Planning Services

COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: PL/5/2009/0548

2 FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION RETAIL UNIT 8454m (USE CLASS A1), HOTEL (USE CLASS C1), CINEMA (USE CLASS D2), FOOD & DRINK RETAIL UNITS (USE CLASS A1,A3, A4 & A5), PETROL FILLING STATION, CREATION OF NEW ACCESS AND LANDSCAPING (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

NAME OF APPLICANT DALTON PARK LTD

SITE ADDRESS DALTON PARK, MURTON, SR7 9HU

ELECTORAL DIVISION MURTON

CASE OFFICER Barry Gavillet 0191 5274305 [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSAL

Site:

1 The application site is located east of Murton, approximately 3 miles south west of Seaham and 5 miles north of Peterlee. The site area extends to 10.3 ha (25.4 acres) of previously developed land. The site forms part of a wider development occupied by an Outlet Shopping Park, restaurants and associated car parking, which comprises 15,164 sq m of retail floorspace with over 80 outlets ranging from 67 sq m to 1020 sq m.

2 The application site, along with the rest of Dalton Park, is presently accessed from the B1285 Church Street. Pedestrian and cycle routes permeate the site providing links to Murton and other areas beyond. The surrounding area is a mix of residential development, retail and open space. To the south of the shopping outlet and car park is a community parkland (part of the original scheme); allotments are located to the south west, beyond which are residential properties, and to the north is a new residential development ranging from two to four storeys built after the existing retail outlet. The A19 lies to the east at a lower elevation to the site. The site is barely visible from the southbound carriageway and not visible at all from the north bound carriageway.

3 The site was formerly a colliery waste tip known as Dalton Flatts, a brownfield site that was remediated as part of the redevelopment of the site for Phase 1. The site does not fall into a designated Conservation Area, it is not close to any listed buildings nor any environmental designations.

Proposal:

4 The application proposes a significant development of land at Dalton Park for a large mixed use scheme comprising a supermarket (max. 8452 sqm gross), a hotel (90 rooms), cinema (max 2,148 sqm gross), food and drink retail units (max 1,148 sqm gross), drive-through restaurant (max 287 sqm gross) and a petrol filling station. The new access is part of the outline application. All other matters including appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved matters for which a further application would be required should the outline application be approved.

5 The food store is within the existing Dalton Park boundary south of the existing car parks. It would establish a direct north/south axis for pedestrians travelling between the main outlet entrance and the new store via the main pedestrian route through the car park. In addition it would offer an extended area of car parking between the store and hotel. Service vehicles to and from the store would use the Moor View Road access, thereby avoiding visitor conflict and potential congestion along the main spine road through the car park.

6 The hotel is identified as a landmark building and would be a maximum of 4 storeys high and have a maximum of 90 rooms. It would be located close to the existing bus stop and the east entrance of Dalton Park marking the gateway to the site car park.

7 The cinema would be a maximum of 2,148 square metres and would have 5 screens. It would be located at the western part of the site and would form part of an extension to the existing outlet, adjacent to the Next Clearance store and opposite the McDonalds unit. A row of food/drink units with a maximum floor area of 1,148 square metres would occupy the ground floor space together with a lobby access to the first floor cinema. Service access would be located at the rear and service vehicles would access the site via Moor View Road.

8 The food/drink unit ‘pub’ would be a maximum of 650 square metres and a maximum of two storeys high adjacent to the hotel at the east of the site. Both structures would be subject to design coding that would include particular landscaping strategies to protect the existing quality of parkland environment.

9 The ‘drive-thru’ unit is proposed to sit as a mirrored version of the McDonalds drive thru in terms of size, layout and design. It would be located opposite the Cinema to the west of the site and provides a logical end to the food offer at this end of the site.

10 The petrol filling station would occupy a remote plot at the front, north east corner of the site next to the main entrance. Additional structured screen planting is proposed on the top of the existing bund to screen the station’s impact on the entrance vista.

11 It should be noted that the applicant has only committed to develop the supermarket and cinema, the food and drink unit below the cinema and the ‘drive thru’ restaurant. The hotel and pub/restaurant would only be marketed and sold, which would not guarantee that these elements would be developed.

