NEWINGTON

00016261T

Anlaby Road, South Side, Site Of Tradex Store, Kingston Upon Hull ,

Erection of two storey building to provide retail store with 4 small retail units, undercroft parking, access road, landscaping and associated works.

Tesco Stores Limited

SUMMARY

- erection of building to provide retail supermarket with undercroft parking and 4 smaller retail units and associated car parking, service area and highway improvements - Letters of support and objection received - Letter from Cllr Hale objecting. Requests from Cllrs Welton and Fudge for a site visit. - Recommended for refusal.

SITE

The site is located on the south side of Anlaby Road near to the junction with Boothferry Road and is currently occupied by a vacant retail unit and an operating petrol filling station.

The site is bounded to the west and south by housing, and by health care type uses to the east.

The site is located in the Anlaby Road Large Local Centre as defined in the Local Plan.

PROPOSAL

Erection of two storey building to provide retail store with 4 small retail units, undercroft parking, access road, landscaping and associated works.

Plans have been amended to propose revisions to the roundabout junction of Anlaby Road and Boothferry Road, to lengthen the roundabout in an easterly direction such that the access to the store becomes a 4th leg to the roundabout.

PLANNING HISTORY

Various related to existing retail use. There is a condition on the use of the existing store restricting the range of goods which can be sold.

REPRESENTATIONS

Environmental Health – no objection subject to conditions

Humber Archaeology Partnership – does not appear to affect known archaeological sites

Highways Development Control -

One letter from local resident and 1 letter from resident of Willerby supporting proposal, the first having concerns regarding the location of the recycling facility.

57 pro-forma (one signed by 7 different households) letters supporting the scheme as it offers jobs and greater shopping choice.

9 letters from local residents objecting and raising the following points, no need for a new store in Hull, noise disturbance from vehicles and activity, building is too large for the site, increase in traffic, erosion of local choice, some local jobs will be lost, money from local economy siphoned towards shareholders and distant corporations, increased waste in form of packaging. One letter focused entirely on highways issues in particular pedestrian crossing facilities.

Objection received from Cllr Hale (by e-mail) in response to complaints from small businesses and traders. Proposal seems to be at variance with NaSA plan which promotes Hessle Road, seems to contradict Council’s own policy, concerns regard traffic impact, proposal would have significant impact on nearby shops and retail areas, proposal will merely displace retail jobs in the area.

Letter of objection from planning consultants acting on behalf of food retailer stating the proposal does not comply with policy and it fails to comply with 4 of the 5 tests in PPS4.

EYMS – object redesigned roundabout will cause delays to buses; lack of manoeuvrability with lane space proposed; danger to cyclists and other road users; discomfort to passengers arising from 180 degree turning movements.

APPLICANT’S CASE

The application includes a design and access statement, a flood risk assessment, an environmental noise assessment, an energy statement, a landscape supporting statement, a ground contamination report, an ecological assessment, a transport assessment, a statement of community involvement, and a planning and retail assessment.

The design and access statement includes, site context and analysis, design vision, access, sustainability, and conclusions. The conclusion states the store will have reduced carbon emissions and be more energy efficient than the benchmark store of 2006, it will create a user friendly store in keeping with the scale and size of the surrounding area, the site is close to public transport routes, landscaping will be enhanced and the development will create job opportunities and improve consumer choice and promote price competition within Hull.

The flood risk assessment concludes that the development will be safe in flood terms, would reduce run off from the site and therefore not increase risk elsewhere.

The planning and retail statement includes a site description and planning history, description of the proposed development, a review of planning policy, a planning appraisal, retail issues, and conclusion.

The planning appraisal chapter considers the principle of the development, regeneration benefits, employment opportunities, design, sustainability, highways and access, noise, landscaping, public art.

The retail issues chapter considers the requirements of PPS4, a review of existing retail provision and shopping patterns, the latter based on the Council’s latest retail study, the scale of the development, impact, sequential approach, and accessibility. The conclusion states, the proposal fully complies with all relevant local, strategic and national planning policies and will bring benefits to Anlaby Road, including improved retail provision, acting as an anchor to attract other businesses into the area, provide enhanced employment opportunities, reduce journey times for local residents undertaking shopping trips, enable improvements to the highway network, the store will incorporate sustainable design features, redevelopment of a vacant site, and, will aid social and economic regeneration and bring associated benefits to the area.

