differences of approach between the Applicant, as against the objectors in relation to the concept of “suitable” sites in the sequential test – in essence, “suitable for what” is the question which arises. The answer to this question of law is suitable for the development proposed by the Applicant. The Legal & General submissions in relation to the legal construction of “suitable” were somewhat opaque. It is, of course, correct that the meaning of the term should be construed in its context. That involves consideration of the question of “flexibility” which is referred to in the last sentence of NPPF [24]. However, that the terms are to be construed (and therefore applied) in the real world of real development is beyond argument. The real world is the context [2.61, 3.35-3.36, 4.44-4.74, 5.59-5.80].

8.44 The Supreme Court has told us in Dundee what “suitable” means and it has expressly rejected the approach advocated by the LAC and Legal & General that the concept relates to need and/or identified deficiencies in retail provision in the area in question; and it has expressly rejected the notion that “suitable” means that one should alter or reduce the proposal so as to fit onto an alternative site. The policy concerning the sequential approach as set out in the NPPF, and (to the extent that it is still relevant) the non-policy PG that accompanied PPS4, must be applied in a manner which complies with the legally binding case law on the meaning of the sequential approach. Plainly

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page | 199 Report: Land adjacent Skew Bridge ski slope, Northampton Road, Rushden (APP/G2815/V/12/2190175)

the case in question (Dundee) is of seminal importance [2.63, 3.37, 4.44-4.74, 5.59- 5.80]. 8.45 In summary it establishes [a] that if a site is not suitable for the commercial requirements of the developer in question then it is not a suitable site for the purposes of the sequential approach; and [b] that in terms of the size of the alternative site, provided that the Applicant has demonstrated flexibility with regards to format and scale, the question is whether the alternative site is suitable for the proposed development, not whether the proposed development could be altered or reduced so that it can be made to fit the alternative site. These points although related are distinct. Although much was made of the fact that the Dundee case was a Scottish case the Supreme Court’s decision applies in England (the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court for England too) as the High Court ruled in terms in the North Lincolnshire case at [61] and [62] in which it was read across and applied to the English sequential test then found in PPS4 [2.64, 3.37, 4.44-4.74, 5.59-5.80].

8.46 It is important to bear in mind that the sequential test as set out in NPPF [24] require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres and it then runs through the sequence, edge and then out-of-centre. This makes good the very simple point that what the sequential test seeks is to see whether the application i.e. what is proposed, can be accommodated on a town centre site. There is no suggestion here that the sequential test means to refer to anything other than the application proposal. So Dundee clearly applies to the NPPF [2.67, 4.44-4.74, 5.59-5.80].

8.47 A related submission concerns the differences between national policy as now stated in the NPPF and as previously stated in PPS4. The last sentence of NPPF [24] states that: “Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.” This contrasts strikingly with what was said previously in PPS4 in policy EC15.1 at (d) (iv) and 15.2 which contained an explicit requirement for disaggregation. There is no longer any such requirement stated in the NPPF. It is no answer to this to refer to the words “such as” in the last sentence of NPPF [24]. These words cannot be read so as to imply that a major, and extremely controversial, part of previously stated national policy lives on by implication 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] [2.68, 4.44-4.74, 5.59- 5.80]. 8.48 In similar vein, there is nothing in the sequential test as set out in NPPF [24] that states that the concept of “suitable” sites means suitable in terms of the scale of the nearest centre to the site in question and/or its place in the “hierarchy” of centres. The sequential test relates entirely to the application proposal and whether it can be accommodated e.g. on a town centre site. It is also important to be clear that NPPF [23] is entirely related to plan making and it has nothing to do with decision making [2.70, 5.65-5.72].

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page | 200 Report: Land adjacent Skew Bridge ski slope, Northampton Road, Rushden (APP/G2815/V/12/2190175)

8.49 The NPPF requires developers to demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale. No indication as to what degree of flexibility is required is contained in the NPPF. Such a requirement was previously contained in PPS4 and so any relevant PG advice continues to be material. PPS4 PG is of assistance: flexibility in a business model, use of multi level stores, flexible car parking requirements or arrangements, innovative servicing solutions and a willingness to depart from standard formats. No serious complaint by the LAC or by Legal & General has been made in respect of these matters [2.72-2.76, 3.38, 4.57, 5.73-5.75]. 8.50 In relation to flexibility the Applicant has demonstrated flexibility on format – a large part of the retail element of the scheme, namely the two anchors and the associated unit shops – anchors B8 and C1 and terraces B and C have full cover mezzanines thus reducing very significantly indeed the footprint of the development. Mr Burnett also referred to flexibility in relation to “scale” and explained that the Applicant could readily have placed far more retail floorspace on the site than has been proposed – in this way the floorspace of the development is reduced. It is clear from the layout that this is correct. A significant part of the scheme is taken up by the hotel and leisure club and various lakeside buildings i.e. by non-retail uses. It is absolutely clear that the whole scheme could not realistically be moved to another location [2.72].

8.51 There is no requirement to disaggregate and there is also no realistic likelihood of even the M&S anchored Terrace being built in any of the town centres that have been referred to. It would also be inappropriate for a significant part of the Rushden Lakes scheme to be located in Northampton, which lies at the outer edge of the Rushden Lakes’ catchment, given the aspirations of self-containment for North Northamptonshire in terms of comparison goods choice and sustainability. Mr Goddard accepted that in the real world the scheme must be “suitable to do the job”. All that would happen were it feasible to imagine that Rushden Lakes, or even a significant part of it, could migrate to Northampton, is that this would simply consolidate and worsen the porous nature of North Northamptonshire. Further, it is illogical to suggest that shoppers at Rushden Lakes wanting somewhere to eat and drink should be directed to restaurants at Northampton and Kettering [2.73-2.74].

8.52 There is a dispute between LXB/ENC and the LAC/Legal & General as to the appropriate area of search for sequentially superior sites. The NPPF is silent on this issue. Mr Nutter referred to the advice given in the PG. It is clear that the development at Rushden Lakes is promoted on the basis that the scale and quality of the existing comparison goods offer in the area is deficient, with the result that residents are forced to travel further afield in order for these needs to be met. The LAC and Legal & General respond by asserting that this is simply a reflection of the hierarchy of settlements and that the residents of south North Northamptonshire should be expected to travel to higher order centres for their higher order retail requirements. They raise the spectre of a coach and horses being driven through the planning system by every settlement justifying self-sufficiency (or at least inappropriate levels of

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page | 201 Report: Land adjacent Skew Bridge ski slope, Northampton Road, Rushden (APP/G2815/V/12/2190175)

self-sufficiency) in terms of comparison goods shopping [2.79-2.80, 3.40, 4.58-4.63, 5.79-5.80]. 8.53 This argument misses the point for several reasons. First, the aim of achieving greater self-sufficiency leading to claw back of expenditure has already been identified as part of the vision and objectives of the NNJCS. Nowhere does the NNJCS suggest that the needs of south North Northamptonshire should be met out of North Northamptonshire, for example in Northampton. Secondly, to suggest that a site within a centre or even town from which expenditure is to be clawed back is sequentially preferable would be self-evidently perverse. Thirdly, the south of North Northamptonshire has been identified as needing increased comparison goods floorspace in Policy 12 which is now unlikely to be delivered in Wellingborough as planned. Fourthly, Rushden is to become a Growth Town because previous delivery barriers to it doing so are no longer an obstacle. It is simply unrealistic, in the real world, to expect that significant numbers of residents of Rushden and the smaller settlements nearby would travel to the higher order centres, such as Northampton, by public transport [3.40]

8.54 For all these reasons I consider it is sensible to identify an area of search as encompassing zones 9 to 11 which is what Mr Nutter recommended. In addition, within that area of search, candidate sites must be able to accommodate development of sufficient critical mass to effectively claw back leaking expenditure. In the properly defined area of search the task is to identify sequentially preferable sites that are suitable and available which necessarily includes consideration of deliverability/viability [3.41, 4.58-4.63, 5.79-5.80].

8.55 In terms of availability, NPPF [24] simply asks whether town centre or edge of centre sites are “available”. It does not ask whether such sites are likely to become available during the remainder of the plan period or over a period of some years. NBC has previously adopted the same interpretation of “available” as LXB do. Mr Lewin accepted that in the Committee report (24 July 2012) in relation to an application to redevelop the Royal Mail site at Barrack Road for a 5,000+ sq m Tesco superstore, the Council rejected Legal & General’s objection that availability should have been looked at over a longer time frame. The site was not currently available and that was what was required by the sequential test. That Committee report established that there were no sequentially preferable sites in Northampton town centre for a development of a much smaller scale than Rushden Lakes, as recently as July 2012 – and there is no credible evidence that the position has changed. Similar inconsistent approaches were cited in relation to finding a site for the 99p store in Kettering and in relation to finding a site in Northampton to accommodate the Next proposals at Riverside Retail Park [2.77- 2.84, 3.42, 4.64-4.73, 5.79-5.80, 7.23-7.30]. 8.56 LXB’s case in response to the sites put forward by the objectors is summarised in Mr Burnett’s evidence at section 4 and Appendix 7 of his proof. This commentary includes sites put forward by the LAC in Corby, Kettering, Northampton and Bedford. Many of the “sites” in question are tiny

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page | 202 Report: Land adjacent Skew Bridge ski slope, Northampton Road, Rushden (APP/G2815/V/12/2190175)

and a lot are individual vacant unit shops. Mr Whiteley accepted that the sites put forward by the LAC are critically dependent upon disaggregating the scheme. I have already indicated that given that the NPPF does not contain a disaggregation requirement, the LAC’s suggested sites are not suitable in NPPF terms. In any event, none of the suggested sites withstands scrutiny for the reasons given by Mr Burnett in his Appendix 7 [2.79-2.80 7.23-7.30].

8.57 Mr Nutter identifies two candidate sites in the defined area of search: Palmbest, Rushden and The Swansgate Centre, Wellingborough. Both are then discounted: Palmbest because it is simply not available or big enough (i.e. suitable) and The Swansgate Centre because it is not available and viable. None of Rushden Town Council, WBC or Town Councils or the local chambers of commerce suggests that either represent sequentially superior sites. Mr Nutter also discounts additional sites suggested by objectors within zones 9 to 11: the Peter Crisp site in Rushden because the available units are not suitable and the Trensham College and Market Square sites in Wellingborough because they are no longer available because in the case of the Trensham College site plans to vacate it have been abandoned (a material change in circumstances since its allocation in the AAP), and, in the case of the Market Square site, because it is too small on its own to be suitable. Moreover, as I saw on the site visit, the High Street/Jackson’s Lane site would not provide a suitable alternative location to accommodate the Rushden Lakes proposal adopting reasonable flexibility [3.42, 4.58-4.63, 5.79-5.80].