12 This application is being reported to committee as it is a major application.

PLANNING HISTORY

Since the opening of the shopping outlet at Dalton Park there have been numerous minor planning applications for the change of use from A3 (Food and Drink) units to A1 units (factory outlet retail), advertisement consents and other minor alterations. However, the most relevant planning history relates to the development of the factory outlet site itself. The site is a former colliery spoil heap located on the edge of Murton, which was subject to a coal recovery and remediation exercise in the mid 1990’s. On 23 rd November 1998 planning permission was granted by the District of Easington Development Services Committee for a mixed use development comprising of factory outlet shopping, a multiplex cinema, ten-pin bowling, a hotel, petrol station and car showroom, a pub and restaurants. As a major departure to the development plan, the application was referred to Government Office North East who decided to call the application in for a public local inquiry. This inquiry took place between the 18 th and 23 rd May 1999, the Inspector’s decision was to refuse planning permission on the basis that there would be adverse impacts on town centres and there were sequentially preferable sites available. However, the Secretary of State did not agree with the Inspector’s conclusions and recommendation and decided to grant outline planning permission. In deciding this application, the Secretary of State considered that, on that particular occasion, the primary considerations were the exceptional economic and social characteristics of East Durham, and there was a consistency with the proposal with the then government’s commitment to the regeneration of the coalfields. The Secretary of State’s view was that this constituted very special circumstances, which justified the grant of permission in that case.

An assessment of the Secretary of State’s decision in relation to the current application is detailed later in the report.

PLANNING POLICY

13 NATIONAL POLICY:

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) Delivering Sustainable Development sets out the Government’s overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning System.

Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4) Planning for Sustainable Economic Development proposes a responsive and flexible approach to planning which provides sufficient employment land and makes better use of market information. The PPS is designed to establish a national planning policy framework for economic development at regional, sub- regional and local levels for both urban and rural areas. With regard to retail development, the policy aims to direct proposals to town centres where there would be no adverse impact on other existing centres.

Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system.

Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) objectives are to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level and to promote more sustainable transport choices both for carrying people and for moving freight.

Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22) sets out the Government's policies for renewable energy, which planning authorities should have regard to when preparing local development documents and when taking planning decisions.

Planning Policy Statement 23 (PPS23) is intended to complement the new pollution control framework under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and the PPC Regulations 2000.

Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) sets out Government policy on development and flood risk. It's aims are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas of highest risk. Where new development is, exceptionally, necessary in such areas, policy aims to make it safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, reducing flood risk overall.

The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant. The full text can be accessed at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/planningpolicystatements

14 REGIONAL PLANNING POLICY:

The North East of England Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS) July 2008, sets out the broad spatial development strategy for the North East region for the period of 2004 to 2021. The RSS sets out the region's housing provision and the priorities in economic development, retail growth, transport investment, the environment, minerals and waste treatment and disposal. Some policies have an end date of 2021 but the overall vision, strategy, and general policies will guide development over a longer timescale. Of particular relevance are the following policies:

Policy 1 - Strategies, plans and programmes should support a renaissance throughout the North East

Policy 2 - Seeks to embed sustainable criteria through out the development process and influence the way in which people take about where to live and work; how to travel; how to dispose of waste; and how to use energy and other natural resources efficiently.

Policy 3 - The RSS recognises that climate change is the single most significant issue that affects global society in the 21st century. Policy 3 will seek to ensure that the location of development, encouraging sustainable forms of transport, encouraging and supporting use of renewable energy sources, and waste management all aids in the reduction of climate change.

Policy 4 - National advice and the first RSS for the North East advocated a sequential approach to the identification of sites for development, recognising the need to make the best use of land and optimize the development of previously developed land and buildings in sustainable locations.

Policy 6 - Plans, strategies and programmes should support and incorporate the locational strategy to maximise the major assets and opportunities available in the North East and to regenerate those areas affected by social, economic and environmental problems.

Policy 7 - Seeks to promote the need to reduce the impact of travel demand particularly by promoting public transport, travel plans, cycling and walking, as well as the need to reduce long distance travel, particularly by private car, by focusing development in urban areas with good access to public transport.

Policy 8 - Seeks to promote measures such as high quality design in all development and redevelopment and promoting development that is sympathetic to its surroundings.

Policy 9 - Strategies, plans and programmes, and planning proposals should support the polycentric development and redevelopment of the Tyne & Wear City-Region.

Policy 13 - Aims to deliver sustainable economic activity and provide development and investment opportunities that will ensure the long-term development and regeneration of the North East.

Policy 24 - Refers to the need to concentrate the majority of the Region's new development within the defined urban areas, and the need to utilise previously developed land wherever possible.

Policy 25 - Supports the provision of locally available services and facilities, strengthening the role of existing centres as the focus for jobs; retail; commerce; entertainment; leisure; culture and places of worship; recreation; education; health; business; public services and other high trip generating uses commensurate with their scale and function, particularly around key strategic and local public transport hubs.

Policy 33 - Seeks to enhance and protect internationally and nationally important sites and species, developing habitat creation whilst seeking to reduce the spread of, and eliminate, invasive species

Policy 35 - Seeks to identify opportunities to control and manage floodwater and the potential for the extension of managed washlands along with managing the risk from tidal effects, surface water and fluvial flooding.

