TURLEY. 115 George Street Edinburgh EH2 4JN 4Ih September 2012 T:0131 240 5440 F: 01 31 240 5441 Delivered by Email
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TURLEY. 115 George Street Edinburgh EH2 4JN 4Ih September 2012 T:0131 240 5440 F: 01 31 240 5441 Delivered by Email www.turleyassocSates.co.uk Susan Mitchell Corporate Services Our ref: SAIE2030 North Lanarkshire Council Your ref 11/01231/FUL Civic Centre E: [email protected] Windmillhill Street Motherwell MLI IAB Dear Susan, PLANNING APPLICATION 11/01231/FUL - ERECTION OF A SUPERMARKET (CLASS 1) (8,948 SQM), PETROL FILLING STATION, CAR PARKING, ACCESS, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS - FORMER FIRST BUS DEPOT -TINKERS LANE - HAMILTON ROAD - AIRBLES ROAD - MOTHERWELL We write on behalf of the applicants, BDW Trading Ltd (T/A Barratt Homes West Scotland) and Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd, on the above application. In your letter, dated 23' August 2012 (received on 28'h August 2012), you outline that the application will be heard at a meeting of North Lanarkshire Council on 12" September 2012 and request to be informed of whether we would intend speaking at the 'Planning Hearings Committee' (PHC) and if any final submission will be lodged to the application. Hearing Pres8 n ta t ion We wish to inform you that BDW Trading and Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd wish to appear and present their case at the PHC. The people that will present on the day are: Paul Miller, Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd (National Development Surveyor) Jeff Wilson, Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd (Town Planning Team Lead - Scotland) Stuart Dodson, BDW Trading / Barratt Homes (Development Director) Final Submission: Committee Paper Response In relation to the Planning Committee Report (PCR), produced by the Council's Executive Director of Environmental Services (EDES), we would like to take this opportunity to provide our observations on the report and respond to matters of planning policy or points of fact / omission that should be brought to the attention of the PHC and Full Council, who will be making the final decision on the application. BELFAST 1 BIRMINGHAM 1 BRISTOL 1 CARDIFF I EDINBURGH I GLASGOW I LEEDS 1 LONDON I MANCHESTER 1 SOUTHAMPTON Turley Assodales Limited is registered in England, No. 2235387. Registered office: 1 New York Street, Manchesler M1 4HD 2 Planning Policy A significant proportion of the PCR is based around assessing the application against the key Development Plan Policies and related Material Considerations with a conclusion thereafter on the acceptability of the proposal. Table 1 below provides an overview of the EDES’s position on the compliance of the proposal against Development Plan Policies, with Table 2 doing likewise with regard to Material Considerations. Diagram 3 - ‘Spatial Development Strategy - and indicative compatible development’ Diagram 4 - ‘Sustainable Location .) Site Designation (Commercial Uses) ( RTL 9) YES Residential AmenitylNoise (HSG 7) YES Contaminated Land (ENV 4) YES Vacant and Derelict Land (ENV 3) YES Biodiversity (ENV 13) YES Public Art (ENV 22) YES Transport 8 Accessibility (TR13) YES Ravenscraig Access Improvements (TR6) YES Retail Development (RTL 1) - Assessing Retail Development (RTL 4) YES (Points 4,5,6&7) NO (Points 182) Town Centre Areas (RTL 5) - TURLEYbA IATES 3 Residential Amenity (HCF1A) YES Amount of Development (DSP 1) NO Location of Development (DSP 2) YES (Points 1,3&4) NO (Point 6) Impact of Development (DSP 3) YES Quality of Development (DSP 4) YES North Lanarkshire Centre Network (RTC 1) * Promoting Town Centre Action (RTC 2) - Assessing Retail Development (RTC 3) YES (Point 1) Retail (Sequential Approach) YES Retail (Impact on V&V of Town Centre) NO Retail (Qualitative and Quantitative NO Deficiencies) Retail (Other DP Objectives) NO Community Engagement ? Economic Development ? Sustainable Development ? Design and Visual Impact YES Transport and Access YES Noise YES Air Quality YES Ecology YES Consultations YES The above table shows, in the EDES’s opinion, that the proposal adheres to all relevant policies within the Development Plan, with one noted exception in the EDES’s opinion, that being Policy RTL 4 - Points 1&2 (SALP). With regard to SPP, the EDES, in our opinion, has failed to highlight the support to proposals that assist in meeting the principles of ‘Economic Development‘ and has also failed to report fully on the community consultation report lodged with the application. This report showed, of TURLEYASS 4 those attending the public exhibition, 90% supported the need for a new supermarket in Motherwell, with the same level of support (90%) for it being on the application site. The EDES is recommending that Members set aside the fact the proposal complies with all relevant policies and material considerations because, in their opinion, it does not meet (1&2) of Policy RTL 4. Table 3 below outlines the key reasons why the EDES recommends refusal of the application, together with a response as to why we consider