8.58 In all circumstances the proper conclusion for the SoS to draw on the evidence is clear: there is no suitable and available sequentially superior site [3.43]. Impact Test

8.59 There is broad agreement as to which town centres ought to be considered: Kettering, Corby and Wellingborough in the NNJCS area and Northampton in the WNJCS area. While there is likely to be some claw back from other centres (including for example Milton Keynes and Bedford) no one at the Inquiry has seriously suggested any such resulting impact would be significantly adverse. It is also important to remember that the impact test in the NPPF [26] applies only in respect of impact on centres. Therefore when considering the impact of claw back it is very important to ensure it is only claw back from centres that is considered and not, for example, that from out of centre retail parks. This is relevant in considering the alleged impact on Northampton. There are two impacts to consider: (i) on existing, committed and planned public and private investment and (ii) on town centre vitality and viability [3.44, 4.74-4.93, 5.81-5.94, 7.23-7.30].

(i) Existing, committed and planned public and private investment

8.60 NPPF [26] requires an assessment of the impact (if any) of the proposal on “existing, committed and planned public and private investment” in a centre.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page | 203

Appendix 4

HPK/2009/0177 SPRING GARDENS REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE SHOPPING CENTRE & CAR NEW SUPERMARKET, HOTEL, 14/04/2009 PARK NEW WYE STREET OFFICE BUILDING, FOUR RETAIL BUXTON UNITS AND CAR PARK WITH ASSOCIATED HIGHWAY WORKS, PUBLIC REALM IMPROVEMENTS, LANDSCAPING AND ANCILLARY WORKS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS TO THE EXISTING SPRING GARDENS CENTRE (FULL PLANNING - LARGE SCALE MAJOR APPS)

ZURICH ASSURANCE LTD C/O THREADNEEDLE ASSET MANAGEMENT

HPBC INTEREST:

The Council has a leasehold interest in the land

THE APPLICATION:

The application proposes primarily the redevelopment of the site to form a supermarket, offices, a hotel (82 bedrooms), multi-storey car park, 4 retails units with associated ‘public realm’ works and a new pedestrian walkway. A total of 629 car parking spaces are proposed. The proposed floor areas of the individual uses is as follows:

· Supermarket - 6,174 sq m · Retail units - 1,556 sq m · Hotel - 3,570 sq m · Car Park - 17,965 sq m · Offices - 430 sq m

The application is accompanied by detailed plans and drawings; a Design and Access Statement; an Environmental Statement; a Transport Assessment and related documents; a Retail Assessment; a Flood Risk Assessment and a Statement of Community involvement. All documents associated with the development are available for inspection and form background papers that need to be taken into account in determining this application.

Supermarket

The proposed supermarket would be sited on land between the north elevation of the existing Shopping Centre and Station Road. Utilising the difference in levels across the

5.1 site, the supermarket would front onto Station Road and beneath it would be two levels of car parking space accessed at ground level through the proposed multi-storey car park which would lie adjacent to it. 251 car parking spaces would be provided in this car park, including 15 disabled spaces. The main pedestrian entrance to the store would be directly off Station Road, as would a second entrance leading directly into the car park’s second level. The supermarket and car park areas would be linked by a travellator, and a series of lifts and stairs.

The supermarket would be constructed as a separate building, rather than an extension to the existing Spring Gardens shopping centre, retaining the rear service access to Waitrose. The buildings would be linked by an escalator between shopping centre and the car park first floor. Pedestrian access could also be gained at ground level across the open service yard. The supermarket would have a gross floor area of 6174sqm and would incorporate a café and toilet facilities close to its entrance.

In terms of its size and scale, the supermarket would present a long elevation to Station Road, some 170m in length. The elevation is broken up by different materials, recesses and planes. At its most north-western point, at the junction with Station Approach, the building would be single storey in height although for over half its length two storeys (the store and part of the car park) would be visible as the level of Station Road falls. The building would have a roof form that would be flat for the first section immediately adjacent to the highway, with a series of 4 glazed north light roofs beyond. This roof formation would allow light into the store and has been designed, as stated in the Design and Access Statement, to reflect the areas railway architecture and history.

The shop front itself would be constructed of Ashlar stone cladding and a series of large picture windows. The entrance would be marked by an L shaped canopy and would be reached by a flight of steps, constructed in pre-cast concrete. Further down Station Road part of the rear wall of the car park would be visible. This section of building would be faced with translucent grid panels.

The store’s office and staff accommodation would be sited at a mezzanine/roof level to the rear of Conway’s on the western side- the building would be significantly higher at this point. This part of the development would have a different architectural style to the other parts, being more traditional in terms of its detailing and constructed of coursed natural stone. The style has been chosen because of the prominence of this part of the development from the Slopes and historic core of the town.

The south elevation of the building would be largely hidden from view by the existing shopping centre. It would be constructed mainly of powder-coated panels, zinc clad panels with a zinc standing seam roof. Part of it will be visible above the shopping centre particularly from higher areas around the Hardwick area to the south.

Office

The western end of the Sainsbury’s building fronting Station Approach would be office accommodation occupied separately from the supermarket. The building would be two storeys in height. This section of building would be constructed in Ashlar stone, as used on the Station Road frontage, with a feature zinc clad panel.

5.2

Hotel/ Multi-Storey Car Park

The proposed hotel would front onto Station Road at the eastern end of the site, extending for some 85m from the New Wye Street junction. The hotel would accommodate a restaurant and reception at ground level with 82 bedrooms on the four floors above in the form of single aspect rooms with a corridor behind. The building has a curved form and regular, vertical pattern of windows. The building would be faced in artificial materials – a pre-cast concrete panel at base level, with a buff coloured ceramic rain screen cladding and interlocking zinc panels above. The lift and staircase core sited at the corner of the building and forming the entrance would be faced with a mixture of buff coloured and dark grey cladding. The building at its highest point – the stair/lift tower, would be approximately 18.8m.

Immediately behind, and adjoining the hotel, would be the multi-storey car park, masked from view from Station Road but visible from views from the south east. The car park would be four storeys in height with access directly off New Wye Street. Highway works are proposed to the junction at New Wye Street adding an additional lane to the northbound side of the road. The elevation of the car park fronting New Wye Street would be faced with pre-cast concrete panels and buff coloured ceramic rain screen cladding. The elevation would be broken up by vertical panels of glazing and picture windows at ground level to the hotels restaurant. The multi-storey car park, plus additional surface level spaces around New Wye Street would accommodate 378 spaces.

Retail Units

Beyond the car park on New Wye Street, alongside the River Wye and close to the eastern entrance into the Spring Gardens Shopping Centre four new retail units are proposed. Unit 1 would be attached to the south elevation of the multi-storey car park, units 2 and 3 free standing units on the south side of the river and unit 4 alongside the existing southeast corner of Waitrose. All of the units would be two storeys in height, with flat roofs and overall they would provide an additional 1,556sq m of retail floorspace.

The units are contemporary in terms of their design, and would be constructed in a mixture of pre-cast concrete panels, natural split faced stone and pre-oxidised copper cladding. Unit 4 which will be highly prominent on exiting the existing centre will be clad entirely in copper as this is seen as a feature building.

Public Realm

As part of the development proposals have been put forward as part of public realm improvements. These would include an extended area at the top of Station Approach and a landscaped area around the new retail units and the river Wye. It is proposed to resurface these areas and provide landscaping and street furniture. Surface materials would include York stone slab, concrete slab, stone sett, resin bound gravel and coloured asphalt paving.

12 disabled parking spaces would be provided adjacent to the proposed retail unit 3.

5.3 In addition a new pedestrian access would be formed through the site from Station Road to the new retail units, through the space between the eastern end of the present Waitrose and the western side of the multi-storey car park. The path would be surfaced in a resin bound gravel with feature inlays.

Section 106 Proposals

In addition to the application the applicant has provided a draft s106 agreement that sets out a package of proposed measures, which include:

The provision of a ‘variable message signage system’. This is a highway management system to ensure that car parks within the town are utilised to capacity and to prevent queuing and congestion. Existing signs would be adapted to show which of the car parks in the town had available space.

Funding of survey work on highway use and mitigation schemes to address any identified problems. Such issues that would be considered as part of the monitoring process would be the linking of signals on Station Road; potential traffic orders or calming measures; review of timetabling of bus services.

A commitment to recruiting local people in the construction of the development and the future operation of the supermarket and hotel

A travel plan – to be submitted for approval prior to the occupation of any of the units

Funding of landscape/ resurfacing work on land outside the applicants control. Primarily this would be land around Station Road and Station Approach.

SITE LAYOUT / DESCRIPTION:

The application site lies in the centre of Buxton and comprises an existing public car park and service yard to the Spring Gardens Shopping Centre. The site is bounded by the Shopping Centre to the south and west and by Station Road (A53) to the north. Vehicular access into the site is from New Wye Street, which lies to the southeast, itself leading from the roundabout at the junction of Station Road/Bridge Street. There are additional pedestrian access points from the south off Spring Gardens, the north off Station Road and the west off Station Approach.

The car park is generally flat and open in terms of its character. The River Wye runs through the site on the south side. The river is open to view in part and becomes culverted underneath the shopping centre. The site is generally on a level consistent with the level of the shopping centre. Land to the north is significantly higher and the site is bounded by a substantial concrete retaining wall on its northern boundary. There is very little landscaping around the site, and the surface treatment is predominantly tarmac.

The site was previously part of The Midland railway station and housed the station and two large engine sheds and associated uses. The site was cleared and levelled in the 1970’s and the current shopping centre and car park developed in the early 1980’s. The shopping centre itself is a substantial two storey flat roofed building constructed in artificial stone.

5.4 The centre accommodates a number of shopping units including a Waitrose supermarket that lies to the east side of the building.

The site lies in the heart of the town centre and is bordered by a wide range of town centre uses including shopping and associated uses on Spring Gardens to the south and The Quadrant to the west. To the north of the site is the Buxton Railway Station, Buxton Mineral Water bottling plant and Aldi supermarket with residential areas beyond.

The application site borders two Conservation Areas - Buxton Hardwick to the south, and Buxton Central to the west. There are a number of Listed buildings/structures in the vicinity of the site including the metal posts immediately adjacent to the site at the top of Station Approach, the Station and fanlight opposite, the buildings on The Quadrant to the west and the Palace Hotel to the north-west. The site is highly visible from A53 to the north and east and from The Slopes, a grade II registered park to the south-west.