Policy 37 - Seeks to ensure the continued downward trend in air pollution and consider the potential impacts of new developments and increased traffic levels on internationally designated nature conservation sites, and adopt mitigation measures to address these impacts.

Policy 38 - Sets out that in advance of locally set targets, major developments should secure at least 10% of their energy supply from decentralised or low-carbon sources.

Policy 39 - Seeks to generate at least 10% of the Region's consumption of electricity from renewable sources within the Region by 2010 and aspire to further increase renewable electricity generation to achieve 20% of regional consumption by 2020.

Policy 54 - Seeks to support the delivery of improved public transport throughout the Region, the promotion of travel plans and the provision and pricing of parking will be essential. Key elements include the marketing of public transport, cycling, walking and car sharing in trying to influence travel behaviour.

In July 2010 the Local Government Secretary signalled his intention to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies with immediate effect, and that this was to be treated as a material consideration in subsequent planning decisions. This was successfully challenged in the High Court in November 2010, thus for the moment reinstating the RSS. However, it remains the Government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies when the forthcoming Local Government Bill becomes law, and it is a matter for each Planning Authority to decide how much weight can now be attached to this intention.

15 LOCAL PLAN POLICY:

District of Easington Local Plan

Policy 1 - Due regard will be had to the development plan when determining planning applications. Account will be taken as to whether the proposed development accords with sustainable development principles while benefiting the community and local economy. The location, design and layout will also need to accord with saved policies 3, 7, 14-18, 22 and 35-38.

Policy 18 - Development which adversely affects a protected species or its habitat will only be approved where the reasons for development outweigh the value of the species or its habitat.

Policy 29 - Developments of a scale and nature such that they are accessible to and/or visited by the public will normally be required to provide sites for collection of recyclable waste. Sites should be designed and located considering accessibility and convenience, amenity of local residents, quality of the local environment and highway safety.

Policy 35 - The design and layout of development should consider energy conservation and efficient use of energy reflect the scale and character of adjacent buildings, provide adequate open space and have no serious adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents or occupiers.

Policy 36 - The design and layout of development should ensure good access and encourage alternative means of travel to the private car.

Policy 37 - The design and layout of development should seek to minimise the level of parking provision (other than for cyclists and disabled people).

Policy 75 - Provision for cyclists and pedestrians will be reviewed to provide safe and convenient networks.

Policy 79 - Development that seeks to create new accesses on to the A19 will only be allowed where highway safety is not compromised.

Policy 101 - Peterlee and Seaham town centres will be protected and promoted as the main retailing centres. Permission will be granted for further town centre uses and the improvement of the town centre through redevelopment and environmental and transport infrastructure improvements.

Policy 104 - Major new retail development should be located within the defined town centres of Peterlee and Seaham followed by edges of those centres, locations at local centres within those towns, sites elsewhere within those built up areas and finally local centres of larger villages. Detailed justification will be required for development outside the town centres of Peterlee and Seaham.

Policy 108 - New petrol filling stations will only be approved within defined settlement boundaries. They must be in accordance with policy 36 and not affect local amenity. Retail sales will only be approved if in accordance with policies 35 and 37 and where it would not undermine the vitality and viability of nearby shops.

16 County Durham Plan (Core Strategy)

The Core Strategy Issue and Options was published in June 2010. Further consultation will take place in May on Strategic Options for the County with a Preferred Options document due to be published in September 2011. Limited weight is attached to the plan at the Issues and Options stage.

The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant in the Development Plan the full text, criteria, and justifications of each may be accessed at http://www.durham.gov.uk/Pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=7534 CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

17 STATUTORY RESPONSES :

Seaham Town Council – Initially objected to the proposal. This objection has now been withdrawn.

Peterlee Town Council – Objects to the proposal on the grounds it would adversely impact upon the vitality and viability of Peterlee Town Centre contrary to PPS 4. Also consider it important to mention that the original application for the site had the food element of the proposal removed following objections.

Murton Parish Council - Welcome the social and economic benefits of the proposal, but raises concerns with respect to the increase in traffic movements at the access from Moor View.

Easington Colliery Parish Council – Objects to the proposal stating that a large scale supermarket could have a detrimental effect on the traders within Seaside Lane. In addition the better location for a supermarket would be Peterlee given the better transport links for the residents of Easington. The Council do, however support the leisure elements of the Dalton Park proposal and feel they will provide a much-needed resource for the local area. If this element could be taken forward then the Council would wish to offer its full support.

Sunderland City Council – The Council is of the opinion that whilst it is unlikely that the proposed cinema and hotel will affect the vitality and viability of existing local centres in Sunderland or hamper any efforts to regenerate Sunderland City Centre, it is important to ensure that the vitality and viability of Hetton Town Centre is not adversely affected by the development of the proposed superstore.

