Public Document Pack
Democratic Services White Cliffs Business Park Dover Kent CT16 3PJ
Telephone: (01304) 821199 Fax: (01304) 872452 DX: 6312 Minicom: (01304) 820115 Website: www.dover.gov.uk e-mail: democraticservices @dover.gov.uk
29 August 2014
Dear Councillor
I am now able to enclose, for consideration at the meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE on Tuesday 2 September 2014 at 6.00 pm, the following reports that were unavailable when the agenda was printed.
4 APPLICATION NOS DOV/13/0867 - LAND ADJACENT TO 10 DOVER ROAD, SANDWICH AND DOV/13/0783 - DISCOVERY PARK ENTERPRISE ZONE, RAMSGATE ROAD, SANDWICH (Pages 3 - 186)
A) DOV/13/0867 – LAND ADJACENT TO 10 DOVER ROAD, SANDWICH - PROPOSED NEW FOODSTORE, DOCTOR’S SURGERY AND PHARMACY, TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING, LANDSCAPING, COURTYARD AND SERVICE YARD
B) DOV/13/0783 – DISCOVERY PARK ENTERPRISE ZONE, RAMSGATE ROAD, SANDWICH - OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR A FOODSTORE, ASSOCIATED VEHICLE PARKING, PETROL FILLING STATION (TO INCLUDE ASSOCIATED KIOSK AND CAR WASH FACILITIES), ACCESS AND SERVICING ARRANGEMENTS AND LANDSCAPING (INCLUDING REMOVAL OF EXISTING SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE)
To consider the individual reports of the Head of Regeneration and Development on each of the above, together with additional reports as follows:
• A cumulative retail assessment of the development proposals;
• A comparative assessment of key issues;
• An overall conclusion with the recommendation.
All reports are to follow.
PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCT OF MEETING
The meeting will be conducted as follows:
• Introductory presentation by Officers
S1
• Individual reports presentation by Officers
• Cumulative summary retail report presentation by Officers
• Comparative summary report presentation by Officers
• Public speaking on A) and B)
• Members’ debate on the above
• Members to vote on cumulative retail matters Members will need to decide whether they can approve both applications, one application only or neither
• Members to vote on comparative matters (if necessary) This will only arise if Members decide that the cumulative effects are such that only one application can be approved - in other words, if Members feel that they have to make a choice between the two applications
• A vote will be taken on each application in turn
Yours sincerely
Chief Executive
S2 Agenda Item No 4
Introduction to Overall Report
The Council has before it two schemes for retail development in Sandwich.
A) DOV/13/0867 - , Land Adjacent to 10 Dover Road, Sandwich - Proposed new foodstore, doctor’s surgery and pharmacy, together with associated car parking, landscaping, courtyard and service yard – RECOMMENDATION THAT PLANNING PERMISSION IS GRANTED, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
B) DOV/13/0783 - Discovery Park Enterprise Zone, Ramsgate Road, Sandwich - Outline application for a foodstore, associated vehicle parking, petrol filling station (to include associated kiosk and car wash facilities) access and servicing arrangements and landscaping (including removal of existing service infrastructure) – RECOMMENDATION THAT PLANNING PERMISSION IS REFUSED
Both schemes are being considered at the same Committee. The report includes
• Part 1: Individual reports for each application (A & B) which carry separate recommendations and set out the reasoning behind the Officer recommendations; • Part 2: A cumulative retail assessment of the development proposals; • Part 3: A comparative assessment overview of key issues; and • Part 4: An overall conclusion.
3
Part 1- The Planning Application Reports
This part includes a report for each planning application at Appendix A) and B). The applications are considered in the order beginning with the site closest to Sandwich town centre. Both schemes are being reported to the same planning committee as they both rely, amongst other things, on the retail need established though the Council’s Retail Update (2012).
Appendix A) DOV/13/0867 - , Land Adjacent to 10 Dover Road, Sandwich - Proposed new foodstore, doctor’s surgery and pharmacy, together with associated car parking, landscaping, courtyard and service yard – RECOMMENDATION THAT PLANNING PERMISSION IS GRANTED, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
Appendix B) DOV/13/0783 - Discovery Park Enterprise Zone, Ramsgate Road, Sandwich - Outline application for a foodstore, associated vehicle parking, petrol filling station (to include associated kiosk and car wash facilities) access and servicing arrangements and landscaping (including removal of existing service infrastructure) – RECOMMENDATION THAT PLANNING PERMISSION IS REFUSED
4 5 A) DOV/13/00867 – Proposed new foodstore, doctor’s surgery and pharmacy, together with associated car parking, landscaping, courtyard and service yard, Land Adjacent to 10 Dover Road, Sandwich
Reason for Report
Number of representations received and in the public interest
Summary of Recommendation
Subject to the outcome of referral to the Secretary of State, planning permission be GRANTED
Planning Policies and Guidance
The development plan for the purposes of s38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) comprises the Dover District Council Core Strategy 2010 and the Saved Policies from the Dover District Local Plan 2002. Decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the policies of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
In addition to the policies of the development plan there are a number of other policies and standards which are material to the determination of planning applications including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) together with emerging local planning documents and other local guidance.
A summary of relevant planning policy is set out below:
Core Strategy (CS) Policies:
• Policy CP1 (Settlement Hierarchy) identifies a hierarchy of centres within Dover District. Dover is placed atop the settlement hierarchy (Secondary Regional Centre) and Sandwich is identified as a Rural Service Centre which is to be ‘the main focus for development in the rural area; suitable for a scale of development that would reinforce its role as a provider of services to a wider rural area. It should provide primary health and social care, education facilities (at least primary school), emergency services, organised sport and recreational facilities, food and other shopping facilities, including a Post Office, and be accessible by frequent (hourly) bus and train services’. Deal is between Dover and Sandwich in the hierarchy and is designated as a District Centre with a secondary focus (after Dover) for development in the District, being suitable for urban scale development.
• For new retail provision, Policy CP2 advises that in addition to strategic allocations for retail development made in the Core Strategy, there is a balance of 19,000 sqm gross of retail floorspace which will be allocated through the Site Allocation Document (formerly the Site Allocation Document). Footnote 1 to Policy CP2 advises that the majority of this balance of retail floorspace is in the Deal/Sandwich trade area and that; ‘if it could be accommodated it would improve the functioning of these centres and could improve retention of spending power. Both centres are, however, constrained by a tight urban grain and historic
1 6 environment and it may not be possible to accommodate this level of new floorspace’.
Paragraph 3.21 of the CS explains that the floorspace estimates are based upon a Retail Need Assessment undertaken in 2008 using 2007 market shares and is modelled upon population growth based upon delivery of 10,100 new homes. Table 3.2 of the CS (extract below) shows a growing need for both convenience and comparison goods shopping floorspace to serve the Deal and Sandwich area up to 2026.
The retail need figures were produced in 2008 and are now some 6 years out of date. The Council have since commissioned an updated Retail Update (RU) and this was published in 2012. The findings of the updated Retail Study underpin the emerging retail policies set out within the Land Allocations Local Plan which are discussed elsewhere within this report.
• CS (Annex 1) paragraph 1.73 states that ‘….Sandwich town centre is showing signs of stress and decreasing vibrancy. Shopping provision is essentially secondary in nature and the approach of defining primary and secondary frontages is not appropriate. The Council considers that there is a need to provide a measure of control over changes of use to the ground floor of premises in the centre's core on par with the secondary frontages at Dover and Deal. This, allied to the community initiative to enhance Sandwich, should help to strengthen Sandwich's centre.’
• Policy CP5 (Sustainable Construction Standards) Non-residential development proposed with a gross floor space of more than 1000sqm will need to meet the BREEAM ‘very good’ standard or any future national equivalent.
• In order to help operate the Hierarchy through the development management process Policy DM1 (Settlement Boundaries) proposes settlement boundaries for planning purposes and sets out how these will be used to help judge the acceptability of individual development proposals. Development outside settlement confines will not be permitted, unless specifically justified by other development plan policies.
• Policy DM11 (Location of Development & Travel Demand). Planning applications for development that would increase travel demand should be supported by a systematic assessment. Development that would generate travel demand outside
2 7 settlement confines will not be supported unless otherwise justified by other development plan policies.
• Policy DM12 (Road Hierarchy) states that access arrangements of development proposals will be assessed with regard to the Highway Network set out in the Local Transport Plan for Kent. Developments that would involve the construction of a new access onto a trunk or primary road will not be permitted if there would be a significant increase in the risk of accidents or traffic delays – unless appropriate mitigation can be provided.
• Policy DM13 (Parking Provision) Determining parking solutions should be a design-led process based on the characteristics of the site, the locality, the nature of the proposed development and its design objectives.
• Policy DM15 (Protection of the Countryside) Development that would result in the loss of, or adversely affect the character or appearance of the countryside will only be permitted if appropriate justification can be provided and/or it is made in accordance with allocations made in Development Plan Documents.
Dover District Local Plan (DDLP) Saved Policies:
There are no saved policies relevant to the consideration of this application.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) & National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
At a national level, the NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. In the introduction to the NPPF, the Government sets out that the NPPF must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning applications. With its adoption in March 2012, it replaced all previous national planning policy statements with immediate effect. Therefore, it should have significant weight in the consideration of any planning application.
The NPPF articulates an overriding presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions should not be considered in isolation, as they are mutually dependent on each other. Economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously (NPPF pares 7 & 8)
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the status of the Development Plan.
For decision making this means approving development that accords with the Development Plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent or silent or relevant policies are out-of-date granting planning permission, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or where specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted (NPPF Para 14).
3 8 ‘The government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system’ (NPPF Para 19).
The newly published National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG, March 2014) supports and informs the NPPF and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.
Together, the NPPF and the NPPG set out the Government’s national planning policies and guidance for new development. They aim to help create the homes and jobs that the country needs, while protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environments.
NPPF Chapter 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy
The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system (NPPF Para 19)
Local Planning Authorities (LPA) should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and should set out a clear economic vision strategy for their area which positively and proactively encourages sustainable economic growth, (NPPF Paras 20- 21).
NPPF Chapter 2 – Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres
Planning policy on retail and commercial land uses and town centres is covered in paragraphs 23 to 27 of the NPPF. The NPPF requires that proposals which are not within a town centre and not in accordance with the development plan should be subject to the sequential test and provide an impact assessment.
Para 24 states that ‘Local Planning Authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and LPAs should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale’. Further guidance on the operation of the sequential test is also provided in the NPPG (published March 2014) under the section ‘Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres’.
When assessing applications for retail development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, LPAs should require an impact assessment where the proposals are over a default threshold of 2500sqm (unless there is a locally set threshold).
4 9 With regard to the requirement for an impact assessment, the NPPF sets out two assessment criteria:
• The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal, and; • The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realized in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made.
The NPPF confirms that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on town centre vitality and viability, it should be refused (NPPF Paras 26-27).
The NPPG states that ’it may not be possible to accommodate all forecast needs in a town centre: there may be physical or other constraints which make it inappropriate to do so. In those circumstances, planning authorities should plan positively to identify the most appropriate alternative strategy for meeting the need for these main town centre uses, having regard to the sequential and impact tests. This should ensure that any proposed main town centre uses which are not in an existing town centre are in the best locations to support the vitality and vibrancy of town centres, and that no likely significant adverse impacts on existing town centres arise, as set out in paragraph 26 of the National Planning Policy Framework’.
Whilst not a development control requirement within the NPPF, the need or capacity for retail floorspace is relevant to plan making (NPPF para 23).
NPPF Chapter 4 Promoting Sustainable Transport
Paragraph 32 states that all developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement. Plans and decisions should take account of whether: • The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; • Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and • Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transportation grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’
NPPF Chapter 7 – Requiring Good Design
Paragraph 56 states that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.
5 10 NPPF Chapter 10 – Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding & Coastal Change.
Paragraph 96 states that ‘in determining planning applications, LPAs should expect new development to: comply with adopted Local Plan policies on local requirements for decentralized energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that it is not feasible for viable and; take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimize energy consumption’.
When determining planning applications, LPAs should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere (Para 103).
NPPF Chapter 11 – Conserving & Enhancing the Natural Environment
The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by; • Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soil; • Recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services • Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible • Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and • Remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate (para 109)
NPPF Chapter 12 – Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment
In determining planning applications, LPAs should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. Where a development site includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, LPAs should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and where necessary a field evaluation (para 128).
LPAs should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposal, including by development affecting the setting or a heritage asset, taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise, (para 129).
When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification, (para 132).
Where a proposed development will lead to a substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, LPAs should refuse permission, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve
6 11 substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss (para 133). Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposals (para 134). The effect of an application on the significance of a non- designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgment will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset (para 135).
NPPF Annex 1: Implementation
Paragraph 216 states that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:
• the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); • the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and; • The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).
Other Material Considerations
Land Allocations Local Plan (LALP)
DDC published their Pre-submission Land Allocations Local Plan (LALP) for consultation in December 2012. With regard to town centres and retailing, the LALP recognised the retail evidence base was out of date and introduced new retail floorspace need estimates based upon the 2012 Retail Update (RU). For Plan-making purposes, the LALP, at paragraphs 2.10 to 2.18 identifies that having taken into account existing retail commitments and the substantial level of Core Strategy strategic allocations at Dover, the need for additional retail floorspace arises within the District needs to be revised. In the Deal/Sandwich Trade Area and Sandwich the most potential for additional convenience floorspace can be ascribed to Sandwich where it would help to raise the retention rate of expenditure. The table below extracted from the LALP shows the revised retail need figures from the 2012 Retail Update.
7 12 The Council’s approach towards where the additional convenience provision in Sandwich could be accommodated has altered since the LALP was published in December 2012. This is fully documented in the GL Hearn Report (appended). In summary this Report outlines that the Council did have a site specific allocation (Policy LA17 – the Guildhall car park) that was allocated for new retail goods provision. In May 2013 Policy LA17 was replaced in the Addendum to the LALP with a criteria based policy (that is not site specific) as the Guildhall car park site was not deliverable. This policy approach is fully in accordance with Paragraph 23 of the NPPF.
The 2012 LALP identified a ‘Town Centre Area’ for Sandwich which effectively encompasses the defined ‘Secondary Shopping Frontages’. However neither of these Frontage or Area designations complies with the nomenclature in the NPPF Annex Glossary of Terms and this leads to a degree of ambiguity as to what is inside or outside the town centre for retail purposes and operation of the Sequential Test.
DDC submitted their Pre-Submission Land Allocations Local Plan (incorporating the Addendum) for independent Examination in October 2013. The Hearings took place in January/February 2014. At the Examination the Inspector, who was appointed to conduct the Examination, identified the need for Officers to prepare a number of Main Modifications (MMs) to the Plan in order to make it ‘sound’ and legally compliant. A six week public consultation has now started on the MMs which will conclude on 25th September 2014. The Inspector’s Report will only be issued once the Inspector has had opportunity to consider the representations. The Inspector may at this stage in the process recommend further modifications to the Plan. At the end of the process the final version of the Plan, taking into account all of the MMs will go to full Council for adoption (anticipated to be around October/November 2014).
The MMs that are subject to the public consultation, include a new policy for Sandwich town centre; amendments to supporting text including a new paragraph setting out a floorspace threshold requiring impact assessment; and amendments to the Policies Map to identify the proposed Sandwich Town Centre Boundary/Primary Shopping Area and reference to the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance in Policy LA17.
These modifications are set out fully below. New text has been highlighted and text that is to be deleted has been crossed through.
Changes to paragraphs 3.235-3.237
The 2002 Local Plan did not designate a town centre boundary or primary shopping frontage for Sandwich. It was considered inappropriate at that time due to the relatively dispersed nature of the centre and the wide variety of uses. A 'Secondary Shopping Frontage' in the town was, however, designated through Policy DM22 in the Core Strategy to allow for a greater flexibility in the mix of uses encouraged in the area.
In recent years, however, this situation has led to ambiguity in respect of whether proposed development sites are defined as “in”, “edge” or “out” of centre for the purposes of the sequential assessment. Following recommendations in the Retail Update (2012), the District Council has designated a town centre area and Primary Shopping Area in Sandwich to protect the vitality and viability of the town centre
8 13 and to provide clarity for any sequential assessments. This is in addition to the secondary shopping frontages, which will remain.
The area designated as the town centre and the Primary Shopping Area reflects the street pattern of the secondary shopping frontages and includes the length of King Street, turning into Delf Street and branching out into Market Street, to the north, The Butchery, Potter Street and Cattle Market, to the south. The designation also includes St Peter’s Church off Market Street, the Guild Hall in Cattle Market, and the supermarket off Moat Sole. Figure 3.11 illustrates the area covered.
The Council will require applications for retail, office and leisure development which are located outside of the town centre that have a gross floor area that exceeds 500 sqm to be accompanied by an Impact Assessment.
New Policy
Sandwich Town Centre
Planning permission will only be given for A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses within the ground floor premises in the designated Sandwich Primary Shopping Frontage.
Elsewhere in the Sandwich Town Centre and the designated Primary Shopping Area planning permission will only be given for the conversion of ground floor premises from Main Town Centre and A2 uses if it has been adequately demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable and genuine and adequate attempts to market the premises for retail purposes, main town centre and A2 uses have failed.
Reason: The change was a result of objections raised at the Examination. The amended text seeks to ensure that the vitality of the town centre is not diluted by changes of use away from main town centre uses (as defined by the NPPF) and A2 uses and provides a measure of control through the new policy. It was agreed at the Examination that for the purposes of Sandwich, the Primary Shopping Area and the Town Centre Boundary should cover the same area. By defining a town centre boundary in Sandwich it will be consistent with the NPPF in terms of applying the sequential test for main town centre uses.
Amend Adopted Policies Map – See Appendix A:
The Policies Map will be amended to identify the proposed Sandwich Town Centre Boundary/Primary Shopping Area.
Reason: To reflect the changes in the new Sandwich Town Centre Policy.
9 14 Amend Policy LA17 as follows:
Planning permission for new convenience provision in Sandwich will be permitted provided that proposals:
i. follow the sequential approach for main town centre uses as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance;
ii. include an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on Sandwich town centre and any other relevant town centres, relating to the scale and the type of development proposed in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance;
iii. demonstrate that the site is in an accessible location and well connected to the town centre that would encourage people to walk, cycle and use public transport, in order to maximise the benefits of linked trips;
iv. respond to the local character, identity, the historic assets and setting of Sandwich;
v. the visual impact of any car parking is reduced by a combination of its location and appropriate landscaping; and
vi. demonstrate the access arrangements and the service yard are located in a position that protects the residential amenity.
Reason: The NPPG has been included in Policy LA17 as it usefully provides additional information on the both the sequential and impact tests and replaces the potential uneasy relationship that previously existed between the NPPF and the Practice Guidance to PPS4 (which has now been cancelled).
The MMs have clarified the ambiguity that existed over Sandwich’s Primary Shopping Area and town centre boundary for the purpose of applying the NPPF sequential test. The Town Centre Area and the Primary Shopping Area for Sandwich are the same and the area has been extended to include The Butchery and Potter Street. The Plan below shows the extent of the Town Centre Area/Primary Shopping Area. This now includes the existing Co-Op store at Moat Sole as being within Sandwich’s Primary Shopping Area/Town Centre Area.
The map extract below shows the extent of the Sandwich Primary Shopping Area/Town Centre Area.
10 15
In conclusion on relevant retail and town centre policies, the proposal site is out of centre and is not allocated for retail development within either the Council’s Adopted Core Strategy or the emerging LALP. Accordingly for retail purposes, the application site should be considered against the Sequential and Impact Tests set out in paragraphs 24 and 27 of the NPPF and given the advanced status of the LALP, Policy LA17 as amended. The LALP modifications are at an advanced stage and can therefore be given due weight (in accordance with para 216 of the NPPF)
Kent Design Guide
Provides guidance on design principles
Dover District Council Heritage Strategy 2013
In collaboration with English Heritage, DDC commissioned KCC’s Heritage Conservation Team to prepare the strategy. It is one of the first such strategies in the country to be created since the Government published its heritage policies in the NPPF. There Heritage Strategy seeks to identify and understand the many historic assets in the Dover district and how their special character could contribute to the future of the area, and key objectives in the District Local Plan. The strategy provides advice and guidance for the management of historic assets, and will help to support funding bids that may arise in the future.
Relevant Planning History
DOV/13/0628 - Screening Opinion for a food store, pharmacy, doctors’ surgery associated parking and road bridge – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) not required.
11 16 Summary of Consultee and Third Party Responses
Kent Highway Services: No objections, subject to conditions.
Natural England: No Objection. The application is in close proximity to the Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which forms part of the Sandwich Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The proposal if undertaken in strict accordance with the details submitted, is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which Sandwich Bay has been classified.
Natural England has advised that it is not necessary for the LPA to undertake an Appropriate Assessment. If the development is carried out in strict accordance with the details submitted, Natural England is satisfied that the development will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the SSSI has been identified. The SSSI does not therefore represent a constraint in the determination of this application. Natural England has referred to its standing advice on protected species.
The LPA should consider opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nesting boxes.
Kent Wildlife Trust: No comments received.
Environment Agency: No Objection. The site lies within Flood Zone 1 – an area to be considered ‘low risk’ in terms of flooding. The EA is therefore primarily concerned with the management of surface waters. The submitted FRA proposes to discharge surface waters directly into the adjacent watercourse (The Delf). This is not supported by the EA as this watercourse has insufficient capacity to accommodate the additional flow. The EA recommends that conditions should be attached to any forthcoming permission to require details of a surface water drainage system based on sustainable drainage principles (SUDS) to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
English Heritage: The site is located opposite the historic cluster of buildings associated with St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, which includes the thirteenth century Grade I Listed Church and Grade II Listed Almshouses. The complex has also been designated as a Conservation Area.
The proposed development and high levels of activity associated with it will alter the character of the application site by removing its rural appearance and by diminishing its tranquility. Some harm will consequently be done to those aspects of the hospital’s significance that are derived from its setting.
In determining this application the harm to heritage significance described above should not be treated as ‘substantial’ but should nonetheless be considered in accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF and therefore weighed against any public benefits associated with the application.
KCC Archaeology: It is possible that the proposed development may impact upon remains of archaeological interest. A condition requiring a program of archaeological work is requested.
12 17 KCC PROW: No objection, however it is recommended that Public Footpath ES6 is upgraded to an all weather surface to improve pedestrian connectivity to the village of Worth.
Kent Police: No objection. A condition is recommended to incorporate measures to reduce risk of crime.
KCC Strategic Planning: KCC welcomes the prospect of the creation of approximately 150 new jobs from the proposed food store and it is noted that Sandwich will benefit economically from the retention of shopping expenditure in the town. The majority of retail convenience expenditure is spent outside the town with a significant diversion to stores out of centre at Dover or edge of centre at Deal.
In terms of Sequential Assessment, KCC consider that the application represents the most suitable and viable location for a convenience food store to serve the town of Sandwich.