PLANNING HISTORY

Although there have been numerous applications for planning permission on properties around the site, there has been nothing relating to the site itself since its development in the 1970/80’s.

A relatively small two-storey extension was built on the north-west corner of the Spring Gardens Centre under application reference HPK/0003/9053, granted on 3/7/2000.

PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATES:

Site Notice - 29 May 2009 Neighbours – 4 June 2009 Newspaper – 4 June 2009

Subsequently the date of the Development Control Committee meeting was publicised in the press and on site, giving until 23 November as the last date for any further comments. Representations received after this date, which raise any new issues, will be reported on an update sheet.

REPRESENTATIONS / NEIGHBOURS:

Members of the Public

73 letters have been received from members of the public/local businesses, the majority expressing objection, or concerns about aspects of the proposal, 4 of which expressing support, plus 833 pre-printed green cards of objection, 26 objection leaflets produced by Waitrose and a petition of 60 signatures. The main points of objection or concern are summarised as follows:

§ There is no need for another supermarket,/existing supermarkets serve the area well/the site is in close proximity to Waitrose and Aldi § The proposal will put pressure on/undermine existing local businesses

5.5 § More supermarkets will do nothing for tourism § The site is on a important through-route and is important in terms of impressions of the town to visitors § The development does not improve the ‘gateway’ to Buxton for visitors by train § The proposal falls short of the aspirations of the Station Road Design SPD § There needs to be better permeability and better links with the existing centre/town § The proposed new pedestrian route does not adhere to urban design principles and would be unsafe/likely to foster antisocial behaviour § The supermarket does not link well into the existing network of streets and shops § The proposal has no local distinctiveness § The proposed buildings are unsightly/out of character with the architecture and character of the town/nearby Listed Buildings. Development should reflect the town’s history and quality § The buildings are too high and dominant, out of scale with surroundings § The development is cramped § The Sainsbury’s frontage, directly opposite the station, is unimaginative/bland and does not reflect the character of the town/will not stand the test of time § The signage/ advertising, will have to be carefully controlled/will be detrimental § The design of the western profile/roof needs improving § The four retail units have no covered access § The retails units are ‘islands’ presenting blank faces and not well integrated § A greater mix of uses is needed or the area will be dead at night § Materials proposed are out of character with the town/materials should be locally sourced § There is no need for another hotel § The hotel will be harmful to existing B& B’s § The hotel will dominate the landscape § A budget hotel in this location will undermine the towns character and quality § The argument that the development will create jobs is flawed § The development should include the gable end of the former station § The proposal is unsustainable/more green design features/green roof should be used § The collection of rainwater for use in the development has not been considered in the design § There will be disruption to local businesses § The highway data submitted is flawed and incomplete § The roads are already clogged up and will not be able to cope with additional demand § Greater emphasis should be given to cycle facilities § The area proposed for car parking is inadequate § The proposal does not really provide an increase in parking taking into account increased demand § Circulation within the car park is tortuous § Free parking should be four not two hours § Disabled parking/access is inadequate § Management of the car parks is unclear § Disruption to parking in construction period § The new junction looks over-engineered and hostile for pedestrians § Increased traffic means increased pollution § The proposal will reduce accessibility/parking space available to Waitrose

5.6 § Servicing arrangements which will be shared by Waitrose and Sainsbury’s are inadequate § The proposed landscaping needs improving § The proposed public realm improvements/surfacing is poor § The use of the river as a feature is unworkable as the river is at a low level/more should be made of the river as a feature § Conway’s needs to be incorporated § There are insufficient toilets proposed

Supportive comments about the scheme include:

§ There is a need for further retail development in Buxton § There is a need for a more parking in the town § Station Road does need some attention § Support the budget hotel § The curved hotel front is positive § The new retail area will provide a benefit to the town

In addition to these comments there have been many suggestions made about how the site could be developed and the type of facilities that are needed in the town. There have been no other applications for planning permission submitted to the Council, however, and this application needs to be determined on its own merits.

Buxton Civic Association

Generally supportive of the design of the scheme as a whole but have some concerns as set out below:

· Lack of public toilets at ground level serving the main shopping area · Lack of a visual link between the new build and the Station Road. Suggest a modern version of the Listed gable that would also acknowledge the former station. · Concern about the pedestrian route from the Station to the existing Spring Gardens mall. Will need to be well designed to be attractive and safe. Consider that a down escalator would be preferable. Note the route from the lower ground area involves crossing the service road. · Concern about the provision of disabled parking in that the proposed spaces are further away from the mall entrance than existing. · The river level is much lower than shown on the plans. Consider the area would be better decked and made a feature of. · Lack of screening to the rear of properties on Spring Gardens · The pedestrian crossing on Station Road should be further towards the station in line with the new route through. · Concern about the longevity and weathering characteristics of the man-made external materials. · A model would have been beneficial in the consideration of the scheme.

5.7

The Buxton Group

· Supports enhanced range of retail provision, a positive and active frontage along Station Road, the screening of the existing centre, more town centre parking spaces. · Proposal could result in increased use of existing shops but concern that the supermarket will take trade away from existing shops · The frontage does not respond to the close packed development of much of Buxton’s centre. The flat roofed Sainsbury’s does not relate to the station gable end and prevents glimpses of the skyline with the Trinity Church tower. · The hotel design has been altered and incorporates more appealing facing materials and provides a strong feature on the corner of New Wye Street · This is an opportunity for better public toilets within the shopping centre · Limited routes for pedestrians through the site · The River detail is misleading – we suggest decking over the river to form a feature and some provision of disabled spaces close to the entrance. · The disabled spaces are not located in a safe or satisfactory manner · Unclear how taxis will get close to the shops · Absence of an inviting route into the shopping centre for visitors arriving at the railway station. The proposal to expect pedestrians to go through the entrance to Sainsbury’s then on a tortuous route to get to the rear of the shopping centre is unacceptable. · Shoppers will have to cross the service road to get into the Centre · The hotel and busy car park access will block off an existing pedestrian access and the resulting situation will be less appealing or safe, particularly for pedestrians from east. · Welcome the use of natural stone on the Sainsbury’s building but the design lacks the bold corner the Design Framework requires. · There is an inactive frontage on part of Station Road /Station Approach where windows will only light the car park. · The hotels curved frontage is sympathetic to the environment but note that the stone is not natural and will not weather the same. Roof material should not be too bright · The small area of car park to the east of New Wye Street should be developed as part of this scheme · Welcome the proposed traffic control measures proposed · An alternative car parking site is needed whilst works are taking place and taking place and construction traffic must be directed away from peak hours · The management of the car park is not clear · More could be done with regard to sustainability, suggest local materials and solar panels

Since the original comment submitted by the Buxton Group, a further letter has been received from the Group which includes an alternative possible layout for the development of the site.

5.8

CONSULTATIONS:

DCC (Highways)

Raises no objections in principle but makes the following observations:

The proposed development will constitute one of the most significant single proposals to affect the town centre for many years. It is located on one of the most important strategic highway links which serves and passes through the town. This route already experiences very high traffic demand and is subject to congestion but also presents a challenge to non- vehicle users seeking to move north and south across it. In addition, the site provides one of the most popular public car parks, a popularity which will inevitably increase with the addition of new retail and other floorspace.

The entire development is served almost exclusively via the junction between new Wye Street and Station Road and it is here that some of the most significant impact is anticipated. This is likely to be exacerbated by the fact that new Wye Street forms a significant conduit for non-car users accessing Spring Gardens (as well as a barrier to those moving along Station Road) and will be expected to act as a servicing area for the hotel and smaller retail units. A degree of conflict between these various users can be anticipated and its management will be crucial to the successful operation of the development.

The applicant presents a palette of mitigation measures to be provided before/during the development backed up by a regime of traffic monitoring which would be used to inform a package of additional mitigation measures should these need arise. The Highway Authority’s general view is that subject to careful design and adequate mitigation by the applicant, a development scheme for this application site could be successfully implemented.

The proposals and their merits/failings are summarised as follows:

· The Transportation Assessment (TA) gives an unduly optimistic view of the network capacity but the proposed additional traffic flow monitoring regime would offer opportunities to review and react to the development

· The trip rates and subsequent distribution and assignment predictions in the TA are acceptable

· Notwithstanding results of the junction assessments it is clear that the A53 Station Rd/Bridge Street A6 link experiences significant peak hour delay/congestion. This is likely to result from the complex interaction of various highway features along the route and may require assessing as part of the traffic monitoring and additional mitigation strategy

· Road traffic accident data shows nine accidents along the studies route in the past 31/2years, including two accidents involving pedestrians on Bridge Street. The highway authority will expect the scheme to preserve or enhance pedestrian safety wherever possible.

5.9

· Proposals indicate the creation or enhancement of pedestrian desire lines through the site. The co-ordination of the three controlled pedestrian crossing points on Station Road (possibly allied to increased crossing time and surface enhancements) may help improve pedestrian accessibility between the retail centre and the station and areas to the north.

· 37-covered cycle spaces are proposed. Consideration of how cyclists will approach and pass through the site needs to be made.

· The site is well located in terms of proximity to public transport networks. There is an opportunity for the development to offer an improved environment in terms of street furniture and surface treatments. Developer is committed to assisting in the review of bus timetabling and punctuality.

· The TA includes an outline Travel Plan Framework. Consideration should be given to extending its scope to existing employment sites.

· Parking - the application proposals seek to provide a net increase in parking spaces off new Wye Street of 202 spaces (total 629 spaces) which would represent around 50% of the recommended maximum. Despite the sustainable location of the site and the implementation of the proposed Variable Message Signage (VMS) to direct visitors to alternative car parks, the LPA is advised to give careful consideration to whether this provision is sufficient.

It is of concern that during the Saturday peak hour traffic flows into the car park the number of vehicles exceeds the total proposed capacity of the car park. It is therefore critical that the car park is retained for predominantly short stay use and the charging structure is devised to maintain an adequate turnover of vehicles. It is also disappointing to note that an element of the car parking will be dedicated to the food store which appears to result in a net reduction in public parking of 49 spaces- a proposal that would appear to run contrary to Local Plan Policy. Retaining all spaces as public spaces should be seriously considered.

The real time car parking availability signage form a key part of the successful operation of the development. The location of the signs will be crucial as will the ongoing maintenance which is likely to fall to the Borough Council.

There are a multitude of detailed design issues which will need to be resolved before the development can proceed including- the layout and adoption boundaries of Wye street; the adoption boundaries, car park access, pedestrian crossing point, cycle routing on New Wye street; the car park; the layout and management of shared areas; the adoption boundaries, treatment, landscaping of station road; the location and nature of the signage, parking restrictions etc.