Hartlepool Borough Council – Raises no objections but states that consideration should be given to PPS4 when determining the application.

Highways Agency – Confirms that the development will have a minimal impact on the strategic road network and offer no objections subject to conditions relating to improvements and signalisation works to highways infrastructure and that the agreed travel plan is implemented.

Natural England - had initial concerns regarding the proposal as there was insufficient information regarding the potential effect on protected species in particular Great Crested Newts. The applicant has carried out further studies and Natural England no longer has any concerns.

Environment Agency – raise no objections in principle to the development but request conditions regarding petrol filling station tanks, disposal of surface water, land contamination and its mitigation.

Northumbrian Water – no response

One North East – State that whilst the current proposals are described by the applicant as representing phase two of the development, there is a significant difference from the original outline consent. Whereas the original outline permission imposed conditions restricting the retail use to factory outlet retailing, the current application seeks permission for a large foodstore.

Clearly a number of years have passed since the original outline consent in which time there has been a changing policy context. They state that the Authority should be satisfied that PPS4 has been fully taken into account and that the proposals demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the PPS. Recognising that the application site is in an out of town location, such considerations will include ensuring that the development will not have significant adverse impacts on the long term viability and vitality of nearby centres. The importance of town centres and the contribution that they make to the local economy is highlighted in the Regional Economic Strategy. It is further acknowledged that the consideration of the principle of a superstore in this location and its impacts on the centres of Seaham and Easington and other centres, will be of critical importance in determining the application. If there is clear evidence that the proposal will have significant adverse impacts, as identified in PPS4, it is understood that there will be a presumption against granting planning consent.

One North East would request that should the Authority be satisfied that the proposal would not have adverse impacts, the following be given due consideration:-

• Welcomes the employment opportunities and private investment offered through the construction and operation of the extended retail park. • Would wish to encourage and support the further development of skills training programmes • Welcome and support the sourcing of local produce from small and medium size businesses. • Should permission be granted ONE would wish to see the highest standards of quality in the development site and would wish to see the development achieve BREEAM rating of ‘Very Good’. • Achieving 10% of its energy requirements through renewable energy and the installation of electric car charging points.

Association of North East Councils – The provision of energy efficiency and renewable energy measures, and a travel plan reflects the objectives of RSS policies 38, 39 and 54.

The location of the development, outside the Tyne and Wear conurbation and urban area, is inconsistent with the objectives of RSS policy 6 and is the lowest priority for RSS policy 4. The development does not reflect the objective of RSS policy 25 which aims to direct high trip generating uses to defined urban centres. The local authority should therefore be satisfied that the applicant has provided adequate justification for the uses proposed in this location, that there are no more sequentially preferable sites for the development and that the vitality and viability of the local centres is not adversely affected. The proposal should also seek to ensure that the capacity and effective running of the local highways is not adversely affected by the development.

East Durham Business Services – Fully supports the principle of the development due to job creation and the expanded facilities it would provide. However, they are disappointed in the proposed layout of the scheme as the individual functions are poorly linked and located within a sea of car parking.

Durham Wildlife Trust – no response

Fire Brigade – No objection in principle, however, the fire service represents the Petroleum Licensing Authority for developments of this nature and as such, more information will be requested from the applicant when it becomes available.

Police – no concerns regarding the application.

Coal Authority – no response

Seaham Environmental Association – no response

Ramblers Association - trust that adequate consideration has been given to easy access on foot for the fit and not so fit between the various facilities.

18 INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES:

Highways Officer – no objections to the proposal, but raise the following points: -

• The concept of creating a through route within the site is acceptable from a Highways point of view, particularly as it would enable east/west and west/east public transport penetration into the site and allow removal of the less favoured bus turning facility at the eastern end of the site.

• On the basis of accepting the through route the concept of the secondary vehicular access into the site via Moor View is also acceptable from a highways point of view, subject to the signalisation of the existing junction with the B1285. The existing section of Moor View from its junction with the B1285 up to the new access into Dalton Park will need to be widened to accommodate the three live lanes of vehicular traffic on Moor View. The Auto track plans are welcomed in that they confirm the swept path routes for the two main categories of vehicles that would have struggled on the original junction arrangement that was proposed.

• The erection of signals equipment on the north side of the B1285 will not have any adopted public highway implications, in relation to the road widening of the B1285 by the Fairfield Park Developer. The signalisation of the B1285/Moor View junction will guarantee ‘green time’ access out of Moor View onto the B1285, which should be of benefit to existing residents and other users of this route. In addition the residents of Fairfield Park should also see a benefit in access to and from the B1285.