The Transport Statement includes a scheme of highway improvements to facilitate access to the store. The proposed scheme is for the introduction of a light controlled junction serving the store entrance and the junction between Anlaby Road and Boothferry Road with enhanced pedestrian crossing facilities.

The environmental noise assessment concludes that the store will be able to trade 24 hours a day and that deliveries can be unrestricted. Any increase in noise levels, whether from the car park or deliveries, will be within WHO guidelines.

Agents for the applicant have written asking for the following benefits of the proposal to be highlighted: the proposal is for a landmark store which fills a gap restoring active frontage, which will regenerate the site, height of original proposal has been reduced, applicant willing to accept restrictions on times of deliveries and access to car park to minimise disruption to neighbours. Proposal represents a £18million investment, redeveloping a key site, create 330 new jobs under the Tesco job guarantee scheme.

In terms of impact in retail terms, there is a difference in the reports about the number of retail units on Anlaby Road. The proposed store is of an appropriate scale in terms of the function of Anlaby Road, the local planning authority does not include the former Tradex store in calculations, or the former Kwik Save. Hull Retail Study uses different base assumptions and data sources, both sources of data are considered to be acceptable. Impact is assessed based on base assumptions and Council’s household survey, which result in difference in turnover. Main food shopping is done predominantly at superstores, fair to assume new stores compete with existing superstores, smaller shops used for top-up shopping. Small shops are not likely to face significant competition from a superstore.

The increase in floor space is not 85% as stated in the report. The calculation does not include the Tradex floor space. Include Tradex and the uplift is 16-17%

Overall the benefits of the proposal significantly outweigh any detrimental impact.

PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Local Plan -

G2 - Allow development subject to location and detailed considerations being acceptable.

G4 - Compatible with predominant land use.

BE1 - Seek high standards of design.

BE10 - Access for the impaired.

BE11 - (a) Good standard of shop front design, (b) Avoid solid external shutters.

BE12 - Minimise opportunity for crime.

M28 - Developer will contribute to necessary off-site improvements.

M29 - (a) Development allowed if access, servicing and parking satisfactory. (b) Traffic generation and road safety must be acceptable.

M30 - Development outside City Centre to meet parking standards in table M1.

S1 - Shopping development allowed subject to details.

S2 - Existing shopping centres supported.

S3 - Local shopping centre development supported in areas of major future housing.

S5 - Shopping development allowed in existing shopping centres if it does not undermine vitality/viability of a shopping centre.

S9 - Recycling facilities associated with shops supported.

Newington and St Andrew’s Area Action Plan – adopted by HCC 25th February 2010

NaSA2 - policies for Hawthorn Avenue area

NaSA 5 - policies for Hessle Road area

NaSA 6 - policies for Anlaby Road area

NaSA 11 - design of new development

NaSA 17 - planning obligations

Core Strategy - Emerging Preferred Approach (2010)

Other material considerations:

PPS 1 – delivering sustainable development – high quality and inclusive design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process…ensuring that developments….create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder or fear of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.

PPS4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth – this sets out a series of policies against which all applications for economic development, including retail uses, should be assessed. It directs that where there is clear evidence that there would be a significant adverse impact then an application should be refused.

Safer Places – the Planning System and crime Prevention (ODPM/Home Office 2003) – where proposed development would undermine crime prevention or the promotion of community safety and the concerns are relevant to land use planning the application should be refused where refusal is consistent with the development plan.

Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires all Local Authorities to exercise their functions with due regard tot heir likely effect on crime and disorder, and to do all they reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The proposal is for a food store with a total gross floorspace of 6,939sqm (74,693sqft), net floorspace being 4,686sqm (50,441sqft), and four concessionary units with a floorspace of 257sqm (2,766sqft). Parking for 395 vehicles and 40 cycles would be provided along with a recycling centre and a combined heat and power plant. The service yard would be at first floor level accessed by a fixed ramp.