KCC notes that a separate planning application for a large retail development has been submitted for 2155sqm convenience foodstore at Discovery Park. In terms of cumulative impact, if the Council determines that both retail applications are individually acceptable in planning terms and granted planning permission for both, this would equate to a total of 3670sqm (net sales) created outside the town of Sandwich.
Should the Council judge that the two proposals’ cumulative impact is unacceptable, and would be detrimental to Sandwich town centre to the extent that only one permission can therefore be granted, KCC would then wish to see evidence that planning permission for the stores on the edge of Sandwich will not undermine the vitality of Sandwich town centre and would recommend a full comparative assessment of each site against the other to determine which represents the most sustainable development in terms of meeting NPPF objectives. (NB LPA comments: The proposals are being considered individually)
Southern Water: No Objection. A formal application from the applicant for connection to the public sewer is required. An informative regarding connection and a condition requiring details of the SUDS system is required.
Veolia Water: No comments received.
Network Rail: No objection
Transco: No comments received
DDC Agricultural Advisor: In this case, the 1.1 ha (2.8 acre) site is indicated on the ALC 1:250,000 map as lying within a general area of excellent quality agricultural land (Grade 1). Local Soil Survey data indicates that soils in this immediate area fall within the Hillcross series, with a loam over clay loam texture, and with a high land capability class. Given the above, whilst a detailed soil survey of the site would be required to definitely confirm its ALC grade, it is suggested that the site can be assumed, as matters stand, to be very good or excellent quality, and in the "best and most versatile" category
13 18 Sandwich Town Council: Object to the application until the following matters are resolved - Design: It is considered that the development would have a detrimental impact on the ‘face’ of the town due to the design, which is not complimentary to a medieval town; Highway Safety: the development has not addressed the issue of road safety. There should be no right turn when exiting the site, otherwise this area could become dangerous due to existing traffic problems such as the train gates and congestion from Sandwich Technology School.
Third Party Comments:
A significant number of representations have been received in respect of this application, of which 265 are in support, 25 object and 4 provide general comment. The representations are summarized below:
Summary of Supporting Comments:
• The present convenience store is inadequate to need. Further quality retail development will significantly improve the retail offer within Sandwich; it would introduce competition with existing stores who may then improve their provision. • Access to the store by commercial vehicles is possible without routing through the town centre • The store would be within reasonable walking/cycling distance of residential areas with parking for disabled visitors • The site is located on a major bus route to/from the town, improving accessibility to quality shops for many residents; • The store would enable residents to do a full weekly shop within Sandwich • The proposed development would attract people to Sandwich and linked trips would increase footfall into the town and support the existing retailers; • The additional ‘free’ parking will encourage more visitors to walk into town to support local retailers, whilst leaving their cars on the outskirts. • It would retain trade within Dover that is currently lost to Westwood Cross, Deal and Dover; • The development would provide the town with a quality pharmacy. The existing surgery is not large enough for the number of patients, has no parking and is located in a narrow street; • The amount of retail proposed is proportionate to need • This development is superior to that proposed for Discovery Park which would be disproportionate to need, beyond comfortable walking distance and thus would draw traffic through and away from Sandwich leading to increased pressure on roads. This could have a disastrous impact on local businesses and could evolve into a larger retail centre if the hoped for scientific and/or business tenants do not materialize. • The smaller development in Sandwich would offer sustainable employment for local residents • The doctors’ surgery would have easy access and parking. A significant improvement to the existing provision. • The evolution of Sandwich’s town should not be held back; if it continues in a time warp it will become another fashionable ‘weekend town’ for city dwellers. • The objections raised on the grounds of architectural style are not supported – it is well away from the medieval heart of the town and yet within walking distance of most residents. 14 19 • The development will provide jobs and offer much needed facilities in Sandwich
Summary of Objections:
• There is no evidence for a further supermarket in Sandwich; • The development will have a negative impact on existing local retailers by drawing shoppers away from the existing centre. • Reference is made to a similar case in Oundle, Northants where a Waitrose store on the outskirts of the town has had a negative impact on the vitality and viability of the town. • The development would exacerbate problems of traffic congestion on Dover Road and in close proximity to the local junior school and nursery. • The doctors surgery should be within the existing centre; • The proposed store is not within reasonable walking distance of the town centre. • The Retail Update 2012 refers to a quantitative need for 2400sqm of extra retail space which would be exceeded by the proposed retail store at Discovery Park which is a brownfield site enjoying excellent road connections. If this alternative store (at Discovery Park) were permitted it would not directly compete with Sandwich town centre. • The development will detract from the setting of the St Bart’s Conservation Area and Listed Buildings. • The development would result in the loss of an important green space on the southern periphery of Sandwich. This gap plays an important role in providing the setting for the town, conservation area and listed buildings. • External lighting to the car park and store, during the stores long opening hours may detract from the streetscene and setting of heritage assets. • The development will cause noise disturbance to neighbouring residential properties from delivery vehicles and loading/off-loading; • There has been no consultation with the rural villages which surround Sandwich and use Sandwich as their main shopping centre; • The development will cause light pollution in this rural area; • The development will lead to significant traffic congestion in the area to the detriment of road safety; • The development will be detrimental to the residential amenities of neighbouring occupants; • The development would be better located as part of the Discovery Park masterplan • The building will not be in keeping with the area; • The new building should be located to the front of the site adjacent to Dover Road • The traffic provision is inadequate and does not adequately accommodate pedestrians or cyclists • The landscaping needs to be improved • The traffic congestion has been significantly underestimated.
Stagecoach as local bus provider, observe that the site is well served by existing bus routes. However concern is expressed at 1) the proposed layout of the site with car parking at the front of the store acting as a barrier to pedestrians and cyclists entering the site from Dover Road. It is strongly suggested that the layout of the site is altered to bring the buildings much closer to the street frontage; 2) to discourage short-distance car
15 20 trips there should be a parking charge which could be refunded by the store if customers reach a minimum spend; 3) To encourage use of buses the two nearby bus stops should be provided with modern shelters; 4) The timetable for deliveries to the store should be carefully managed to ensure delivery vehicles are not forced to wait in the highway.
The Sandwich Community Events Association has objected to the application on the grounds that the development would lead to closure of local established businesses in the area leading to irreparable damage to the town centre. The Core Strategy seeks to protect existing services and develop tourism – this objective is not supported by the current proposal. There is no evidence to show there is demand in Sandwich for this level of retail provision. Local businesses do not support the proposal. The site has poor access to Dover Road and the development is likely to lead to significant traffic congestion. The development would remove an important green open space on the fringe of Sandwich. The developing tourism economy in Sandwich draws heavily on its status as ‘the most complete medieval town in England’. A modern development close to Sandwich Town would erode this status.
Sandwich & District Chamber of Commerce object to the application on the grounds that it would be contrary to the aims of the Core Strategy which are to maintain and strengthen the nearby employment centre and support the town’s service centre, tourism and leisure functions. Sandwich is not suitable to off-set the identified need for growth in convenience floor space for Deal. Sandwich and Deal should not have been linked together by the Retail Update 2012 when addressing perceived need for additional retail provision. It is considered that the Retail Update 2012 is fundamentally flawed in stating that overtrading in Deal will be countered by additional convenience retail in Sandwich to reduce the leakage. The proposal for retail development at Discovery Park that forms the Discovery Park Master Plan is far preferable to growth outside of the medieval town centre.
Sandwich Town Team (representing 17 businesses in Sandwich) is opposed to the application as it will be detrimental to the current retail offer in the town centre and is contrary to the Core Strategy which is committed to protecting the vitality of the town. The development will detract from a key heritage asset and lead to urban sprawl at the edge of the town. The existing highway infrastructure is inadequate to cope with the additional traffic generated by the development. The proposed access is on a dangerous bend and a known accident black-spot. The site is on a floodplain and the development will contribute to the risk of wider flooding. The Town Team requests that the decision on this application is deferred until after examination of the LAS and allow Sandwich to complete its Neighbourhood Planning process.
An additional representation received from the Town Team draws on a benchmarking exercise carried out by Acton for Market Towns (AMT). AMT have used a standard methodology for market towns to make objective measures of their profile and performance and compared them with other market towns within the UK. The findings of this exercise are summarized within the representation – which suggest that with the exception of percentage footfall within the town, Sandwich is currently performing acceptably well in many respects and that the strong independent retail sector is at the centre of this strong performance. The Town Team are concerned that the proposed development would do considerable harm to the existing businesses in the town centre.
16 21 The Co-Operative is an existing retailer in Sandwich and has provided the following comments: The level of detail provided in the Retail Impact Assessment is limited. No assessment of the scheme against the relevant Development Plan policies has been provided by the applicant – particularly as the site is located outside the settlement boundary. Further information should be required.
The Co-Op has also made representations against the proposed retail development on Discovery Park as it will have a significant adverse impact on the Sandwich Town Centre. Should planning permission be granted for both retail applications it follows that there would be a significant cumulative adverse impact on the town centre and therefore planning permission cannot be granted for both schemes.
Should the Council consider that there is justification for one new store it is considered that the Dover Road scheme should be viewed more favourably as (notwithstanding our concerns) it is a sequentially preferable site to Discovery Park; it is of a size in keeping with the identified need in the Council’s retail study and emerging LALP and being smaller than Discovery Park it would have a lesser impact on the Town Centre.
GVA (on behalf of the applicant for the Discovery Park retail proposal DOV/13/0783) have made the following comments, summarised as:
• The required loss of greenfield land to support the application is unnecessary bearing in mind the availability of developed land at Discovery Park • The site is out of centre and not allocated for the proposed development • Despite the closer proximity of the Dover Road site we do not consider it possible to create meaningful links between the Dover Road site and town centre, the two sites therefore have equal status (in this respect) in policy terms • The DP proposals are for a larger, more attractive and strategically located food store. There is only sufficient capacity for one new store in the Sandwich area and the LPA should evaluate the relative merits of both proposals in deciding which is best placed to meet the identified need and which would deliver the widest range of benefits to the area. The DP proposals offer a significant number of advantages over the Dover Road proposals and the Council should grant planning permission for the DP proposals without delay and refuse the Dover Road proposals • Proposals could result in higher speeds and collisions, particularly if insufficient visibility splays are provided. The proposals do not take into account potential for future growth in rail traffic that might result in level crossing closure. A full assessment of vehicle and pedestrian impact should be undertaken. • Impacts on highway capacity could be greater than have been assessed and consideration should be given to a larger geographic area. • Parking provision may be insufficient which would be likely to lead to congestion on local roads. • Service vehicle manoeuvring onto Dover Road are likely to lead to congestion. Routing of vehicles through the town should not be allowed. • Conclusion: whilst there is a sound planning case to support a new food store in/around Sandwich there is no logical justification of greenfield land to meet need considering the availability of previously developed alternatives. The DP proposals have significant advantages over the Dover Road proposals and there are material highways/transport related concerns. The DP proposals should be approved and Dover Road proposals refused.
17 22 Summary of General Comments:
• The additional retail provision should be located in Deal. Deal has a substantially larger population than Sandwich and is in need of a large edge of town centre supermarket and petrol station. • This proposal is the least damaging compared to the retail proposal for Discovery Park. The Discovery Park development would be likely to cause the Co-Op in Sandwich and Sainsbury’s in Deal to close. • It is hoped that the LPA does not approve both this and the Discovery Park retail development which would be damaging to both Sandwich and Deal. • Egress from the site in both northerly and southerly directions as shown in the plans should be supported – provided that egress in a northerly direction is controlled (by lights) to coincide with the level crossing closures to avoid the build-up of traffic when the gates are down. To allow egress in a southerly direction only (as suggested by the Town Council) raises routing issues for most local residents needing to turn northwards and will discourage additional complementary shopping in the existing centre. • The store should be located to the front of the site with parking to the rear to make access more convenient to pedestrians and encourage shoppers to come on foot or by public transport. • Waitrose should offer free parking for up to 2 hours to enable customers to also visit the town centre.
The Site and the Proposal
1. The application relates to a triangular shaped open field (c.1.56ha total site area) with a tree lined road frontage of approximately 120m on the east side Dover Road – which is the main southerly route into/out of Sandwich. The Delf watercourse also runs along the frontage of the site parallel to Dover Road. The site is located outside, but adjacent to, the Sandwich settlement confines which run along the opposite side of Dover Road, parallel to the site frontage. The site is a direct c.640m walk over level ground from the secondary shopping frontage and the limits of newly defined Town Centre and Primary Shopping Area of Sandwich (within the emerging LALP) at the junction of New Street and Austin Lane. The southern limit of these designations closest to the application site is at the junction of Short Street and King Street a c.510m walk from the application site accessed along New Street, Gallard Street and King Street.
2. Access to the site is currently gained via a short footbridge across The Delf. There is currently no other access to the site direct from Dover Road.
3. To the north of the site is a large detached two storey building (10 Dover Road) most recently used as a children’s nursery. Planning permission was granted in April this year for conversion of this building to 10 flats (DOV/12/0700). Open fields adjoin the tree/hedge lined south eastern boundary of the site. To the west of the site on the opposite side of Dover Road is the St. Bartholomew’s Hospital Sandwich Conservation Area which includes a number of Grade II Listed Buildings and the Grade I Listed St. Bartholomew’s Chapel. The main Dover to Ramsgate railway line runs adjacent to the eastern tip of the site. The Grade II Listed station building, bridge and shelter are located to the north of the application site.
18 23
4. Public footpath ES6 starts at the southern most tip of the site on Dover Road and connects with PROW EE235A to the south-east to provide a continuous hard surfaced 1.5km footpath link to Worth.
5. This detailed planning application is supported by a number of technical reports:
• Planning & Retail Assessment • Design & Access Statement • Transport Assessment including Travel Plan • Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment • Ecological Appraisal • Lighting Strategy • Heritage Statement (revised) • Desk-Top Acoustic Assessment • Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) • Preliminary Drainage Strategy • Utilities Appraisal • Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) • Rationale for New Doctors’ Surgery & Pharmacy
6. The proposal is for a retail store of 2520sqm (Gross Floor Area) with a net sales area of 1515sqm (c.60% of the total floor area). The convenience goods sales area of the store is proposed to be 1220sqm (c.80%) and the area devoted to comparison goods is proposed to be 295sqm (c.20%). The proposal also provides for an ancillary café, doctor’s surgery and pharmacy. The new facilities are supported by a 175 space car park, plus an additional 8 spaces designated for the surgery and 16 cycle spaces to the front of the store.
7. The main retail building is shown to be set back approximately 62metres from the front boundary, and is located within the north-eastern corner of the site. The retail building is single-storey (maximum ridge height 8.2m and 5m to eaves). An integral lobby provides the main customer access to the store within the west facing elevation, and the café, which is accessed from within the main retail store, is also located to the front of the building with an external seating area. Externally to the front of the store a cashpoint (ATM) and a timber display unit for horticultural sales are also proposed.
8. The service yard is shown to the rear of the store accessed from within the main customer car park along the southern side of the building. Provision is made for vehicle parking (4 spaces) and direct access to the warehouse area by service/delivery vehicles. The service yard is to be contained by a 2.5m high wall. Ventilation and refrigeration equipment is shown to be located on the roof of the warehouse with surrounding screen wall. Access to the rooftop plant is gained via an external staircase located within the service yard to the rear of the store.
9. The Doctor’s Surgery and Pharmacy are proposed to be accommodated within a detached single storey building to the front of the main retail store, approximately 10m to the south of 10 Dover Road.
19 24 10. An existing doctor’s practice, currently located in Sandwich, is proposing to relocate to the new premises. The application is accompanied by a supporting statement from the practice which outlines the limitations of their existing accommodation and the benefits of moving to the new site. Further details regarding the operation of the doctors’ surgery and pharmacy are discussed elsewhere within this report.
11. It is proposed to provide a new vehicle access (with pedestrian access) to the site through the construction of a new bridge crossing over The Delf towards the south of the site from Dover Road and the existing access bridge will be retained for pedestrian only access.
12. Highway works include the provision of an un-controlled island crossing to provide a pedestrian refuge whilst crossing Dover Road, together with minor kerb realignments along Dover Road, construction of a bus shelter adjacent to the existing bus stop on the west side of Dover Road (opposite the site).
13. The proposals include the erection of a 1.4m high flint and brick wall along the site frontage, parallel to the east side of The Delf. With the exception of one, all existing trees along this frontage are to be retained and supplemented by additional planting.
Assessment
Principle of Development
14. The NPPF sets out a number of core land-use planning principles, which underpin decision taking. Of relevance to the assessment of this application and the acceptability in principle of the proposal is that planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the businesses, infrastructure and thriving local places, to encourage the effective use of previously developed land and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable
15. The application site is located on previously undeveloped land outside of, but adjacent to the settlement boundary of Sandwich which runs along the opposite side of Dover Road, parallel to the site frontage. The development of this undeveloped, unallocated site outside settlement confines is therefore a departure to the overarching aim of CS policy DM1 which seeks to focus new development within existing settlement confines.
16. An exception prescribed by policy DM1 is where the new development is specifically justified by other development plan policies/documents. It therefore falls to consider the development proposals against the provisions of other such policies, the principle ones being retail policies within the current Development Plan and emerging LALP.
Retail Case
17. The planning application is supported by a number of technical studies including a Retail Statement (RS) prepared by CgMs Consulting (CgMs) which considers the retail planning issues associated with the proposals and draws principally on 20 25 the data and findings of the Council’s Retail Update (RU) 2012. The submitted RS comprises eight sections covering
• Introduction • Background and Context • Planning Policy • Existing Shopping Facilities and Shopping Patterns • Sequential Approach • Need and Retail Impact • Assessment of Merits • Conclusions • Appendices: Site Plan, Sequential Sites, Retail Assessment Tables
18. Following receipt of the planning application the Council commissioned an independent expert review of the Retail Assessment work submitted in support of this application. This has been completed by the consultants GL Hearn (GLH report dated May 2014). The review focused primarily upon the sequential and impact assessment work provided as these are the relevant retail test considerations set out within the NPPF and NPPG. However the local policy and retail evidence base context has also been considered. The GLH retail report is reproduced in its entirety at appendix 1 to this report.
19. Following additional and subsequent submissions by the applicant and other third parties, GLH have produced an addendum report which is also appended in full at appendix 2.
20. Members should refer to the attached retail reports for a comprehensive analysis of the relevant retail matters. The conclusions of the retail reports are summarised under the following principle headings:
Conclusion: Retail Need/Capacity
21. GLH conclude that whilst demonstrating need is not a definitive test against which these retail proposals need to judged, the availability of retail capacity to support the proposal does feed into both the sequential and impact tests. These proposals are of a size and potential turnover which is in excess of the level of need identified within the RU for the Deal/Sandwich trade area by 2017 but could be supported by 2022.
Conclusion: Sequential Matters
22. GLH conclude that having reviewed the sequential assessment submitted in support of the application and having had regard to the availability of alternative sites; whilst the applicant has not been sufficiently flexible in terms of store size and format, the proposals are broadly in line with the scale of development identified within the RU and LALP.
23. The Guildhall Car Park site on the basis of publicly available information is not available and the Council’s own sequential site assessment has demonstrated that no other ‘in centre’ or ‘edge of centre’ sites are suitable and available for foodstore development. In the absence of any other suitable or available town
21 26 centre or edge of centre sites the Dover Road site does provide a sequentially preferable out of centre site in terms of potential to form links with the town centre and public transport accessibility (discussed in more detail elsewhere in this report) compared to either the Ash Road and Discovery Park sites which CgMs (the applicants agents) have reviewed.
Conclusion: Retail Impact
24. Having reviewed the submitted impact work and prepared their own independent impact assessment, GLH consider that the scale of store proposed and the trade diversions associated with it will not cause a significantly adverse impact upon Sandwich town centre. There will however be an adverse impact but the proposal could contribute to the town centre through linked shopping trips and spending such that the overall vitality and viability of the town centre will not be significantly adversely impacted.
25. The trade diversion and impact levels GLH have predicted for other town centres including Deal and Dover are low and are not at a level which could be considered significantly adverse
Overall Retail Conclusions
26. Having reviewed the Retail Statement, GLH consider that the assessment of both sequential sites and retail impact has not robustly dealt with the tests required with the NPPF. With regard to the sequential test, GLH consider that the applicant has not had sufficient regard to the requirement for flexibility over issues such as scale and format or rigorously reviewed and dismissed alternative sites.
27. However, the sequential assessment work prepared by DDC and the analysis carried out by GLH leads them to conclude that in the absence of any in-centre or edge-of-centre sites the Dover Road site would be the sequentially preferable site given its accessibility and potential to form links with the town centre.
28. Having reviewed the retail impact work provided within the RS, GLH have concerns over the quantitative analysis and CgMs have not reviewed impact in line with the NPPF impact test criteria.
29. In order to advise DDC, GLH have prepared their own independent retail impact analysis and this demonstrates that whilst the proposal will have an adverse impact upon trading levels within the town centre, this is not at a level which they would consider to be significantly adverse.
30. As highlighted earlier, the net sales area will be approximately 60% of the stores gross area. GLH consider this to be within an acceptable range of net to gross space utilisation and which can be controlled by condition.
31. In conclusion, the foodstore proposal whilst outside Sandwich town centre is located in an out of centre location which is accessible and has the potential to form links with the town centre. Based upon analysis of alternative sites carried out by GLH it represents the best sequentially located site to accommodate an
22 27 additional foodstore to serve Sandwich. The proposed foodstore will have retail impacts upon Sandwich town centre but the magnitude of impacts predicted by GLH are not at a level which would be considered significantly adverse. Whilst the floorspace of the proposals are above the level of short and medium term need set out in the Core Strategy and LALP the proposals will fulfil the local policy for a foodstore and are supportable in capacity terms in the longer term. In addition, the proposals will address and improve trade retention in Sandwich and have the potential to provide linked trips with the town centre.
Other Benefits
32. Given the conclusion that there are no alternative sequential sites and that the proposals will not have a significant adverse impact, the balancing of other benefits is not essential to the retail analysis but as GLH have advised, they are material to the overall planning decision making process.
33. The submitted RS provides a brief review of the wider merits of the proposal which can be summarised as:
• Providing an appropriate scale store to reduce leakage • Sustainable and accessible location • Provides for the relocation, expansion and upgrade of an existing doctors surgery • Provide local employment (c.150 jobs)
Doctor’s Surgery & Pharmacy
34. As noted above, an existing doctor’s practice currently located within Sandwich is proposing to relocate to the proposed surgery. The supporting statement submitted with the application describes how the practice has increased its patient role by 27% over the last 6 years and indicates that patient demand is set to increase further, estimated to increase c.20% over the next three years. With this increase in patient role the practice is looking to recruit a third partner. The existing practice currently employs eight members of staff (full and part-time) in addition to the two full-time GPs and is an accredited teaching practice for Kings College London.
35. The supporting statement notes that the existing accommodation is inadequate for modern practice purposes primarily because it does not meet current disabled access requirements. There are a number of consulting rooms upstairs (with no lift), the entrance threshold is not level, there is no patient parking, there is no safe patient drop off area and when ambulances are called to the surgery they block the highway whilst attending to the patient.