• The intention to create the cycle parking near to the main entrance to the proposed food store is welcomed.

In relation to car parking allocation the Durham County Council standards are maximum standards and as such we would normally expect lower car parking provision relating to a development supported by an effective Travel Plan to minimise reliance on motor vehicles. On the basis of minimising the potential impact on the B1285 and potentially onto the A19, a maximum of 1700 car parking spaces in relation to both Phase 1 and 2 would be acceptable.

Design/Landscape Officer – Objects to the proposal stating that the proposed development fails to respect the existing built form of the site and would therefore not retain or strengthen the ‘Dalton’ distinctiveness; the proposed food store and hotel buildings would be excessive in size and scale and would be visually prominent within the open landscape setting having also a harmful impact on the neighbours/local residents and the ancient monuments. Furthermore the development would be likely to have a negative impact upon the physical fabric and businesses of small local traders within the local towns and villages. In view of this they are unable to offer Officer support on this application.

Economic Development – the economic development team have responded as follows:

• Economic Development is supportive of the presence of the existing Dalton Park Outlet Centre development acting as a complementary economic driver in Murton/Seaham and in the wider East Durham area.

• There is currently no evidence to suggest this development has adversely affected investment levels within the nearby main towns; in particular Seaham and Peterlee. This is likely to be due to the fact that the existing outlet facilities provide a niche comparison-shopping offer and does not compete with retail provided in the Town Centres.

• Cinema, hotel and other leisure facilities are under-represented in this part of the County at the present time and that the delivery of these elements of the proposal is likely to raise investor confidence, to create employment and to broaden the economic base. However, based on the impact figures the proposals are likely to have a negative impact on the neighbouring centres of Seaham and Peterlee as both could be susceptible to adverse impact from “out of town” convenience retail provision.

• Regeneration proposals for Peterlee Town Centre are still at a preliminary stage and the extent of convenience retailing proposed at Murton could place these proposals in jeopardy.

The convenience retailing proposed is stated to be required as an enabling device to cross subsidise the additional leisure / hotel elements. The Council has not undertaken a detailed analysis of the costs and revenues. However, there are concerns that the Heads of Terms for planning gain does not guarantee the entirety of the proposal is delivered in full. It is also recognised however, based on the impact figures presented to the Council by its own retail consultants, that the proposals are likely to have a negative impact on the neighbouring centres of Seaham and Peterlee. Both of which could be susceptible to adverse impact from “out of town” convenience retail provision.

A strategy to revitalise the centres of Seaham / Murton and Peterlee is being pro-actively supported by the Council; as the town centres are in need of significant investment and remain vulnerable in the current economic climate.

Environmental Health – Considers the Noise Impact Assessment and Air Quality Assessment as satisfactory, but raise some concerns regarding the service road and delivery times.

Planning Policy - Strong objections to the application. It is considered that the proposals are not in accordance with the relevant planning policies. In particular, the proposals are contrary to Planning Policy Statement 4 - Planning for Sustainable Economic Development as the site is located in an unsustainable location and would have significant adverse impacts on nearby town and local centres in terms of loss of trade, which would lead to the closure of businesses and the loss of jobs. There are also sequentially preferable sites available that could accommodate elements of the proposals.

In terms of specific impact on town and local centres, the Council’s retail consultants have concluded that Asda Seaham would lose £13,216,170 (48.7%) of trade resulting in the store undertrading, Seaham town centre would lose £2,033,257 (24.1%) of trade, Murton local centre would lose £1,016,628 (39.4%) of trade, Easington Colliery would lose £304,989 (9%) of trade, Asda Peterlee would lose £3,558,200 (5.1%) of trade and Peterlee town centre would lose £101,663 (2.9%) of trade due to the proposals at Dalton Park.

Low Carbon Officer – encouraged to see that the applicant will be considering the full range of sustainability implications, including RSS policy 38, BREEAM and the energy hierarchy. However, with no detail behind these provisions, it leaves much to be finalised in the reserved matters discussions should the application be approved. The applicant would need to carefully assess at a very early stage, which options for renewable energy they will be taking forward, as the infrastructure would need to be intricately planned at a very early stage. If permission was to be granted, conditions would be required to reflect the points made in the design and access statement, in that there would be the expectation that the development would: · Minimise energy demand · Meet BREEAM excellent · Generate at least 10% of its energy demand from renewable sources

The applicant should also investigate the possibilities of utilising district heating on the site, including linking up with the existing development.

19 PUBLIC RESPONSES:

This application has been advertised by way of a press notice, site notices and individual letters to surrounding residents.

33 individual letters of response from residents have been received, four of these are objections, four do not object but raise concerns about the proposals and twenty-five letters are in favour of the proposals.