The development will have a significant highway impact whilst construction is underway. The applicant has provided an outline of the proposed operation process to facilitate construction. This will require expansion into a series of phased plans showing how access and parking are to be maintained. Some indication as to

5.10 where alternative parking space is to be provided is required. Site operatives should be provided with an off-site parking facility.

DCC (Archaeology)

Raises no objection to the proposal in principle.

This major development site is immediately adjacent to the Area of Archaeological Interest (AAI) on its western and southern boundaries, and Roman archaeology within the AAI may be considered, in places, to be of national Importance. Should Roman archaeology be present within the proposal area it would therefore be of some considerable significance. The site is also adjacent to the River Wye, which is a focus in the Buxton Area for prehistoric occupation. Of particular note is the Scheduled Monument at Lismore Fields, where Mesolithic and Neolithic settlement was identified during excavations in the 1980’s. It is also worth noting that much of the site was not significantly developed until the modern period, and that large parts of the site still remain open. There is consequently some possibility that pockets of buried archaeology may survive in locations less heavily impacted by 20th century development and/or terracing.

There should be a conditioned scheme of archaeological work under the provisions of PPG16 and Policy BC10 of the High Peak Local Plan. It is possible that this could be achieved by a watching brief (as suggested in the application) although this will depend on whether the proposed methodology at this phase is sufficiently flexible to allow meaningful archaeological observation and recording at appropriate levels. Should this approach prove unworkable then a programme of trial trenching, targeting areas considered less heavily impacted by modern development will be required before the commencement of the earthwork phase, with further excavation contingent upon the discovery of significant buried archaeology.

Recommend therefore that the following condition be attached to any planning consent:

‘ No development shall take place within the site until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall include on-site work, and off-site work such as analysis, publication and archiving of the results. All works shall be carried out and completed as approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority’

Crime Prevention Design Adviser (Police)

Does not support the application without further information and agreement of detailed crime prevention measures. These relate to: -

MSCP/Hotel

Recommend that there is allocated car parking for guests, which can be monitored on CCTV and help reduce attacks on vehicles. Recommended that an access control barrier

5.11 be installed on the top of the ramp to level one to prevent anti-social and criminal behaviour. Stairwells need to be monitored, especially outside normal working hours, to prevent anti-social activity. Details of proposed measures need to be submitted and approved.

Walkway/Riverside Area

The proposed walkway will require a surface treatment that discourages wheeled activities such as skate boarding or cycling. Open areas could attract loitering. The area of open space between the entrance to Spring Gardens and the shop units will have restricted surveillance opportunities outside business hours. CCTV would improve surveillance but this must be monitored 24 hours a day. Street furniture in this area needs careful design to avoid vandalism and ‘sleeping rough’. The glass windows in the new units needs to be carefully considered to avoid being a target for vandals.

Sainsbury’s

The same criteria apply to the car park as to the MSCP. Recommend an access control system to discourage inappropriate use and that all stairwells have the means to be secured out of business hours. Pedestrians would be in conflict with service vehicles at the ground level entrance to the existing centre. A room needs to be set aside within the store for offenders to be detained. There are no details about the security measures surrounding the proposed ATM on Station Road. There is no access control into the rear service yard- an access control barrier is recommended.

Terrorism

Detailed recommendations to mitigate against a potential threat from terrorism. These specifically related to the materials used in the construction of the development, lighting, CCTV and ensuring that large vehicles can be prevented from entering the car parks.

English Heritage

Objects to the application for the following reasons:

The quality of the historic environment in Buxton is very high; this is reflected in the number of highly graded Listed buildings it contains and the areas of townscape laid out to a historic design, which remains entirely legible as such.

English Heritage has previously acknowledged that the redevelopment of the site offers the potential to significantly enhance both Buxton’s townscape in this area and its wider economy. However, it will be essential to ensure that development does not have a negative impact either on the setting of individual listed assets or the quality of the historic centre.

Impact on the setting of The Crescent

They have previously highlighted the sensitivity of the elevation to the side and rear of Sainsbury’s facing The Crescent and the surrounding townscape. Conway’s DIY store will

5.12 be retained at ground floor level however any building behind Conway’s will be clearly visible from both ground level when standing in front of The Crescent, and from within the Assembly Room.

The plans provided indicate that the elevation behind Conway’s is now a façade to the rear of Sainsbury’s. There is the likelihood that the windows will either be blanked out internally or used for posters when forming the interior to Sainsbury’s. The quality of the historic environment in this location is high and deserves a quality response when new development is proposed in order to both preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Impact of the proposed hotel/car park

The east end of the site is on the floor of the valley adjacent to the River Wye. The viaduct rises well above the townscape in the valley bottom to the west and provides a strong horizontal line above much smaller scale buildings below it, which have a vertical emphasis. There is also a strong contrast between the horizontal emphasis of the viaduct and the vertical emphasis of the wider townscape of the centre of Buxton to the west and south.

There are important ‘arrival or gateway’ views looking west from the viaduct which benefit from a significant height difference between the viaduct and the adjacent buildings and include the Station Road approach, the tree line to the north, the station, and the roofscape of the palace hotel and the dome of the former hospital building. The views are similar from Bridge Street. There are also important views across Buxton to the west and south from the railway line and from the land just below it, the station and the Bridge Street and Station approaches.

In our view the scale mass and architectural form of the car park/hotel building and the horizontal emphasis of the continuous frontage and ‘eaves height’ will have a negative impact on the character of the area.

The scale and height of the building will also have an impact on the contrast between the townscape which includes taller buildings on the south side of the valley and the lower height development on the valley bottom and the shallower slope immediately to the north of the river.

The scale and horizontal emphasis of the car park/hotel building would reduce the significant contribution of the viaduct to the character of the area by introducing a strong competing horizontal emphasis and reducing the difference in scale between the viaduct and the neighbouring building to the west. Views from the viaduct would also be affected by the new building, reducing the ‘sense of height’ and the contrast between the height of the viaduct and the nearby townscape to the west.

The height of the proposed building would greatly curtail the view west along Station Road from the Bridge Street area.

5.13

HPBC (Design & Conservation)

Objects to the application for the following reasons:

The Council has adopted a Supplementary Planning Document – the Station Road Design Framework (adopted July 2007) for the area that includes the application site. The SPD has gone through an extensive statutory consultation process, including consideration at a stakeholder workshop, before becoming adopted Council Policy. The document is based on recognised good practice produced by CABE and others and sets out a series of urban design principles of which 28 are aimed at achieving development that would successfully meet the aspirations of the vision for the area. The other 22 are more technical criteria aimed at meeting wider issues concerning building sustainability.

A more recent document, the Buxton Design & Place Making Strategy is in the course of being finalised prior to being adopted as an SPD. There are no fundamental inconsistencies between the aspirations of the Station Road Design Framework and the current consultation draft of the Buxton Design & Place Making Strategy.

An assessment has been made of the proposals against the design principles set out in the SPD. The conclusion of this assessment is that the proposals fall a long way short of meeting the aspirations of the local community as expressed through the Station Road Design Framework. Only 43% of the design criteria (excluding the technical criteria) are met either wholly or partially successfully. 57% are either generally or wholly unsuccessfully met or the proposals have not included anything in response to the criterion. It is not proposed to get too engrossed in figures as this is not a wholly scientific exercise but the conclusion must be that the development falls way short of what the SPD aspires to.

Much of the discussions have evolved around the architectural response to the proposals and, in part, this has resulted in some successful elements. The proposed supermarket and corner office accommodation is considered, subject to some detailed issues, a good contemporary solution that is responsive to Buxton and their particular sites. The innovative solution to the car park and the masking of its blind front façade by the single aspect hotel is a good one. However, it still leaves huge problems with the quality of the new pedestrian walkway that runs alongside the car park and the elevation facing Wye Street (a critical view) and the lack of active engagement between the building form and the public realm at this point.

The retail proposals to the rear of the car park are a reasonable attempt to create a new public space and the high quality materials proposed here are exemplary. However, whether the two freestanding buildings are sufficient to make this space work in terms of the enclosure is debatable and the single use aspects of the buildings in this area are a worry.

This last point underlies many of the problems of the proposals, which do not propose the vital mix of uses that would give this area the vibrancy it needs around the clock. In particular the lack of any residential uses is a major issues as it is these uses that would potentially make the new space around River Wye work. As it stands and depending on

5.14 the tenants of the retail units it could be completely devoid of active use during the evening and, as such, could become a problem area in terms of misuse and vandalism.

The lack of permeability across the site is also a fundamental issue. One can analyse the details such as some routes for wheelchair users but, at a higher level, it is a victim of having two largely impenetrable blocks of development- an extremely coarse grained development rather than the finer grain that would allow the desired network of routes.

Environment Agency

Object to the application and recommend refusal of planning permission for the following reasons:

The site lies in Flood Zone 3a and 2 defined by Planning Policy Statement 25 as having a high or medium probability of flooding where, notwithstanding the mitigating measures proposed, the risk to life and property both within the development and in upstream and/or downstream locations from fluvial inundation would be unacceptable if the development were to be allowed. In particular:

(i) The site lies within the floodplain and the proposed development will impede flood flow and reduce storage capacity thereby increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere. It is accepted that the proposed retail units will incorporate flood resilience measures, however, an impedance to flood flows will still exist with the potential to increase flood risk to others. We would expect a flood risk assessment for a development of this scale and nature to analyse the potential increase in flood risk to third parties in greater detail. (ii) The flood depths within retail units 1 and 2 during a 1 in a 100 year flood event is 395mm, without taking into account climate change. The EA deem that finishing floor levels above the 1 in 100 year flood level and providing appropriate level for level compensation would be a more sustainable flood risk management method than allowing these units to flood. Raising floor levels has a greater capacity to mitigate against the severe consequences of flooding. (iii) The proposed development does not have a safe means of access/egress in the event of flooding. In particular, the flood risk assessment accepts that flood levels will be greater if the full impact of climate change was considered. However, this has not been quantified, and as current access and aggress routes will already be at a depth of 395mm (due to the depth within retail units) any increase in levels will exacerbate the unacceptable risk to health and safety for the occupants in the event of a flood. (iv) The Flood Risk Assessment does not address the opportunities presented by this development for reducing flood risk, in particular the proposals for surface water management have not considered reducing the current rate of runoff from the site as a result of the development.

(On 13 November Officers received an addendum to the Flood Risk Assessment from the applicants – a Technical Hydraulic Modelling Study. This is currently being considered by the Environment Agency and a response is awaited)

5.15

HPBC (Environmental Health)

No objection in principle.