36. It is proposed that the new accommodation will allow extended health and community services, focusing on addressing existing unmet medical needs and inequalities of access to various services that currently exist in the area. With the additional consultation rooms available, including a GP registrar room, extra consultations with a doctor will be available. The practice estimates that the improved accommodation will enable an extra 80-100 GP appointments per week. Additional sessional community clinics will also be possible. This is likely
23 28 to include consultant led clinics, ENT clinic, audiology, minor surgery, physiotherapy, improved antenatal care, non-obstetric ultrasound and family planning clinic. There will be full disabled access including provision for disabled and mobility scooter parking and secure, safe parking for all patients.
37. A dispensing pharmacy with ancillary retail is also proposed to be accommodated within the new-build doctor’s surgery. It is proposed that the pharmacy is open seven days a week (with limited opening on Sundays and Bank Holidays). The supporting statement identifies that there is a single pharmacy within the centre of Sandwich (Boots Chemist) which also provides an element of retail. The proposed new pharmacy would be located c.0.6km from the existing facility and is intended to improve access to pharmaceutical services primarily for the higher than average population of older people in the outlying rural area and Sandwich. It is proposed that the pharmacy will work in close co- operation with the adjacent doctors surgery providing ‘a seamless collaboration between Primary Care and pharmaceutical services, thereby enhancing the delivery of urgent and long term care to the residents of Sandwich and the wider rural community’ (supporting statement from existing practice).
38. Notwithstanding the clear community benefits that the improved and expanded health care provision would deliver, the facility is located outside settlement confines, on a previously undeveloped, unallocated site. For this reason it represents a departure from the development plan. However for reasons that mirror the retail element of the proposal discussed above, it is considered that the proposed relocation would be acceptable as a departure and that the site is suitable for the development proposed. Accessibility of the improved healthcare facilities would be improved as a result of this development, particularly for elderly and disabled patients. The site is on a main bus route allowing for easy access from outlying villages, it is within reasonable walking distance from the town centre and residential areas, over paved and level ground, and is close to the railway station. The proximity and direct access to the town centre would encourage linked trips to the existing town centre by patients. Provision of secure parking for bikes and mobility scooters will further enhance the accessibility of the site.
Transport & Location of Development
39. The site is located outside the Town Centre Area/Primary Shopping Area and settlement confines of Sandwich and will therefore generate travel outside of these areas. CS Policy DM11 which seeks to resist development outside settlement boundaries unless justified by development plan policies therefore applies.
40. Dover Road provides the main route into and out of Sandwich to/from the south. Further south along Dover Road there is a link to the western by-pass which provides good road links with Dover to the South, Deal and then onto Canterbury, Ashford and the M2/A2. The site is also well served and well located in terms of public transport connections. Sandwich railway station is located immediately to the north (approximately 240m walking distance) with pedestrian access directly onto Dover Road providing travel times of 22mins to Dover, 12mins to Ramsgate and 60mins to Canterbury. There are also bus stops on
24 29 both sides of Dover Road directly opposite the application site. These have a frequent service (hourly) connecting to Canterbury and Deal.
41. The site also benefits from good pedestrian links to the adjacent population of Sandwich along paved and level routes. The site is approximately 10-15 minute walk from the existing town centre following the course of The Delf. Although the development site is located outside of the town confines of Sandwich as defined by the Proposals Map, there is existing development further to the south of the site along Dover Road, including the Sandwich Technical School and to the west in the area of St Bart’s Road and Burch Avenue. It is therefore considered to be well located in terms of the population which it is to serve.
42. The northern end of Public Right of Way (PRoW) ES6 links Dover Road (adjacent to the application site) to Worth which, linking with PROW EE235A, provides a continuous 1.5km footpath link to Worth. The footpath has a hard surface along its entire length, however KCC have identified that the condition of the surface of the PROW is in a poor state of repair. A condition requiring a scheme of repair to the surface of the PROW to be submitted to the LPA for approval has been suggested and is acceptable to the applicant. It is considered that these works would encourage access to the site by pedestrians and cyclists and would further contribute to the sustainability of the site.
43. The application is supported by a Transport Assessment which has been reviewed by KHS. Further transport work was required by KHS which has now been completed. The further work has enabled KHS to conclude that they have no objection to the proposed development. The TA has presented a ‘worse-case’ scenario to avoid under-estimating the likely impact on the existing road network of the addition of development generated traffic. The results of the analysis show that the network would continue to operate satisfactorily following the addition of development generated traffic. KHS have accepted these findings and have confirmed that the likely impact of the development on the highway network is not severe and can be accommodated. The impact is likely to be less than anticipated by the TA as no account has been made of trips to the development by drivers already on the highway network, already passing the site and/or currently driving out of Sandwich to other supermarkets.
44. With regard to the level crossing in Dover Road (approximately 200m to the north of the proposed vehicular entrance to the site), the TA has demonstrated that the proposals are not likely to have a severe impact on queuing when the barriers are down or on the flow of traffic between closure periods. In both AM and PM peaks the traffic models presented demonstrate that queues dissipate quickly after the level crossing event and a free-flow situation returns.
45. Suitable access to the site has also been achieved. The development proposes to improve pedestrian accessibility to the site through a number of measures including provision of an un-controlled pedestrian refuge island within Dover Road to facilitate pedestrians crossing; provision of two separate pedestrian access points into the site and a designated pedestrian route through the car park.
25 30 46. Currently only the bus stop on the east side of Dover Road has a passenger shelter. In line with the recommendation made by Stagecoach which is supported by KHS, the applicant has agreed to provide a new shelter for the bus stop on the west side of Dover Road. This can be secured by way of condition which is reflected in the recommendation set out below. This will further encourage public transport use.
47. Vehicular access to the site is shown to be provided by a new vehicular bridge crossing The Delf to the south of the Dover Road frontage. As noted elsewhere within this report, for design reasons the vehicular access has been modified from that originally proposed to create a visually less disruptive solution. This has resulted in a narrower access width, but one which remains functional and in accordance with KHS requirements.
48. In addition to the new bus shelter and pedestrian refuge island, further off-site highway works include some kerb realignment along the east side of Dover Road, provision of a right hand turn lane into the site from Dover Road, and implementation of parking restrictions on Dover Road in the vicinity of the site to ensure safe and suitable access is maintained.
49. The development is shown to be served by a total of 183 parking spaces, of which; 175 are for public use and managed by the applicant including 11 disabled spaces and 7 parent and child spaces; and 8 are designated spaces for surgery staff. The development also allows for 8 secure motor cycle spaces and 16 covered and secure cycle spaces to the front of the store. Adequate parking and manoeuvring space for service and delivery vehicles, including home delivery vans, is also provided. The provision of vehicle parking and manoeuvring is considered to be acceptable and appropriate to the size and nature of development proposed.
50. The applicant proposes to manage the car park to enforce a maximum permitted duration of stay within the car park of 3 hours. This has been increased from 2 hours as originally proposed. The amount and management of parking provided by the development will influence the likelihood of linked trips to existing shops and facilities in the town centre. It is difficult to predict the anticipated duration of stay within the car park, however drawing on evidence gained from other existing Waitrose stores, the applicant has advised that the average duration of stay of those visiting the Waitrose store is 45 minutes. The maximum 3 hour stay would allow time for customers visiting the store to undertake linked trips in town. A condition requiring the submission of a parking management scheme, including a review timetable to enable the management of the car park to the monitored and adjusted where necessary once the store has begun trading, is included in the recommendation below.
51. It is also important to enforce a maximum stay in the car park to prevent spaces being ‘blocked’ by vehicles being parked there all day. This is particularly relevant in this location where the train station is in such close proximity to the store - otherwise rail passengers could take advantage of free unmanaged parking which could significantly reduce the availability of parking for staff and customers.
26 31 52. In addition to the retail case set out elsewhere within this report (and appended), the site is well located in terms of connections to public transport services (bus and rail) and pedestrian routes. The Council’s retail consultant has concluded that the food store proposal whilst outside Sandwich town centre is located in an out of centre location which is accessible and has the potential to form links with the town centre. The TA has demonstrated that the estimated travel demand for the development can be accommodated by the existing highway infrastructure, and the development proposal includes mitigation measures to maximise opportunities for walking, cycling and the use of public transport. For these reasons it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of CS policy DM11.
53. Overall, and subject to condition, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of parking provision, vehicular access and access by a range of sustainable transport modes.
Design & Visual Amenity
54. The proposed retail store is shown to be set back within the site, approximately 63m from the front boundary. The doctor’s surgery and pharmacy is set forward of the retail store at the north side of the application site with a setback distance of approximately 45m. Some concern has been expressed at the chosen layout option where the main part of the development is located towards the back of the site as this does not provide street enclosure to Dover Road and it results in a large expanse of surface car parking in front of the store. Whilst these are valid points, it is considered that the particular characteristics of this site and its immediate context support the design and layout presented by this application.
55. As noted above and discussed in terms of the heritage context below, the site is currently an open green field which provides separation between existing areas of built development along Dover Road and provides partial views out to the open countryside beyond, reflecting its location at the edge of the settlement confines. Existing neighbouring properties immediately to the north of the site are set back from Dover Road and correspond with the forward building line of the development, i.e. the surgery building. The proposed layout reflects the established building line of properties immediately to the north and its set back retains the open character of the site. Although there is no question that the appearance of the site will be significantly altered as a result of this development, it is considered that the visual impact will be sufficiently ameliorated by the design and set back of the development, the existing and proposed landscaping and front boundary treatment.
56. Dover Road benefits from an established avenue of Poplar trees which run along both sides of the carriageway across the frontage of the site and parallel to The Delf watercourse. Hence the proposed front boundary wall of the development is set back from the road frontage, behind the trees and watercourse, by approximately 20metres. It is proposed to supplement the existing trees and greenery with additional planting as part of an overall landscape masterplan for the site, which includes tree planting throughout the car park. A front boundary wall of brick with recessed flint panels is proposed across the entire site frontage, with the exception of the pedestrian and vehicular access points – here the wall
27 32 is splayed. The design and materials reflect that of the existing boundary wall on the opposite side of Dover Road and at the corner of St. Bart’s Road. The height of the wall, at 1.4m, has been specifically determined by the line of sight from the Conservation Area on the opposite side of Dover Road. This, together with the supplemented mature planting and set back across The Delf will screen cars parked towards the front of the site from immediate view within the streetscene.
57. The food retail building itself is single storey (maximum ridge height 8.2m and 5m to eaves) and the roof profile has been designed as a series of north lights. This serves to significantly reduce the height of the foodstore so that it is below that of the adjacent building (10 Dover Road), and it visually fragments the horizontal plane of the development, appearing in profile as a series of smaller units. This approach avoids the need for a large single span pitched roof. Whilst the architectural design of the building does not directly reflect the prevailing character of the area, it is considered that to try and replicate the historic vernacular and apply it to a contemporary commercial food retail store would not be an appropriate approach. Notwithstanding this however, the layout of the site and height/scale of the development responds appropriately to the context, and whilst in plan form the development is significantly larger than the existing grain of development in the area, it is considered that the proposed design solution presented by the application has been successful in reducing the perceived scale and mass of the building.
58. The roof profile of the main retail building has been amended at the request of the applicant’s agent. The single apex closest to the north boundary of the site (common with 10 Dover Road) has been deleted and this section of the building is now presented as flat roof. It is considered that the proposed amendments would not materially affect the overall character or appearance of the development as a whole. The section concerned lies immediately behind the proposed doctor’s surgery building, which itself has a pitched roof, and with the substantial set back within the site, would serve to screen this section of the retail building from view in the wider setting. No objection is therefore raised to the proposed amendments. As a result it has actually improved the relationship between the development and the adjacent property 10 Dover Road – see ‘residential amenity’ below.
59. The doctor’s surgery building reflects the design and materials of the proposed retail store and serves to give depth to, and visually fragment, the scale of the retail store behind.
60. All material details, including sample panels for the proposed front boundary treatment can be secured and safeguarded through conditions. The recommendation set out below refers.
61. The location of the retail store to the rear of the site provides an opportunity to enclose and screen the necessary service and delivery yard. This is shown to the rear of the retail building within the east corner of the site. Access to this area of the development is along a designated access route running from the main vehicular access on Dover Road, through the car park and along the southern elevation of the store. Whilst partial views of the rear of the retail building and service yard may be possible from the railway pedestrian crossing (a grade II
28 33 listed structure), it is not considered that its appearance would be detrimental to visual amenity or the setting of the listed structures.
62. The main pedestrian access to the site utilizes the existing bridge crossing The Delf and provides a 1.7m wide pedestrian access from Dover Road. Wooden post and rail fencing is proposed along either side of the existing bridge and the surface of the bridge is shown to be resin bonded gravel. This pedestrian link allows views into the site from within the Conservation Area on the opposite side of Dover Road, the heritage implications for which are addressed elsewhere within this report. The pedestrian bridge crossing aligns with the existing access to the Bartholomew’s Hospital complex allowing a clear visual link between the retail store and listed buildings/conservation area. The development has been designed to optimise this visual connection and a tree lined pedestrian route carries through the car park along this line of sight to the retail store. The terminus of this view would be the integral café and associated outdoor seating area. It is considered that this would provide a positive terminus to this important view.
63. The proposals include construction of a new bridge crossing over The Delf watercourse to provide vehicular access to the site. Plans originally showed a single lane entrance to the site and a double lane exit. The result was very highway dominant which was felt to be inappropriate for the heritage setting and context of the site. The applicant and their consultants have worked with officers and KHS to devise a solution that minimizes the visual impact of the new access, whilst ensuring a workable solution from a highway perspective. The result is a narrower access road allowing for a single lane entrance and single lane exit to the car park which is much less visually intrusive but still functionally operative.
64. The proposed brick and flint boundary wall across the frontage of the site has also been extended to the other side of the vehicular access and details of the intended treatment of the elevations of the new bridge have been provided which show the facades of the bridge to be brick clad. It is considered that the bridge design reflects that of the existing bridge crossing which is to be utilized as the pedestrian access. Parallel to and immediately adjacent to the proposed new vehicular access bridge is a proposed timber bridge which would provide a secondary pedestrian crossing point into the site. Timber gates have also been shown on the plans across the vehicular access, which appear as a continuation of the timber hand rails when in the open position.
65. Long views of the site would be possible from the south and south-east from the existing Public Right of Way (PROW) ES6. The development would be seen against a backdrop of existing development and would be sunstantially screened by an existing and mature hedge boundary running along the entire south-east boundary of the site. This is shown to be protected during site works and thereafter retained. This can be safeguarded through the attachment of a condition. The recommendation set out below refers.
66. The landscape masterplan for the site shows the north boundary of the site to be planted with a new native species hedgerow. This will soften views of the site from the north along Dover Road. Again this can be secured by way of condition.
29 34 67. The application is accompanied by an external lighting scheme. This was amended in negotiation with officers during the course of the application to ensure that the scheme was appropriate for its setting. The use of low level bollard lighting has been utilized wherever possible, and lighting columns have been located and designed with a view to minimizing potential light pollution. It is considered that an acceptable balance has been reached. A condition controlling the positioning of security lights fixed to the north elevation of the food store has been recommended to prevent light pollution to the neighbouring property at 10 Dover Road, together with a condition requiring a timetable for the external lighting of the site to minimize unnecessary lighting.
68. Overall, it is considered that the application presents a sympathetic design solution that respects the unique setting of this important site whilst accommodating the requirements of a modern food retailer and GP practice.
Impact on Heritage Assets:
69. The development site is located opposite the cluster of historic buildings associated with St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, which includes the thirteenth century Grade I Listed Church and Grade II Listed Alms-houses. The complex has also been designated as a Conservation Area. Although the land between the hospital and the town walls has largely been in-filled with later development, the application site, and extensive rural land to the east and south-east of it, still allows a sense of the hospital’s historic separation from the town which is further reinforced by the sites relative tranquillity. The orientation of the main approach to the hospital gives particular prominence to this rural aspect of its setting. In accordance with the recommendation from English Heritage, these elements of the hospital’s setting should be treated as contributing to the significance of its constituent Listed Buildings and the Conservation Area.
70. The starting point for evaluating the impact of the proposals on these designated heritage assets, is to consider the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. In particular section 66(1), requires local planning authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their settings, whilst section 72(1) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.
71. Additionally the NPPF states that ‘When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alterations or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification’.
72. English Heritage has commented that ‘the proposed development and high levels of activity associated with it will alter the character of the application site by removing its rural appearance and by diminishing its tranquillity. Some harm will consequently be done to those aspects of the hospital’s significance that are derived from its setting’. However English Heritage considers that this should not
30 35 be considered as ‘substantial’ harm and should be considered in accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
73. There is no question that these proposals would have an impact on the setting of a number of designated heritage assets, notably the adjoining conservation areas, and listed buildings, as well as a number of undesignated heritage assets, such as some of the historic, but unlisted buildings/structures in the immediate vicinity of the site.
74. Whilst it is accepted that the applicants have sought to reduce the visual impact of the proposals by a number of measures, as identified above, it is considered that the proposals would inevitably cause some harm to the setting of these heritage assets, by virtue of the loss of the open field; the appearance of the development and the noise and traffic generation it would produce. However applying the test set out in the NPPF (paragraphs 134-136), it is considered that this would amount to ‘less than substantial harm’ as there would be no loss of any heritage assets, or any physical impact on them, nor would there be an adverse impact on any key elements of their architectural or historic interest.
75. In evaluating this proposal, and in line with the Act, referred to above, the local planning authority must have ‘special regard’ to preserving the setting of listed buildings, and it must pay ‘special attention’ to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. This is a high level test as there is a presumption against development which would cause harm to the setting of listed buildings or conservation areas.
76. In accordance with NPPG paragraph 134, where a development proposal would lead to ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of a heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the wider public benefits of a proposal. However in evaluating the proposals, and weighing the benefits against the harm, the local planning authority must also have ‘special regard’ to preserving the setting of listed buildings, and must pay ‘special attention’ to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.
77. A wide range of public benefits that would be brought about as a result of the development have been identified, these include: the provision of 150 jobs providing long term opportunities for Sandwich; linked trips to the town centre of Sandwich, therefore helping to support the local economy; improved surgery facilities, over the existing surgery accommodation together with a new pharmacy; improving the shopping offer in the town; ecological benefits with enhanced planting along The Delf, and a reduction in out-of town shopping trips. When seen as a package they would amount to considerable benefits for the local community, and can be given considerable weight in the balancing exercise.
78. The NPPF seeks to promote the economic regeneration of our towns, and significant weight should be given to this. In the foreword to the NPPF it states that ‘Our historic environment – buildings, landscapes, towns and villages – can better be cherished if their spirit of place thrives, rather than withers.’
79. The Retail Planning Critique produced by GL Hearn, seeks to evaluate the impact of the proposed foodstore on Sandwich, from a retail point of view. This document acknowledges that the proposed store would inevitably draw trade
31 36 away from the existing shopping offer, however it is not anticipated that this would be at a level which would result in store closures, and is not at a level that would be considered to be significantly adverse. The proposal would improve trade retention within the town generally and would have the potential to provide linked trips with the town centre.
80. In terms of the harm caused, this really relates to the loss of the open nature of the site and the contribution this makes to the setting of the heritage assets, together with the loss of the tranquillity of the site, the appearance of the built form on the land which is currently open and the increase in noise and traffic generation. The applicants have sought to minimise this impact by setting the development back from Dover Road and locating it adjacent to the existing built form; minimising the height, scale and massing of the building by the use of a series of ‘north lights’ for the roof of the foodstore; enhanced planting along the Delf; erection of a front boundary wall of brick and flint construction; locating the vehicular access to the south end of the site and keeping its width as narrow as is practicable; sensitive use of external lighting and location of the service/delivery yard to the rear of retail building. These aspects of the design have all helped to significantly reduce the level of harm caused to the setting of the adjoining heritage assets.
81. If Sandwich is to grow and prosper, then change to the urban form is inevitable. Whilst it is considered that the open nature of the site does contribute to the setting of a number of heritage assets, it is considered overall, that the wider public benefits, identified above, can be given significant weight in the planning balance, and that they would outweigh the harm caused to the setting of these heritage assets. Furthermore, it is considered that in spite of the statutory requirements of sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, that the case for the proposals is sufficiently strong in this instance, so as to allow the case for the development to prevail.
Archaeology
82. The application is accompanied by an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment which considers the potential for buried heritage assets of archaeological interest. The submitted assessment notes that the site is situated outside the historic core of the medieval town of Sandwich. In the late twelfth or early thirteenth century the medieval hospital of St. Bartholomew’s was founded on the opposite side of Dover Road from the application site. The site therefore lies outside the area of medieval development. However, this site is still of archaeological potential.
83. There may be evidence for road-side activity and rubbish dumping associated with the medieval town and archaeological works along the road frontage in 2005 revealed archaeological deposits of fifth and seventeenth century date alongside The Delf. These deposits are thought to relate to a cobbled yard or landing adjacent to the road and stream.
84. It is possible that the proposed development works may impact upon the remains of archaeological interest. A condition requiring the implementation of a program of archaeological work has been included within the recommendation below.
32 37
Countryside, Agriculture & Landscape Impact
85. The site is located outside settlement confines and for Core Strategy purposes is located within the ‘countryside’. The policy requirements of CS policy DM15 which seek to resist development that would result in the loss of or adversely affect the character or appearance of the countryside, therefore apply. This policy has a number of criteria whereby such development will only be permitted if it is i) in accordance with allocations made in Development Plan Documents or ii) justified by the needs of agriculture or iii) justified by a need to sustain the rural economy or a rural community; iv) it cannot be accommodated elsewhere; and v) it does not result in the loss of ecological habitats – provided that measures are incorporated to reduce, as far as practicable, any harmful effects on countryside character.
86. In this case there is policy support for new convenience retail provision in Sandwich, see emerging LALP policy LA17 (as amended), although there is no specific site allocation for this policy. The sequential analysis undertaken for the location of the retail development has considered alternative sites for the development and has concluded that there are no sequentially preferable sites available within the town centre or on the edge of the centre available. The ecological considerations of the site are considered elsewhere within this report, however in summary there are no ecological habitats or wider ecological issues relevant to this site that would justify refusal of this application.
87. The triangular shaped site predominantly constitutes an agricultural field with an area of c.1.1ha. Its boundaries to the west and north/north-east are contained by existing development and railway line. Residential properties stretch out southwards along Dover Road. The only open boundary of the site is to the south-east where a mature hedge boundary divides the site from the wider open countryside. As noted above, the proposed development would significantly alter the character of the site itself, however it is considered that the site is well located in terms of its relationship with and proximity to existing development, and it appears as a discrete area of land by virtue of the existing hedge boundary (which is proposed to be retained) such that its loss would not have a significant adverse impact on the character, appearance or setting of the wider countryside.
88. The development itself has a low profile and with the supplementary planting proposed through the sites landscape strategy will minimise the impact of this development on the wider landscape.