The proposal has to be considered against the impact test set out in PPS4 and policy S1 and S5 of the Local Plan. Tests in PPS4, (which was published in December 2009 and is therefore more up to date that the Local Plan include):

Policy EC10.2 of PPS4 sets out the impact tests and an assessment has been made under each test.

1. whether the proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit CO2 emissions and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to climate change. It is considered that the proposed scheme adequately addresses this issue as explained in the energy statement submitted as part of the application which states that the proposal is approximately 40% more energy efficient than the applicant’s benchmark store of 2006.

2. the accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport, the effect on local traffic levels and congestion (especially to the trunk road network) after public transport and traffic management measures have been secured. The site is on a main public transport route, therefore well served by public transport, and would be accessible by pedestrians and cyclists. The impact on local traffic levels needs to be fully assessed in the light of the Transport Statement submitted with the application. This is considered later in the report

3. whether the proposal secures a high quality and inclusive design which takes opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions. The proposal introduces a new food store into a residential area undergoing regeneration on a vacant site. In general terms the redevelopment of the site would improve the character of the area, however there are some amenity issues arising from the size of the building the activity the use would generate and the proximity to nearby housing which may have an impact on the quality of the area. These will be considered in more detail below in the Design section. Policy NaSA II is also significant as all development is required to meet high design standards as outlined in the design guidance.

4. the impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives. Site is allocated within the NaSA AAP and is seen as key to regenerating the area. However it was envisaged as a mixed use development, although retail led. This is considered in more detail below.

5. the impact on local employment The applicant states that the proposal will generate approximately 330 new job opportunities. It is not made clear whether this is gross or net allowing for potentially displaced jobs from other retail outlets.

Even though the proposal is defined as in centre, the scale of the store triggers the requirement in PPS4 to assess a full range of other impacts. Policy EC16.1 of PPS4 sets out the following impacts to consider:

1. The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment of the proposal.

There are plans for improvement works through Gateway to regenerate the frontages to shops and the street environment in Hessle Road. There are also proposals for investment in Anlaby Road in the area opposite the entrance to West Park.

The adopted NaSA Area Action Plan direct regeneration investment and seeks to ‘secure the place of Hessle Road as a District Centre and shopping destination of choice by ensuring that the diversity and quality of shops is maintained and enhanced’. There is a clear priority set out to protect Hessle Road. Policy NaSA I confirms that development that poses a risk to the vision for NaSA will not be permitted.

2. The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer.

The applicant has undertaken a series of health checks. Overall these conclude that centres are in a reasonable state of health based on diversity of use, retailer representation, football, traffic and transport and physical condition. The conclusion for Anlaby road Large Local Centre is that 'the centre appears in a reasonable state of health. The centre appears to be attractive in appearance, however there are a large number of vacant units and the centre has a high level of traffic congestion'. There are significant differences between the applicant's survey to the figures in Hull City Council's survey of October 2009. The applicant has accepted the City Council survey of uses is more accurate. The Council's view is that Anlaby Road is a relatively weak centre given the range of uses and occupiers that exist and vacancy rates.

The proposal will bring a significant addition to the Anlaby Road Large Local Centre offer. As highlighted above it will significantly increase the scale of offer and would bring an increased range of goods as part of its offer. Anlaby Road Large Local Centre is a linear centre with retail units spread sparsely along its entire length, interspersed with residential properties, which casts doubt as to whether a major retail development at one end of the centre would aid in improving the viability or vitality of the centre as a whole by promoting linked trips.

Issues of trade draw are considered below. Vacancy is already evident within centres, including the Hessle Road District Centre. Significant additional retail offer in Anlaby Road Large Local Centre could increase the level of vacancies as the new offer draws custom from a market of limited demand.

The adopted NaSA Area Action Plan sets out a policy direction that seeks to 'secure the place of Hessle Road as a District Centre and shopping destination of choice by ensuring that the diversity and quality of shops is maintained and enhanced'. There is a clear priority set out to protect Hessle Road. Therefore any development which would adversely affect the vitality or viability of the centre should be resisted.