The land has historically been the site of a gas works, a high-risk contaminative industry, which may have resulted in it becoming contaminated. In view of this recommend conditions to identify and remediate any potential land contamination on the site.

The construction phase of the development could lead to an increase of noise and dust experienced at sensitive premises and subsequent loss of amenity. Conditions are recommended to prevent a loss of amenity.

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust

No objection in principle.

From our searches we are not aware of any nature conservation interest directly associated with the development site.

A Phase 1 Habitat survey has concluded that the site has no ecological merit and hat a freshwater crayfish survey found no evidence of white-clawed crayfish. Given that the development is on land currently used as a surface level car park principally made up of hardstanding with the River Wye culverted through the majority of the site we would agree with this conclusion.

We would advise the Authority that there is unlikely to be any protected species issues arising with this application and that it is highly unlikely the proposed development will have any impact upon any substantive nature conservation interest.

While we note that the proposed development offers limited opportunity for the building-in of beneficial biodiversity features we recommend that consideration is given to the incorporation of swift nesting opportunities within the building design. Swifts nest almost exclusively in buildings but are in serious decline due to lack of suitable nest sites as almost all new buildings are swift-proof. Ideal sites would be the multi-storey car parks.

United Utilities

No objection

RELEVANT POLICIES:

High Peak Local Plan Saved Policies 2008

BC1 External materials

5.16 BC5 - Conservation Areas and their Settings BC8 -Setting of Listed Buildings EMP 6 - Industry and business within the built-up area boundaries and homeworking GD2 - Built up area boundaries GD4 Character Form and Design TC1 - Town Centres TC2 - Town Centre Environment TC15 - Regeneration areas in Buxton TR1 -Transport Implications of New Development TR4 -Traffic Management TR5 -Access Parking and Design

Local Development Framework

Station Road Design Framework SPD Planning Obligations SPD Buxton Conservation Areas Character Assessment

National Planning Policy

PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development and Planning and Climate Change PPS6 – Town Centres PPS22- Renewable Energy PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment PPG13- Transport PPS25 - Flooding

OFFICER COMMENT:

1. This application raises many complex issues which will be assessed against the policies and guidance outlined in the above documents. The issues are summarised as – the principle of the proposed development; design and scale; effect on the historic environment; flood risk; highways and car parking; energy efficiency.

The Principle of the Development

2. The application site is located within the town centre as defined in the Local Plan. Policies relating to such areas, particularly TC1 seek to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of the town, promote and encourage high quality mixed use developments and to focus development, especially retailing in locations which promote competition and maximise the opportunity for using transport other than the car. The application site currently provides valuable car parking space for use in connection with the town centre but because of its proximity to other town centre services and to a sustainable transport network, the redevelopment of the site for greater benefit should be considered.

3. The site is also identified in the Local Plan as a substantial part of a wider Regeneration Area, to which Policy TC15 applies. The Local Plan notes that ‘sensitive development could enhance the area which currently presents the very stark rear view of the spring gardens centre from the relief road and the station area. ‘ Policy TC15 states that planning

5.17 permission will be granted for development including, office, hotel and retail developments provided that:

§ The development will be of a high quality and will be sympathetic to the character of the area in terms of its siting, scale, form, layout, design, detailing, external appearance and landscaping; and § A travel plan is prepared for the development; and § The development will include pedestrian links to existing town centre facilities; and § The development will be provided with adequate parking areas; and § Retail development will be subject to Policy TC3

4. The Buxton Station Road Design Framework SPD adopted in July 2007 supplements the Local Plan policy of encouraging the regeneration of the area by setting out both the vision for the redevelopment and design criteria to help developers.

5. These detailed considerations will be discussed later but it is clear that the redevelopment of the site and the proposed uses in terms of their principle are in line with the local plan policy.

6. In terms of whether it is appropriate to accept supermarket developments within town centres, the Councils aim as outlined in the Local Plan is generally to focus large store development within existing town centres – the council wishes to strengthen town centres by expanding retailing and encouraging to shop locally, though it is considered that developments should be well linked to other central facilities and enjoy good access to public transport.

7. Policy TC3 – Large stores, states that:’ planning permission will be granted for retail development of more than 500 sq m gross floorspace provided that it is of satisfactory siting, design and layout appropriate to the size and character of the town centre and has safe and convenient pedestrian links to existing facilities; and does not…undermine the vitality and viability of any other nearby centre.’

8. The view has been expressed by many of those objecting to the scheme that another supermarket development is not needed – the town already being well served by Morrisons, Aldi, Waitrose and smaller shops as well as the existing smaller Sainsbury’s on Market Place. In terms of national policy PPS6 – Planning for Town Centres was published in 2005 and sets out tests for retail development, which apply in different circumstances. The advice is that it is not necessary to demonstrate the ‘need’ for retail proposals within the primary shopping area or for other main town centre uses located within the town centre. The question of need is not therefore a planning consideration.

9. The recently published Peak Sub Region Retail and Town Centre Study Report, Feb 2009 considered the economy of the town and existing retail provision and noted that Morrisons dominated the food spending market yet was located out-of centre. Within the town centre there is a broad range of foodstores, but, apart from Waitrose, they have a limited range of goods and are predominantly orientated towards the discount end of the market – Aldi and Iceland. The report notes that Morrisons are currently overtrading, taking approximately 65% of expenditure retained within the town. Approximately 18% of convenience expenditure by Buxton residents is spent in other towns – predominantly Tesco at Whaley Bridge. The report concludes that ‘the town centre presently lacks a full

5.18 range mainstream foodstore to perform an anchor role and to enable it to effectively compete on a like for like basis with existing out of centre Morrisons and that the provision of a new foodstore within the town centre would deliver significant quantitative and qualitative benefits’

10. Concern is expressed, by objectors, that the proposed supermarket will undermine existing businesses within the town– both in terms of the supermarket competing with, and possibly undermining local shops and Waitrose, and the hotel competing with other hotels in the town, particularly smaller establishments. Competition as such is not a planning matter but a matter of market forces.

11. There is no evidence in the retail study that existing uses would be undermined by the new development, rather, opportunities such as this are generally perceived as being complimentary to existing uses and thereby of benefit for the economy of the town - provided they are well designed and integrated. In terms of the supermarket, the provision of a new foodstore would enhance the potential for ‘linked’ trips within the wider town centre, which would provide opportunities for increased activity as well as increased expenditure. A new full range foodstore would also give greater choice to local residents and given that Morrisons is currently overtrading, the report advises that the reassignment of expenditure to the town centre would give significant economic and sustainability benefits.

Design and Scale

12. As outlined in Policy TC15 above the most significant determining criteria for the scheme is whether it is sympathetic to the character of the area in terms of its scale, form, design, detailing, layout and external appearance. This criteria is reiterated in Policy GD4 which seeks to ensure that new development is well related to and integrated with the existing pattern of development.

13. The Station Road Design Framework SPD establishes the urban design principles necessary to achieve the vision for the area which is to;

§ Transform the appearance of the area § Create a first class gateway into the town centre § Enhance and contribute to Buxton’s existing townscape qualities § Radically improve the quality of the walking environment § Support the creation of a vibrant and viable town centre § Support the vision to develop Buxton as a thriving spa town § Support the process of regeneration through investing in Buxton’s heritage.

It is clear from these principles that aspirations for the redevelopment of the area are high and rightly so given the location of the site in such an important location in the centre of town.

14. As outlined in the Design & Conservation Officer’s report, the development has been assessed against 28 of the urban design principles outlined in the SPD. The assessment concluded that the proposal fails to meet 57% of the criteria.

5.19 There are many issues in terms of the design and scale of the proposed development that give cause for concern, which are summarised as follows:

15. The multi storey car park has been designed to provide as many car parking spaces as possible in response to the Councils aims of retaining and improving parking provision within the town. However, this has resulted in a building mass of some 5 storeys and almost 19m high, that will dominate this end of the town particularly in views from the east. Its scale is considerably greater than other buildings in the vicinity and its bulk and appearance at odds with the Buxton’s market town character.

16. English Heritage have commented that the car park/hotel building would dominate views and would have a negative impact on the character of the area, an opinion that Officers fully accept and share. It is accepted that there are very high quality buildings of a large scale within the town – the Crescent, Devonshire, Palace Hotel, Town Hall - of a scale that is different from the market town scale. However, the proposed building is not of a similar quality – either in terms of its use, a budget hotel and car park, or its design- particularly the monolithic east and west elevations, that have no active use or relationship with the public streets /walkways in front of them. The quality is furthermore compromised by the low value uses which can only justify the use of lower cost materials, including the use of unsympathetic pre-cast concrete.

17. The positioning of the hotel is considered an innovative way of masking the appearance of the multi-storey car park from the Station Road side. The curved frontage and regular fenestration pattern is considered a good modern interpretation of historic buildings within the town. However, the scale of the building, the combination of its height and length are considered inappropriate for this particular site - the building would dominate this end of the town where buildings are generally of a smaller scale. Without space to off-set it, the building would appear overbearing to pedestrians and road users. The use of artificial materials, particularly the grey cladding are also considered inappropriate for a ‘gateway’ building.

18. As such it is considered that this part of the development, the car park and hotel would not meet the requirements of Policy TC15 that ‘ the development should be of high quality and will be sympathetic to the character of the area’, nor the aspirations of the SPD to enhance the existing townscape qualities and provide a first class gateway to the town.

19. The two new retail blocks also give a cause for concern. Individually the blocks, which feature blank gable walls and flat roofs, appear utilitarian in terms of their design. Unit 2 would have a visually poor, blank end elevation facing New Wye Street and would be visible from a key public vantage point- the roundabout and entrance to the Spring Gardens Centre. Furthermore, the units appear unrelated to their surroundings, appearing as though they have been positioned to fill up left over space. It is not considered that the units would achieve a sense of enclosure to make this area work as a space. The access arrangements in this area, particularly to the disabled car parking spaces are considered tortuous and ill thought out.

20. The supermarket building is considered the best designed element of the scheme in that it affords a clean simple design and uses high quality materials which are relevant to Buxton (although the surface material of the forecourt is lower quality concrete which does not meet the high aspirations of the Design Framework). It is understood that the multi-

5.20 ridges roof structure is a reference to the engine sheds of the station that formerly stood on this site although these references may not be particularly visible and therefore not as strong as they might be. There have been suggestions at reinterpreting the gable end of the surviving station in a contemporary form within the development. It is considered however that this could become too crude a reference and is rightly avoided. The proposed design relies on the bay window in the corner to balance the gable. What is regrettable about the building is that it is positioned in front of the exit from the station and would block some views of the town, rather than providing a legible ‘gateway’ although the formation of an ‘active frontage’ in this location is welcomed in terms of the vitality it would bring to Station Road.