89. The development will result in the loss of c.1.1ha of agricultural land. For plan making purposes, the NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should take account of the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where ‘significant development’ of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, LPAs should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to higher quality (NPPF para 112).
90. It is acknowledged that the land may be classed as “best and most versatile” land for agriculture. However, a soil test would be required to definitively confirm this.
33 38 91. Whilst a ‘significant area of agricultural land’ is not quantified within the NPPF, the statutory consultation threshold for development involving the loss of grade 1, 2 or 3a agricultural land is 20ha (or where cumulatively with other likely development would exceed 20ha). The statutory consultee in such cases is Natural England (NE). Whilst the current proposal does not trigger the need to consult NE on the grounds of loss of agricultural land, NE have been consulted for other reasons (potential impact on protected species and habitats), however it is noted that they have not raised any objection to the development on the grounds of loss of agricultural land.
92. Loss of less than 20ha of such land is a material planning consideration, however the weight given to that is inherently linked to the size of land concerned. In this case, at 1.1ha the land in question represents c.5% of the consultation threshold.
93. Evidence from aerial photographs indicates that the land has not been farmed (i.e. used productively) for over 30-40 years, apart from periodic grazing which does not require high grade agricultural land. For an LPA to attribute weight to the loss of agricultural land, the LPA must be satisfied that if the planning application in question were refused, there would be a ‘fair chance’ that the desirable use (i.e. agriculture) would be taken up. The lack of productive use over the past 30+ years suggests that there is limited prospect of the land contributing to food production if the current application were refused.
94. The justification for the development in addressing an identified need for convenience retail provision is addressed elsewhere within this report. Additionally, by reason of its limited size, lack of economic agricultural productivity and peripheral location divided from the adjoining field to the south- east by a mature and established hedge line (which is to be retained), it is not considered that the loss of 1.1ha of agricultural land in this case could be attributed sufficient weight to justify refusal of this application. Similarly the development would not prejudice the economic viability or agricultural potential of surrounding land.
Residential Amenity
95. Immediately adjoining the site to the north is 10 Dover Road. As noted elsewhere within this report, planning permission was granted in April this year for the conversion of this former children’s nursery to 10 residential flats (DOV/12/0700). The conversion of this property is nearing completion at the time of writing this report. Although the units are not yet occupied the impact of the proposed development on the residential amenity of future occupants of this development is a material planning consideration. A core principle of the NPPF is to ensure that development proposals achieve a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants (NPPF paragraph 17).
96. Number 10 Dover Road is a two-storey detached building with a T-shaped plan form. The proposed doctor’s surgery and pharmacy building is located approximately 10m to the south of the front section of 10 Dover Road at the nearest point, and has a height at this elevation of 2.8m, rising to 6.5m at around 17m away from the side elevation of the adjacent property. The approved plans for the conversion of 10 Dover Road show ground and first floor windows within
34 39 the south elevation of this section of building facing towards the proposed doctors’ surgery. These are to serve a kitchen, bathroom and living room/dining room on the ground floor (flat 2) and a kitchen, en suite and living room on the first floor (flat 7). In both cases the living rooms are also served by additional windows facing west or east (front and rear). The ground floor flat (flat 2) is shown on the approved plans to have a section of private amenity space to the south and east of the building in this location.
97. The side elevation of 10 Dover Road then steps in away from the development site to the effect that there is a separation distance of between c.15m and 17m between the remainder of the building and the north elevation of the doctor’s surgery.
98. The majority of the depth of 10 Dover Road is parallel to the north elevation of the doctor’s surgery building. The retail building is set back from the forward building line of the adjacent property and is parallel to the rear 8m section of 10 Dover Road. Here the retail building is located closer to the site boundary and is c.17m away from the south elevation of 10 Dover Road (c.15m to the edge of the approved first floor south-facing balcony). Originally the retail building had a height of c.8.3m along the boundary shared with 10 Dover Road, however the latest amendments to the scheme have reduced this height to c.5m.
99. Approved plans for the conversion of 10 Dover Road show a number of large ground and first floor habitable room windows within the south side elevation facing the development site, together with a first floor south facing balcony on the rear section of the building (serving flat 10 and garden access to flat 9 via an external staircase). The majority of the area surrounding the rear section of 10 Dover Road on the south side is shown as a communal garden for the flats that are under construction. A strip of land c. 3m wide immediately parallel to the rear section of the building is shown to be divided from the communal area by a fence providing private amenity space for the ground floor flat (flat 4) which wraps around to the rear (east) of the building.
100. Following a recent site visit to 10 Dover Road, it is apparent that the development has not been carried out in accordance with the approved plans. The existing first floor ‘splayed’ balcony on the south elevation has been retained to its full extent (the approved plans show the area of the existing balcony significantly reduced) to the effect that the first floor balcony to flat 10 is now c.9.5m from the side elevation of the retail building at the closest point (as opposed to c.15m as shown on the approved plans). The wider balcony now reduces the degree of sunlight reaching the south facing windows of the ground floor flat below (flat 4) and is hence more reliant on ambient daylight as opposed to direct sunlight. The configuration of the communal and private gardens also differs from what is shown on the approved plan such that the private garden to flat 4 is significantly larger than shown on the approved plans, coming within c.8m of the retail building (as opposed to c.12m as shown on the approved plans).
101. It is noted that an existing row of mature trees to a height of approximately 7- 8m, is located along the boundary within the grounds of 10 Dover Road that will further soften the appearance of the development when viewed from the adjacent
35 40 property – although it is noted from a recent site inspection that the canopy of most of these trees has been severely cut back. It is proposed to erect a close- boarded fence and plant a native species hedge along the north boundary of the application site which will supplement the existing boundary trees.
102. Located to the south of 10 Dover Road, the proposed development will inevitably cause some degree of overshadowing to the adjacent land. The applicants have provided a sunpath analysis to illustrate the extent of the shadowing from the development. These were based on the development as originally proposed with the greater roof height to the common boundary. It is considered that with the significant reduction in the height of the development along the common boundary with 10 Dover Road will result in an equivalent reduction in the degree of shadowing caused by the retail development to the effect that it is not considered that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of future occupants of 10 Dover Road.
103. Overall, it is considered that the separation distances afforded between the development and the existing adjacent property would provide sufficient mitigation so as not to give rise to a significant impact on the residential amenity of future occupants in terms of loss of outlook, overshadowing or sense of enclosure. It is however, without question that views from the future units within 10 Dover Road will be significantly altered as a result of this development. The site currently allows long views over fields and the surrounding countryside. However, unlike direct impacts on residential amenity such as overshadowing or outlook, an existing ‘aesthetic’ view over adjacent land is not a material consideration.
104. The development that has recently been carried out at 10 Dover Road has served to reduce the degree of sunlight/daylight reaching the ground flat (flat 4) as the wider first floor balcony reduces the outlook and degree of openness to this unit. Consequently, the wider first floor balcony has a greater impact on the residential amenities of future occupants than the retail development, as described above. These changes are unauthorized and the matter has been passed to the Council’s investigation team to consider. Pending the resolution of these enforcement investigations, the unauthorized development carries limited weight in the consideration of this application. Notwithstanding this however, due to the separation distances that remain between the proposed development and that of 10 Dover Road (including the unauthorized development that has taken place), together with the reduction in height of the retail building, it is not considered that the proposed development would detract from the residential amenities of future occupants to such a degree that would warrant refusal on these grounds.
105. With the exception of two fire-exit doors from the main sales area, there are no openings within the north side elevation of the retail building. There are a number of ground floor windows within the north elevation of the doctor’s surgery building to serve the consultation rooms. However, these are shown to be at a level below that of the side boundary fence, and they are to serve consulting rooms within the surgery. It is not considered that overlooking from the development towards 10 Dover Road would be a significant issue in this instance.
36 41
106. There are a number of security lights shown on the proposed lighting scheme that are to be fixed to the north side elevation of the retail building. These are required to be located below the height of the side boundary so as not to cause light disturbance to the adjacent residential units. This can be controlled by way of a condition which is included within the recommendation below.
107. On balance and overall it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of its relationship with 10 Dover Road.
108. As noted above, the development is set well back within the site and includes provision of a 1.4m front boundary wall and additional planting along The Delf. It is not considered that there would be a significant or direct impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring occupants on the opposite side of Dover Road. The proposed vehicular access is located towards the south of the site on Dover Road and is located such that it is opposite the rear boundary wall of properties in the St. Bartholomew’s hospital complex, which are located approximately 70m to the west across Dover Road. It is not considered that the development would cause significant harm to residential amenities in terms of light pollution, vehicular noise, or movement disturbance.
109. Properties to the south of the application site, in Dover Road are located at a sufficient distance not to be directly impacted by the development. A bungalow at 26 Dover Road is the closest of such properties and is located some 55m to the south of the car park, separated by a small area of informal allotments.
110. It is clear that the development of the site as proposed will significantly alter the character and appearance of the site. However, due to the design and siting of the development in relation to surrounding properties, is it not considered that there would be a significant detrimental impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring occupants.
111. The potential impact of noise and matters of environmental protection are addressed below.
Environmental Protection
112. The nearest existing residential properties to the retail unit are the yet to be converted/occupied flats of 10 Dover Road to the north which are 10metres from the proposed development (at the closest point); dwellings approximately 60metres to the north in Delf Side/St Andrew’s Lees on the opposite side of the station and railway line; dwellings approximately 95metres to the west in the St Bartholomew’s Hospital complex; and 26 Dover Road approximately 150m to the south.
113. There are no issues in relation to the historical use of the land in terms of potential sources of land contamination. Similarly, there are no specific restraints in relation to air quality, however a condition requiring details of a Construction Management Plan has been recommended that will provide mitigation details to address potential environmental impacts during the construction process.
37 42
114. There is a need to safeguard residential amenity from potential noise pollution arising from the operation of the store and in particular use of the rear service/delivery yard. The application includes a Technical Memorandum which provides an overview of noise impacts from the development including details of the plant and equipment which is likely to be used in the store and associated medical provision. It confirms that the main plant area will have solid facades facing the proposed residential area to the north. Additionally, the service/delivery yard to the rear of the store is to be screened with a 2.5m high solid wall. The application sets out the delivery times for the store which are to take place between 7am-10pm Monday to Friday and 8am-6pm on Saturday, Sunday and Bank Holidays.
115. In the interest of protecting the residential amenities of neighbouring occupants the Council’s Environmental Protection team has recommended a condition to limit the hours of delivery as specified above with the exception of deliveries on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays which are to be limited to between the hours of 8am – 4pm. A condition to this effect has been included within the recommendation below. Similarly a safeguarding condition to limit noise emission from fixed plant and machinery at the store has also been recommended. With these safeguards in place it is not considered that the development would be detrimental to environmental quality or residential amenity.
Ecology & Trees
116. There are no specific ecological issues affecting the development of this site. However the site does benefit from substantial tree and hedge boundaries along Dover Road and The Delf and the southern perimeter.
117. Situated along the western site boundary adjacent to Dover Road is a row of mature Black Poplars, augmented by a secondary row of irregularly spaced smaller trees. They combine to provide a feature of high amenity value (forming one side of the avenue of trees running along this section of Dover Road) and a natural and established screen for the proposed development site.
118. The submitted Tree Protection and Retention Plan show the majority of trees along the western boundary to be retained as part of the proposed development. Those trees listed as ‘removed to permit development’, to make way for the proposed vehicular access, are largely classified as U meaning they are in such a condition that they cannot realistically be retained. The proposed location of protective fencing appears to be suitably placed to protect those trees to be retained, which includes the significant Poplars.
119. It is not considered that the loss of those trees identified for removal would significantly detract from the amenity of the area. The existing character of this stretch of Dover Road will not be significantly affected. Conditions to require appropriate safeguarding and protection during construction and replacement tree planting have been included within recommended below.
38 43 Flood Risk & Drainage:
120. The application site lies in an area at low risk of flooding. However due to the size of the site, it remains to consider the effect of the development on surface water. The submitted FRA proposes to discharge surface waters directly into the adjacent watercourse (The Delf). This approach is not supported by the EA as this watercourse has insufficient capacity to accommodate the additional flow, unless a currently inoperative sluice structure is repaired. The applicants are in discussion with the EA regarding this matter. Notwithstanding this however the EA has recommended that a condition should be attached to any forthcoming permission to require details of a surface water drainage system based on sustainable drainage principles (SUDS) to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to the commencement of development. The applicant is happy with this approach and is content that a satisfactory scheme can be developed for the site.
Sustainable Construction
121. The development is proposed to be constructed to BREEAM ‘Very Good’ standard, which meets the requirements of the Development Plan, a condition in the recommendation set out below refers.
Overall Conclusion
122. The retail store, GP practice and pharmacy proposals have been fully considered and assessed in accordance with the aims and objectives of the NPPF, relevant Development Plan policies and other documents and guidance. This assessment has been informed through detailed consideration of the representations made by statutory consultees and other third parties.
123. The application site is outside the Town Centre Area and Primary Shopping Area of Sandwich, as identified in the emerging LALP. However, the retail assessment submitted with the application concluded that there are no suitable in centre or edge of centre sites to meet the retail need identified by the LPAs Retail Update (2012) for the Deal/Sandwich trade zone. This conclusion has been confirmed through completion of sequential assessment work undertaken by GLH. The LALP modifications, referred to above refer to the criteria against which new convenience provision in Sandwich should be considered, are a material consideration, due to their advanced stage in preparation and carry due weight in consideration of this application.
124. In the absence of any in-centre or edge-of-centre sites, it is accepted that the application site would be sequentially preferable given its accessibility (pedestrian, cycle and public transport) and potential to form linked trips with the town centre.
125. The NPPF advises that ‘where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact … it should be refused’ (para 27). The impact test has identified that whilst the proposals will have an adverse impact upon trading levels within the existing town centre, this is not of a magnitude that would be considered to be significantly adverse.
39 44
126. The proposals are of a size and potential turnover which is in excess of the need identified within the RU for the Deal/Sandwich trade area by 2017, but could be supported by 2022. Hence whilst the floorspace of the proposals are above the level of short and medium term need set out in the CS and LALP, the proposals will fulfil the local policy for a foodstore and are supportable in the long term in respect of capacity. There is an anticipated adverse impact, but the proposal has potential to contribute to the town centre through improved levels of trade retention, linked shopping trips and related linked spending, such that the overall vitality and viability of the town centre will not be significantly adversely impacted.
127. The site is sustainably located being in close proximity to bus and rail connections and within reasonable walking distance over flat level ground to the existing town centre and surrounding residential populations. The co-location of the doctor’s surgery and pharmacy with the retail store will further reinforce the connection of the site within the wider community. The site offers greater accessibility to patients and will enable the existing practice within Sandwich to expand in response to an identified growth in demand for services.
128. The TA submitted with the application has demonstrated that the estimated travel demand for the development can be accommodated by existing highway infrastructure and this has been accepted by Kent Highway Services. The development proposals include mitigation measures that will further maximise opportunities for sustainable transport. The level of parking and vehicular access to the site is considered to be acceptable, subject to condition.
129. The proposed development is of a suitable scale, mass and design which respects and responds positively to the site context and surrounding environment, and the design mitigation will result in a development that will not have a significant adverse impact on the wider landscape or countryside setting. There will be no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining neighbours.
130. Whilst it is accepted that the proposals would inevitably cause some harm to the setting of adjacent heritage assets, it is considered that this would amount to ‘less than substantial harm’ as there would be no loss of any heritage assets, or any physical impact upon them, nor would there be an adverse impact on any key elements of their architectural or historic interest. The harm that would be caused to the setting of the adjacent assets has been carefully considered and weighed against the wider public benefits of the proposal in accordance with NPPF requirements. In conclusion, and on balance, it is considered that the wider public benefits of the scheme are sufficiently strong in this case to outweigh the harm caused to the setting of the heritage assets.
131. The issues of archaeology, environmental protection. ecology, tree protection, landscaping, flood risk, drainage and sustainable construction have been assessed and it is considered that any impacts can be adequately mitigated through the imposition of suitable conditions.
40 45 132. In conclusion, it is considered that the development represents a sustainable form of development that complies with the requirements of the NPPF, NPPG and Development Plan.
Secretary of State Referral
133. The Town & Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 applies to this application by reason of the departure from the development plan, the out of centre location, the proposed retail floor area and proximity to existing retail development (within 1km of the site). The Direction requires that where a local planning authority does not propose to refuse an application to which the Direction applies, the authority shall consult the Secretary of State – prior to the issue of the decision. The recommendation below is made accordingly.
Recommendation
I Subject to confirmation from the Secretary of State that a Direction will not be issued in respect of this application (i.e. that the application will not be called-in), PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the attachment of safeguarding conditions which are summarised below, to include :-
. Standard 3 year time limit for commencement; . Schedule of amended plans; . Restrict retail use & maximum retail floor areas (% comparison: % convenience) including any mezzanine levels and café use; . Restrict use of dispensing pharmacy and surgery together with a maximum ancillary retail floorspace; . Phasing strategy and plan; . Restrict hours of use of surgery & pharmacy; . Restrict hours of opening of retail store; . Delivery Hours for retail/pharmacy/surgery – no collection/deliveries outside the hours of 07.00-22.00hrs Mon-Fri or 08.00-16.00hrs on Saturdays Sundays or Bank Holidays; . Details of plant and machinery & noise control; . Tree & hedgerow retention & protection; . Replacement tree planting; . Hedge planting (native species) along north boundary; . Provision and retention of approved vehicle parking spaces; . Provision and retention of bicycle and motor cycle parking spaces; . Details of secure covered bicycle parking; . Servicing Management Plan; . Parking Management Plan: (customer parking & service vehicles), including a review mechanism after commencement of trading at the store; . Provision and retention of vehicle loading/unloading and turning facilities; . Provision of measures to prevent the discharge of surface water onto the highway; . Gates to open away from the highway with a minimum set back of 16m from carriageway;
41 46 . Removal of existing vehicle crossing in Dover Road and reinstatement of footway; . Pedestrian visibility splays; . Provision of a bus shelter (details to be agreed) adjacent to the existing north-bound bus stop of the west side of Dover Road prior to commencement of use; . Completion of highway works as shown indicatively on the approved plans and in accordance with details to be submitted and approved in writing by the LPA, prior to commencement of use; . Completion of accesses shown on approved plans prior to commencement of use of the development; . Require details of SUDS or equivalent surface water drainage strategy; . Program of archaeological work; . Sustainable construction BREEAM ‘Very Good’; . Samples of materials; . Sample panel of flint for front boundary wall; . Details of external lighting, including position & timing of illumination; . External lighting (with the exception of security lighting) to be restricted during hours when the store is closed; . Specification of Crime Prevention & safety measures; . Construction Management Plan (CMP)/Code of Construction Practice (CoCP); . Hard and soft landscaping details and implementation timetable to be completed prior to commencement of use; . Completion of works to pedestrian access & bridge prior to commencement of use; . Scheme & timetable of improvements to PROW ES6 prior to commencement of use; . Details of an interpretation/information scheme to direct customers to facilities within the existing town centre, prior to commencement of use.
II All other conditions and details to be delegated to the Head of Regeneration & Development.
Case Officer
Nicola Coles
42 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 B) DOV/13/00783 – Outline application for a foodstore, associated vehicle parking, petrol filling station (to include associated kiosk and car wash facilities) access and servicing arrangements and landscaping (including removal of existing service infrastructure) at Discovery Park Enterprise Zone, Ramsgate Road, Sandwich CT13 9ND
Reason for Report
Number of representations and in the public interest
Summary of Recommendation
PLANNING PERMISSION BE REFUSED,
Planning Policies and Guidance
The development plan for the purposes of s38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) comprises the Dover District Council Core Strategy 2010 and the Saved Policies from the Dover District Local Plan 2002. Decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the policies of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
In addition to the policies of the development plan there are a number of other policies and standards which are material to the determination of planning applications including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), emerging local planning documents and other local guidance. Policies are set out below in more detail
A summary of relevant planning policy is set out below
Core Strategy (CS) Policies
The key diagram to the Adopted Core Strategy (CS) identifies the spatial strategy for Sandwich and identifies the Pharmaceuticals campus with the potential for mixed commercial development. The CS seeks uses on site that would support job growth and development functions across the business and education sectors. At the time of preparing the CS the site was occupied by Pfizer’s and had not at that stage been designated by the Government as an Enterprise Zone.
• Policy CP1 (Settlement Hierarchy) identifies Sandwich as a Rural Service centrewhich is to be ‘the main focus for development in the rural area; suitable for a scale of development that would reinforce its role as a provider of services to a wider rural area. It should provide primary health and social care, education facilities (at least primary school), emergency services, organised sport and recreational facilities, food and other shopping facilities, including a Post Office, and be accessible by frequent (hourly) bus and train services. Deal is between Dover and Sandwich in the hierarchy and is designated as a District Centre with a secondary focus (after Dover) for development in the District, being suitable for urban scale development.
• For new retail provision, Policy CP2 advises that in addition to strategic allocations for retail development made in the Core Strategy, there is a balance of 19,000 sqm gross of
1 91 retail floorspace which will be allocated through the Site Allocation Document1. Footnote 1 to Policy CP2 advises that the majority of this balance of retail floorspace is in the Deal/Sandwich trade area and that; ‘if it could be accommodated it would improve the functioning of these centres and could improve retention of spending power. Both centres are, however, constrained by a tight urban grain and historic environment and it may not be possible to accommodate this level of new floorspace’.
Paragraph 3.21 explains that the floorspace estimates are based upon a Retail Need Assessment undertaken in 2008 using 2007 market shares and is modelled upon population growth based upon delivery of 10,100 new homes. Table 3.2 of the Core Strategy (extract provided below) shows a growing need for both convenience and comparison goods shopping floorspace to serve the Deal and Sandwich area up to 2026.
, The retail floorspace need figures were produced in 2008 and are now some 6 years out of date. The Council have however commissioned an updated Retail Update 2 and this was published in 2012. The findings of the up-dated retail study underpin the emerging retail policies set out in the Land Allocations Local Plan, which are discussed elsewhere within this report.
Within the Development Management Policies section of the Core Strategy, it is stated3 that: ‘….Sandwich town centre is showing signs of stress and decreasing vibrancy. Shopping provision is essentially secondary in nature and the approach of defining primary and secondary frontages is not appropriate. The Council considers that there is a need to provide a measure of control over changes of use to the ground floor of premises in the centre's core on par with the secondary frontages at Dover and Deal. This, allied to the community initiative to enhance Sandwich, should help to strengthen Sandwich's centre.’
• CP5 (Sustainable Construction standards) – Identifies that non-residential development over 1000 sq m should meet BREEAM very good standards or any future national equivalent
• DM 1 (Settlement Boundaries)- Sets out that development should be located within the urban confines unless specifically justified by other development plan policies or functionally requires such a location or is ancillary to existing development or uses.