The main reasons for support are as follows:

• The proposals would result in local job creation • The proposals would result in social and economic benefits • It would be beneficial to have facilities on doorstep • Would support the local economy in Murton and improve the image of the village • There is a need for a petrol station and a cinema in the area

A petition has also been received in support of the proposals containing the signatures of 1389 residents. No reasons for support have been stated in the petition.

The main reasons for objection and concern are as follows:

• The supermarket will destroy Woods Terrace in Murton as the local shopping area • The application refers to ‘leisure activities’, however the proposals only involve a cinema and a pub • The original plans for Dalton Flatts did not include a supermarket • The existing outlet shopping centre was meant to anchor the leisure facilities • The proposals will lead to access and parking problems for residents of Dalton Terrace, East Moor Estate and Fairfield Park • Traffic movement will occur until midnight • An increase in the level of noise generated next to residential properties • Increased traffic on the A19 will cause a backlog • The scale of the development would not complement the parkland used by local residents

Sanderson Weatherall on behalf of Salford Estates - The presence of a sequentially preferable town centre site which is capable of accommodating the retail offer proposed for Phase 2 Dalton Park, indicates that Durham County Council cannot accept the principle of this out of centre proposal and without a clear assessment of impact should seek to refuse this application. The Sequential Test is therefore fundamentally flawed in that it has not considered town centre options ahead of this out of centre location.

The grant of planning consent for the Dalton Park application, including an out of town superstore, would not only see thee loss of further private investment in Castle Dene Shopping Centre but a substantial increase in the number of vacant shop units, undermining the town centre. A proposal which significantly undermines the proposed investment in the town centre would have a significant impact on employment regeneration, social inclusion and physical and economic regeneration which would be the net benefit of the competing scheme proposed within the town centre. A significant reduction in footfall, increased vacancies and a more downmarket offer would be the resultant offering at Castle Dene which is already considered to be particularly vulnerable to increased vacancies.

For the reasons outlined Salford Estates objects in the strongest possible terms to the proposal by Dalton Park Ltd for an out of centre retailing offering which would compete directly with Peterlee town centre and fails to recognise the availability, suitability and deliverability of proposals within the town centre.

Alyn Nicholls and Associates on Behalf of North Blunts Ltd - Objects to the application for the proposed mixed-use development. The proposal fails to accord with national policy in PPS4 because there are sequentially preferable sites available, suitable and viable for components of the Dalton Park scheme that it is reasonable to expect to be disaggregated. In addition, the Dalton Park proposal would have a seriously harmful impact on investment at Peterlee Town Centre such as to undermine efforts to improve the vitality and viability of the centre and improve choice and competition in shopping provision. The regeneration benefits arising at Dalton Park do not outweigh the harm arising from conflict with policy within PPS4 but in any event, any benefits generated by the Dalton Park proposal must be weighed against the harm to the regeneration of Peterlee. Taking all of these factors into account we invite you to refuse this application.

With regard to the later information submitted regarding the Government ‘Planning for Growth’ statement, retail need, the sequential test and retail impact, North Blunts have commented as follows:

• The sequential approach should be applied to Dalton Park irrespective of whether a foodstore is approved at the town centre in Peterlee. The approach suggested is incorrect and the appropriate policy tests still apply to Dalton Park. • Centres of Peterlee and Seaham are protected by RSS and Local Plan policies, the out of centre proposals at Dalton Park will not be consistent with these policies. • There is no evidence base for Dalton Park to assert that the best combination to approve would be Dalton Park and Tesco because the impacts on Peterlee and Seaham would be less. • Reference is made to the West One Eccles decision by the Secretary of State which is relevant. In particular it deals with a situation where a town centre site was promoted as a sequentially preferable opportunity to the application site. • There is no basis for the Dalton Park proposal to be ‘disengaged’ from the process of determining the Peterlee proposals.

Pritchett Planning Consultancy on behalf of Tesco Stores Ltd - Write to object to the application. Tesco considers that there is a need for a new high quality retail floor space in both convenience and comparison sectors to provide choice and competition in the Peterlee catchment area and to ensure that the town becomes more self sufficient in retail terms which will also lead to more sustainable shopping trips, particularity in the convenience sector.