21. The scheme fails to meet a criterion of the SPD requiring ‘a network of connected streets and spaces reinforcing its gateway status’. The only new public route is the walkway between the existing Waitrose store and the multi-storey car park. This is of questionable quality given that there are no active uses along its length or any overlooking by the buildings on either side, both of which are tall, resulting in a dark and unsafe alley. No details of any lighting proposals have been provided although it is understood that gantry devices shown on the plans will act as mountings for lighting.

22. Although there would be a way in to the rear of the Spring Gardens Centre through the Sainsbury’s store, this route would be tortuous and would only be available when the store was open. The current rear access to the centre would be effectively lost as a result of this proposal.

23. The development proposals fail to provide a wide mix of uses that would help create vibrancy, again as required by the SPD. There is an obvious lack of residential uses – something that would give natural 24-hour surveillance and life- and the only after hours activity (supermarket aside) is to be found in the hotel café bar. The area around the new retail units would be particularly quiet at night. Although the development does provide an almost continuous frontage along Station Road, and thereby a sense of enclosure, a proportion is inactive frontage – the exposed part of the Sainsbury’s car park for example- and most of the frontage along New Wye Street and Station Approach would have ‘dead’ frontages, not contributing to the vitality of the area.

24. English Heritage has raised objection to the scheme concerning the rear portion of the development, visible from the Slopes, that would form part of the supermarket at first floor level and office accommodation above. There is concern that the first floor windows will be presented as ‘dummy’ windows and this will affect the appearance of this part of the development. Given that the elevation would be prominent form the historic core of the town, Officers share these concerns.

25. The SPD also required ‘a distinctive public realm that reinforces the unique character and identity of Buxton town centre including exploiting the design potential of the River Wye’. Understandably the public realm created is not extensive around the outside of the site given the largely perimeter development form of the proposals. However, of that which is created along Station Road, the proposals are functional rather than distinctive – buff tarmac. Concrete paving is proposed around the supermarket and given its location opposite the station this should be higher quality paving stone. It is hard to conclude that the public realm of the Station Road route, or Station Approach would be significantly enhanced by these proposals. An attempt has been made, however, to upgrade the public

5.21 realm area alongside the River Wye although the perspectives are misleading in that the river is a lot lower than shown. The palette of materials here is natural stone paving and sets depicting the route of the culverted river. No details of any street furniture, or railings alongside the river have been provided. It is not considered that the space created here with the two freestanding retails units will work enough to exploit the full worth of the paving materials.

Effect of the Development on the Historic Environment

26. The Council recognises the very high quality of the historic environment in Buxton in general and the area to the west of the application site in particular. This area, immediately adjoining the site is within the Buxton Central Conservation Area and contains a high proportion of Listed buildings including The Crescent, a Grade 1 Listed Building of national importance, Grade II Listed Baths (now Cavendish Arcade) and the grade II Registered Park and Gardens, the Slopes. Directly facing the rear of the site is the Quadrant, which has terraces of Listed Buildings on either side of the road.

Local Plan Policy recognises the importance of protecting the settings of Listed Buildings stating in Policy BC8

‘Planning permission will not be granted for development which would materially harm the setting of a Listed building in terms of its special architectural or historic character due to its use, scale, size, siting, detailed design, external appearance or illumination’

27. Concern has already been noted about the poor attempt to disguise the rear of the supermarket. Given the high quality and historic significance of Buxton, which is centred on the area overlooked by the rear of the supermarket, discussions were held with the developers prior to the application being submitted, about the need to design a building in front of the supermarket to mask any views from this direction. As the proposals do not include such a building, but instead present the rear of the supermarket, including a series of ‘dummy’ windows, it is concluded that this is a major flaw in the design and that the development will thereby have an unacceptable detrimental effect on the setting of The Crescent and other Listed buildings contrary to Policy BC8.

Flood Risk

28. The River Wye runs through the site on the south side, close to the eastern entrance to the Spring Gardens Centre. The River is largely culverted but is exposed for a section approximately 50m long. The site lies in Flood Zones 2 and 3a – areas defined as having a medium to high risk of flooding.

Assessment of flooding considerations should be undertaken in accordance with criteria set out in PPS25. This applies a sequential test to the development by seeking to locate development that is vulnerable to flooding away from areas that are at risk.

29. The part of the development particularly at risk from flooding are the proposed new retail units which would lie, at the closest point, less than 2m from the river. Retail units are classed as ‘less vulnerable’ and if no other sequentially preferable sites are available can be accommodated in Zone 3a. It is considered that as there are no other sequentially

5.22 preferable site for retail development such as this, and as the proposal is acceptable in principle under Policy TC15, the proposal meets the sequential test.

30. As part of the application the applicants were required to submit a Flood Risk Assessment which has been assessed by the Environment Agency. The EA have objected to the application for four main reasons outlined in the consultations section above. In summary the objections for that the development will increase the risk of flooding off-site; Units 1 and 2 should have raised floor levels as a sustainable flood risk management; the development does not have a safe means of access and or egress in the event of flooding; and the Flood Risk Assessment does address opportunities presented by the development for reducing flood risk. As such the proposal is contrary to the provisions of PPS25. It is considered that there is no reason to set aside the Environment Agency’s concerns.

Since the application was submitted the applicants have submitted an addendum to the Flood Risk Assessment to try to overcome the EA concerns. No comments from the EA on this additional information have been provided due to the limited time available.

Highways/Parking

31. As part of the application, the applicants have submitted a range of documentation including traffic studies, a transport assessment and a car parking and management strategy. These documents have been assessed by the County Highway Authority whose comments are referred to above.

32. The Local Plan Policies specifically relating to highway considerations are Policy TC1 which states that:

‘Planning permission will be granted for development provided that it seeks to · Reduce the need for travel · Widen transport choice for people and goods · Integrate transport and land use’,

Policy TR4 relating to traffic management states that: ‘Planning permission will be granted for development provided that: · The capacity and design of the transport network serving the site will reasonably accommodate the anticipated increase in travel without materially harming highway safety or local amenity; and · The traffic generated by the development will not unduly interrupt the safe and free flow of traffic on trunk or primary roads or materially affect existing conditions to an unacceptable extent‘

Policy TR5 Access Parking and Design relates to more detailed considerations, including parking and states that: · Planning permission will be granted for development provided that: · It will make safe and appropriate provision for access and egress by pedestrians cyclists public transport users and the private car · It includes a high standard of design and layout having regard to parking, access manoeuvring, servicing and highway guidance set out in appendix 1 (parking standards) and relative government guidance and good practice.

5.23 33. The application proposes little change to the highway network itself. Proposals include junction alterations to the Station Road/New Wye Street junction, an additional lane on New Wye Street and the introduction of the variable signage messaging system.

34. The County Highway Authority raises no objections to the scheme in principle although there are a number of outstanding issues that have not been addressed in the application. These issues would need to be included in a section 106 Agreement. Such issues would include: arrangements for parking/mitigation measures during the construction period; traffic monitoring/analysis and if necessary physical improvement works to the highway network; public transport enhancement improvement; the creation and management of a travel plan; costs of implementing any traffic orders and costs relating to the VMS system. If the development does cause congestion on the highway network, particularly Station Road, measures that could be taken to improve the situation might include the sequencing of pedestrian crossings to ensure that traffic flows freely and the signalisation of the roundabouts at the Palace Hotel and at Fairfield Road. Section 106 contributions would fund these measures. The details of the proposed highway works and engineering operations can be made conditions of the planning permission and Section 106 agreement should the Committee decide to approve the application.

35. In terms of parking provision, the development will increase the amount of parking space available on site from 427 spaces to 629 – a total increase of 202 spaces. However, it should be noted that the proposed development in itself, the supermarket, shops and hotel, would generate a demand for just under 400 spaces under the standards set out in the Local Plan. As a result there will be an increased demand for parking at the site.

36. The existing car park is critically important in that it currently provides a significant proportion of the car parking spaces in the town. Other spaces are available at Pavilion Gardens, Market Street, The Slopes, Sylvan Park and Market Place, amounting to approximately 534 spaces. Studies carried out by the applicants and by Council Officers show that there is spare capacity at these other car parks – particularly at Pavilion Gardens, which has lower occupancy rates. It is considered critical that in order for the scheme to work, the proposed Vehicle Management Signage system, which will identify and direct cars to other public car parks in the town where there is capacity, is implemented and managed successfully, and that an appropriate Travel Plan is drawn up and managed should planning permission be granted.

37. As the site lies in a central position close to public transport route and given that car- parking standards are a maximum, no objections have been raised by the County Highway Authority.

Environmental Sustainability

38. The Council has produced guidance on sustainability through the published document ‘Sustainable Design and Construction- Guidance on Local Plan Policy’ March 2007. The applicants have completed the Council’s sustainability checklist, this document is included at Appendix 11 accompanying the environmental statement.

39. It is stated that achieving a Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) ranking of “very good” is an objective of the scheme.

5.24 40. In terms of carbon reduction a feasibility study of potential renewable energy technologies has been undertaken to consider how best to meet the target of reducing predicted carbon emissions by 10%. Given that the existing shopping centre and Station Road run in an east / west direction, there is good scope for capturing solar energy via building form and solar panel technologies.

41. It is also understood that use of biomass boilers as part of a combined heat and power scheme is under consideration, combined with very high standards of thermal performance for the fabric of the buildings and specification of components to minimise energy consumption.

CONCLUSION:

42. This application is a significant proposal for redevelopment in Buxton town centre and raises many complex issues. The principle of redeveloping the site, which lies in a prominent position on a main traffic route through the town, is established through planning policy specifically Local Plan Policy TC15, and the Station Road Design Framework SPD. The proposed uses themselves – the hotel, supermarket and car park are all uses that are also considered acceptable in principle in a town centre under national policy guidance and Local Plan Policy.

43. However, there are some serious concerns about the details of the proposed scheme, in particular the scale, design and materials of the proposed car park and hotel and retail units; the inadequacy of pedestrian links to the existing town centre; the lack of visual permeability across the site and the scale and design of the development to the south- west corner of the site to the rear of Conway’s. As the proposal stands it is considered that the development will dominate and detract from the townscape and will adversely affect the setting of Listed Buildings. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Local Plan Policies GD4, BC1, BC8 TC15 and to the guidelines of the SPD.