1 The Site Allocations Document is now called the Land Allocations Local Plan. 2 Dover District Council Retail Study Update 2012 prepared by Strategic Perspectives. 3 Paragraph 1.73, Annex 1 Development Management Policies. Adopted Core Strategy 2010.
2 92 Policy DM2 in particular seeks to resist the change of use of employment land unless it is demonstrated that the land is no longer viable/appropriate for employment uses.
• DM 11 (Location of Development & Travel Demand) – Identifies that development that increases travel demand should be accompanied by a systematic assessment and include mitigation measures. Development that would generate travel demand outside settlement confines will not be supported unless otherwise justified by other development plan policies.
• DM12 (Road Hierarchy) - states that access arrangements of development proposals will be assessed with regard to the Highway Network set out in the Local Transport Plan for Kent. Developments that would involve the construction of a new access onto a trunk or primary road will not be permitted if there would be a significant increase in the risk of accidents or traffic delays – unless appropriate mitigation can be provided.
• DM13 (Parking Provision) -refers to parking provision and states that this should be a design-led process based on the characteristics of the site, the locality, the nature of the proposed development and its design objectives.
Dover District Local Plan (DDLP)
The following policies are ‘saved’ Local Plan policies:
Policy LE2 which allocates the land at Pfizer’s, Sandwich (26.2 Hectares) for B1 uses.
Policy LE9 which has identified the area of land for the future needs of Pfizer. However this policy is specifically related to expansion of Pfizer subject to a number of criteria. Whilst Pfizer’s retain a presence on the site the ownership and management of the site has transferred to Discovery Park Ltd which means that this policy is considered to be out of date.
Policy AS14 which covers the north of Sandwich, the Ramsgate Road area. This policy recognizes that the Ramsgate Road area is important for both industry and as a gateway to the District. It refers to the need for environmental improvements in order to improve the setting of Sandwich.
Note : The LALP (see paragraph 1.35 of Annex 1 of the LALP) is proposing to delete all the above ‘saved’ Local Plan policies as they have been replaced by individual allocations or have been superseded by events).
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
At a national level, the NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. In the introduction to the NPPF, the Government sets out that the NPPF must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning applications. With its adoption in March 2012, it replaced all previous national planning policy statements with immediate effect. Therefore, it should have significant weight in the consideration of any planning application.
The NPPF articulates an overriding presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking. There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental roles. These roles are not to be taken in isolation as they are mutually
3 93 dependant on the other. Economic, social and environmental gains are to be sought jointly and simultaneously (para 7 and 8).
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the status of the Development Plan.
For decision making this means approving development that accords with the Development Plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent or silent or relevant policies are out-of-date granting planning permission, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or where specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted (para 14).
‘The government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system’ (para 19).
The newly published National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG, March 2014) supports and informs the NPPF and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.
Together, the NPPF and the NPPG set out the Government’s national planning policies and guidance for new development. They aim to help create the homes and jobs that the country needs, while protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environments.
NPPF Chapter 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy The Government is committed to securing economic growth and supports the role that the planning system has in achieving this. It states that ‘Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system (paras 18-19).
The NPPF (paras 20-21) sets out that LPAs are expected to set out a clear economic vision strategy for their area which positively and proactively encourage sustainable economic growth
NPPF Chapter 2 – Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres
Planning policy on retail and commercial land uses and town centres is covered in paragraphs 23 to 27 of the NPPF. The NPPF requires that proposals which are not within a town centre and not in accordance with the development plan should be subject to the sequential test and provide an impact assessment.
NPPF Para 24 states that ‘Local Planning Authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and LPAs should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale’. Further guidance on the operation of the sequential test is provided in the NPPG within the section “Ensuring the vitality of Town Centres”.
When assessing applications for retail development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, LPAs should require an impact assessment
4 94 where the proposals are over a default threshold of 2500sqm (unless there is a locally set threshold).
With regard to the requirement for an impact assessment, the NPPF sets out two assessment criteria:
• The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal, and; • The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realized in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made.
The NPPF confirms that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on town centre vitality and viability, it should be refused (paras 26-27).
The NPPG states that ’it may not be possible to accommodate all forecast needs in a town centre: there may be physical or other constraints which make it inappropriate to do so. In those circumstances, planning authorities should plan positively to identify the most appropriate alternative strategy for meeting the need for these main town centre uses, having regard to the sequential and impact tests. This should ensure that any proposed main town centre uses which are not in an existing town centre are in the best locations to support the vitality and vibrancy of town centres, and that no likely significant adverse impacts on existing town centres arise, as set out in paragraph 26 of the National Planning Policy Framework’.
Whilst not a development control requirement within the NPPF, the need or capacity for retail floorspace is relevant to plan making (NPPF para 23).
NPPF Chapter 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport
Para 32 states that ‘all developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement. Plans and decisions should take account of whether
• The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; • Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and • Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transportation grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’.
NPPF Chapter 7 – Requiring Good Design
NPPF Para 56 states that ‘the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people’.
NPPF Chapter 10 – Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding & Coastal Change.
5 95 NPPF Para 96 states that ‘in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should expect new development to:
• Comply with adopted Local Plan policies on local requirements for decentralised energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that is it not feasible or viable; and
• Take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption
NPPF Para 103 states that ‘in determining planning applications, LPAs should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere’
NPPF Chapter 11 – Conserving & Enhancing the Natural Environment
NPPF Para 109 states that ‘the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by;
• Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soil; • Recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services • Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible • Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put to unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and • Remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate’
NPPF Chapter 12 – Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment
NPPF Para 132 states that ‘when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting’.
NPPF Annex 1
Para 216 sets out that from the day of publication, unless other material considerations dictate otherwise, decision takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to :
• The stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation the greater the weight that may be given;
• The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections to relevant policies the greater the weight that may be given – to the relevant policies) and
• The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this (NPPF) framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this framework the greater the weight that may be given)
6 96
Other Material Considerations
Land Allocations Local Plan (LALP)
DDC published their Pre-submission Land Allocations Local Plan (LALP) for consultation in December 2012. With regard to town centres and retailing, the LALP recognised the retail evidence base was out of date and introduced new retail floorspace need estimates based upon the 2012 Retail Update (RU). For Plan-making purposes, the LALP, at paragraphs 2.10 to 2.18 identifies that having taken into account existing retail commitments and the substantial level of Core Strategy strategic allocations at Dover, the need for additional retail floorspace arises within the District needs to be revised. In the Deal/Sandwich Trade Area and Sandwich the most potential for additional convenience floorspace can be ascribed to Sandwich where it would help to raise the retention rate of expenditure. The table below extracted from the LALP shows the revised retail need figures from the 2012 Retail Update.
The Council’s approach towards where the additional convenience provision in Sandwich could be accommodated has altered since the LALP was published in December 2012. This is fully documented in the GL Hearn Report (appended). In summary this Report outlines that the Council did have a site specific allocation (Policy LA17 – the Guildhall car park) that was allocated for new retail goods provision. In May 2013 Policy LA17 was replaced in the Addendum to the LALP with a criteria based policy (that is not site specific) as the Guildhall car park site was not deliverable. This policy approach is fully in accordance with Paragraph 23 of the NPPF.
The 2012 LALP identified a ‘Town Centre Area’ for Sandwich which effectively encompasses the defined ‘Secondary Shopping Frontages’. However neither of these Frontage or Area designations complies with the nomenclature in the NPPF Annex Glossary of Terms and this leads to a degree of ambiguity as to what is inside or outside the town centre for retail purposes and operation of the Sequential Test.
DDC submitted their Pre-Submission Land Allocations Local Plan (incorporating the Addendum) for independent Examination in October 2013. The Hearings took place in January/February 2014. At the Examination the Inspector, who was appointed to conduct the Examination, identified the need for Officers to prepare a number of Main Modifications
7 97 (MMs) to the Plan in order to make it ‘sound’ and legally compliant. A six week public consultation has now started on the MMs which will conclude on 25th September 2014. The Inspector’s Report will only be issued once the Inspector has had opportunity to consider the representations. The Inspector may at this stage in the process recommend further modifications to the Plan. At the end of the process the final version of the Plan, taking into account all of the MMs will go to full Council for adoption (anticipated to be around October/November 2014).
The MMs that are subject to the public consultation, include a new policy for Sandwich town centre; amendments to supporting text including a new paragraph setting out a floorspace threshold requiring impact assessment; and amendments to the Policies Map to identify the proposed Sandwich Town Centre Boundary/Primary Shopping Area and reference to the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance in Policy LA17.
These modifications are set out fully below. New text has been highlighted and text that is to be deleted has been crossed through.
Changes to paragraphs 3.235-3.237
The 2002 Local Plan did not designate a town centre boundary or primary shopping frontage for Sandwich. It was considered inappropriate at that time due to the relatively dispersed nature of the centre and the wide variety of uses. A 'Secondary Shopping Frontage' in the town was, however, designated through Policy DM22 in the Core Strategy to allow for a greater flexibility in the mix of uses encouraged in the area.
In recent years, however, this situation has led to ambiguity in respect of whether proposed development sites are defined as “in”, “edge” or “out” of centre for the purposes of the sequential assessment. Following recommendations in the Retail Update (2012), the District Council has designated a town centre area and Primary Shopping Area in Sandwich to protect the vitality and viability of the town centre and to provide clarity for any sequential assessments. This is in addition to the secondary shopping frontages, which will remain.
The area designated as the town centre and the Primary Shopping Area reflects the street pattern of the secondary shopping frontages and includes the length of King Street, turning into Delf Street and branching out into Market Street, to the north, The Butchery, Potter Street and Cattle Market, to the south. The designation also includes St Peter’s Church off Market Street, the Guild Hall in Cattle Market, and the supermarket off Moat Sole. Figure 3.11 illustrates the area covered.
The Council will require applications for retail, office and leisure development which are located outside of the town centre that have a gross floor area that exceeds 500 sqm to be accompanied by an Impact Assessment.
New Policy
Sandwich Town Centre
8 98 Planning permission will only be given for A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses within the ground floor premises in the designated Sandwich Primary Shopping Frontage.
Elsewhere in the Sandwich Town Centre and the designated Primary Shopping Area planning permission will only be given for the conversion of ground floor premises from Main Town Centre and A2 uses if it has been adequately demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable and genuine and adequate attempts to market the premises for retail purposes, main town centre and A2 uses have failed.
Reason: The change was a result of objections raised at the Examination. The amended text seeks to ensure that the vitality of the town centre is not diluted by changes of use away from main town centre uses (as defined by the NPPF) and A2 uses and provides a measure of control through the new policy. It was agreed at the Examination that for the purposes of Sandwich, the Primary Shopping Area and the Town Centre Boundary should cover the same area. By defining a town centre boundary in Sandwich it will be consistent with the NPPF in terms of applying the sequential test for main town centre uses.
Amend Adopted Policies Map – See Appendix A:
The Policies Map will be amended to identify the proposed Sandwich Town Centre Boundary/Primary Shopping Area.
Reason: To reflect the changes in the new Sandwich Town Centre Policy.
Amend Policy LA17 as follows:
Planning permission for new convenience provision in Sandwich will be permitted provided that proposals:
i. follow the sequential approach for main town centre uses as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance;
ii. include an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on Sandwich town centre and any other relevant town centres, relating to the scale and the type of development proposed in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance;
iii. demonstrate that the site is in an accessible location and well connected to the town centre that would encourage people to walk, cycle and use public transport, in order to maximise the benefits of linked trips;
iv. respond to the local character, identity, the historic assets and setting of Sandwich;
v. the visual impact of any car parking is reduced by a combination of its location
9 99 and appropriate landscaping; and vi. demonstrate the access arrangements and the service yard are located in a position that protects the residential amenity.
Reason: The NPPG has been included in Policy LA17 as it usefully provides additional information on the both the sequential and impact tests and replaces the potential uneasy relationship that previously existed between the NPPF and the Practice Guidance to PPS4 (which has now been cancelled).
The MMs have clarified the ambiguity that existed over Sandwich’s Primary Shopping Area and town centre boundary for the purpose of applying the NPPF sequential test. The Town Centre Area and the Primary Shopping Area for Sandwich are the same and the area has been extended to include The Butchery and Potter Street. The Plan below shows the extent of the Town Centre Area/Primary Shopping Area. This now includes the existing Co-Op store at Moat Sole as being within Sandwich’s Primary Shopping Area/Town Centre Area.
The map extract below shows the extent of the Sandwich Primary Shopping Area/Town Centre Area.
In conclusion on relevant retail and town centre policies, the proposal site is out of centre and is not allocated for retail development within either the Council’s Adopted Core Strategy or the emerging LALP. Accordingly for retail purposes, the application site should be considered against the Sequential and Impact Tests set out in paragraphs 24 and 27 of the
10 100 NPPF and given the advanced status of the LALP, Policy LA17 as amended. The LALP modifications are at an advanced stage and can therefore be given due weight (in accordance with para 216 of the NPPF)
Kent Design Guide – provides guidance on design principles
Dover District Council Heritage Strategy 2013 - Dover District Council, in collaboration with English Heritage, commissioned Kent County Council’s Heritage Conservation Team to prepare the strategy. It is one of the first such strategies in the country to be created since the Government published its heritage policies in the National Planning Policy Framework.
The Heritage Strategy seeks to identify and understand the many historic assets in Dover District, and how their special character could contribute to the future of the area, and key objectives in the District Local Plan. The strategy provides advice and guidance for the management of historic assets, and will help to support funding bids that may arise in the future.
Local Development Order – The Local Development Order was adopted in March 2013.
In August 2011 the Government announced that Discovery Park had been designated as an Enterprise Zone.
The Park was one of two Enterprise Zones that had been successfully put forward by the South East Local Enterprise Partnership.
The Discovery Park Enterprise Zone is a key employment and regeneration priority for Dover District Council and the whole of the South East.
Benefits of Enterprize Zone status include financial incentives for businesses, a simplification of the planning system and provision of superfast broadband.
The primary purpose of the LDO is to offer a genuinely simplified approach to planning in a manner that will attract new companies and businesses to locate in the EZ and for them to take full advantage of the high quality facilitates and infrastructure that are available in the EZ.
LDO objectives are to :
• support Dover District Councils Core strategy objectives, • implement the Governments and Sandwich Economic Development Task Force commitment to boost the local economy; • provide investors and prospective occupiers of the EZ with certainty about what development can take place without the need to apply for planning permission thereby simplifying and reducing investment overheads; • help to encourage and attract new businesses to locate in the EZ that would assist with the economic recovery of the country by encouraging the creation of private sector jobs; • assist existing businesses and companies in the EZ to grow; • enable new companies and businesses to quickly move into a range of high quality vacant buildings and enable the change of use of buildings which will bring with it benefits to the economy of the District and the region as a whole; • enable flexible multi-business occupation of existing buildings; and • maximise the use of existing infrastructure.
11 101 The primary focus of the Enterprize Zone is therefore the support and promotion of employment and business opportunities. Based on an analysis of the planning history the LPA determined that the primary use of the Enterprize Zone was B1 (business) use. The LDO was drawn up with this in mind. Planning history showed that alongside the primary B1 use ancillary use, including supporting A1 uses, existed, but in a supporting role. The LDO specifically excluded the provision of additional A1 retail floorspace on the site as it was not considered that any additional A1 floorspace was necessary to support the economic and business objectives of the site. Accordingly any additional A1 floorspace (or other ‘A’ use class floorspace) would have to seek planning permission in the normal manner and would have to be fully justified in the light of all material considerations. The LDO sets out (at para 5.33) how important the relationship of the EZ site is to Sandwich town. Development proposals are expected to integrate with and provide connections and links with the town without undermining its role and function.
Recent Relevant Planning History
• Local Development Order - adopted in 2013 – enabled certain minor development to be undertaken without further reference to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) • DOV/13/465 – Screening opinion for a foodstore, petrol station, vehicle parking and associated works – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) not required • The entire Discovery Park site has an extensive range of planning history including a number of primarily planning applications stretching back to the mid-1950s.
Other planning applications which are a material planning consideration :
• DOV/14/00058– Discovery Park Masterplan for redevelopment of site including some demolition works, provision of infrastructure and landscaping, change of use of some existing buildings from B1 to use classes: B2, B8, Sui Generis (Energy) and D1 uses); the provision of new buildings to accommodate commercial uses falling within use classes A3/A4, B1, B2, B8, C1, D1 and Sui Generis and residential development (comprising some 500 dwellings) – yet to be determined.
Summary of Consultee and Third Party Responses
Kent County Council Highways : no objection subject to conditions and contributions
Ecology : No objection subject to wildlife safeguarding and mitigation conditions
EHO : No objection subject to appropriate conditions
Heritage Officer : no objections as the proposals would not interfere with designated heritage assets
Head of Inward Investment :
The South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) brings together key leaders from business, local government, further and higher education in order to create the most enterprising economy in England through exploring opportunities for enterprise while addressing barriers to growth.
SELEP is one of 39 partnerships set up by the government to be the key body determining strategic economic priorities while making investments and delivering activities to drive growth and create local jobs.
12 102 Covering Essex, Southend, Thurrock, Kent, Medway and East Sussex, SELEP is the largest strategic enterprise partnership outside of London. The SELEP area, which is the country’s economic powerhouse contributing £63 billion a year to the national economy, is full of business opportunities, offering a range of core economic strengths and investment potential.
The National Enterprise Zone programme was established through the budget in 2011 to create new business, accelerate and increase growth and job creation in areas with real economic potential, leading to positive benefits for the national and local economic area. Initially, 11 Enterprise Zones (EZ's) were announced with a further two being announced in response the job losses at BAE systems. A further 12 EZ's, making 25 in total, were then allocated to the Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP’s) as part of a competitive selection process, with the nominations then being endorsed by HM Treasury.
Discovery Park is one of two EZ’s within the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) area along with Harlow, both of which having been selected through the competitive process, representing one of SELEP major achievements to date.
Priority is given to the EZ’s which comprise the flagship Government programme with the policy objective of ensuring that there is development activity on every EZ in England by 2015. Government’s expectation also requires that EZ’s should sit at the heart of LEP activity providing another tool to aid, improve and grow the local economy.
The new generation EZ’s reflect the Government’s core belief that economic growth and job creation should be led by the private sector, and for government to remove the barriers to private sector growth through reduced burdens for businesses including regulatory and administrative burdens.
The Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG ‘s) current strategic priorities include putting local councils and businesses in charge of economic growth and bringing new business and jobs to their areas. In addition, the published DCLG business plan includes as action:
1.1 ii “Support the ability of local areas to deliver new development on Enterprise Zones by providing bespoke capacity support and targeted infrastructure funding to selected Zones Scheduled end date: Dec 2015”.
The SELEP has consistently supported Discovery Park as a key component of its delivery of new jobs and economic activity, with the EZ target being 3000 jobs on site by 2017
Government has requested the LEP's to set out their ambitions for future growth and investment under a programme known as 'The Growth Deal'
The Kent and Medway component of the SELEP Growth Deal submission, which is currently being considered by Government, includes:
Discovery Park/ Manston
4.203
Discovery Park is already England’s most successful Enterprise Zone, with over 1,300 jobs (at the time of writing) (now 1400) secured on the site since Enterprise Zone status was granted in 2011, a Local Development Order in place and proposals being brought forward for residential and commercial development on the site alongside its scientific research and development core.
13 103 4.204
However, the area around Discovery Park has been faced with a further challenge following the decision of the owners of Manston Airport to enter into consultation on the future of the facility. Yet the area around Manston and Discovery Park contains extensive land suitable for residential and employment use, and is well connected by new infrastructure.
4.205
Through this Growth Deal, we will take a concerted approach to bringing forward growth at Manston and Discovery Park
Since Discovery Park was established in 2012, over 100 companies (and rising) have been attracted to the site, now creating or securing over 1400 jobs, leading to employment increasing by some 70%. This performance, which has been helped by the Local Development Order, is understood to be amongst the best in the 24 EZ’s and has been recognised in recent reports, Government press releases and articles in the national press. The recent article in The Times (December 2013) for example, included among other comments "...... One of the biggest turnrounds has been Discovery Park in Sandwich, Kent, where the former Pfizer site has now attracted 50 tenants with more than 1,300 staff in various fields."
Discovery Park benefits from an extensive range of high quality buildings that are considered to be unique amongst the 24 Enterprise Zones. However, they were designed and built with only one occupier in mind, Pfizer, and pose significant challenges when being reconfigured for multi-occupancy. Furthermore, the most recent is now over 10 years old and many are in need of major refurbishment works and associated investment if the Park is to continue to attract high quality new occupiers. Equally, significant investment and commercial support will be required to realise the ambition of creating one of the leading, sustainable, global mixed-use science and pharma based localities at the EZ.
While much progress has been made, Government's expectation is the delivery should be accelerated wherever possible.
To this end, a recent independent review of the EZ programme has been undertaken by DCLG and has identified that, for Discovery Park to continue to progress at the expected rate, the following key actions are required: a) enhanced, targeted international marketing; b) improved rail connectivity and accessibility; and c) early approval of the site Masterplan.
While the Head of Inward Investment continues to work with Discovery Park, DCLG and SELEP to secure grant and infrastructure funding opportunities for the EZ, these are part of a competitive process and cannot be guaranteed. Although Discovery Park has secured in principle funding through the Growing Places Fund and Building For Growth programmes, more needs to be secured commercially to assist with the substantial costs of bringing the existing buildings back into use while providing the infrastructure for the next phase of site development.
County Archaeologist : No objection subject to condition
Natural England : Provided the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details it is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest areas for which Sandwich Bay
14 104 to Hacklinge Marshes has been classified. Appropriate Assessment is not required to assess the implications of the proposal on the site`s conservation objectives. Provided the proposal is carried out in strict accordance with the application details there would not be damage caused to the Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes SSSI. The SSSI does not therefore represent a constraint in determining the application
Kent Wildlife Trust : Risk to water quality posed by petroleum storage. The opinion of NE should be sought on this matter (See above – NE have not raised concerns over this matter which can be controlled by condition)
The LPA should make efforts to secure green/brown roofs on all new buildings (in the interests of achieving wildlife objectives for designated sites)
Environment Agency : object on groundwater management issues. In summary they have set out that inadequate information has been submitted to demonstrate that risks to groundwater can be satisfactorily addressed and are in particular concerned about the petrol filling station fuel tanks and lack of detailed design relating to it/them. The EA have set out that should the LPA grant planning permission then it would be necessary to reconsult the EA to ensure that groundwater, flood risk and any other issues are appropriately addressed by planning conditions.
English Heritage : Have said (in summary) the new development would be visible from Richborough Fort at a limited number of locations, because of this and the intervening landscape and height of existing development at Discovery Park the proposals would not cause any significant harm. The other scheduled monument is the former medieval port of Stonar, which although closer to the application site than Richborough consists of (primarily) buried heritage assets which due to landscape changes would not be adversely affected by the development
KCC Strategy and Planning : supports the progression of development proposals at Discovery Park and recommends that planning permission should be granted but also consider that a master plan would be beneficial for Heritage and Ecology reasons
Thanet DC : No comments
River Stour Internal Drainage Board : No response
SWA : There is no public foul sewer in the area to serve the development. The applicant is advised to investigate
Veolia : No comments
HSE : raise no objection
Sandwich Town Council : No objection subject to construction or delivery traffic not being allowed through the town.