The Hull Retail Study concluded that there was no need for additional retail floorspace until 2015. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that the approval of an increase in retail floorspace before that date would result in trade being directed away from existing centres, thereby having an adverse effect on the vitality and viability of those centres. In turn this would have an adverse impact on a higher order centre within the boundaries of the NaSA AAP and is contrary to policy NaSA5A(i).

3. the impact of the proposal on allocated sites outside town centres being developed in accordance with the development plan

There are no allocated sites outside of town centres to consider in Hull.

4. in the context of a retail or leisure proposal, the impact of the proposal on in centre trade or turnover and on trade in the wider area, taking account of current and future expenditure capacity in the area up to five years from when the application is made.

This impact is assessed by estimating the likely turnover of the proposal and making assumptions about where it will draw that trade from. Estimates of current and future expenditure have been made through the Hull Retail Study Update 2010. A household survey was also undertaken as part of the retail study providing a basis for understanding peoples shopping patterns.

The Hull Retail Study concludes that there is not sufficient expenditure capacity within Hull to support further convenience retailing floorspace with in effect an over provision of such services. There is capacity for further comparison retailing although sequentially this might be considered more appropriate within another centre. The format of the proposed store combines these elements of retailing. The largest percentage would still be convenience retailing and it is appropriate to focus on this element in terms of its impact, particularly on trade in the wider area.

It is worth noting that for plan making purposes the Hull Retail Study would conclude that there is not a need to allocate further major convenience shopping floorspace in the city. The so called ‘needs test’ no longer applies to determination of planning applications under new national policy, PPS4. However it gives a clear indication of the potential impact that a new large store could have.

The applicant concludes that the food stores on which the proposal is likely to impact are overtrading (i.e selling more than the floorspace would indicate as typical) and therefore the assumption is that excess expenditure exists to support further floorspace. This is not the conclusion of the Hull Retail Study, so it is not accepted that other stores are overtrading. Para 5.30 of the retail study states that there was an expenditure deficit (i.e. stores were selling less than the floorspace would indicate was typical) in 2009, with floorspace collectively trading 7% below the benchmark turnover – the conclusion that there is an overprovision of floorspace.

The applicant makes the case that the proposal will impact on other superstores in the area, including those that are out of centre and therefore have no ‘protection’ through the planning process. However these stores will continue to trade and absorb an element of expenditure.

The applicant has drawn a suggested catchment from which the proposed store would draw its trade. This catchment determines the range of centres across which any predicted impact would be spread. One of the most significant centres against which to assess impact is the Hessle Road District Centre The applicant estimates that the proposal would divert approximately 6.5% of trade from the Asda store at Hessle Road, and 6% from the District Centre overall. The applicant suggests that by far the larger impact – approximately 27% will be felt by Sainsbury’s in Hessle, an out of centre store. However the Council’s Retail Study suggests that trade draw from Hessle Road could be higher. Within a zone that loosely equates to the suggested catchment of the store the household survey suggested that the largest proportion of the population within this area of Hull are drawn to Asda at Hessle Road, a much lower proportion to Sainsbury. The proposal is located very close to Asda. It is therefore appropriate to conclude whether the proposal would overlap significantly with this store’s catchment and therefore impact most directly on this store.

The NLP study includes a household survey which allows an understanding of trade draw patterns in the city and potential trade draw of a new store. The NLP study warns that it is difficult to be conclusive of impacts on individual stores or centres, particularly smaller ones. It does conclude that main food shopping, as the proposal would attract, is predominantly undertaken in superstores across the city and neighbouring areas. Approximately 85% of main food shopping in Hull is undertaken in superstores This suggests that the biggest impact would be on similar stores as people are most likely to change the main store at which they undertake their main food shop, rather than switch from smaller stores. The main stores that the household survey concludes trade would be drawn from are Asda Hessle Road, Morrisons, Springfield Way Anlaby; Sainsbury’s, Hessle; and to a lesser extent, Waitrose in Willerby and Tesco at St Stephens in the city centre.

