30 May 2007 Page APPLICATION REF

DARLINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

COMMITTEE DATE: 30 May 2007 Page

APPLICATION REF. NO: 07/00172/FUL

STATUTORY DECISION DATE: 13 April 2007

WARD/PARISH: HARROWGATE HILL

LOCATION: North Road Service Station, North Road, Darlington, DL1 3BH

DESCRIPTION: Erection of local convenience store with associated parking and servicing (amended plans received 9 March 2007 and additional information including Transport Statement received 02 April 2007)

APPLICANT: TESCO STORES LIMITED

APPLICATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site comprises a closed down petrol filling station on the eastern side of North Road near the junctions with Longfield Road and Bensham Road, approximately 3km North of the town centre. The area is predominantly residential in character. However, there is a range of commercial and retail uses providing local services, on North Road and the adjacent streets.

The former petrol filling station included a range of islands incorporating the petrol pumps within a forecourt and a forecourt canopy and kiosk. A car wash facility was also present on site.

The proposal involves the clearance of the site and the erection of a class A1 convenience store with a gross floor space of 349sqm [sales area 240sqm] housed within a single storey building constructed of red brown facing bricks and Eternite Composite slate roof tiles. The scheme also involves the provision of a service yard and marshalling area at the south east corner of the site behind the new building. There would be 14 parking spaces [including 2 for disabled use] and areas of landscaping. A delivery/service area is proposed at the North Road frontage, with provision made for cycle storage and a freestanding ATM kiosk.

The application was accompanied by a Design and Access Statement which Officers have considered.

PLANNING HISTORY The site has a long and varied planning history relating to its development as a petrol filling station with associated signage. The most relevant entry for this application is:

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE

06/00393/FUL - Redevelopment of existing site and erection of local convenience store with associated parking and servicing (amended plans received 03 August 2006) was REFUSED on 25 September 2006. Planning permission was refused for the following reasons:

The proposal is for retail development in an out-of-centre location and is not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan document strategy. As such, the applicants are required by PPS6 to demonstrate a need for the proposed additional floorspace. The applicants have failed to demonstrate such a need within the relevant catchment area, which is already well served with local convenience shops.

The main shop building by reason of its proximity to residential properties in Bensham road particularly No.101 would have an overbearing impact upon the residential amenity of these properties and would thereby conflict with Policy S16 Small Local Shops of the Borough of Darlington Local Plan 1997.

The main shop building by reason of its basic design and form and use of materials would result in an uncompromising box shape with a flat roof, that fails to protect or improve the building characteristics of the locality or respect local distinctiveness within the street scene, on a prominent site located on a main road. The development would thereby conflict with Policy E16 (Appearance from main travel routes) and E29 (The Setting of New Development).

PLANNING POLICY BACKGROUND

The site is without notation on the Local Plan Proposals Map, that is there are no specific policies or proposals for it. It lies outside any defined shopping centre. North Road is identified in the Local Plan as part of the main road network of the Borough.

The following general policies of the existing and emerging development plan are relevant to the application:

Regional Planning Guidance for the North East (RPG1, 2002): TC1 - Town Centres TC2 - Hierarchy of Centres TC3 - Function of Centres RD1 - Retail Development

Emerging Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East (Submission Draft, June 2005) 7 - Tees Valley City Region 25 - Urban and Rural Centres

Tees Valley Structure Plan (2004): TC3 - Hierarchy of Centres

Borough of Darlington Local Plan 1997 (with alterations 2001): E16 - Appearance from Main Travel Routes E29 - The Setting of New Development H15 - The Amenity of Residential Areas S10 - Safeguarding the District and Local Centres S1 - New Shopping Development S16 - Small Local Shops

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE

Government Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6, Planning for Town Centres, 2005) is a particularly relevant material consideration, superseding some of the above in important respects. PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development, 2005) is also relevant.

RESULTS OF CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY

521 letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:

• It is not in accordance with the development plan; the store is too big for an out of town development (PPS6); • There is no need for this development, the area is extremely well served with local convenience shops (PPS6); • Traffic levels and congestion will significantly increase, particularly on North Road, Bensham Road and Tesco Car Park. We have major problems already at peak times and a mini supermarket will only make it even more chaotic and dangerous. Tesco will promote their store in a two mile radius thus increase car use rather than people on foot, contradicting their statement of a walk to store. The car park will not be adequate, so the overspill will naturally park on North Road and Bensham, Road. Another hazard; • This is a residential area, no place for a mini supermarket too close to houses having an overbearing impact on the residential amenity of these properties and will conflict with Policy S16 of the Local Plan; • Quality of my daily life will be affected by increased traffic, noise and pollution; • Anti social behaviour will worsen, we are severely affected at present without the added attraction of a new store; • I buy from my local shop, many of whom have been established for years and I am extremely concerned that if a mini supermarket is built out of town my local shops will eventually go out of business. I don’t want to lose shops because of an aggressive national company; • National planning guidance PPS6 states that "to deliver the governments objective of promoting vital and viable town centres, development should be focused in existing centres in order to strengthen and, where appropriate, regenerate them". By approving construction of an out of town mini supermarket, Darlington Local Authority will be directly contravening this guidance and threatening the viability and vitality of Darlington town centre; • There is no need for anymore supermarkets of any type in Darlington at all; • In my opinion Tesco just want a foothold in Darlington and don’t care whereabouts it is; • The Leas, Bensham Road, Middleham Road will become a rat run; • The car park is totally inadequate for the store which will result in parking on North Road and surrounding streets; • North Road is already very busy and this development will cause traffic nuisance with both cars and delivery vehicles attempting to park, off load and re enter traffic; • The noise generated by service vehicles, particularly early morning and late evening will be a disturbance. Stores of this type are often 24 hours or at least 6am - 11pm; • North Road is already well served with stores on both corners, a butchers, a bakers within 2 minutes walk, corner shops on Mayfair Road and Bowman Street with two large supermarkets both less than 1 mile from this location; • There are three convenience stores on North Road in the immediate vicinity (Mayfair Road, Longfield Road and Lowson Street). Two of those stores already have ATM access. Wityhin walking distance there is already a newsagents, butchers, two fast food takeaways, post office, chemist and bakery;

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE

• When the site was a garage it caused several accidents and many near misses. Any increase traffic will cause major problems with overflow parking on the kerbside, affecting both pedestrians and residents; • Excessive signage and light pollution could be a serious intrusion into nearby properties. Lights from vehicles entering and leaving the car park would shine straight into nearby houses; • Increased litter. We already have a problem with youths, many are intoxicated and noisy. We feel this problem will escalate; • We are concerned that if the plans go through there could be a future application for extending opening hours; • The Council should show some loyalty to existing small shopkeepers who have supported Darlington for many years through their rates and council tax. I feel it would be detrimental to the present varied amenities of Harrowgate Hill if any of these existing businesses were to close; • We will get a lot of noise in the Spring and Summer when we sit out in our back gardens (89 Bensham Road); • We will get a lot of noise from deliveries going in and out at all times of the night; • Tesco must prove that the development cannot be built in the town centre "The Sequential Approach - PPS6". I would like to know how Tesco can deny this cannot be put in the town centre as there are numerous sites vacant and their need greater; • A convenience store outside the town centre must be no more than 100 sqm outside the town centre and this is 2 ½ times larger so must be categorized as a mini supermarket; • The Local Plan states this permitted size; • Tesco says there is a need due to Harrowgate Farm. Originally there was provision set a side for a convenience store of 100 sqm on that location, if it were required. On completion of Harrowgate Farm there is no store, so there wasn’t a need for it; • The proposed shop is too large for an out of town development and thereby conflicts with the Council’s development plan. This sort of mini supermarket is only suitable for town centre and city centres; • A more suitable use would be a green space; • The site is more appropriate for affordable housing which appears also to be Tescos third choice of planning application if this one is refused; • This plan has an overbearing impact on the Vicarage and doesn’t fit with the residential area; • Please check what happened in Cardiff with this company. Adverse effects for all concerned and alleged breaches of planning consents; • Tesco are demonstrating an aggressive attitude towards the areas present businesses; • Tesco bought the site following the first refusal of an application, apparently for them and are pressing ahead with another application for the same site. It appears that Tesco are neither respectful of all the Planning Committees reasons for the last refusal nor the present businesses in the area, nor the needs of local residents; • This residential area is inappropriate to attract customers to for 16 hours per day minimum from a two mile radius (which Tescos will deliver promotional leaflets to this area); • The scale of the development is inappropriate for this location being much larger than shops within converted houses which has been the norm for over 150 years in Harrowgate Hill and therefore it does not fit within surrounding area of residential properties or shops themselves; • St Mark Vicarage and Church Hall will be adversely affected by this proposal in terms of noise, views from windows and delivery lorries being adjacent their property. Likewise the properties of Bensham Road would be subjected to traffic noise trolley bay noise, noise from