Third party comments (4) in support (summarised) :
• A further supermarket is not required if inevitable should not be in or close to the town itself, the proposal at the Science Park is supported.
• This site is better than the site opposite St Barts chapel
• Better option as the infrastructure is in place
Sandwich and District Chamber of Commerce, in summary :
15 105 • The regeneration of the site will generate and stimulate economic development in support of wider economic growth. Welcomes and supports the proposal which reflects views of Members. It will help create private sector employment and enhance the business park environment.
Locate in Kent are supporting the application saying :
• “Locate in Kent has worked closely with the owners of Discovery Park since they acquired the site in July 2012.
• We have invested significant time and effort into marketing the site to prospective occupiers locally, nationally and internationally. This strategy has been successful with over 50 tenants and 1400 employees now on site with a number of interested parties at advanced stages of negotiation.
• Despite the success a significant proportion of the accommodation on site is not suitable for re-occupation on account of it being bespoke to Pfizer’s requirements or in a poor state of repair and not economically viable to refurbish and let at a commercial rate. Furthermore, the running costs of Discovery Park are significant and therefore alternative uses to generate income are needed to ensure its long term sustainability and focus on attracting high quality science and research / development activities.
• The receipt from the disposal of land for a food store will enable Discovery Park to invest in capital projects on site to generate and stimulate economic development. The food store will also create 150 jobs and enhance the core employment function of the site.
• The foodstore will address the expenditure leakage from Sandwich as residents travel to the larger supermarkets in Whitfield, Deal and Westwood Cross. There are no alternative sites in Sandwich Town that could accommodate a store of an appropriate scale.
• In conclusion Locate in Kent welcomes and supports the proposal for a food store development at Discovery Park as it will help underpin and complement the core science and research employment functions as well as creating in excess of 150 permanent jobs in a vibrant, multifaceted business park environment”
Third party objections (10) (summarised):
• Fail to understand why a town the size of Sandwich needs an existing store, an edge of town store and a large superstore with petrol station (this application) when Deal is 8 x larger and is in need of a decent edge of town superstore.
• This proposal is not merited for Sandwich
• Proposal will result in more congestion on A258 and further damage Deal town centre
• Sandwich needs another supermarket but not one on a science park. The development will undermine Deals role as the second biggest town in the district.
• Over the years out-of-town supermarkets have had a disastrous effect on town centres
16 106 • Existing shops in Sandwich are community shops helping to keep the town alive. A large perimeter supermarket is not needed. Shops in the town are fragile and don`t need people dragged (sic) away from them.
• Proposal will not benefit Sandwich nor attract visitors to the town
• The food store, chemist store, coffee shop on the site will seriously affect Sandwich town centre (which) will lead to an acceleration in the decline of Sandwich
Deal and Walmer Chamber of Trade : object saying in summary:
• DP EZ does not permit retail – business rate concessions were not intended to give retail business a competitive advantage over fully rated competitors in retail areas. Reliance (by applicants) that all convenience need is required at Sandwich contradicts their assessment that the Deal Sainsburys is overtrading. Need at Sandwich is qualitative not quantative. Impact assessment is silent on effect comparison floorspace would have on town centre. NPPF seeks to protect town centre vitality and viability. Reduction in trade at Deal Sainsburys would be highly dangerous for Deal town centre. Job opportunities lost from other nearby supermarkets. Merits of zone 6 (Deal/Sandwich) leakage going to other zones in District? The claim that a large supermarket is secured as catalyst for wider regeneration of Discovery Park unsubstantiated.
The Co-operative have objected to the proposal, in summary, on the following grounds :
• There is no need for a new food store of the size proposed in Sandwich
• The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the sequential test
• The impact assessment is not robust and trade diversion from Sandwich Town Centre has been underestimated. The scheme is likely to result in a significant adverse impact on Sandwich Town Centre
• The proposed development does not comply with emerging policy LA17 of the Land Allocations Local Plan
• As a standalone application the assertion that the store is required to deliver future development at Discovery Park can be given no weight in determination of the application
Kimberley Developments on behalf of the applicant for the Dover Road proposals in summary : saying
• The applicants have expressed their view that the designation of the Enterprise Zone (EZ) outweighs all other matters…but this is their view – there is no support for this approach. There is no principle whereby an EZ economic consideration outweighs the Development Plan and all other material considerations.
• A1 uses are explicitly excluded as appropriate uses under the present Order (Local Development Order)
• Discovery Park is designated under the LDO for employment purposes and is a relevant material consideration.
17 107 • The Dover Road proposals are accessible on foot from adjacent housing – residents live within walking distance of the town centre and the prospect for linked trips are greater than at Discovery Park.
• Ramsgate Road improvements suggest that to achieve any pedestrian links – improvement would have to be made to overcome a deficiency
• Stagecoach have set out that the location on Dover Road is well served by “our” bus routes. Dover Road is well located to the railway station.
• Adding a further Sainsburys at Discovery Park would not widen customer choice
• The applicants suggest that successful delivery of the economic strategy for Discovery Park is dependent on provision of a foodstore …but have said later in the submission that … the proposal would make Discovery Park more successful, not that it would fail without it
• The applicant accepts that the Discovery Park proposal would compete with the town centre – but the ability for it to be resilient must be affected to a degree by the scale of competition
• The Co-op have said that the level of impact would be difficult to withstand
• The EZ status supports economic development but this does not include retail
• The distance between Discovery Park and the town centre makes it seem unlikely that Sandwich would be unlikely to fulfil employees requirements during the day and there is no evidence that new employees would off-set impact by spending in the town.
• It is said that only development of a foodstore at Discovery Park can deliver an injection of expenditure into the town centre …no evidence to support this comment …housing growth allocation could also inject expenditure into Sandwich
• There is no preference for the Discovery Park site on national economic grounds
• The applicants accept there would be adverse impact on the town centre
The Site and the Proposal
1. The site lies within Discovery Park. Discovery Park incorporates the former Pfizer site and a number of other smaller sites beyond. Discovery Park has been awarded Enterprise Zone status.
2. Enterprise Zones are a government initiative and are designated areas which amongst other things enjoy simplified planning rules and business rate discounts are given in an effort to address local economic challenges in the creation of business growth and job creation.
The Application Site
3. The foodstore and petrol filling station site area is some 3.67ha. The application site is a roughly triangular shaped area of land. It is currently part landscaped and in part used primarily for car parking which serves the wider site. The A256 runs west/east to the north and Monks Way lies to the west. The site lies around 1.8km from
18 108 Sandwich town centre. The topography of the landform here is fairly flat – although there is a rise across the site to the north east.
4. The site is very visible from the immediate A256 approaches to the Discovery Park roundabout and Monks Walk. However, when the site is viewed further from the west the physical scale of the existing retained larger Discovery Park buildings dwarf the site and much of its existing mature landscaping. From the east A256 the site can be seen periodically through a mature tree screen (which will inevitably lose leaves in the winter months) and is readily visible from the close proximity of the nearby A256 at about 300m distant from the Discovery Park roundabout, where there is limited mature planting.
5. The site was previously owned by the Pfizer corporation. Over the years from around the mid-1950s the site had expanded with various consents granted for developments which served the Pfizer operations on the site. Following the sale of the site to a new owner several of the buildings have demolished, primarily due to their unsuitability for continued use and prohibitive running costs. Discovery Park is currently subject of a masterplan proposal which is under consideration separately. The site, and proposals, the subject of this application, do not specifically form part of the masterplan proposals, however due to its siting within the Discovery Park site is closely aligned to the future redevelopment of the site.
The Proposal
6. The proposal is in outline, in respect of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, for a 4,830 sq m gross, A1 retail store of which 2,694 (c55%) net sq m would be tradable floor area The store would provide around 2195 (c80%) sqm convenience (food) floor area and 500 (c20%) sqm comparison (non food) floor area. The store would have a deli, bakery, meat, fish and pizza counter as well as a pharmacy and café area within the building, and provide wc and staff facilities. The proposal also includes car parking to serve the store, 4 pump petrol filling station, including kiosk and car wash facilities and landscaping. The kiosk would have a floor area of 120 sqm, providing some additional retail floorspace – although the total amount is not given. The petrol station development would also include the installation of underground petrol storage tanks. The proposal would result in a net loss of 141 existing car parking spaces, with 344 spaces re-configured to serve the new store. The proposals include provision for 24 bicycle parking spaces.
7. The outline parameter plans show the foodstore building located towards the north west edge of the application site. The height parameters of the foodstore building are set at between 6.5 – 9m. The maximum footprint is set at between 55m – 65m wide and 70m-90m in length. The petrol station would be more to the southern end of the site with a kiosk dimension of some 10m x 12m (giving a floor area of around 120 sq m) The petrol station canopy would be around 6.5m in height. Based on the applicants foodstore dimensions, this would appear to give a footprint of some 5850 sq m, but as set out above the application seeks 4830 sqm gross foodstore area. Parking and disabled parking spaces would run along the south west facing elevation of the building. Cycle spaces would be provided at the front elevation of the building, The main car parking area would be located to the south east, with a drop off point at the front entrance of the store – which is also south –east facing. The car park/drop- off area would be served by a circuitous internal road network with crossing places and a bus stop layby. The petrol station would lie furthest to the south east. Details relating to access are not a reserved matter and are included to be considered as part of this application. Access for service/delivery vehicles would be achieved from the existing roundabout on Monks Way, but a separate arm of the roundabout and
19 109 distinct dedicated route would be used to divert heavy vehicles away from customer and public transport activity.
8. A “native landscape buffer” is proposed to the north east of the building, with additional landscape planting to the south and south west boundaries.
9. The application identifies that around 158 full time jobs would be created. No hours of use are proposed – however it is assumed that the food store and its associated facilities would follow nationwide trading hours.
10 The outline planning application is supported by a number of documents and technical reports :
• Application site boundary plan
• Parameter plans (Layout and Scale; Access; Landscaping)
• Illustrative Masterplan
• Design and Access Statement
• Planning Statement and addendum
• Retail Assessment and Update addendum
• Economic Case and update report
• Transport Asessment and Travel Plan
• Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy
• Desk Based Cultural Heritage (Archaeological) Assessment
• Land Quality Assessment
• Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
• Air Quality Assessment
• Statement of Community Involvement
ASSESSMENT
Principle of Development
11 The NPPF sets out a number of core land-use planning principles, which underpin decision taking. Of relevance to the assessment of this application and the acceptability in principle of the proposal is that planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the businesses, infrastructure and thriving local places, to encourage the effective use of previously developed land and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable
Previously developed land
12 The wider site has been previously developed. In terms of the definition of previously developed land the superstore and associated buildings and parking would be constructed on land which in part is currently being used for car parking. The
20 110 remaining land is currently landscaped. On the whole the application site is considered to be previously developed land.
Employment Land
13 Policy DM1 sets out that development would not be permitted on land outside urban and rural settlement confines unless specifically justified by other development plan policies, or it functionally requires such a location or is ancillary to existing development or uses. Policy DM2 of the Core Strategy seeks to protect and retain allocated employment land for employment uses.
14 The application site falls within the Enterprise zone and as set out above is considered to be previously developed land, so whilst outside any confines it is not “fresh land”. In this case the application site has previously been allocated as an employment site under saved Local Plan policy LE9. (However this policy is considered to be out of date as it related to the expansion of Pfizer, who now do not own the site (and is likely to be deleted accordingly). Following on from that the LDO now prevails in respect of protecting the site for employment purposes, but this is not a Development Plan document although it is adopted and is a material consideration. It does however confirm the site as an employment site.
15 The applicants argue that the land in question would not result in a quantitative loss of employment land as there is already an over-supply of employment land within the District. Therefore, it is contended, no material harm would result to the Districts ability to provide sufficient land to meet employment land demand. This approach is generally supported by the Councils Employment Land Review and the LPA agrees there would be no significant loss of employment land. The proposed development would result in a number of temporary construction jobs, which in particular could benefit the wider area by increasing local spending and also create 158 permanent jobs of which 90 would be new jobs to the District, taking into account displacement from elsewhere in the District (ie people changing from existing employment). Overall there would be a net benefit in terms of job creation, bearing in mind if the foodstore did not come forward then neither would the related temporary and 90 new permanent job opportunities.
Retail Case
16 The applicants have supported their retail case by submitting a Retail Statement and Retail Statement addendum, prepared by GVA. The Retail Statement sets out :
• Introduction
• Site context and Proposed Development
• Policy Framework
• Need Assessment
• Sequential Site Assessment
• Impact Assessment
• Other Material Considerations
• Conclusions
21 111 17 The Retail Statement addendum submitted by GVA includes further information, in particular on a summary of Sainsburys proposals, Town Centre Health Check and Mitigation Measures
18 Mitigation measures proposed by the applicants which they have included within a suggested Heads of Terms for a legal agreement include:
i. Improved linkages with the town centre including improved bus service and improvements to pedestrian/cycle links at / between Ramsgate Road and Monks Way to the foodstore (to be achieved as part of this application and wider masterplan proposals ii. A budget to fund town centre promotional activities (in line with a scheme to be agreed with the Chamber of commerce and Town Council) iii. A budget to fund free short term car parking in the Councils short-term town centre car parks (in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Chamber of Commerce and Town Council) iv. Environmental enhancements to the town centre through a contribution (in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Chamber of Commerce and Town Council) v. Funding a temporary, part time Town Centre Manager vi. A contribution to a fund to support new independent retailers in the town centre (in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Chamber of Commerce and Town Council) vii. Availability of a business support service at Discovery Park to town centre retailers (in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Chamber of Commerce and Town Council) viii. A scheme to allow local suppliers to bid for Discovery Park contracts in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Chamber of Commerce and Town Council and approved by the District Council
19 The applications retail case element is principally based upon the data and findings of the Dover Retail Study Update (DRSU) 2012. Following receipt of the planning application the Council commissioned an independent expert review of the Retail Assessment work submitted in support of this application. This has been completed by the consultants GL Hearn (GLH report dated May 2014). The review focused primarily upon the sequential and impact assessment work provided as these are the relevant retail test considerations set out within the NPPF and NPPG. However the local policy and retail evidence base context has also been considered. The GLH retail report is reproduced in its entirety at appendix 1 to this report.
20 Following additional and subsequent submissions by the applicant in their addendum and other third parties, GLH have produced an addendum report which is also appended in full (appendix 2).
21 Members should refer to the attached GLH retail reports for a comprehensive analysis of the relevant retail matters. The conclusions of the retail reports are summarized under the following principle headings:
Conclusion : Retail Need/Capacity
22 112 22 Whilst there is no policy requirement in the NPPF for an applicant to demonstrate retail need or the capacity for additional floorspace being proposed, as highlighted earlier, it is a relevant consideration to both the sequential approach and retail impact testing. Whilst demonstrating need is not a definitive test against which these retail proposals need to judged, the availability of retail capacity to support the proposal does feed into both the sequential and impact tests.
23 GLH have set out that it is accepted that there is both a qualitative and quantative need for additional food shopping to serve Sandwich but it is not considered that only a larger store can fulfil this need. GLH have said that a smaller store with an appropriate range of goods in combination with other localised stores, would be capable of fulfilling daily need food shopping requirements of the future Enterprise Zone occupants and at the same time support town centre vitality, viability and investment. The success of the Sainsburys Deal store is an indicator of where a smaller main line grocery store can fulfil main food shopping whilst retaining local expenditure
24 The proposals are of a size and potential turnover which is significantly in excess of the level of quantitative need identified within the DRSU retail evidence base document.
Conclusion: Retail Sequential Matters
25 The Guildhall Car Park site on the basis of publicly available information is not available and the Council’s own sequential site assessment has demonstrated that no other ‘in centre’ or ‘edge of centre’ sites are suitable and available for foodstore development. In the absence of any other suitable or available town centre or edge of centre sites then out of centre sites have to be considered.
26 The applicants (the Council and GLH) have concluded that there are no suitable and viable in or edge of centre sites in Sandwich.
27 The applicants have identified 2 out of centre sites within the Sandwich “area”. These are 1) Land adjacent to Dover Road and 2) KCC Depot, Ash Road. The sites are respectively around 500m and 615m from the town centre
28 Both sites are dismissed by the applicants on the basis that they are too small to accommodate the size of store being proposed at Discovery Park.
29 The applicants consider the Discovery Park site is sequentially equal to the Dover Road site. They have said that both offer limited prospects for linked trips. They put forward that improvements to linkages between the Discovery Park site and the town centre are included in the Discovery Park proposal via all modes of transport and that the scale of linked trip opportunities would be increased based on the number of workers based at Discovery Park, which is dependant on the successful delivery of Discovery Parks economic strategy which is dependant on the provision of the foodstore.
30 The applicants have argued the concept of a ‘site specific’ need for a foodstore as part of a wider redevelopment of the Discovery Park Enterprise Zone. However there is no existing or emerging policy identifying retail development being appropriate at this location. The LDO seeks to resist anything other than ancillary retail uses at the Discovery Park site, the reason for this as set out in the LDO is that such a use would not be considered to meet the objectives of the LDO which is primarily to support and
23 113 encourage business growth. The LDO identifies that future development at Discovery Park should not undermine the role and function of Sandwich town.
31 The GLH assessment does not consider any weight can be given to this `site specific` need argument in sequential terms. GLH have said that there may be regeneration and cross funding benefits to the wider Enterprise Zone should a foodstore be developed at Discovery Park but this is something that has to be considered in the light of the retail impact test (see below). 32 GLH consider that the availability of alternative sites has not been fully explored. The GLH assessment has concluded that both the Dover Road and Ash Road sites are of a size which could accommodate a flexibly conceived foodstore.
33 In considering other alternative out-of-centre sites, GLH conclude that both the Dover Road and Ash Road sites are better connected to the town centre than the Discovery Park site and that their proximity to the Sandwich Town Centre will provide stronger prospects for linked trips. It is concluded therefore that there are sequentially preferable locations to the Discovery Park site.
Conclusion : Retail Impact 34 The applicants have provided a review of the impact that the proposed foodstore proposal at Discovery Park would have on Sandwich town centre.
35 GVA on behalf of the applicants have concluded that overlap potential with other retailers in the town and trade diversion from the town would be minimal. They argue that there is potential from the Discovery Park store for linked trips and “spin off” benefits for the town centre. The applicants have put forward, amongst other things, that the new foodstore would play a critical role in short term viability and long term success of Discovery Park and that the foodstore would indirectly support the generation of commerce based expenditure which would at least in part off-set the impacts. GVA confirm that trade draw from the town centre would be adverse, but not significant and that new expenditure in town (generated by the economic success of Discovery Park) will at least off-set the adverse impacts. 36 GLH however consider the level of trade diversion on the convenience stores within Sandwich town centre to be significant and the withdrawal of turnover directly from those stores likely to impact upon future investment to maintain and upgrade premises and grow business.
37 The independent quantitative impact assessment carried out by GLH identifies that the trading impact on convenience goods turnover of Sandwich town centre would be around 44% overall with a 28% impact on smaller convenience stores within the town centre and a 48% impact on the Co-Op. These levels of impact are considered to be substantial.
38 With regards to the potential for Discovery Park employment generated linked trips to Sandwich Town Centre, GLH consider the more likely scenario is that having a large food store offering a “one-stop-shop” facility would reduce the attraction of Sandwich town centre shopping to employees.
39 The applicants have put forward a set of mitigation measures which, they say, would off-set the predicted adverse impacts on the town centre.
24 114 40 GLH have concluded that whilst a number of measures may, to a degree, mitigate the impact on the town centre that they are not sufficient to alter the conclusion that the foodstore will result in significant adverse impact on the town centre.
41 GLH consider that potential spin-offs and package of mitigation measures would not sufficiently ameliorate the impact the proposed foodstore would have on the Sandwich town centre. They conclude that the scale of store proposed and the trade diversions associated with it will have a significant adverse impact upon Sandwich town centre food shopping stores which will impact significantly upon the vitality and viability of the town centre overall.
Overall Retail Conclusions
42 It is acknowledged that the Government is committed to, and the planning system is geared to secure sustainable economic growth; it is also the case however that securing growth should not be to the significant detriment of existing provision. Whilst it is appreciated that there is the need to secure the re-occupation and regeneration of Discovery Park, there is no planning framework or agreed Masterplan in place for its delivery, although a Masterplan proposal is being considered separately from this foodstore application.
43 It is acknowledged that the proposals will generate jobs; however GLH identify that these jobs will potentially be at the expense of job losses or reduced hours working at stores and within centres that are impacted by the proposed foodstore.
44 GLH advice on the retail case has paid due regard to the Economic Case Report which is submitted in support of the foodstore proposal. This report is Private and Confidential and contains some potentially commercially sensitive information on the costs attached to funding the on-going regeneration of Discovery Park.
45 Save for the financial information relating to investment and running costs GLH set out the Economic Case is broadly stating the same information as provided within the Retail Statement with regard to the special need that exists to warrant the foodstore proposal on this out-of-centre site. GLH identify that the document does however provide a series of case studies identifying other ‘similar’ business and technology park developments and their mix of uses, however that few if any have a large foodstore/superstore embedded within them, rather they have a more modestly scaled and employment orientated mix of retail, food and beverage and business service offer. GLH and the LPA have disagreed with the GVA view that the Discovery Park foodstore proposal should be viewed as being of nationally important economic significance as such. Whilst the economic importance of the regeneration of Discovery Park is a material factor in determining this application, and the LPA seeks to support its success, the success of Discovery Park is not of nationally economic significance. The NPPF at paragraph 27 clearly directs that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impacts it should be refused.
46 With regard to the sequential test, it is considered the applicant has not had sufficient regard to the requirement for flexibility over isues such as scale and format particularly given the up to date evidence on need provided within the DRSU. As a consequence of this inflexible approach GLH advise it is apparent that the alternative sites have been too readily dismissed on the basis that they cannot accommodate
25 115 their specific proposal. It is considered that the two alternative sites which the Retail Statement has reviewed, whilst also out-of-centre, could accommodate foodstores of a size to meet main food shopping and have greater potential to achive meaningful linkage with and support the town centre and are therefore seqentially preferable.
47 In order to advise DDC, GLH have prepared their own independent retail impact analysis and this demonstrates the Discovery Park foodstore proposals will have a significant adverse impact upon Sandwich town centre. They refer to the Co-Ops view which underlines this concern and who have not ruled out closure of the main food shopping destination in Sandwich Town Centre.
48 GLH conclude that with regard to paragraph 14 of the NPPF the proposals are not in accord with the development plan and although there will be regeneration benefits for the wider Discovery Park the significant adverse impacts of the proposals on Sandwich Town Centre would significantly and demonstrably outweigh these benefits.