44. In addition there is an objection to the proposal from the Environment Agency on the grounds of flood risk. The proposal is thereby considered contrary to the provisions of PPS25

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION:

REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1 The proposed development because of its scale, layout, design, external appearance and lack of visual permeability is unsympathetic to the character of the area and will thereby detract from it, contrary to policies GD4, BC1 and TC15 of the High Peak Local Plan (Saved Policies) 2008 and the Adopted Station Road Design Framework SPD 2007.

2 The proposed development fails to provide adequate pedestrian links with the existing town centre, contrary to Policy TC15 of the High Peak Local Plan (Saved Policies) 2008 and the Adopted Station Road Design Framework SPD 2007.

5.25

3 The proposed development, because of its scale and detailed design would dominate and thereby detract from the setting of important Listed buildings, including the Grade 1 Listed The Crescent, contrary to Policy BC8 of the adopted High Peak Local Plan 2008.

4 The application fails to adequately address the risk of flooding both within the development and in upstream and/or downstream locations, contrary to the provisions of planning policy statement PPS25.

5.26

Appendix 5

Appendix 6

PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

THREADNEEDLE SITE, BUXTON

PRELIMINARY BUDGET ESTIMATE

SEPTEMBER 2014

M1353 PRELIMINARY BUDGET ESTIMATE (5-9-2014).docx Page 1

THREADNEEDLE SITE, BUXTON

MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

Foodstore shell on stilts- 46,177 ft² @ £ 95 4,386,815

54 bed hotel @ £ 40,000/bed 2,160,000

7 No. shell A1/A3 units - 13,600 ft² @ £ 120 1,632,000

Pub shell - 6,500 ft² @ £80 520,000

Extra over for foodstore decked car park - 170 spaces @ £10,000 1,700,000

Extra over for Hotel decked car park 313 spaces @ £10,000 3,130,000 ______

SUB-TOTAL £ 13,528,815

Allowance for enhanced elevational treatment to satisfy Planning requirements:

● Foodstore £ 200,000

● Retail/leisure £ 300,000 ______500,000

______

TOTAL £ 14,028,815 ______

M1353 PRELIMINARY BUDGET ESTIMATE (5-9-2014).docx Page 2

NOTES & EXCLUSIONS

1 The budget excludes any allowance for the following:-

● VAT

● Planning costs

● Professional fees and charges

● Survey costs

● Demolition/site clearance

● Off-site reinforcement of utilities

● Lowering/diversion of mains services

● Removal from site of contaminated material

● Abnormal foundation works or ground improvement

● Retaining structures

● Below ground drainage storage/attenuation

● Pumping of drainage

2 The budget is based upon the WCEC Architects drawings numbered 13- 191/PR/03,04,05

3 The budget is based upon current rates and assumes the contract will be let by competitive tender

4 The budget allows for shell construction only to the food and non-food retail units and A1/A3 units and excludes any allowance for Tenants’ fit-out works/ enhancements

5 The allowance for the hotel is based upon a typical budget hotel

6 The budget excludes any allowance for mezzanine floors

7 The budget excludes any allowance for development contingencies

M1353 PRELIMINARY BUDGET ESTIMATE (5-9-2014).docx Page 3

Appendix 7 Steven Abbott Associates Consolidated Property Group Ltd Nestle Waters Site, Station Road Buxton

Table 1: Turnover of the Proposed Development

Floorspace (Sq m) Average Sales Turnover (£ m) GIA Net Sales Density (£/sq m) 2014 2017 2019 Supermarket Convenience - 1,986 12,000 23.83 23.83 23.83 Comparison - 978 7,500 7.65 8.14 8.47 Other units 446 312 5,000 1.63 1.73 1.80 Total 4,290 2,964 - 33.11 33.70 34.10

Sales Densities taken from Appendix 2C of the Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report

Sales area floorspace split assumed to be: Convenience 67.0% Comparison 33.0%

Annual Sales Density Improvements taken from Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report: 2013-2018 2018-2023 2023-2031 Convenience 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Comparison 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% Steven Abbott Associates Consolidated Property Group Ltd Nestle Waters Site, Station Road Buxton

Table 2: Study Area Population

Survey Zone 2014 2017 2019 2 40,582 41,397 41,929 3 10,965 11,117 11,232 4 8,864 8,959 9,039 5 29,568 30,181 30,592 6 7,420 7,523 7,597 Total 97,399 99,177 100,389

Note: Population estimates taken from Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report and assume linear growth between test years. Steven Abbott Associates Consolidated Property Group Ltd Nestle Waters Site, Station Road Buxton

Table 3: Per Caput Expenditure

Convenience Goods (£) Comparison Goods (£) Survey Zone 2014 2017 2019 2014 2017 2019 2 2,257 2,287 2,371 3,614 3,614 3,614 3 2,401 2,432 2,521 3,569 3,569 3,569 4 2,190 2,219 2,301 3,049 3,049 3,049 5 1,987 2,013 2,088 2,803 2,803 2,803 6 2,477 2,510 2,602 3,868 3,868 3,868

Table 4: Per Caput Expenditure After Special Forms of Trading

Convenience Goods (£) Comparison Goods (£) Survey Zone 2014 2017 2019 2014 2017 2019 2 2,196 2,207 2,276 3,195 3,115 3,069 3 2,336 2,347 2,421 3,155 3,077 3,030 4 2,130 2,141 2,208 2,695 2,628 2,588 5 1,933 1,943 2,004 2,478 2,416 2,380 6 2,410 2,422 2,498 3,419 3,334 3,284

Expenditure growth taken from Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report: 2013-18 2018-23 Convenience 0.4% 0.9% Comparison 2.3% 2.9%

Allowance for Special Forms of Trading taken from Appendix 3 of Experial Retail Planner Briefing Note 11 2014 2017 2019 Convenience 2.7% 3.5% 4.0% Comparison 11.6% 13.8% 15.1% Steven Abbott Associates Consolidated Property Group Ltd Nestle Waters Site, Station Road Buxton

Table 5: Total Available Expenditure in the Study Area

Convenience Goods (£ m) Comparison Goods (£ m) Survey Zone 2014 2017 2019 2014 2017 2019 2 89.1 91.4 95.4 129.7 129.0 128.7 3 25.6 26.1 27.2 34.6 34.2 34.0 4 18.9 19.2 20.0 23.9 23.5 23.4 5 57.2 58.6 61.3 73.3 72.9 72.8 6 17.9 18.2 19.0 25.4 25.1 24.9 Total 208.6 213.5 222.9 286.8 284.7 283.8 Steven Abbott Associates Consolidated Property Group Ltd Nestle Waters Site, Station Road Buxton

Table 6: Convenience Goods Current Market Share

Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Inflow Tourism Total Benchmark Trading (%) (£ m) (%) (£ m) (%) (£ m) (%) (£ m) (%) (£ m) (£ m) (£ m) (£ m) Turnover Performance Iceland (Spring Gardens) 0.6% 0.53 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 1.8% 1.03 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 2.56 -1.00 Waitrose (Spring Gardens) 1.3% 1.16 1.3% 0.33 2.3% 0.43 15.8% 9.03 6.3% 1.13 0.00 1.74 13.82 12.62 1.19 M&S (Spring Gardens) 0.4% 0.36 0.0% 0.00 0.3% 0.06 1.9% 1.09 0.0% 0.00 0.00 1.74 3.23 2.14 1.09 Sainsbury's Local (Eagle Parade) 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 1.7% 0.97 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.58 1.55 6.44 -4.89 Co-Op (Scarsdale Place) 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.4% 0.23 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 1.12 -0.89 Local Shops (Town Centre) 0.0% 0.00 0.2% 0.05 0.0% 0.00 0.9% 0.51 0.0% 0.00 0.00 1.16 1.72 1.72 0.00 Town Centre Total 2.05 0.38 0.49 12.86 1.13 0.00 5.21 22.12 26.61 -4.49

Aldi (Station Road) 2.8% 2.50 1.8% 0.46 7.3% 1.38 24.6% 14.06 2.9% 0.52 0.00 0.29 19.20 5.46 13.74 Tesco Express (London Road) 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 4.4% 2.51 0.9% 0.16 0.98 0.00 3.66 2.98 0.68 Morrison's (Bakewell Road) 0.0% 0.00 10.2% 2.61 11.3% 2.13 35.4% 20.23 10.4% 1.86 0.20 0.29 27.33 17.13 10.20 Non Centre Total 2.50 3.07 3.51 36.81 2.54 1.18 0.58 50.19 25.57 24.62

Total 4.54 3.46 4.00 49.67 3.67 1.18 5.79 72.31 52.18 20.12

Note: Market shares taken from Table 7 of Appendix 2B of the Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report Benchmark turnover taken from Table 8 of Appendix 2C of the Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report Steven Abbott Associates Consolidated Property Group Ltd Nestle Waters Site, Station Road Buxton

Table 7: Commited Developments

Sales Area Sales Density Turnover (£ m) Diversion from Buxton Retailers ( sq m) (£/sq m) 2014 2017 2019 % 2014 2017 2019 Morrison's Extention, Buxton 546 5,994 3.27 3.27 3.27 90% 2.95 2.95 2.95 Aldi, Chapel-en-le-Frith 912 6,616 6.03 6.03 6.03 15% 0.91 0.91 0.91 Total 9.31 9.31 9.31 3.85 3.85 3.85

Sales Densities taken from Table 8 of Appendix 2C of the Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report Steven Abbott Associates Consolidated Property Group Ltd Nestle Waters Site, Station Road Buxton

Table 8: Supermarket Trade Draw at 2019

Zone % £ m 2 6.0% 1.43 3 6.0% 1.43 4 7.0% 1.67 5 70.0% 16.68 6 7.0% 1.67 Inflow 2.0% 0.48 Tourism 2.0% 0.48 Total 100.0% 23.83

Table 8a: Diversion of Committed Developments on Existing Retailers

Morrison's Extention Aldi % (£ m) % (£ m) Iceland (Spring Gardens) 1.0% 0.03 0% 0.00 Waitrose (Spring Gardens) 10.0% 0.33 0% 0.00 M&S (Spring Gardens) 2.0% 0.07 0% 0.00 Sainsbury's Local (Eagle Parade) 1.0% 0.03 0% 0.00 Co-Op (Scarsdale Place) 0.0% 0.00 0% 0.00 Local Shops (Town Centre) 1.0% 0.03 0% 0.00 Town Centre Total 15.0% 0.49 0% 0.00

Aldi (Station Road) 73.0% 2.39 15% 0.91 Tesco Express (London Road) 2.0% 0.07 0% 0.00 Morrison's (Bakewell Road) 0.0% 0.00 0% 0.00 Non Centre Total 75.0% 2.45 15% 0.91