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE

people frequenting the ATM, from the car park and from 3 condensers and air conditioning units running day and night so close to their properties; • Tesco say they are aiming this store at Harrowgate Farm Estate which is not on a bus route to the Tesco site and not within a reasonable distance to travel on foot, being extremely outside the 400m policy. The proposed development encourages travel by car which is not in line with Policy T2 - minimise day to day travel needs; • The weekday traffic flow expected of 1000+ per day in and out plus deliveries and staff will create a traffic nuisance both on the highways and across the footway creating hazardous areas; • The site is a former petrol filling station whose ground is permanently permeated with and leaking petrol fumes. It can never be a fit site for a food store or flats; • Following the submission of the amended plans the gross floorspace has increased to 349 sqm. This is clearly oversized for this area. I also feel that this increase should not be notified at such a late stage and along with the transport statement. It should be clear to all residents; • Six deliveries per day and traffic from the perceived catchment area will impact adversely on North Road’s already congested traffic at rush hour times especially. The swept path of incoming and outgoing vehicles will cause hazards and congestion; • Tesco are contradicting their original statement of 500m catchment area along with a walking distance originally 500m. They quote that they plan to have a 1km walking catchment area not in line with local policy. This would take in Whessoe Road, Springfield, edge of Whinfield and nearby to Morrisons. Surely not practicable either; • Tesco are stating "Many will choose to arrive by car". They are only allowing 14 parking spaces. Minimum 17 would normally be required in Local Transport Plan and thus vehicles would be parked on the street along with staff vehicles • Bus services quoted 13, 13B 15, 15A, 15B 23, 23A, 5,5A, 91A, 213, 723, X60, X61. Only 23 is in town service, others include Spennymoor, Bishop Auckland, Sunderland, Durham, Scarborough and some no longer run; • The No 26 from Harrowgate Hill does not travel near the proposed site of Tesco, but mention was made to serve Harrowgate Farm; • Site lighting would need to be an agreed level rather than a future application; • Opening hours and servicing hours would not be appropriate adjacent to St Marks Church & Vicarage;. • The car park by its design means it will be at a 90 degrees angle to the store, users will have to reverse in and out of the parking bays and then attempt to enter the North Road, negotiate incoming traffic as well as crossing over a very busy pedestrian footway. This will be extremely dangerous especially for pedestrians and the pre school nursery children adjacent to the store which frequent this daily; • According to the Transport Statement the car park will not just be for cars but also their service lorries of which are 14.4m in length and deliver at least twice a day. A lorry of that size will not be able to negotiate such an acute angle even if the car park was empty. It would also have to cross a busy pavement to access and exit the site which is not safe or viable; • The car park should have at least 25 spaces for its size and so the suggestion of just 14 is extremely inadequate; • The junction at Bensham Road adjacent to the car park will be another hazardous area. Traffic exiting Bensham Road and turning off left onto North Road and traffic turning right out of a busy car park will be highly dangerous because of the blind spot that might occur from the exit of Bensham Road. This area is already extremely congested at certain times of

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE

the day and with the added congestion and associated dangers to cyclists and pedestrians, this development will prove unsafe for everyone; • In their Statement, their boundary appears to have increased well beyond Harrowgate Hill, the catchment area. It now covers Springfield, Whessoe Road and North Road nearer Morrisons and Asda. This is contravening Policy PPS6; • They claim it will be a walk to store and it wont alter the free flow of traffic, but in another paragraph they expect it to have in excess of 500 traffic movements to it daily; • Its just in the wrong place and will close the other shops in two years; • £2 million will not be going back into the local community but only to make the Tescos empire even more powerful;

A petition containing 754 signatories has been submitted raising the following objections:

• The proposal is not in accordance with the development plan PPS6 being too large for out of town development; • There is no need for another store in this area. PPS6. The area is extremely well served with convenience shops, newsagents, bakers, butchers, sandwich shops, confectionery, stationery, off licenses and motor shops. Council policies are in place to protect these present businesses and jobs from this type of application; • It is felt the building will have an overbearing impact on the residential area. Policy S16 of the Plan; • Anti social behaviour will worsen, we are severely affected at present without the added attraction of a new store; • The site is inappropriate. Traffic both entering and leaving the petrol station had become a nuisance and danger to road users and especially to pedestrians of all ages. More vehicles at Tesco Express site would be envisaged and thus the dangers would also increase as well as overspill parking on North Road another hazard; • Tesco will provide a 24 hour cash machine another nuisance for residents especially at night with traffic and noise disturbance; • Tesco are demonstrating an aggressive attitude towards the areas present businesses in that Tesco purchased the site following refusal to the first application, apparently for them, and are pressing ahead with another application of the same site. It appears that Tesco are neither respectful of all the Planning Committees reasons for the last refusal, nor present businesses in the area, nor the needs of local residents; • It is imperative that this application is refused for the valid considerations and also the awareness that an inappropriate approval of this application would set an unfortunate precedent and possibly lead to a flood of applications from the same company for other badly chosen sites in Darlington.