The store would also support an element of what is called ‘top-up’ shopping and this could draw trade from other smaller shops, perhaps more locally, but equally within a reasonable drive time, as the proposed store may offer a more extensive range or more competitive goods than provided in smaller shops. Household survey results suggest that approximately 40% of ‘top-up’ shopping is undertaken in superstores.

The proposal would also support an element of comparison retailing. This would potentially mirror the draw of trade from other superstores as people make such purchases alongside main food shopping, but equally could impact on comparison shops either locally, in the city centre or in retail warehouses. As guidance suggests there is a complex network of impacts to consider.

Perhaps the most important consideration however is whether it is appropriate to locate a store in a location which can create an impact on what the Council have deemed through its policy to be a more appropriate location for such retailing.

PPS4 guidance considers impact can be assessed against whether the proposal will reduce market share of other centres making it more difficult to attract operator demand and support development in expenditure terms. It will be relevant to consider whether key anchor operators underpinning the viability of investment in a centre would be affected by the proposal. Asda on Hessle Road, acts as an anchor store to the Hessle Road District Centre. It is very close to the proposal, being within 1,5km (0.9miles) and clearly would suffer some impact from the proposal.

5. If located in or on the edge of a town centre, whether the proposal is of an appropriate scale (in terms of gross floorspace) in relation to the size of the centre and its role in the hierarchy of centres.

The question of scale is not just whether the store is big in relation to the centre, but whether it is appropriate in terms of the centre’s role within the wider hierarchy of centres in the area. The question then is whether it would therefore potentially change this role to the detriment of local shopping facilities in the wider area of the city. The Council has cleared defined what is considers an appropriate hierarchy for the city through the Local Plan, and more recently reinforced the approach for this part of the city through the adopted NaSA plan and Core Strategy - Emerging preferred approach.

The proposed store would be located on a site at the extreme western end of the Anlaby Road shopping centre which is a linear local centre approximately 1km (0.6miles) in length. Data from a recent survey in October 2009 shows the size and proportion of uses within the centre. The proposal is for a store of 6,939 sq m (74,692sq ft) gross selling a mix of convenience and comparison goods. Total floor space in the Anlaby Road centre as defined in the proposals map is 22,885sqm (246,340sq ft), however this includes vacant units which account for approximately 34% of floorspace in the centre. Occupied floorspace which is actually trading, is currently 15,199sqm (163,606sqft). The floorspace in use as A1, which would include retail service uses such as hairdressers, funeral directors etc. 7,969sqm (85,780sq.ft.) The floorspace in the centre actually selling convenience or comparison goods stands at 7,649sqm. (82,292sq.ft). The proposed floorspace would represent a 90% increase in the floorspace in the local centre currently trading in convenience and comparison retailing, 87% of all A1 floorspace currently trading, 55% of all floorspace trading which could be A1 use without the need for planning permission, or 34% of all floorspace in units capable of A1 use including vacant units. This would be a significant increase to the centre.

It is appropriate to consider the scale of convenience and comparison retail in other Large Local Centres to get an impression of the role of these centres within the overall hierarchy of centres in the city.

At October 2009 data for Chanterlands Avenue showed 3,943 sq m (42,443sqft) of comparison and convenience retailing. Gipsyville 2,067 sq m, (22,250sqft) Newland Avenue 8,792 sq m, (94,640sqft) Spring Bank 4,763 sq m (51,270sqft). The current floorspace in Anlaby Road is 7,649 sq m (82,292 sqft). The proposal would increase the floorspace of Anlaby Road to 15,129 sq m (162,850sqft) almost doubling the size of provision in the centre. It would therefore significantly alter the retail function of the centre in comparison to the other Large Local Centres in the city.

The three District Centres in the city currently accommodate the following comparison and convenience retail floorspace: Hessle Road, 33,700 sq m, (362,755sqft) Holderness Road 29,400 sq m, (316,470sqft) and Northpoint 11,700 sq m (125,940sqft). Clearly Hessle Road and Holderness Road have significant levels of floorspace, both having a large superstore as part of the centre. Northpoint is defined as a District Centre and the proposal would result in a local centre having a level of floorspace more akin to a District Centre.