Other 10.0% 0.33 85% 5.13

Total 100.0% 3.27 100% 6.03 Steven Abbott Associates Consolidated Property Group Ltd Nestle Waters Site, Station Road Buxton

Table 9: Supermarket Trade Diversion at 2019

Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Total (%) (£ m) (%) (£ m) (%) (£ m) (%) (£ m) (%) (£ m) (£ m) Iceland (Spring Gardens) 1.6% 0.02 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.2% 0.03 0.0% 0.00 0.06 Waitrose (Spring Gardens) 10.6% 0.15 1.6% 0.02 1.4% 0.02 5.5% 0.91 4.7% 0.08 1.19 M&S (Spring Gardens) 2.2% 0.03 0.0% 0.00 0.1% 0.00 0.4% 0.07 0.0% 0.00 0.11 Sainsbury's Local (Eagle Parade) 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.2% 0.03 0.0% 0.00 0.03 Co-Op (Scarsdale Place) 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.01 0.0% 0.00 0.01 Local Shops (Town Centre) 0.0% 0.00 0.2% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.2% 0.03 0.0% 0.00 0.04 Town Centre Total 0.21 0.03 0.03 1.09 0.08 1.43

Aldi (Station Road) 60.6% 0.87 5.9% 0.08 11.8% 0.20 22.7% 3.78 5.8% 0.10 5.03 Tesco Express (London Road) 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.5% 0.08 0.2% 0.00 0.09 Morrison's (Bakewell Road) 0.0% 0.00 67.3% 0.96 36.6% 0.61 65.3% 10.89 41.6% 0.69 13.15 Non Centre Total 0.87 1.05 0.81 14.75 0.79 18.27 Other Shops in Study Area 25.0% 0.36 25.0% 0.36 50.0% 0.83 5.0% 0.83 50.0% 0.83 3.22 Tourism 0.48 Inflow from Outside Study Area 0.48 Total 100.00% 1.07 100.00% 1.07 100.00% 0.83 100.00% 15.85 102.35% 0.87 23.87

Weighting Iceland (Spring Gardens) 0.25 Waitrose (Spring Gardens) 0.75 M&S (Spring Gardens) 0.5 Sainsbury's Local (Eagle Parade) 0.25 Co-Op (Scarsdale Place) 0.25 Local Shops (Town Centre) 0.5 Aldi (Station Road) 2 Tesco Express (London Road) 0.25 Morrison's (Bakewell Road) 4 Steven Abbott Associates Consolidated Property Group Ltd Nestle Waters Site, Station Road Buxton

Table 10: Cumulative Impact of the Supermarket and Comitted Developments

Turnover Turnover Trade Residual Market Share Impact at Change (£ m) Turnover (£m) (£m) Diversion (£ Turnover 2014 2019 from 2014 2014 2017 2019 m) (£ m) Iceland (Spring Gardens) 1.56 0.75% 1.60 1.67 0.09 1.58 5.42% 1.03% Waitrose (Spring Gardens) 13.82 6.62% 14.14 14.76 1.51 13.25 10.26% -4.14% M&S (Spring Gardens) 3.23 1.55% 3.31 3.46 0.17 3.28 4.96% 1.52% Sainsbury's Local (Eagle Parade) 1.55 0.74% 1.59 1.66 0.07 1.59 3.95% 2.60% Co-Op (Scarsdale Place) 0.23 0.11% 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.24 3.15% 3.46% Local Shops (Town Centre) 1.72 0.83% 1.76 1.84 0.07 1.77 3.79% 2.78% Town Centre Total 22.12 10.60% 22.63 23.63 1.92 21.71 8.12% -1.86%

Aldi (Station Road) 19.20 9.20% 19.65 20.51 8.32 12.19 40.57% -36.52% Tesco Express (London Road) 3.66 1.75% 3.74 3.91 0.15 3.75 3.94% 2.61% Morrison's (Bakewell Road) 27.33 13.10% 27.96 32.47 13.15 19.31 40.52% -29.34% Non Centre Total 50.19 24.05% 51.35 53.61 21.63 35.25 34.24% -29.76% Total 72.31 34.65% 73.98 77.24 23.55 56.96 26.25% -21.22%

Notes: Growth in turnover assumes retailers maintain current market share Trade diversion includes proposed store and committed developments Steven Abbott Associates Consolidated Property Group Ltd Nestle Waters Site, Station Road Buxton

Table 11: Comparison Goods Draw

Zone % £ m 2 30.0% 2.78 3 3.0% 0.28 4 1.0% 0.09 5 50.0% 4.64 6 7.0% 0.65 Inflow 7.0% 0.65 Tourism 2.0% 0.19 Total 100.0% 9.27 Steven Abbott Associates Consolidated Property Group Ltd Nestle Waters Site, Station Road Buxton

Table 12: Comparison Goods Trade Diversion

Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Total (%) (£ m) (%) (£ m) (%) (£ m) (%) (£ m) (%) (£ m) (£ m) Buxton Town Centre 15% 0.42 6% 0.0 4% 0.0 40% 1.9 15% 0.1 2.4 Morrison's Buxton 0% 0.00 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 1% 0.0 1% 0.0 0.1 Chapel-en-le-Frith 5% 0.14 0% 0.0 1% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0.1 Whaley Bridge 2% 0.06 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0.1 New Mills 3% 0.08 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0.1 Leek 0% 0.00 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 1% 0.0 15% 0.1 0.1 Other High Peak 5% 0.14 5% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0.2 Other Staffs Moorlands 0% 0.00 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 3% 0.0 0.0 Other (Leakage claw-back) 70% 1.95 89% 0.2 95% 0.1 58% 2.7 66% 0.4 5.4 Total 100% 2.78 100% 0.28 100% 0.09 100% 4.64 100% 0.65 8.4 Steven Abbott Associates Consolidated Property Group Ltd Nestle Waters Site, Station Road Buxton

Table 13: Comparison Goods Impact

Turnover Market Turnover Trade Residual Impact at Change (£ m) Share (£m) Diversion Turnover 2019 from 2014 2014 2014 2019 (£ m) (£ m) Buxton Town Centre 69.9 10.7% 104.5 2.4 102.2 2.3% 31.6% Morrison's Buxton 1.1 0.2% 1.5 0.1 1.4 3.6% 21.6% Chapel-en-le-Frith 6.7 1.0% 8.9 0.1 8.7 1.6% 23.2% Whaley Bridge 3.3 0.5% 4.4 0.1 4.3 1.3% 23.4% New Mills 4.1 0.6% 5.4 0.1 5.3 1.5% 23.2% Leek 46.1 7.1% 61.0 0.1 60.8 0.2% 24.2%

Note: Turnover and market share taken from Appendix 3B of the Quantitative Retail Study Update Addendum Report Turnover of Buxton Town Centre includes tourism spending Steven Abbott Associates Consolidated Property Group Ltd Nestle Waters Site, Station Road Buxton

Table 14: Overall Impact

Buton town Centre 2019 Convenience goods turnover 14.76 Comparison goods turnover 104.55 Total Turnover of Buxton Town Centre 119.31 Total Trade Diversion 4.31 Residual Turnover 115.00 Impact 3.6%

Appendix 8

Methodology Note

TOURISM SPENDING IN BUXTON

1. Visitor spending on retail goods is an important component of retailer’s vitality in towns such as Buxton. The spending of such visitors should be taken into account in the quantitative convenience and comparison goods floorspace assessments.

2. The number of tourist visits to an area the size of a Buxton and High Peak in general is difficult to measure and not easily quantified. Moreover, there are a plethora of methods for assessing visitor numbers to an area with no standard method available (including on- street surveys, STEAM (Scarborough Tourism Economic Activity Monitor) Reports and other monitoring documents. Each type of survey or method has pros and cons and often shows different visitor numbers and expenditure for one area.

3. In the case of High Peak, there is a STEAM report for Buxton (as outlined in the Buxton Retail Investment Prospectus) which estimates the economic benefit of tourism to the town. In relation to tourism expenditure attracted to Buxton, it identifies that £12.95m was directed to shopping and £10.56m to food and drink.

4. However, one of the perceived problems with STEAM reports is that it estimates the total number of tourist days spent (or visitors spending over 3 hours) in an area. This method does not include all types of visitor and for any length of time. For example a Visitor Survey 2005 based in the Peak District indicated that a significant proportion (48%) of visitors make short trips into the Peak District of less than three hours. Due to Buxton’s location there is significant scope for visitors to come to the town, but not be reported. Therefore, the estimation of inflow convenience spending is considered to be on the low side.

5. The STEAM data does not provide a breakdown for retail shopping between convenience goods and comparison items. However, for the purposes of a retail study which estimates the level of spending it is necessary to try and identify the convenience spend.

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 1 of 2 30 October 2014

6. The Family Food 2012 Study (2013) prepared by DEFRA estimates via a household survey that 70% of the UK’s average household expenditure on food and drink is spent on household food and drink and 30% is spent eating out. This is a useful figure when considering tourism spending; there is clearly an argument that tourists will spend significantly more eating out while on holiday than at home. However, there will still be some spending on what is considered as household food and drink, especially if tourists were camping or staying in self catered accommodation.

7. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable in the context of the STEAM food and drink figures to reverse the findings of the survey and estimate that 30% of the spending on food and drink can be quantified.

8. In the absence of any robust sources of information on the likely changes in volume of tourist visitors/spending in Buxton and High Peak, especially long term forecasts to 2031, we have not allowed significant changes. However, we have opted to use the GVA study per annum growth rates as applied to resident’s expenditure growth for convenience goods to predict a small rise in tourism spending.

9. The tourist spending can be incorporated into the expenditure calculations. In terms of convenience spending in 2013, Table 1 indicates a total £5.76m of inflow to convenience facilities in Buxton, rising to £5.90m in 2018.

10. It is also worth noting that High Peak’s tourism initiatives and planned regeneration schemes (including converting the Georgian Crescent to a luxury hotel and spa) aim to increase the numbers of visitors to the centres in the district (including Buxton), which should subsequently increase the level of tourist spending in Buxton over time.

Type 2011 2012 2013 2018 2023 2031 Shopping Expenditure 12.95 12.96 12.95 13.28 13.82 14.73 Comparison Element (80%) 10.36 10.37 10.36 10.62 11.05 11.78 Convenience Element (20%) 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.66 2.76 2.95 Food and Drink 10.56 10.57 10.56 10.83 11.27 12.01 Convenience Element (30%) 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.25 3.38 3.60 Convenience Total 5.76 5.76 5.76 5.90 6.14 6.55 Table 1: Tourism Expenditure

Steven Abbott Associates LLP Page 2 of 2 October 2014