A petition containing 100 signatories has been received raising objections on the following grounds:

• Traffic; • Parking; • Need and Suitability • Local Shopping

Campaign to Protect Rural England have objected to the proposed development, raising the following concerns:

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE

• There are already a number of convenience stores in the area, one large one only a short distance away. To permit another will be severely detrimental to the amenity and vitality of the area as they will be in direct competition and reduce the viability of the existing businesses to the detriment of the area; • The applicants see the development being a "positive contribution to meeting the local needs of nearby residents" due to the ... limited range and choice of convenience goods provision current on offer. However, they state "given the small scale nature of the proposal which will limit the range of goods that can be carried to essential day to day food requirements". If the proposed shop is to have a limited range of goods we do not see how it will offer anything additional or not already available to residents; • The large supermarkets have a reputation of pricing aggressively items available from local independent shops until those shops go out of business at which time prices go back up. The threat to local businesses must not be underestimated, as it is local independent businesses, which give an area its vitality and provide a service to the locality. Whilst not a formal secondary shopping area this area of North Road is serviced by a number of shops and this choice should remain; • If permitted there must be clear conditioning to ensure that Tescos do not turn into a 24 hour business. This is a residential area and the to-ing and fro-ing of vehicles will be detrimental to the amenity of the area. The previous petrol filling garage had limited hours and this new operation, if permitted, should not be permitted to have any opening hours any earlier or later than the garage had; • It is noted there are 15 car parking spaces. This would indicate an expected clientele from further a field than local people walking in for convenience items. We do not consider this locality to be suitable for this type of development; • Also with regard to the car parking spaces it is noted they are to the rear of the site and where they are most likely to cause nuisance to the residents in the locality due to car doors banging etc.

Twenty standard letters of objection have been received with no addresses raising the same objections as above.

Ten letters of support have been submitted raising the following comments:

• The building is sympathetically designed and will enhance the look of North Road. The site is currently an eyesore; • We need some competition in this part of the town; • It will offer better quality goods at more competitive prices. The only reason local shop owners are opposed is because of job security. Why should this stand in the way of developing the area? • It would give the site greater security and create employment for local people; • A tesco mini market would be of enormous benefit to the local residents of Harrowgate Hill • Although there are nearby shops, they are expensive, have limited ranges and the produce is not as fresh as larger chains; • A lot of people in Harrowgate Hill use either Morrisons or Asda as corner shops, visiting them numerous times a week to buy goods. Both of these shops are over one mile from Harrowgate Hill and therefore people have to travel to them by cars or face a long walk. A nearby Tesco would considerably reduce the number of car journeys to these other supermarkets which would be in line with the Council’s policies on cutting back carbon emissions;

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE

• I would like to see Tesco open here. It will create jobs and provide a good service for local residents. Expansion and growth is the way forward; • Harrowgate Hill has been built on extensively over the past twenty years but very little has been done to upgrade the infrastructure of the area. People in this area need services in line with the rest of the town; • A vocal minority of people (egged on by local shopkeepers) should not sway the Council from supporting the silent majority.

The applicant has distributed 9,500 brochures in the area requesting opinions on the proposal from local residents. Whilst the applicant has not stated how many responded, 60% of those that did were in favour of the development and 57% stated that they would walk to the store.

PLANNING ISSUES

The main planning issues to be addressed are: -

• Planning Policy • Design and Character • Residential amenity • Highway Matters • Other Issues

Planning Policy

PREVIOUS REASON FOR REFUSAL: The proposal is for retail development in an out-of- centre location and is not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan document strategy. As such, the applicants are required by PPS6 to demonstrate a need for the proposed additional floorspace. The applicants have failed to demonstrate such a need within the relevant catchment area, which is already well served with local convenience shops.

The conclusion of the Officer report relating to the previous submission stated:

The proposed store exceeds the size of shop which would be permitted by Local Plan Policy S16 but nevertheless appears to be of a scale, and nature, appropriate to serve a local residential population without unacceptable impact on existing centres. There are no sequentially- preferable locations for the development and the site is accessible by a choice of means of transport. There is, however, no qualitative need for the proposal given existing convenience provision in the immediate area. Retail planning considerations are therefore balanced. If other material considerations were absent then this would favour the granting of planning permission, subject to a condition restricting its use to that of a convenience store and no other use within class A1. However, if other material considerations arise, such as residential amenity and design, which raise significant concerns, as is the case here, then the absence of a need for the proposal would weigh against it.