It is also appropriate to consider what PPS4 defines as the role of different centres within the hierarchy of centres defined in Hull.

‘District centres (Hessle Road and Holderness Road and Northpoint) will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore, and a range of non-retail services, such as banks, building societies and restaurants, as well as local public facilities such as a library.’

‘Local centres (which includes Anlaby Road) include a range of small shops of a local nature, serving a small catchment. Typically, local centres might include, amongst other shops, a small supermarket, a newsagent, a sub-post office and a pharmacy. Other facilities could include a hot-food takeaway and launderette.’

PPS4 does not draw a distinction between different Local Centres, but clearly the inference would be that neither type of Local Centre in the city, whether Large Local or Important Local, should have the same role as the District Centres. The proposal would result in Anlaby Road becoming a size more suited to District Centre status which is contrary to the NaSA Area Action Plan, policies in the Local Plan and the Core Strategy.

The Core Strategy: emerging preferred approach which has been consulted on from 5th February to 31st March 2010 identifies Anlaby Road as a local centre. In addition it states local centres typically consist of smaller independent retailers rather than national multiples found in District Centres. Representation has been made by the applicants to the Core Strategy that the Anlaby Road Large Local Centre should be redefined as a District Centre.

The applicant suggests that a significant proportion of the proposed new store effectively already has planning consent through the existence of the former Tradex store. However the store was subject to a planning condition restricting the range of goods so it is not appropriate to suggest existence of consent for open A1 retail.

It is also useful to consider the nature of the former Tradex store and how this differed from what is proposed, particularly in relation to the role and character of the centre and how its draw and catchment would have been significantly different to the proposed store.

The former Tradex store closed in 2006 after an attempt to rebrand the store failed and led to closure. The rebrand was accompanied by a variation of the planning condition applied to the building to allow what was termed the ‘Bargain Lots’ concept, including the sale of furniture, garden and homewear, bulk toiletries, electrical and mobility products. The Tradex company was quoted as saying competition had left ‘Bargain Lots’ as unviable blaming competition from non food sales of big supermarkets. Prior to the ‘Bargain Lots’ concept Tradex had been branded as a ‘Wholesale Trade Warehouse – Cash & Carry’. It is not clear whether this was truly restricted in sales or open to the general public, but clearly this branding of the store suggested a stand alone store rather than one operating within and as part of the centre. Clearly it would not have had the draw and catchment as the proposed store would have. The store was originally occupied by B&Q with a more restricted condition. It is considered that the position of the former Tradex unit did not lend itself to being an active part of the centre.

Aside from the size of the store relative to existing floorspace and the uplift this would bring to the centre’s retailing floorspace it is important to consider the nature of the proposal. The household survey undertaken as part of the recent update to the Council’s Retail Study, suggests that such floorspace, unlike the existing, would serve as a main food shopping destination, potentially capturing a significant proportion of such activity. This contrasts significantly to a store serving a more limited need and that ultimately failed, so discussion of simple quanta serves to hide the real issue as to the change in the role of the centre.

The store would be of a scale that would significantly increase the draw of the centre given the nature of the proposed store and operator. It is considered that the proposed store would operate in a different manner to the former Tradex store which while the existing building is physically a large building is subject to a legal agreement restricting the range of goods that can be sold and therefore is more restricted in its trading format, in terms of its draw and its impacts on neighbouring uses and centres. The difference in potential trading format of the currently vacant unit suggests that it should not be seen as establishing the principle of a similar sized store on the site.

The applicant argues that the proposal is in accordance with an up to date development plan, the NaSA Area Action Plan. However the question of scale is key to the interpretation of the plan. The plan seeks to achieve ‘the development of the Tradex site into a mix of retail, housing and a new community facility on Wheeler Street at a scale which is commensurate with Anlaby Road’s status as a Large Local Centre’. While policy suggests a retail led approach to the site it does not suggest it is allocated for a large superstore. Evidence did not support this. This position is reinforced by further policy in the plan to ‘support Anlaby Road’s status as a Large Local Centre, to provide the mix of uses this entails, with no single use dominating and to ensure that the scale of new development is commensurate with the centre’s role’.