Economic Matters
49 The LPA are currently considering an outline application for a Masterplan for the Discovery Park Enterprise Zone (EZ). GVA (on behalf of the applicants have set out that the Masterplan would act as a framework for future growth and development of Discovery Park. The Masterplan proposals seek to fix parameters for phased future development, although the foodstore proposal does not form part of the Masterplan as such. GVA have said the foodstore would be provided early and provide a financial injection to sustain the heavy running costs of Discovery Park and capital to enable infrastructure works to facilitate the masterplan proposals and early regeneration of the site.
50 GVA have said that the foodstore at Discovery Park is a critical element of the future total place concept which the Masterplan proposals seek to bring forward. The size and scale of the foodstore is considered by the applicants to be the minimum requirement for optimising capital receipts for Discovery Park and for maximizing claw-back of leaking retail expenditure to the area, without having a significant adverse impact on the town centre, as well as leading to job creation. The nominated operator, Sainsburys, is also promoted as being able to underpin market and investor confidence in the site as a business location, due to the scale of investment and on reputational value. GVA have set out that a store of a smaller size would not generate the level of capital receipts that would make the foodstore scheme viable.
51 GVA have said that as Discovery Park has been designated as an EZ economic matters are of national significanceand should be the principle planning consideration They have submitted an Economic Statement (ES) which has given a broad overview of how the sale of land to the nominated retailer will fund a capital works programme. The ES sets out the costs of operating the EZ site and bringing forward its regeneration over the next 4 years or so estimated at some £35,000,000. Commercially confidential information has been supplied by GVA which elaborates to a degree on the current income revenue situation and identifies a deficit over income. However details to hand do not identify the level of available grants and other revenue streams nor potential for future rental or land sales income, which in fairness GVA have said are not certain. It is further understood that a company on the EZ can claim a capped amount of £55k per year once a building is occupied, however it is not clear whether such business rate relief is off-set by other state aid funding of the site. Having said that it is known that Discovery Park with its EZ status is eligible at
26 116 least for around £12m in government grants to support its business opportunities and objectives. So a complete economic picture is not readily available. However the LPA has no particular reason to doubt the information submitted.
52 GVA have submitted in support of their economic case other examples of where science and research parks have diversified in their offer to attract wider business interest. However none of those examples include an embedded retail superstore.
53 Potential benefits to the EZ have to be balanced against the adverse impacts of granting a foodstore of the size and scale in this location as set out in the Retail considerations section, above.
54 The applicants argue that economic development considerations should be the principle planning matter underpinning the determination of the planning application. However that is not the only considerationThe applicants have said that without a foodstore Discovery Park would be a less attractive (and therefore less successful) employment site without it. They are seeking to provide a distinct offer compared to competing employment sites to acieve success.
55 However, they have also said that the proposal would make Discovery Park more successful but not that without it that Discovery Park would fail. In this regard the applicants have not submitted a Viability Assessment which would clarify this matter. Accordingly Officers have to rely on the information in front of it in arriving at a recommendation
56 The wider economic benfits of the regeneration of the Discovery Park Enterprise Zone are not in any doubt and are actively encouraged and supported by the LPA.
57 The NPPF sets out that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth However it also sets out that there are three dimensions to sustainable development – the economic, environmental and social roles and that those roles should not be taken isolation Economic development achieved through this foodstore proposal needs to be balanced against the impact that will have upon the economic wellbeing of the town centre and this has been done within the retail analysis.
58 The NPPF is clear in saying that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on a town centre in respect of its vitaility and viability, it should be refused. In this instance it is not considered that the economic benefits of the development proposals outweigh the significant adverse harm that would be caused to the vitality and viability of the Sandwich Town Centre as discussed above in the Retail Case section.
Design and Visual Amenity
59 The application has been accompanied by a Design and Access statement which sets out how siting and design parameters for the foodstore and petrol filling station had been developed bearing in mind the opportunities and constraints of the site.
60 The development proposals are in outline and parameters are given in respect of the maximum height of the foodstore at between 6-9.5m and its dimensions of some 90m
27 117 x 65m maximum footprint (giving an overall external gross floor area of around 5500 sq m and gross internal floor area of around 4,800 sqm). Details of the appearance of the building itself are limited at this stage. However the application gives an idea of the scale and impact of the building. The petrol station would have a kiosk of around 120 sq m floor area and canopy, which would have a maximum height of 6.5m
61 Drainage ditches which are to be retained for bio-diversity and ecology reasons have to some extent driven the siting of the building and layout of the site. These ditches run to the north west, north east and beyond the site to the east. The application proposes a “no build zone” within 5m of the top of any banking to these ditches, which is considered to be suitable. Landscape and buffer planting measures are proposed to the north south and west of the site in particular. The additional planting to the west would supplement the existing mature landscape buffer to the west, beyond the site area.
62 When viewed from the A256 the development will be visible to some extent particularly when seen from the south and south east. However the ground level is lower than that of the A256 and there is some existing mature landscape screening of the site particularly along the A256 to the west and north. The development would appear most visible from along Monks Way to the south and landscaping would not really ameliorate the visual impact of the building, car park and petrol filling station. However, again due to the nature of the background buildings and wider developed Discovery Park site although visible it would not look out of place. Existing landscaping would be enhanced and strengthened with additional planting which would help relieve the visual impact.
63 Small scale images of block models have been included to show the scale of the development compared to the existing buildings. It is acknowledged that the application site is somewhat remote from the main cluster of buildings that are retained on the Discovery Park site, however it is considered that they give enough of a background context so that the scale of the superstore building and petrol station would not look out of place or overwhelm the character of this location particularly when approached from the A256 to the north west.
64 From the wider area impacts would be limited due to the setting of the building, its set down within the site and screening.
65 There is some concern over what the appearance of the building might be. The development proposals are in outline (apart from access) with footprint areas and height parameters given. Care would need to be taken to ensure it does not appear to overly “turn its back” on the main A256 access routes. Clearly the scale of the building and its obvious purpose as store/shop cannot be “disguised”. However, the appearance of the building and details of its height, finished appearance and materials used can be conditioned to ensure a sympathetic and suitable resultant treatment to the building and its setting at least is achieved as far as is possible.
66 The NPPF seeks good quality design in the built form and it is considered that, bearing in mind the nature of the proposal that there are mechanisms that will ensure the design and visual impact of the resultant development would be satisfactory in policy terms.
Transport and Location of Development
67 Core Strategy policy (DM11) requires that proposals that increase travel demand should be supported by a systematic assessment to quantify the amount and type of travel likely to be generated and include measures that satisfy demand to maximise
28 118 walking, cycling and the use of public transport. Development outside urban areas will not be permitted unless justified by other development plan policies. Development that would generate high levels of traffic are only acceptable in locations that are or can be made to be well served by a range of transport means.
68 The NPPF seeks to facilitate sustainable development which contributes to wider sustainable objective and promote health objectives to give people a choice over how they travel. Development is expected to be located where the need to travel is minimised as far as possible, taking into account the challenges in respect of development proposals in the rural area.
69 A balance of land uses within areas, or districts is expected to be had so that people can be encouraged to minimise journey lengths for employment, leisure education and other activities.
70 The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment (TA) which identifies that the food store application comprises an element of the wider masterplan which will combine with other uses at Discovery Park to provide a mixed use development which would minimize external trip making characteristics. Vehicle access to the foodstore will be achieved from the existing Monks Way roundabout. 344 spaces are proposed to serve the foodstore including 20 disabled person parking bays. The TA identifies that this amount of parking (with the exception of disabled person bays which provides for 7 more spaces than guidance requires) is below the maximum permitted but is considered sufficient to serve development proposals, bearing in mind the context of the emerging masterplan and provides opportunities for trip linking. 18 motorcycle spaces and 24 bicycle spaces are being provided, which is in accordance with required standards)
71 Deliveries to the store are anticipated as :
4 main deliveries via 16.5m articulated vehicle x 4 per day
4 smaller deliveries via van x 4 per day
1 smaller delivery van per week
72 Goods vehicles will visit the site throughout the day, so delivery vehicle parking space is not provided to standard (6 spaces). However the TA proposes that delivery times, activities, routes within the site can be controlled by a Servicing Management Plan.
73 KCC Highways have confirmed that the submitted application for the proposed food store and petrol filling station has been appropriately addressed in highway terms by the applicant’s and can be recommended for approval by the Highway Authority.
Pedestrian and Cycle crossing on Monk’s Way
74 The TA sets out that pedestrian and cycle access will be provided via existing infrastructure on the Discovery Park site; cyclists (and pedestrians) can access the site from Monks Way. The potential for pedestrian and cycle routes to the west of the site are being investigated. (It should be noted that a public footpath/cycle path already runs alongside the western edge of the site, north to south).
75 Due to the distance between Sandwich town (around 1.8km) and the application site, it is considered to be beyond walking distance for pedestrian purposes – DoT guidance refers to upto 400m as a desirable walking distance, with 800m being an
29 119 acceptable distance and 1200 the preferred maximum. (However bus service provision is being enhanced – see later)
76 Having said that a shared cycle/pedestrian route runs from the north of Discovery Park, alongside its western boundary and joins Sustains Regional Route 15 (RR15) at the access to the site. RR15 runs into Sandwich and joins the Natioanl Cycle Network Route 1 There is a shared pedestrian/cycle way on both sides of the Ramsgate Road, which bisects the Discovery Park site There is also a cycle route that runs along the Monks Way road edge adjacent to the pavement. DoT guidance on cycling trips sets out that utility cycle trips are less than 3 miles but for commuter journeys a cycle trip of 8km is not uncommon, so for cycle trip purposes the site is considered to be within a reasonable distance of the town centre and its surrounds.
77 Detailed modelling work has been submitted to support the provision of a Toucan Crossing on Monks Way should the master plan proposal for the rest of the site not be forthcoming and a higher footfall for the site will come from Monks Way utilising existing footway provision. There will need to be a requirement in the Section 106 Agreement to secure the delivery of this crossing in the event that the master plan does not proceed. Should the toucan crossing be provided then direct pedestrian/cycle access into the site at the crossing point can be secured.
Foodstore Bus Strategy
78 Bus stops would be provided within the internal perimeter road adjacent to the foodstore. It is proposed to provide a once per hour day-time service by diverting the existing bus-route. The TA shows bus services between Dover and Ramsgate run every hour (each way) between 0618 and 1745 and Ramsgate to Dover between 0656 and 1713 ( Monday to Friday and between 0813 and 1745 and 0656 and 1713 respectively on a Saturday. There is no Sunday service. The TA shows the results of a bus occupancy survey. It identifies that capacity on the bus service (apart from school travel times) is relatively low on weekdays (range between 67% - 94% and between 84% - 100% on Saturdays)
79 The TA concludes that access to the site by bus-based transport is a realistic alternative to car based travel
80 Bus provision has been agreed between the Highway Authority, Stagecoach and the applicant’s. This is considered to be reasonable and acceptable. The site will be accessible by public transport with or without the masterplan proposals coming forward. The following provision has been agreed :
• Re-route the 87/88 through the Discovery Park site to serve the foodstore. • Provide replacement bus stops for the 87/88 bus within the site as close to the existing stops on Ramsgate Road as possible. • Provide Dover District Council with a contribution of £20,000 to be passed to Stagecoach East Kent for the re-routing of the 87/88 through the site. • The occupier (or DP on behalf of the occupier) will pay for the provision of Megarider Tickets for 20% of the staff at the foodstore for one year from opening. This would be based upon the Full Time Equivalent (FTE) number of staff. The planning application states that the site could require approximately 158 FTE staff. • The re-routing would be implemented and funding provided in time for the staff at the new foodstore to commence work.
81 In addition to the bus strategy and to minimise staff based car travel to the foodstore site the operator of the foodstore will prepare a Store Travel Plan which would be
30 120 submitted approval prior to occupation of the site. The approved travel plan would be put in place prior to store opening and include measures to reduce the reliance of the private car for staff travel. The operator, through the Travel Plan, will make all staff aware of the presence of the travel plan and will aim to limit the number of single occupancy car driver trips through limiting staff car parking, encouraging car sharing and the use of public transport. It is envisaged that at least 20% staff would benefit from Travel Plan incentives which would encourage changed travel patterns from the outset
Vehicle related activity
82 Car parking on the site would be provided in accordance with current standard requirements once the detailed design is finalised and will include parking for mobility impaired persons, motorcycle parking and cycle parking. A dedicated taxi customer drop off/pick up point would be provided to the front of the store within the car park area
83 Servicing arrangements have also been deemed to be acceptable but final numbers of parking bays for goods vehicles will need to be determined at the detailed stage in accordance with current requirements. A service Management plan will be required prior to the store becoming operational.
84 Detailed analysis has been carried out in respect of the trip generation and distribution on the highway network from the proposed footsore and PFS. The Local Development Order on the Discovery Park site has been counted as committed development and factored in to the scenario testing and forecasting of the traffic impacts. The impacts have all been found to be within acceptable limits other than for the Ash Road/A257/Ramsgate Road roundabout. The impacts generated by the foodstore and PFS are minimal in comparison to that of the LDO but given that the surveyed flows are indicating the junction is very close to capacity at peak times currently any further impact can be considered unacceptable which results in congestion and should be mitigated. It was considered that the level of mitigation necessary at this time may result in abortive works considering that any future development, most likely in respect of other uses within Discovery Park outside of the permitted uses contained within the LDO, will be required to mitigate against their impact on this roundabout to a fuller extent. It has therefore been agreed between the Highway Authority and the developer that such mitigation will not be sought at this time on the foodstore application but absolutely will be necessary when the master plan proposals come forward.
85 With appropriate traffic control mechanisms in place it is not considered that the development proposals would result in undue pressures on the highway network. A construction management plan can be conditioned which will require details of vehicle routing in particular, as well as requiring details of construction related vehicle / plant/ machinery parking, material delivery timings, wheel washing details etc
Conclusion on Highway Matters
86 It is considered that the proposed layout and the impact on the road network is therefore acceptable and sustainable transport opportunities have been appropriately addressed. The site is accessed via the primary road network for servicing thus not impacting on any inappropriate narrow lanes or residential streets.
87 Walking and cycling links have been addressed and although the site is situated someway from Sandwich town safeguarding of sustainable links will be secured by
31 121 condition and if the master plan proposal comes forward as intended then the site sits within a good catchment area for residential, commercial and business premises for vehicle trips to be reduced. It has been agreed that a Full Travel Plan will be required at the detailed application stage and the commitments contained within the Framework Travel Plan are deemed to be acceptable in support of this outline application. Core Strategy Policies DM11, DM12 and DM13 have been complied with.
Impact on Heritage Assets and Archaeology
88 The policy context for the evaluation of the application is primarily set by the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); the Local Development Framework, Core Strategy (2010), and the Dover Heritage Strategy (2013). The latter document incorporates a section on the Discovery Park Enterprise Zone, which this site falls within. 89 The Design and Access Statement submitted as part of the planning application, acknowledges the fact that the site is surrounded by a large number of heritage assets, both designated and undesignated, although there are no designated heritage assets actually within the development site.
90 The Dover Heritage Strategy identifies a number of receptors which are sensitive to development in the Enterprise Zone, from a cultural heritage point of view, the main ones being;
• Richborough Roman Fort
• Stonar Medieval Port
• Sandwich Historic Town
• Richborough Military Port and Base
• Monks Wall and Buried Archaeology
91 The impact of the proposed foodstore on these heritage assets is summarised as follows:
Richborough Roman Fort
92 The fort lies to the west of the site on significantly higher ground. Whilst the site would be visible from the fort, from a number of locations, it is not considered that this would cause any significant harm to the visitor experience, as acknowledged by English Heritage. There is a considerable distance between the site and the fort, and it is the intervening open land which contributes most to the setting of Richborough Castle, and the ability to understand it in landscape terms. It is therefore considered that any harm caused would be ‘less than substantial’.
Stonar Medieval Port
93 The Scheduled Monument lies to the south east of the site. It consists of buried remains on the southern bank of Stonar Lake, which was formed by the extraction of aggregates. As the landscape around the monument has been substantially changed, and there is a substantial distance between the monument and the site, it is considered that the proposed foodstore would not have any additional impact on the wider setting of the monument.
32 122 Sandwich Walled Town
94 Sandwich Walled Town has a very rich collection of historic building, many of which are listed. It is a conservation area, and its walls are Scheduled Monuments. The foodstore site lies a substantial distance to the north of the town. As there is a considerable distance between the town and the site, it is considered that it would have minimal impact on the wider setting of the town, bearing in mind the existing buildings on the wider Discovery Park site and existing soft landscaping.
Richborough Port and Base
95 The importance of this area as a military port in the First and Second World Wars, is well documented in the Dover Heritage Strategy. The site of the proposed foodstore lies to the west of where these military bases and camps were located. Due to the distance of the site, from the extant heritage assets, and the existing buildings in Discovery Park, which form their wider context, it is considered that the proposed foodstore would have minimal impact on their wider setting and understanding in the landscape. (It is understood that the military activity did not extend onto the specific application site).
Monk’s Wall and Buried Archaeology
96 The Monk’s Wall is an important local landscape feature, that, although not designated, is clearly of considerable importance, and can be described as an undesignated, heritage asset. It is understood that the wall was constructed in the thirteenth century and is part of a long history of land reclamation of the Wantsum Channel.
97 The wall survives as a substantial and well preserved earthwork mound to the south west of the recently constructed Monk’s Way road. The mound originally projected through the western part of the site, however it has long-since been removed. KCC Archaeology considers that the submitted documentation does not give sufficient weight to the potential for archaeological finds in this area, however this could be sufficiently safeguarded by the use of an appropriate condition, should consent be granted.
98 To conclude, it is considered that the proposed foodstore is unlikely to have any significant harm on heritage assets in the area, and any negative impacts can be satisfactorily ameliorated by the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Landscape Impact
99 The application site comprises three major elements: an area of mown grassland to the west of the site with extensive areas of tarmac car park to the south, east and north, together with a mix of small areas of ornamental landscaping, internal roadways and semi-natural drainage ditches variously within and bounding the site. The site sits below the A256 the verge of which grades down through scrub woodland to Regional Cyclepath Route 15. The cyclepath turns along the southern side of Discovery Park and is separated from the site by a rough grass verge. The eastern and southern boundaries of the site are contained within Discovery Park. Beyond the southwestern boundary of the site Monks Way sits on a low embankment beyond which is the grazing marsh of Monks Wall Nature Reserve.
100 The site is expansive and open to views, although not generally visible from Sandwich town due to extensive vegetation cover. This will, in the short-medium term be compromised somewhat by changes in landscaping associated with the Sandwich
33 123 Flood Alleviation Scheme. The focal points from the wider area are the range of large and imposing buildings on the Discovery Park site, which tend to dominate the landscape here and the scheduled ancient monument of Richborough Roman Fort. A landscape and visual impact assessment has been submitted which has assessed the site from several different viewpoints.
101 Clearly in this location there will be some adverse visual impact, but the main receptors, in terms of number, will be motorists negotiating dual carriageways who will reasonably be considered to have a low sensitivity to visual impact. It is considered that landscape planting will supplement existing tree screening and provide for a significant level of mitigation. The landscaping used however will need to be carefully considered so that it provides a natural appearance rather than one that appears over-manicured. For this species selection and mix need careful consideration to avoid an unnatural clonal uniformity.
102 It is considered that the impact on landscape character, overall,will be insignificant given the existing character of the area which is determined by the far larger scale of bulidings in Discovery Park.
103 Conditions can be attached to any planning permission which would require details of suitable levels and types of planting, including species, a programme for implementation (which would need to be early so that it would be effective sooner rather than later) and a management and maintenance plan.
Ecology – Appropriate Assessment Considerations
104 The proposed development lies in close proximity to the Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes SSSI which also comprise European and International sites incorporating :
• Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA
• Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsar site
• Sandwich Bay SAC
105 It is considered the nature of the development and its location indicate that the following are able to be dealt with in a suitable way and are therefore of no consequence as far as designated sites are concerned :
• Recreation (the proposal will not stimulate recreational activity)
• Urbanisation (any urbanisation impacts eg litter would be dealt with/managed by Discovery Park)
• Noise (dealt with by Discovery Park management measures)
• Lighting (dealt with by Discovery Park management measures)
• Foul drainage
106 There is one effect which could have greater potential for impact which is water- borne hydro-carbon pollution from the proposed filling station.
Air pollution including:
34 124 107 Traffic generated pollution – a detailed analysis of the information supplied by the applicant has been undertaken using current habitat and air pollution data. It is concluded that due to the specific type of nearby habitats and limited predicted increase in levels of vehicular nitrogen deposition against the backdrop of existing nitrogen levels, it is unlikely that there would be any significant additional impact
108 750kw bio-mass boiler (included as part of the development proposals ) – the predicted emissions are as yet unknown, and will need to be considered along with effects from this proposed development at any reserved matters stage.
109 In view of the above it is unlikely that there would be adverse effects on designated sites and the need for appropriate assessment is screened out. Natural England agree with this finding. However, reserved matters applications would be required to demonstrate there would be no significant effects on these European sites from water or air pollution (excluding those generated by vehicular activity)
110 An extended habitat survey has been submitted which reviews the existing habitats and evidence of protected species.
111 Two terrestrial groups of interest have been identified on the site - water voles and reptiles as well as breeding and ground nesting birds. Clearance of trees, scrub and grassland should be undertaken outside of the recognised bird breeding season, however where that is not possible then vegetation to be cleared would need to be assessed by an ecologist, for activity, before any clearance is carried out. Again this can be required by condition
112 The report submitted, identifies that due to potential for existence of suitable reptile habitat that an exclusion and translocation scheme is implemented. This is agreed and can be required by way of condition
113 The report sets out that as there are no buildings within the site and only limited numbers of ornamental trees that the site is unlikely to be constrained by roosting bats. However drainage ditches and fringe habitats such as rough grassland and tall vegetation and scrub immediately outside the site could provide opportunities for foraging bats which should be maintained. Additional native tree planting would further enhance this habitat and this can be required by way of condition
114 As water voles have previously been recorded on the site, water vole fencing is recommended to be erected in conjunction with the 5m buffer planting strip to the ditches to north and south of the site to ensure protection of the buffer strip and prevent any impact on ditches during construction works. A Natural England licence may need to be obtained for works based on final design and any likely impacts. The licence would be required by the Wildlife and Countryside Act and would not therefore require a condition to this effect
115 The submitted plans for landscaping details indicates that two vehicle links across the retained drainage ditch are to be upgraded. The method statement for such works should take account of the presence of water voles and their protected status. The plan also indicates the retained ditch to have a minimum 4m additional native landscaping buffer. This ditch, although not showing signs of water vole activity, is connected to ditches that do (Ecology Report 3.29) This differs from the 5m cited in the Ecology Report for ditches outside the boundary (5m). Consistency in ditch size would be appropriate and it would be helpful if a consistent 5m could be obtained. Details of the additional native landscaping north of the ditch will need to be brought forward by way of an ecological management plan
35 125 116 Recommendations include that findings should be taken forward through an ecological management plan which should include long-term maintenance and management of habitat. This can be required by condition
Environmental Protection
117 An air quality assessment report has been prepared which identifies the potential for air quality impacts during construction and operation of the foodstore.