The development proposal is for a Tesco Express. In a recent publicity brochure for this form of convenience store the applicant states that the store would cater for “goods ranging from fresh produce, chilled foods, and other groceries, as well as snacks and ready meals, a range of soft drinks, wines, beers, and spirits and other useful items”.

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE

The gross floor area of the building would be 349 sqm (3,756 sq.ft) with the sales area consisting of 240sqm (285 sq ft). The remaining 109 sqm (1,173 sq.ft) would be used for storage, offices etc.

The policies of the development plan and PPS6 establish an emphatic preference for existing shopping centres as the location for new retail development. In Darlington, this means the town centre and the six defined district and local centres. The objective is to promote the vitality and viability of the centres by focusing within them development of an appropriate scale, thus encouraging a wide range of services in a good environment, accessible to all.

The policies of the Local Plan make provision for certain forms of retail development outside existing centres, including through Policy S16 the development of small shops to serve the needs of local residents:

Local shops of up to 100sqm gross floorspace … will be permitted in or adjoining the residential areas provided that there will be no material adverse effect on residential amenities or on highway safety

The Local Plan explains that local shops are those which meet the everyday needs of residents living within a walking distance of 400m. This primarily means convenience shops. The floorspace threshold of Policy S16 is clearly smaller than the 349sqm currently proposed.

PPS6 also recognises the need to protect and promote local shops and services but its emphasis is on locating them within centres, either existing or proposed. To be considered acceptable, applicants putting forward retail proposals in an out-of-centre location are required to demonstrate:

• the need for the development; • that it is of an appropriate scale; • that there are no more central sites for it; • that there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres; and • that the location is accessible.

The applicants have addressed these issues in a supporting statement. In respect of need:

• Officers agree that there is sufficient surplus expenditure capacity (quantitative need) within the Borough as a whole to support the amount of convenience floorspace proposed. However, officers do not agree that there is evidence of quantitative need in this particular part of the town. • Officers similarly do not agree with the applicants’ claim that there is a qualitative need in this area. Local residents do not “have to travel to a different location to obtain a genuine choice of top-up convenience goods” or suffer from a noticeable “lack of competition between traders” or a “limited range and choice”. To the contrary, this part of Harrowgate Hill is quite well-off for convenience shops, there being no fewer than six within 400m of the application site: two confectioners/newsagents/tobacconists, a butchers, a bakers and two general convenience shops. The latter (a Premier and a Co-op) are just 80m and 140m from the site and serve the same walk-in population that the proposed store would. Individually, the six shops are smaller than the proposed store (the largest is the Co-op, at about 80% of the size of the proposal) but together they appear to offer the product range that the

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE

convenience store would be likely to. Moreover, the number and variety of the existing shops offers a competitive choice between traders for most if not all available products.

In terms of scale , notwithstanding Local Plan Policy S16, officers agree with the applicants that convenience stores up to the size proposed are now accepted to be appropriate to serve a local catchment population.

In terms of alternative, more central sites, officers agree that if there were a need for a convenience store to serve the walk-in catchment population of this part of Harrowgate Hill then a site in one of the existing defined centres would not be preferable to that proposed. The nearest centres, at 1.2km to the south (North Road district centre) and 1.6km to the east (Whinfield local centre), are both beyond reasonable walking distance.

These distances, together with the nature and scale of the proposal, mean that there would be unlikely to be any unacceptable impacts from the development on existing centres.

Officers also agree with the applicants that the proposal would be accessible by a choice of means of transport, including walking, cycling and bus and would be unlikely to have a significantly detrimental impact on car use, traffic or congestion.

The proposal is contrary to the letter of the development plan in that the store would exceed the size of local shop permitted by Local Plan Policy S16. It also fails to fully satisfy the requirements of up-to-date national planning policy in PPS6 in that there is no demonstrable need, either quantitatively or qualitatively, for the proposed additional convenience goods floorspace in this part of Darlington.

On the other hand, there are grounds for considering the threshold size for a local shop in Policy S16 to be now outdated and that a proposal of this scale, and nature, would not, in principle, be inappropriate to serve the day-to-day shopping needs of residents. It would also meet some other requirements of PPS6 in that it would not have an unacceptable impact on existing district or local centres within the Borough, there are no sequentially-preferable locations for the development and the site is accessible by a choice of means of transport.

Retail planning considerations are therefore in balance. Given the relatively modest scale of the proposals officers do not consider that a refusal of planning permission solely on the grounds of lack of retail need could be defended.