refusal is not justified. Table 3: EDES Refusal Reasoni Recommendation Response 1. That there is no knowr The Development Plan (nor DSPI of the FNLLP) has demandheed not been informed by any detailed or recenl demandheed retail assessment. In order to identify whether demand or need exists, it is therefore necessary to consider the submitted RIA. In responding to the SDP’s Diagram 4 we would note the Scottish Government Reporter’s comment at the examination stage. That being: ’In cases where retail or commercial leisure development is contrary to the development plan, the proposal should “help to meet qualitative and quantitative deficiencies Identified in the development plan” (paragraph 64); in other words, there is no mention of “need” (Page 15 - Point 9 of the Scottish Government’s ‘Strategic Development Plan Examination’] March 2012). The proposed Sainsbury’s has shown that it will “help” meet qualitative and quantitative deficiencies. The Sainsbury’s RIA has identified deficiencies (demandlneed) within the local catchment. The primary catchment (2015) alone has a demandheed of: 0 Convenience: f17.54 million 0 Comparison: f151.98 million Total: f169.52 million As part of the demandheed assessment it is 5 important to look into the detail, in particular deficiencies in the form of ‘overtrading’ within the existing supermarkets. Asda in Motherwell, for example, is trading (‘Actual’ Turnover) some €14.82 million above the identified ‘benchmark’. This is a form of deficiency and an indicator of lack of choice and competition in the town. The ‘actual’ turnover figures in the Sainsbury’s model are not altered by “professional judgement” (as suggested within the PCR) but derived from an independent household survey, which asked local people where they shop. The ‘actual’ turnover figures therefore provide the most robust picture of local trading conditions. The proposal is supported by expenditure in the primary catchment. The reason being that it: addresses retail leakage, reduces ‘overtrading’ within catchment supermarkets, and does not have a significant adverse impact on any identified town centre. There are clear qualitative deficiencies in the lack of main food choice. This is proven in ‘overtrading’ levels identified at Asda and public consultation feedback where the need for a new supermarket in Motherwell dominated responses. Comments regarding qualitative provision included: ‘A better qualify of product and will create competition for ASDA’ ‘We, at present, only have one supermarket - no choicel’ ‘Currently very limited/poor shopping facilities in fhe town and my spend here Is very low’ ‘Because if will save me travelling to Hamilton‘ TU RLEYAS S s 6 2. The proposal represents ai - A retail proposal cannot be deemed unsustainablf unsustainable location as i simply because it is outwith the existing town centre does not fall within the networl boundary. The related policy tests on this subject is of centres and therefore doe! the sequential approach (ie. RTL 4 (3)) anc not follow the Spatia accessibility to public transport (ie. RTL 4 (4)) Development Strategy. Indeed, in the report the site is noted as having gooc transport links, including public transport (see para 8.11). - The EDES has accepted that the proposal meets planning policy with regard to the sequential approach. 3. That Motherwell Towr - The EDES on numerous occasions notes the lack oi Centre is considered to bc historic Town Centre Health Check (TCHC] fragile and of a lower standinf comparison with that undertaken in the RIA. It is than that reported in the agreed this would have been a useful exercise, Sainsbury’s RIA. however, the Council has not undertaken such an exercise. It is therefore impossible to make such a comparison. - The lack of historical information does not, however, prevent the Council from making a judgement on the I health of the town centre today. Again, no such analysis has been undertaken by the Council. We believe that our TCHC shows the centre to be robust. This is supported by comments made by the owners of the Brandon Shopping Centre to Councillors on the 2gm August 2012, which stated: It is this sort ofjoined up thinking which has enabled us to create increased footfall, more shops, more jobs and the ingredients for economic Growth in Motherwell Town Centre. We are bucking the trend in Motherwell &utcannot rest on our laurels. - The reporting on the health of Motherwell Town Centre has failed to acknowledge the significant recent investment in the town centre, including the occupation of the remaining vacant unit at the former Asda and the announcement that Aldi is to locate on TURLEY 7 the former Dalziel House site. This will provide a significant ‘boost’ and further support the vitality and viability of the centre. 4. The proposal is likely tc - It is important to correct a number of inaccuracies in have an unacceptable adverse the reporting on the scale and level of retail impacts impact on Motherwell towr caused by the proposal. Expenditure (demand) currently exceeds supply (turnover) in Motherwell (ie. the centre should be larger than it is).