118 The assessment identifies that measures would need to be taken during the construction period to safeguard against impacts from dust and fine particle emissions. The report considers that emissions from a small 750kw boiler would be unlikely to cause harm to ecology or air quality. Air quality impacts from traffic emissions are predicted to be insignificant. The conclusions are agreed with, however it will be appropriate to attach appropriate conditions to any planning permission to ensure proper control over emissions/impacts during both construction and operational phases. These measures can include no burning on site, dust control measures such as dampening and covered skips, no vehicles idling on site, hard surface haul roads etc and can be dealt with by way of condition.
119 A contaminated land risk assessment has been supplied which seeks to establish the potential for contamination. The site is largely “undeveloped” in that there are no buildings on it – nor have there been although part of the site is occupied by an area of car parking. The report sets out that there are no contamination sources identified in close proximity of the site – although there is a landfill site some 500m away from it. It is acknowledged that the presence of shallow ground water and chalk aquifer would have to be taken into account in respect of the petrol filling station in particular (this is discussed in more detail below). The applicants have advised that they would work in close association with the Environment Agency in particular on this matter. Mitigation measures include site investigations, sample analysis, soil testing with appropriate monitoring and remediation strategies put in place, details for which can be required by condition.
120 Limited detail has been submitted in respect of lighting and noise, however matters such as illumination levels and noise generating activity, particularly cumulative effects during construction and operational phases can be controlled by condition.
121 There are no Environmental Protection objections to the scheme.
Flood Risk, Groundwater, Water Quality & Drainage
Flood risk
122 The application site lies within the Environment Agency designated flood risk zone 3A. This indicates that the site is subject to high risk flooding from river and sea. This means that there is the probability of land having either a 1 in 100 chance (1%) or greater of annual river flooding and land having a greater than 1 in 200 (0.5%) chance of annual sea flooding. The Sandwich Town Tidal Flood Defence scheme is underway and due to be completed in Spring 2015 and is designed to protect this site (and others) for upto a 1 in 200 year storm
123 The NPPF (and accompanying NPPG) aims to redirect development away from flood risk zones 2 and 3. Sequential and then Exception tests are normally required where development is proposed in such areas unless, amongst other things, a site has been allocated for the relevant use – in this case employment generating retail use, in the Development Plan. (A sequential test is required to establish whether there are any other less vulnerable sites that would be suitable). However the NPPF/NPPG sets
36 126 out that a pragmatic approach is expected to be used in respect of the availability of other sites bearing in mind the nature of the business/development proposals. If the sequential test is applied and passed then the exception test is applied – which is a method to demonstrate that flood risk to people and property will be properly managed). Development proposals must not increase flood risk elsewhere and should be able to demonstrate that any development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant.
124 In addition the NPPF/NPPG sets out that less vulnerable development is acceptable in flood zone areas 3A, and this includes retail development proposals (as well as employment uses).
125 The development includes proposals for retail use (including the petrol station), which generates employment and which therefore fall within a less vulnerable category as far as flood risk effects as far as the NPPF/NPPG are concerned.
126 The applicants within their sequential testing for alternative sites for retail use, have considered alternative sites and have found them unsuitable (although their conclusions are not necessarily supported in respect of the sequential retail tests). To an extent this could be said to comprise a satisfactory sequential test approach. The applicants have said that the proposed development has a functional link to the Discovery Park site and that there are, to the applicants mind, no other suitable sites within the catchment area which suits the requirements of the development proposals. If the Sequential approach for flood risk testing were to be directly applied then the outcome would be that the Sequential test requirements are satisfied
127 As has been said the proposed development is a less vulnerable use as set out within NPPF guidance and the site is therefore considered appropriate as a land use. The exception test is therefore not required.
128 The applicants are proposing design measures including proposals for floor voids to be provided to prevent flood storage being removed from the flood plain and finished floor levels (internal) being raised above the flood level. Dry and safe access/egress routes to and from buildings are also referred to with a safe point of escape onto Monks Way being made accessible. On site attenuation would be provided along with surface water drainage being discharged into existing swales and ditches. These measures, subject to detail, would be sufficient to ensure that flood risk would not be increased and would result in a safe and resilient form of development
129 The Environment Agency have expressed concerns over the proposed underground fuel tanks and the potential for harm that may be caused to groundwater from leaks and spillages. The applicants have set out that matters can be dealt with by way of condition. There is the potential for attaching a “pre-commencement” condition to any planning permission which would require details of the design and siting of the underground fuel tanks to be submitted to the LPA and approved before any development takes place. If this were the case and such details were not considered to be acceptable (the LPA would seek the Environment Agencys advice on this matter) then the development could not go ahead. It may be that above ground fule tanks would have to be incorporated … however the effects of these may be able to be mitigated by proper landscaping and topographical treatment – again this could achieved by the use of a pre-commencement condition. Overall it is considered that this matter would be able to be satisfactorily dealt with at the detailed design stage.
130 Suitable conditions can be imposed to ensure that development could not proceed unless and until satisfactory solutions and measures are identified and put in place.
37 127 Groundwater
131 The Environment Agency have expressed concern over the risk to groundwater and have objected to the development proposals as they are not satisfied that the application demonstrates that risk to groundwater can be satisfactorily managed, making particular reference to the underground petrol storage tanks.
132 The NPPF requires that development should conserve and enhance the natural environment. In particular the NPPF identifies that new and existing development should be prevented from contributing to unacceptable levels of water and soil pollution.
133 The site lies on a secondary aquifer which provides groundwater baseflow to the nearby River Stour. It is understood that groundwater is at a very high level in this area and fuel storage tanks are likely to be below the water table. This poses particular hazards to groundwater as the EA have said as it would be difficult to detect and deal with leaks that may occur. Development proposals which might lead to a high risk of pollution and where the groundwater asset is of high value is as a matter of course objected to. This position is clearly accepted and the prevention of risk to groundwater (or soil) is essential. The EA have set out that they will maintain their objection until they are satisfied that adequate information can demonstrate that any risks can be satisfactorily managed. This includes having details of construction details for the petrol filling station and full structural details of the installation including details of tanks, surrounds and pipework, monitoring systems, drainage strategy and operating procedures all of hich will be expected to show what measures would be put in place to protect the groundwater environment. The EA have also said the measures may require installation of above ground tanks.
134 These are matters of great importance as far as protection of the natural environment is concerned and the LPA supports the Environment Agencies concern. It may be that if above ground tanks are found to be the only solution, then the LPA may have a fundamental objection in visual amenity terms. Accordingly, it would seem that the acceptability of providing a petrol station here is acceptable in principle, but that it is all dependant on the suitability of the detail.
135 Those details can be required by condition. Para 203 of the NPPF sets out that LPAs should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions. In this case it is considered that conditions would be able to make the development proposed acceptable. If the level of information and detail that the LPA and Environment Agency require cannot be supplied or is not satisfactory – then the development will not be able to go ahead.
Drainage
136 NPPF Technical Guidance sets out that within flood zone 3A, developers and local authorities should seek opportunities to reduce the overall level of flood risk in the area through the layout and form of the development and the appropriate application of sustainable drainage systems.
137 The applicant has set out that a new surface water drainage system would be provided to collect surface water run-off, which would drain from roofs, roads and the car park to existing open channels and ditches, which would reflect the existing strategy. SuDS would also be provided to deal with both surface water, which will include the use of permeable surfaces, the installation of a shallow permeable pavement system within the car park area, underground storage tanks, for severe storm flow run-off and swales within the landscaped area.
38 128 138 Details are again fairly limited in nature as this is an outline application. It is considered that appropriately worded conditions can be used to ensure sufficient and suitable measures are agreed and put in place
Sustainable Construction
139 The development is proposed to be constructed to BREEAM ‘Very Good’ standard, which meets the requirements of the Development Plan.
Planning Obligations
140 If planning permission was to be granted most matters outstanding and matters of details could be required to be secured through appropriate conditions.
141 There are Highway requirements, which could be secured through a S106 legal agreement. 142 The toucan crossing on Monks Way (referred to under Highways and Transport section above) may not come forward early and because there is uncertainty and a need for it then it is considered appropriate to secure this through a legal agreement. The legal agreement could be worded in such a way so that the toucan crossing would come forward at a certain stage in the supermarket development.
143 As set out above (Highways and Transport section) bus provision has been agreed. Most measures can be secured by condition, however the following matters should be required by way of a legal agreement :
144 Provide replacement bus stops for the 87/88 bus within the site as close to the existing stops on Ramsgate Road as possible, within a certain timeframe – yet to be finalised. 145 Provide Dover District Council with a contribution of £20,000 to be passed to Stagecoach East Kent for the re-routing of the 87/88 through the site. The re-routing would be implemented and funding provided in time for the staff at the new foodstore to commence work. 146 The occupier (or DP on behalf of the occupier) to pay for the provision of Megarider Tickets for 20% of the staff at the foodstore for one year from store opening for trading. This would be based upon the Full Time Equivalent (FTE) number of staff.
147 The obligations and contributions are considered acceptable and would be fairly and reasonably related to the development proposals, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF. Other mitigation measures have been suggested as set out in this report. However no detail of how or when they would be achieved has been made available, with such limited detail is is difficult to say whether they are fairly and reasonably related to the development. A draft s106 has not been submitted for consideration as part of the application proposals, and this has not been sought, because, as set out in the report the development is not considered to be acceptable for other reasons. If however planning permission was granted a legal agreement would have to come forward for Officer consideration.
Other Matters
148 DOV/14/0058 is an outline application and relates to a site wide parameter masterplan that is currently under consideration by the LPA and discussion/negotiation with the applicant. It is a material consideration. In summary the masterplan proposes redevelopment of site including some demolition works, provision of infrastructure and landscaping, change of use of some existing buildings
39 129 from B1 to use classes: B2, B8, Sui Generis (Energy) and D1 uses); the provision of new buildings to accommodate commercial uses falling within use classes A3/A4, B1, B2, B8, C1, D1 and Sui Generis) and residential development comprising some 500 dwellings. The foodstore application does not form part of the masterplan as such, although it lies within the masterplan application site area and the applicants have said that there is an inextricable link between the two applications. The applicants have said that they want to provide a “total place” in terms of what Discovery Park can offer in a competitive market, which will support the long term employment driven goals of the place. The applicants have said that the foodstore is a fixed element which plays an important role in supporting the short term viability of the ongoing regeneration of the site and that it would support viability and investment value. The foodstore application has come forward of the masterplan proposals to fast track economic benefits towards the Enterprise Zone.
149 It appears that at least in the short term, the regeneration of Discovery Park is reliant on an initial funding stream. The need for an early injection of capital is not under question here, although a full open book process has not been applied to the foodstore/masterplan applications, this is generally accepted.A ball-park estimate of ancillary A1 floorspace needed, which would conveniently service the needs of the future daytime population of Discovery Park would be around 500-750 sqm. The LDO already enables this amount of ancillary A1 retail floorspace. It is considered important to remember that the LDO recognised that future development of Discovery Park should not undermine the functioning of the town.
Overall Conclusion
150 The retail store, car park, petrol filling station and kiosk proposals have been fully considered and assessed in accordance with NPPF, NPPG and Core Strategy policies.
151 It is accepted that the amount of retail floorspace proposed here may well be required to make a store on the Discovery Park viable, and that a store of this size would generate the required level of financial input to support the regeneration of Discovery Park. It should also be borne in mind however that the applicants have not demonstrated that the Enterprise Zone would fail without the foodstore.
152 It is acknowledged that bus connection improvements are part of the application package and that there would be enhancements to pedestrian/cycle routes. It is also recognised that the package of mitigation measures suggested by the applicants would bring benefits – but there is uncertainty over when they would be or could be secured through the planning process. None-the-less these mitigation measures have been taken into account in considering the application.
153 The application site is outside the Town Centre Area and Primary Shopping Area of Sandwich, as identified in the emerging LALP. The Retail Assessment submitted with the application concluded that there are no suitable in centre or edge of centre sites to meet the retail need identified by the LPAs Retail Update (2012) for the Deal/Sandwich trade zone. This conclusion has been confirmed through completion of sequential assessment work undertaken by both the Council and GLH.
154 The LALP modifications, at policy LA17 (see above) refer to the criteria against which new convenience provision in Sandwich should be considered, are a material consideration, due to their advanced stage in preparation and carry due weight in consideration of this application.
40 130 155 Support for the proposals by the Town Council, Chamber of Commerce, Locate in Kent and others have been carefully considered. There are a number of objectors, however, who express similar concerns to those set out by GLH and the LPA, regarding the effects and impacts that a large out of centre foodstore which will function as a stand alone retail facility would have on future prospects for the town centre.
156 The applicants have considered two out of centre sites. In dismissing one of them (Ash Road) they consider the Dover Road site as sequentially equal to the Discovery Park site. However, the Discovery Park application site is located some 1.8km to the north west of Sandwich Town Centre. This distance from the town centre (around a 20 minute walk) and the quality of the walking route even with future Ramsgate Road improvements, would be unlikely to result in linked trips. With regards to this point, Members attention is drawn to KCC Highways comments “Due to the distance between Sandwich town (around 1.8km) and the application site, it is considered to be beyond walking distance for pedestrian purposes – DoT guidance refers to up to 400m as a desirable walking distance, with 800m being an acceptable distance and 1200 the preferred maximum.” The location of the foodstore away from the proximity of the town centre and in a location particularly well served by the A256, which by- passes the town centre, would also be likely to divert car borne people away from the town centre.
157 The sequential analysis undertaken by GLH concludes that the availability of alternative sites has not been fully explored and that the sites at Dover Road and Ash Road are of a size which could accommodate a flexibly conceived foodstore and are better located to the town centre providing a better prospect for linked trips.
158 The impact analysis carried out by GLH has identified that the proposals will have a significant adverse impact upon trading levels within the existing town centre. The economic and other benefits brought about by the foodstore proposals are not sufficient to outweigh the significant adverse impact of the development on the viability and vitality of Sandwich Town Centre.
159 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through plan making and decision making.
160 The NPPF sets out that the three dimensions of sustainable development – the economic, social and environmental roles, should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. Accordingly, the economic benefits of the proposals for a foodstore at the Enterprise Zone do not outweigh the other dimensions of sustainable development, particularly bearing in mind the economic effects the development would have through causing significant adverse impact on the town centre. There are alternative sequentially better located sites which would make a stronger contribution to the town centre through linked shopping trips
161 The NPPF and NPPG are clear `Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centreit should be refused’ (para 27).
162 The development does not comply with Core Strategy policy in terms of identified retail need, nor does it meet the criteria set out in emerging policy LA17 of the LALP, nor does it comply with the aims and objectives of the NPPF.
163 The LPA is mindful in the strongest possible terms of the importance of supporting the Discovery Park Enterprise Zone and is committed to providing support to
41 131 encourage and promote this employment location and will continue to seek to do so. However, the application is for significant retail development which is not contemplated for the EZ. The proposals fail to satisfy the NPPF tests as there is a sequentially preferable alternative site (paragraph 24 of the NPPF) and the proposals are considered to result in a significant adverse impact on the existing town centre (paragraph 26 of the NPPF). In these circumstances paragraph 27 of the NPPF directs that where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have a significant adverse impact, it should be refused.
164 Planning permission should therefore be refused.
165 In all other respects, as set out in this report, the development is acceptable. Any areas or matters of concern could be overcome by imposition of conditions or achieved through use of s106 where appropriate
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Permission BE REFUSED, for the following reason :
The development, if permitted, due to its size and scale, location and siting, some 1.8km from the Sandwich Town Centre Area/Primary Shopping Area would result in an unjustified level of out of town retail development which would be poorly related to the Sandwich Town Centre and which would result in significant adverse harm to the viability and vitality of the Town Centre which would be unlikely maximize the opportunity for linked trips. The development is contrary to the Core Strategy, emerging LALP policy LA17 and sustainability objectives set out in particular in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the NPPF; the economic growth objectives set out in para graph 19 of the NPPF ; fails the sequential test criteria set out in paragraph 24 of the NPPF; and impact test (paragraph 26) as it would have a significant adverse impact on the viability and vitality of the town centre.
Case Officer
Lesley Jarvis
42 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Part 2: Cumulative Retail Assessment
As part of the consideration of the impact of the developments, a cumulative retail impact assessment of the Discovery Park Sainsbury foodstore proposal together with the Kimberley Developments, Waitrose foodstore proposals at Dover Road, in respect of impact on the Sandwich town centre has been carried out. Both of the foodstore proposals are outside the town centre.
The cumulative retail impact assessment analysis is provided in the Retail Planning Critiques and Retail Planning Critique addendums, prepared by GL Hearn on behalf of the Local Planning Authority. The Critiques are attached to each respective committee report at their Appendices 1 and 2.
The Critiques also provides an assessment of the trade diversion and impact of the two proposals proceeding in combination. In preparing the cumulative retail assessment conclusion it is considered that the two proposals effectively impact upon each others trade by reducing their anticipated turnovers by 15%.
The cumulative floorspace of both proposals equate to some 7,350 sq m (gross) retail floorspace (+ 120 sqm floorspace provided at the Discovery Park petrol station kiosk) – which, in total is around 4209 sqm net trading floorspace.
Conclusion :
The level of trading impact on Sandwich town centre resulting from the two stores would result in convenience goods trade diversions from the town centre in excess of £5.2m which equates to a trading impact of over 55% on the convenience stores in Sandwich. This level of impact is considered to be significantly adverse and would be likely to result in store closures and a significant fall in the vitality and viability of the town centre.
The NPPF sets out that “ Where an application … is likely to have significant adverse impact on town centre vitality and viability it should be refused’ (paras 26 -27).
The cumulative impact of two stores is considered to result in a significant adverse impact on the existing town centre. It is concluded therefore that there is no basis upon which both the foodstore proposals can be approved.
183 Part 3: Comparative Assessment
This table sets out an overview of the key issues relating to both applications and seeks to compare and contrast the merits of each application against the other.
A) Dover Road DOV/13/0867 B) Discovery Park DOV/13/0783 Retail Need: Need : The proposal is of a size and potential Significantly in excess of level of need turnover which is in excess of the level identified within DRSU for of need identified within the DRSU for Deal/Sandwich trade area. Contrary the Deal/Sandwich trade area by to development plan 2017, but could be supported by 2022.
Sequential Test: Acceptable location in sequential Sequential Test : terms. Sequentially preferable sites available/identified elsewhere
Impact: Impact : Will not cause a significant adverse Predicted trade diversion levels will impact on the vitality and viability of have significant adverse impact on Sandwich town centre. There is likely vitality and viability of Sandwich Town to be adverse impact arising from Centre. The location of the store and trade predicted diversion, but the its size are considered to limit the proposal could contribute to the town potential for linked trips to the town centre through linked shopping trips centre and draw trade from it to an and spending such that the overall unacceptable degree. vitality and viability of the town centre will not be significantly adversely impacted.
Meets sustainability objectives of Contrary to sustainability objectives of NPPF NPPF. Level of significant adverse harm outweighs economic benefits
Design & Visual No significant harm, subject to the No significant harm, impacts and Amenity attachment of appropriate conditions effects can be overcome by conditions to secure mitigation securing mitigation Heritage Impact & Less than substantial harm, subject to Less than substantial harm, subject to Archaeology the attachment of appropriate the attachment of appropriate conditions to secure mitigation conditions to secure mitigation Transport No significant harm, subject to the No significant harm – subject to attachment of appropriate conditions attachment of conditions and legal to secure mitigation agreement obligations to secure mitigation Residential Amenity No significant harm subject to the N/A attachment of appropriate conditions and mitigation Environmental No significant harm subject to the No significant harm subject to the Protection attachment of appropriate conditions imposition of conditions to secure and mitigation mitigation Ecology, Trees & No significant harm subject to the No significant harm subject to Landscape Impact attachment of appropriate conditions attachment of conditions to secure and mitigation mitigation Land Use Green field. Outside confines. Land Outside confines but previously take of small scale (1.1ha). Loss developed land, although allocated for would have no significant adverse employment use. Loss of employment impact on agricultural economic land not considered sufficiently great viability or wider character, to jeopardise wider employment
184 appearance and setting of countryside. potential of Discovery Park. No No significant harm significant harm. Flood Risk & Drainage No significant harm subject to the No significant harm subject to the attachment of appropriate conditions attachment of appropriate conditions and mitigation requiring technical detailing and mitigation Sustainable Meets required standards, subject to Meets required standards subject to Construction the attachment of appropriate the attachment of appropriate condition conditions Other Considerations Economic Benefit :
New doctors’ surgery and pharmacy Put forward as argument including cross-funding of EZ infrastructure, but unsubstantiated by a formal viability assessment. Economic benefits do not outweigh other sustainable development objectives New employment opportunities : Likely - but may result in some New employment opportunities : displaced employment from elsewhere Likely – but may result in some displaced employment from elsewhere
Contributions towards highways improvements and bus provision
Package of mitigation measures – to be included within legal agreement – subject to agreement with Sandwich TC and Chamber Commerce - welcomed but no details of how and when these measures would be achieved
Conclusion:
Members attention is drawn to the relevant sections in the committee reports which discuss the above matters in more detail. Members would need to weigh the merits of the Dover Road scheme against those of the Discovery Park scheme.
It is considered that the main area of difference relates to the retail case. The conclusions of the individual Officers reports apply here.
The Dover Road scheme is sequentially preferable in terms of its proximity to the town centre and its impact, whilst adverse, is considered to be acceptable. It also has the benefit of bringing forward a new doctors surgery.
The Discovery Park scheme, whilst having economic benefits for the future of the Enterprise Zone, is not in a sequentially suitable location and the impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre is considered to be significantly adverse.
185 Part 4: Overall Conclusion with Officer Recommendation
It is considered that the recommendations on both applications are fully in line with the Government’s objectives which are in favour of sustainable development. While identifying the need for additional convenience retail provision within Sandwich is not a decision making test, the LALP and Council’s Retail Study Update does identify a level of need and it is considered that approval of the Dover Road proposals will meet that recognized need without compromising and causing significant adverse harm to existing retail provision within the town centre. This is fully in accordance with those sustainable development principles as set out within the NPPF, Development Plan, including the emerging LALP and which has been informed by the latest available evidence contained within the Council’s Retail Update.
It is considered that the Dover Road proposals are in a sequentially preferable location and whilst out of centre will have, by virtue of their relative proximity and existing connectivity, the potential to form meaningful links with the town centre. The potential impacts arising from the Dover Road proposals are not judged significantly adverse.
The Discovery Park proposals are considered to be sequentially unacceptable in terms of their location as given their distance from the town centre they will not give the opportunity of potential for a meaningful level of linked trips and are of a size that will give rise to impacts that are considered to be significantly adverse upon Sandwich town centre.
On this basis, it is considered that the Dover Road proposals should be granted and the Discovery Park proposals should be refused, in accordance with the recommendations set out in Part 1 of this report .
186