To ensure that the character of the store does not change in an unacceptable way any permission should be subject to a condition restricting the use to that of a primarily-convenience goods store and no other use within use class A1.

Design and Character

PREVIOUS REASON FOR REFUSAL: The main shop building by reason of it’s basic design and form and use of materials would result in an uncompromising box shape with a flat roof, that fails to protect or improve the building characteristics of the locality or respect local distinctiveness within the street scene, on a prominent site located on a main road. The development would thereby conflict with Policy E16 (Appearance from main travel routes) and E29 (The Setting of New Development).

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE

Policy E16 of the Local Plan (Appearance From Main Travel Routes) aims to preserve the appearance, character and settings of sites which are visible from the Borough Main Travel Routes. Policy E29 (The Setting of New Development) requires new buildings to respect the intrinsic character of its townscape settings in terms of siting, design, materials and landscaping.

The previous submission was for a single storey flat roofed building constructed from cladding panels. The entrance to the building was from the side and it had no elevational features of interest.

The proposed building is 349 square metres and single storey in height (maximum height 5.5m). The north, south and west elevations of the building would be constructed from red/brown facing bricks with soldier coursing above the window openings. The east elevation, which is the elevation facing the service yard would consist of panelwork painted white. The roof would be hipped and consist of Eterntite Composite roof slates. The front elevation contains three glazed panels, including the entrance. The entrance would be positioned under a gable roof.

The site would be enclosed on all sides except at the points of exit and entry. The existing low wall on the North Road frontage would be retained and extended. Retaining walls with close boarded fencing on top would enclose the site on the east, south and north boundaries. There would be areas of soft landscaping within the site.

The building is of traditional construction with detailing and materials, which reflect the characteristics of the surrounding area. It would sit comfortably within the street scene and would not be out of character with the existing properties in the area. The overall development would be a visual improvement on the buildings, which formed the previous garage use.

If planning permission is granted, suitable conditions would be attached in relation the materials and means of enclosure.

The proposed development, in visual and design terms has been greatly improved from the previous submission and it would not have a detrimental impact upon the visual appearance and character of the surrounding area. The development would comply with policies E16 and E29. This is an opportunity to bring a prominent site, which is becoming vandalised back into use, subject to it being deemed acceptable in terms of residential amenity and highway safety.

Residential Amenity

PREVIOUS REASON FOR REFUSAL: The main shop building by reason of it’s proximity to residential properties in Bensham road particularly No.101 would have an overbearing impact upon the residential amenity of these properties and would thereby conflict with Policy S16 Small Local Shops of the Borough of Darlington Local Plan 1997.

Policy S16 (Small Local Shops) permits extensions to small shops in residential areas provided that there will be no adverse impact on residential amenity.

The store has been resited to the southern end of the application site with the car parking area to the north. At the rear of the store (east) lies the service yard and plant area. The plant area contains condenser units and air conditioning units. A landscaped buffer zone separates the plant area from the rear gardens of the dwellings on Bensham Road. A freestanding ATM kiosk would be situated to the east of the site, with a landscaping strip between the kiosk and the

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE

boundary line with dwellings on Bensham Road. The boundary of the site consists of close boarded fencing above existing brick walls.

The opening hours for the store would be 0700 – 2300 Mondays to Sundays and the delivery times, which occur to the front of the site, would occur between the hours of 0800 – 1800 Monday to Sunday.

Officers had concerns with the previous submission due to the close proximity of the building to dwellings on Bensham Road, in particular No 101. as it has a shallow rear garden area. The proposed building is single storey with a hipped roof, and has been repositioned within the site. The building would now be approximately 14m away from the rear elevation of No 101 Bensham Road and the drop in ground level of approximately 1m would also help to minimise its impact on this dwelling. The separation distances between the building and the other dwellings increases further along Bensham Road.

The applicant has submitted technical information on the air condensing and conditioning units to support the application. The Council’s Public Protection Unit are satisfied with the noise levels. The loudest unit would not be running on an evening and the noise specifications for the equipment that runs at night are very low and are expected to be below background noise levels. A 2.1m high wall with fencing above which forms the service yard boundary and the proposed landscape buffer would screen the equipment from the properties to the rear.

Bearing in mind the distance between the proposal and those residential properties on North Road [26m] it is not considered therefore that this proposal would present any significant additional threats to the amenity of these properties in terms of noise nuisance and disturbance.

There is a Church Hall and a dwelling (394 North Road) to the south of the site. It is considered that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact upon these buildings. A 2.1 close boarded fence forms the boundary for this part of the site and a service corridor separates the store boundary line. A lean-to canopy covers part of the service corridor to protect the delivery people when entering a side delivery door. A first floor window in the side elevation of No 394 overlooks the site but the impact of the development would not cause material harm to the outlook.