• The Council instructed GVA Grimley to undertake a study (2009). The report indicated that Peterlee Town centre is under threat from Dalton Park and a key to improving the vitality and diversity of Peterlee town centre is through an improved night time economy. • Opportunities exist to diversify the economic base of the town centre and this has been reproduced in the more recent Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper (2010). It is therefore important for the council to encourage further diversity in the town centre and ensure that existing facilities are not lost which contribute to this existing offer. • Any further expansion of Dalton Park as a leisure destination would undermine this aim. • The only town centres in the catchment area are Peterlee and Seaham as identified in the RSS. Dalton Park is not a recognised town centre and should not be targeted for investment in town centre uses where town centre or edge of centre sites are available and deliverable. • The council has recognised the deficiencies and lack of diversity in Peterlee town centre. A cinema consent at Dalton Park would be contrary to the aims of the council’s existing and emerging development plan in competing directly with Peterlee town centre for leisure trade and taking away one of the most important potential leisure attractions which could otherwise be developed in the town centre. • There is only scope for one new store of this nature in the Peterlee catchment area which includes Dalton Park. This is evidenced by the fact that the council’s consultants have suggested a decrease in the amount of comparison floorspace in the Tesco store which Tesco has agreed to. • The need to enhance Peterlee as a shopping and leisure destination is a policy of Durham County Council. There is no sound policy basis for granting large scale retail and leisure proposals at Dalton Park. The ING application should therefore be refused.

The Tesco proposal is the only development being considered which can be supported as it accords with development plan and national planning policy guidance.

With regard to the later information submitted regarding the Government ‘Planning for Growth’ statement, retail need, the sequential test and retail impact, Tesco have commented as follows:

• The applicants have not assessed the ability of Peterlee town centre to accommodate all of, or parts of the proposed development. • It is premature to decide that a centrally located store in Peterlee can sit alongside a competing out of centre store at Dalton Park • Dalton Park is a stand alone, out of centre retail park in single ownership which does not have town centre policy protection. Whilst creating some employment, the scheme could actually lead to adverse effects on the regeneration potential of policy supported centres as businesses and customers are attracted to this location as opposed to town centres. The regeneration arguments are overstated and do not outweigh strong policy support for development in the heart of communities which are highly accessible by a variety of means of transport.

Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners on behalf of Terrace Hill - Terrace Hill object to the food store currently proposed by Dalton Park Ltd on land adjacent to Dalton Park Outlet Shopping Centre. The proposed development is considered to be in conflict with the objectives of national planning policy on the following grounds:

• It would have a significant adverse impact upon planned investment in Peterlee Town Centre - an identified Regeneration Town. • It would diversify the function of a specialist shopping centre into a retail and leisure destination which would compete directly with existing centres; • The food store element of the development would also adversely impact upon the vitality and viability of existing centres in the surrounding area including Hetton-le- Hole, Murton and Easington Colliery; • It does not comply with the sequential approach to site selection and there are sequentially preferable sites in Peterlee which could accommodate at least the food store element of the proposed development; • It is in conflict with the objectives of national planning policy by failing to contribute to the creation of sustainable communities.

On the basis of all of the above, we consider that planning permission should be refused for the proposed development on the grounds of conflict with national and Development Plan policy.

Thomas Eggar on behalf of Asda Stores Ltd - Asda wish formally to object to the application at the site of Dalton Park in Murton, on the grounds that the proposals are inconsistent with the objectives of PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth and Development Plan Policies. The site forms part of a wider site, which has been developed as Dalton Park Outlet Shopping Centre on land previously allocated for employment uses, although this allocation has not been saved and has therefore lapsed. The site is in an out of centre location.

The proposed development at Dalton Park fails to accord with national policy in PPS4 for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, there are sequentially preferable sites available. Contrary to the conclusions drawn within the applicant’s planning statement, it is considered that the retail elements of the scheme would have a significant adverse impact upon Peterlee and Seaham town centres. It is not considered that the regeneration benefits of the scheme would outweigh the harm caused to existing centres. Even if they did, this would not be reason to grant consent; a local planning authority is only required to do a balancing exercise under Policy EC17.2 if there are no significant adverse impacts, here there are. Therefore in accordance with national policy and the development plan, it is requested that the council officers recommend the scheme for refusal, and that the elected members refuse the application.

MP RESPONSES:

Letters of support have been received from 6 Members of Parliament from the Easington, North Durham, North West Durham, City of Durham, Bishop Auckland and Sedgefield constituencies.

Their main reason for support of the application is summarised as follows:

Phase 1 of Dalton Park has been a success and has led to economic growth, employment and regeneration of the area. A further £25 million investment which would bring around 550 jobs to the area would be positive for County Durham, especially during challenging economic times.

20 APPLICANTS STATEMENT:

The proposal is the next phase in the regeneration strategy for Dalton Park. The proposed uses (foodstore, cinema, hotel and food and drink units) are complementary to the existing facilities at Dalton Park, which is now one of the main retail destinations in the area. The proposal has strong local support for all the proposed elements.

Since the 1970s the area in which the proposal is situated has undergone significant economic restructuring with a decline of coal mining, and also textiles, manufacturing and heavy engineering. The most substantial loss of employment was in 1993 when the coal mines closed.