It is a question of judgment whether any one of the impacts discussed above would be so significant to warrant refusal on their own, or in combination. The positive (job creation, regeneration of the area, enhancement of the Local Centre) and negative (impact on the District Centre through inappropriate scale and trade diversion) impacts of the scheme should be weighed in the balance and a judgement based on this.

However, indications are that the proposal would significantly alter the size and catchment of the Anlaby Road Large Local Centre by significantly increasing the provision of convenience and comparison retailing and increasing trade draw over and above what would typically be expected to be provided within a Local Centre This effect would be such that it would have an adverse effect on the role of the centre and on the strategy for District Centres, notably Hessle Road. The adopted NaSA Area Action Plan sets out a policy direction that seeks to ‘secure the place of Hessle Road as a District Centre and shopping destination of choice by ensuring that the diversity and quality of shops is maintained and enhanced’. There is a clear priority set out to protect Hessle Road and this proposal would have an adverse effect on those aims. The impact would be such that the proposal is contrary to policies S1, S5 in the Local Plan, EC16 of PPS4 and NaSA 2, 5 and 6 of the Newington and St Andrews Area Action Plan.

Biodiversity

Given the details of the proposal and the characteristics of the site it is considered that there would be no adverse impact on areas or species of ecological significance.

Crime and Disorder

Given the nature of the proposal it is considered that there would not be, or likely to be, an increase in crime or disorder or the potential for such an increase.

Flood Risk

This area is identified as High Risk low hazard (Zone 3a (i)) by the Environment Agency, flood risk issues can be addressed by condition if necessary.

Design and Appearance

The proposal would be two storeys in height with undercroft parking and an entrance foyer with concessionary units at ground floor level, café, store and service yard at first floor level.

The north elevation, fronting onto Anlaby Road respects the alignment of properties on Anlaby Road at ground floor level and the alignment of properties on Boothferry Road at first floor level. The part of the building fronting onto Anlaby Road is considered to be acceptable respecting the existing built form on the frontage and providing an active frontage at both ground and first floor levels.

The proposed building would have a maximum height of 13m (42’8’’) which would extend north- south for 79m (86yds). The highest point would be 62m (67.8yds – 203ft) from the rear of residential properties on Airmyn Avenue. The closest part of the proposal would be 26m (85’) from properties on Airmyn Avenue and would be 9.5m (31’) high.

The properties surrounding the site are of domestic scale and as such the proposed building would appear large. However given the distances between properties it is considered that the proposal would not result in loss of daylight, sunlight or result in excessive overshadowing.

The design of the building, including it location within the site is considered to be acceptable.

Impact on residential amenity –

Some aspects have the potential to have an impact on residential amenity. The proposal includes a service yard at first floor level to the rear of the building. This would be accessed by means of a ramp. The ramp would be 14m (46’) from the nearest residential property on Plowden Road. The area between would be landscaped to screen the ramp, however engine and brake noise from vehicles using the ramp, in both directions, would be audible in the rear gardens of nearby residential properties. This has the potential to be a source of noise disturbance to local residents.

The service yard would be 55m (180’) from the same property. Activity in the yard, including loading and unloading of vehicles and manoeuvring would also create noise disturbance, however with suitable screening and controls of reversing bleepers it is considered that during the normal working day this would not be such as to present a serious loss of amenity to nearby residents. The service yard is closer to properties on Airmyn Avenue, however it is screened by part of the building reducing the impact of noise created in the yard to an acceptable level during the normal working day. Operation of the service yard outside the normal working day has the potential to cause disturbance to local residents by way of noise disturbance, lighting and general activity.

The access to the car park and the service yard is alongside the store to the rear of properties on Airmyn Avenue, although separated from them by the tenfoot access which serves the rear of those properties. The use of the access road is likely to result in noise disturbance from vehicles accessing the parking facilities, the recycling centre and the service yard, the latter being small and large commercial vehicles. This is considered not to be serious enough to seriously adversely affect amenity during the normal working day, but has the potential to do so during the evening and night.