A further consideration is whether or not the proposed development would have more of an adverse impact on amenities of the surrounding residential dwellings than its previous use in terms of noise, disturbance and visual appearance. Until fairly recently the existing site has functioned as a busy petrol filling station, and has done for several years. A search of the planning history for the site indicates that the authorised hours of operation for the garage was 0700 – 2300 Monday to Saturday and 0800 – 2200 on Sundays. The difference in the hours of operation is not considered too significant and the Public Protection Unit have raised no objections to the proposed hours.

The revised building would not be an eyesore when viewed from the nearby dwellings and its distance from the properties would minimise any impacts even further. The site would be enclosed and landscaped to reduce its impact and the noise levels from the associated plant are considered acceptable.

Any advertisements on the building would be the subject of separate applications for advertisement consent, which would be considered on their own merits. The remainder of the site is also not the subject of any lighting at this time.

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE

Highway Matters No objections were raised to the previous submission on highway grounds.

A Transport Statement (TS) was submitted by the applicant to support the application as required by Guidance on Transport Assessment (GTA) (March 2007)

North Road (A167) is a single carriage way, two way distributor road which carries traffic between the northern and central areas of Darlington. There are no restrictions on either waiting or loading in the vicinity of the site.

The garage previously had three accesses. The central access would be closed and the footway made good.

The car park would provide 14 car parking spaces, which would be accessed by the existing northern access point. Two of the spaces would be used exclusively by drivers with disabilities. The proposed layout of the development incorporates four secure cycle parking spaces.

The applicant states in the TS that generally stores of this type are serviced by one or two medium sized rigid or articulated vehicles (10.3m to 14.25m in length) a day and by 3 or 4 smaller vehicles delivering milk and newspapers etc.

The TS continues that servicing would take place clear of the highway in a reserved area to the front of the store. Vehicles would be able to enter and leave in forward gear using the existing southern and northern access points. The southern access would be modified to accommodate the swept path of the largest vehicle likely to visit the site. Access to the car park and the raised pedestrian walkway during unloading would not be obstructed. Service vehicles would arrive from the north and depart to the south.

The TS concludes that a large proportion of customers would visit the site by foot, sufficient car parking would be made available to ensure off street car parking is minimised and in overall terms the development would have a neutral impact upon the highway network.

The Council’s Highways Engineer has inspected the application and the accompanying TS and commented as follows:

The parking requirement, as determined by standards in the Local Plan, would be 17 no. spaces. Only 14 spaces are provided. However, the standards are expressed as a maxima and where the site is well served by public transport and is easily accessible by foot and by cycle it is acceptable for the standards to be reduced.

For a store of this size it would be anticipated that daily trips would be no more than 140 trips per 100sq.m. The daily trips would therefore be of the order of 500 with 50 of these occurring in the evening peak hour. The weekday traffic flows on North Road are of the order of 24,000. The flow from the development would therefore represent only 2% of the traffic on North Road. This would not be significant. It must also be borne in mind that the existing garage use on the site would have generated traffic, the actual impact of the development would therefore be reduced further if only journeys new to the network were to be considered.

The proposal provides for a dedicated in-curtilage servicing area. Larger service vehicles can only use this area by entering from the south and exiting to the north. The highway network in

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE the vicinity of the site should be able to accommodate this and it would be difficult to use this as a reason for refusal. In most circumstances for smaller servicing vehicles it will be useful to have a dedicated servicing provision.

The configuration of the service access requires the footway to be reduced to a width of 1.5m. on the frontage to the site. This is not acceptable, in such a location a minimum footway width of 2m. is recommended (Manual for Streets - 6.3.22). Dropped crossings/tactile paving would also be required at all crossing points. In addition a condition would be required for reinstatement in normal footway construction for all existing redundant crossings on North Road and Bensham Road.

The Highways Engineer accepts the conclusions of the TS that the proposal will have no more than a neutral impact on the highway network and would raise no highway objection to the proposal.

He would however request that conditions are included in relation to footway width on the frontage to the site, provision of dropped crossings/tactile paving, reinstatement of redundant accesses on North Road and Bensham Road, and provision of secure covered cycle parking.

The Transport Policy Officer has also requested the imposition of a condition relating to the provision of secure cycle parking near to the entrance of the site

Other Issues Reports have been submitted with the application relating to the treatment of existing underground petrol storage tanks and a Geo Environmental Assessment at the site. Whilst the Environmental Health Officer has raised some issues regarding the need for additional information, it is considered that should a favourable recommendation be made, these issues could have been satisfactorily resolved by appropriate conditions.