The proposal as submitted did not include any scheme to control these potential sources of noise disturbance and it is considered that disturbance from the access road, car park, recycling facility and the service yard could be such as to have a serious adverse effect on residential amenity. Letters of objection from neighbouring residents refer to use of the recycling centre and the access ramp as being sources of disturbance which would have an adverse effect on their amenity. A condition could be imposed which limits the period of time in which deliveries can be made and access to parts of the car park and recycling centre.

Highways

Plans have been amended to propose revisions to the roundabout junction of Anlaby Road and Boothferry Road, to lengthen the roundabout in an easterly direction such that the access to the store becomes a 4th leg to the roundabout.

Highways Dc have no objection to the proposal on the basis of the revised plans, subject to conditions and a legal agreement. The conditions will relate to off site highways works at the Anlaby Road/Boothferry Road roundabout, the junction of Anlaby Road and Wold Carr Road, Anlaby Road/Calvert Road/North Road junction, Calvert Lane/Spring Bank West/Willerby Road junction, The legal agreement would relate to the travel plan, off site highway works, pedestrian facilities, and monitoring of the operation of the roundabout

CONCLUSION

The proposal would result in an increase in activity on the site which raises issues about maintaining the amenity of local residents. It is considered that this can be addressed by the imposition of conditions.

The proposal would increase traffic levels in the immediate area and it has not yet been demonstrated that the proposed highway alterations would accommodate the extra traffic without adversely affecting the free flow of traffic or highway safety.

It is a question of judgment whether any one of the impacts discussed would be significantly adverse to warrant refusal on their own, or in combination. The positive (job creation, regeneration of the area, and physical enhancement of the Local Centre) and negative (impact on the District Centre through inappropriate scale and trade diversion) impacts of the scheme should be weighed in the balance and a judgement based on this.

However, evidence suggests that the proposal would significantly alter the size and catchment of the Anlaby Road Large Local Centre by significantly increasing the provision of convenience and comparison retailing and increasing trade draw over and above what would typically be expected to be provided within a Local Centre This effect would be such that it would have an adverse effect on the role of the centre and on the strategy for District Centres, notably Hessle Road. The adopted NaSA Area Action Plan sets out a policy direction that seeks to ‘secure the place of Hessle Road as a District Centre and shopping destination of choice by ensuring that the diversity and quality of shops is maintained and enhanced’. There is a clear priority set out to protect Hessle Road and this proposal would have an adverse effect on those aims. The impact would be such that the proposal is contrary to policies S1, S5 in the Local Plan, EC16 of PPS4 and NaSA 2, 5 and 6 of the Newington and St Andrews Area Action Plan.

Balanced against this is the investment the proposal represents in an area designated as a regeneration area and the potential employment opportunities it presents. The applicants suggest the proposal would create more than 300 jobs, however there is no way of estimating the net increase in jobs, as some jobs may be lost to competition from the proposed store.

In the event that members are minded to approve the application the approval should be subject to standard conditions, plus conditions relating to off site highways works, and to a legal agreement relating to a contribution to public art, a travel plan, improvements to pedestrian facilities on Anlaby Road, potential improvements to Hawthorn Avenue junction, and general environmental improvements in the area. At the time of writing details are still being discussed and an update will be provided at Committee should members be minded to approve.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be refused following reasons: -

1 The proposal by virtue of the net retail floorspace it would create and the nature of the operation would be of a size and nature not commensurate with the Anlaby Road Centre’s role or status as Large Local centre. It would result in a significant increase in convenience and comparison goods retailing floorspace within the Local Centre and draw trade to the Local Centre which would be out of scale with the existing centre and would therefore significantly alter the role and function of the centre contrary to PPS4, policy S1 and S5 of the Local Plan and policy NaSA2, NaSA5 and NaSA6 of the Newington and St. Andrews Area Action Plan.

2 The proposal would result in an increase in the number of vehicles entering and leaving the site and it has not adequately been demonstrated that the resulting manoeuvres would not have an adverse effect on traffic flows and highway safety. The associated highway alterations proposed are designed to address this, however it has not been adequately demonstrated that the scheme submitted would not have an adverse impact on traffic flow or highway safety, contrary to policy M29 of the Local Plan.