SECTION 17 OF THE CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998

The proposed development has been considered in the context of the requirements placed on the Council by Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, namely, the duty on the Council to exercise its functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area. The proposed development does not give rise to crime and disorder issues.

CONCLUSION

The concerns raised by the objectors and the comments raised by those in favour have been taken into consideration. There has been a previous refusal for a store on this site and it is important to consider whether the reasons for refusal have been taken into consideration by the applicant and overcome.

In policy terms, the applicant has not produced sufficient evidence to show that there is a need for a further convenience store in this location. However, Officers have previously stated that if other material considerations were absent then this would favour the granting of planning permission, subject to a condition restricting its use to that of a convenience store and no other use within class A1. However, if other material considerations arise, such as residential amenity and design, which raise significant concerns, then the absence of a need for the proposal would weigh against it.

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE

Other material considerations have been taken into account by Officers and the design and layout of the development accords with the relevant policies in the development plan. The development respects the amenity and general character of the area. The application is not considered to raise any issues in relation to car parking provision, highway safety or crime prevention. In these circumstances, the proposed development is considered acceptable in this location.

RECOMMENDATION

PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1) A3 Implementation Limit (Three Years)

2) B4 Details of Materials (Samples)

3) J2 Contamination

4) The approved building shall be used solely as a convenience store and for no other purpose, including other A1 use, within the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) or any other order revoking or re-enacting that Order. The net sales area of the store given over to the sale of comparison goods shall at no time exceed 36sqm (equivalent to 15% of the net sales area). Comparison goods are items which are not obtained on a day-to-day basis and include clothing, footwear, books, stationery, toys, games, handbags, luggage, musical and video recordings, sports goods, jewellery, perfume, cosmetics, toiletries, furnishings, carpets, electrical goods, DIY, hardware, gardening items and seasonal goods.

REASON - To ensure that the retail character of the unit does not change from one which is predominantly a convenience store, in order to safeguard the vitality and viability of existing centres within the Borough.

5) The store shall not open outside of the hours of 0700 – 2300 Mondays to Sundays.

REASON - In the interests of the residential amenities of the neighbouring dwellings.

6) No deliveries shall occur outside the hours of 0800 – 1800 Mondays to Sundays.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety and to protect the residential; amenities of the neighbouring dwellings.

7) Notwithstanding the details submitted with the application, a scheme and schedule for the removal of the existing fuel tanks shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved details.

REASON - In the interests of environmental safety.

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE

8) No demolition or construction activities shall occur on the site outside the hours of 0730 – 1800 Mondays to Fridays, 0800 – 1400 Saturday and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays

REASON - In the interests of the residential amenities of the neighbouring dwellings.

9) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, details of the cycle parking provision shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved details.

REASON - In order to ensure sufficient and safe cycle parking arrangements are provided.

10) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development;

Footways; Dropped crossings/tactile paving at crossing points; Scheme for the reinstatement of redundant vehicular accesses to footways

The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details.

REASON - In the interests of highway safety.

11) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, precise details of the ventilation and air conditioning units shall be submitted to an approved, in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved plans.

REASON - In the interests of the residential amenity of the neighbouring dwellings.

12) E2 Landscaping (Submission)

13) No external lighting on the building or within the application site shall be erected without prior approval first being obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

REASON - In the interests of the residential amenity of the neighbouring dwellings.

14) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, details of the proposed means of enclosure shall be submitted to approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON - In the interests of the visual amenity of the surrounding area and to protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring dwellings.

15) B5 Detailed Drawings (Accordance with Plan)

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE

SUGGESTED SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

Regional Planning Guidance for the North East (RPG1, 2002): TC1 - Town Centres TC2 - Hierarchy of Centres TC3 - Function of Centres RD1 - Retail Development

Emerging Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East (Submission Draft, June 2005) 7 - Tees Valley City Region 25 - Urban and Rural Centres

Tees Valley Structure Plan (2004): TC3 - Hierarchy of Centres

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO 07/00172/FUL PAGE

INFORMATIVES

The applicant is advised that works are required within the public highway, to construct nee crossings and reinstate redundant crossings, and contact must be made with the Highways Manager (contact Mr A Ward 01325 388743) to arrange for the works to be carried out or to obtain authority under Sec.184 of the Highways Act 1980 to execute the works.

The applicant is advised that contact must be made with the Highways Manager (contact Ms P Goodwill 01325 388760) in relation to naming and numbering of the property.