The Secretary of State (SoS) granted outline planning permission for retail and leisure development at Dalton Flatts in 2000 in order to improve the image of the area, create jobs and provide services and facilities for the local people. This scheme was partly implemented, with the development of the outlet shopping centre, restaurants and crèche. Whilst the SoS decision was almost 10 years ago there has been no change in policy approach, either in Development Plan or national policy.

The leisure elements (phase II) of the original consent have not come forward in the past due to market conditions. Despite current national economic conditions being in a period of decline, paradoxically there is presently a strong demand from foodstore operators for this site. The foodstore will act as a financial catalyst to the whole scheme, as land values in this area are not high enough to deliver the scheme without the foodstore. There are no alternative viable development propositions, as demonstrated in the development appraisals submitted by the applicant in May and September 2010.

This scheme includes a large proportion of the same elements which the SoS previously found acceptable and approved.

There is a need for further regeneration on the site, to further local economic regeneration to address the high level of unemployment and meet the local shopping and leisure need.

There is significant support of the local community, in recognition of the opportunity the scheme presents in delivering wider regeneration, economic and social benefits to the area.

Regeneration Benefits and Economic Impact

The development will bring economic and social benefits to the area regenerating underutilised previously developed land, and continue the regeneration strategy started by the outlet shopping scheme.

The scheme will help to address the socio-economic challenges in the local area by generating the following key regeneration benefits:

• Permanent employment creation – The proposal will double the amount of existing jobs at Dalton Park. The scheme can be expected to generate in the order of 560 direct jobs.

• Gross value added by permanent employment creation – the jobs created by the Dalton Park scheme in the Easington area will generate a gross value added of £13.5 million annually. The Dalton Park scheme in the wider North East Region will generate a gross value added of £15.4 million annually;

• Temporary employment creation – the Dalton Park scheme represents a significant construction project. The Dalton Park scheme will generate a gross value added of around £378,000 annually;

• Training and skills development initiatives – the Dalton Park scheme has the potential to make a major contribution to training and skills development in Murton. Both during construction and post-occupation there are a range of job brokerage and other recruitment initiatives that are available and can be tailored to meet the needs of local people and prospective employers. The scheme will include a local labour agreement, by establishing a Local Employment Partnership which will work to maximise job opportunities at the proposals for local people;

• Leisure facilities and enhancing choice for local people – the Dalton Park scheme will provide a wide range of leisure and retail facilities for local people who currently have no alternative but to travel further afield to access these services; and

• Physical regeneration and improving the character of Murton – the Dalton Park scheme will make a significant contribution to improving the economic, social, environmental and physical assets of the local area.

Retail and Leisure Issues

Sequential Test

Whilst, the retail and leisure elements of the proposed scheme are operationally linked, integral and financially supportive of each other the sequential test has considered the scheme as a whole and each component part individually. Even on an individual basis the applicant has demonstrated that there are no sequentially preferable sites in the area for a foodstore, cinema or hotel. There are no available, viable or suitable sites in Seaham town centre, nor any of the other smaller shopping centres which in any event would be of an unsuitable scale to accommodate the components of the scheme (either as a whole or individually).

Peterlee is situated in the extreme southern parts of the Study area therefore accommodating any part of this development will evidently not meet the regeneration needs of Murton. Therefore, whilst Peterlee was appraised for robustness, given it is locationally peripheral it does not represent an appropriate location for the scheme, either as its component parts or as a whole.

The application submission demonstrates compliance with the sequential test as set out in Policy EC15.

Impact

The applicant’s Planning and Retail Report assesses the proposal against the impact tests of PPS4 Policies 10.2 and 16.1 and concludes that the proposal would not have a ‘significant adverse’ impact on any centre. Whilst we note that the Council’s Planning Policy Area Team’s response suggests otherwise, there is no evidence to contradict that within the planning submission. In fact, the comments on retail impact appear to be drawn upon hypothesis and are unsubstantiated.

The proposed store would attract the majority of its trade from stores of a similar nature and not small shops in established district or local centres. It is acknowledged that there will be some impact on Peterlee and Seaham town centre’s however the retail assessment demonstrates that it will not be significant. The existing main foodstores are currently operating at over capacity and are heavily overtrading.

The retail capacity assessment demonstrates that there is significant surplus expenditure for convenience goods and there is a high level of trade leaking to locations much further a field i.e. Sunderland, Washington and Durham. The proposal will provide more choice and claw back trade leaking to these centres thereby reducing journey time and cost to more distant facilities.

Any trade drawn away from Peterlee will be compensated by the fact that there are foodstore schemes currently proposed for Peterlee which will be unaffected by this scheme at Dalton Park, and the foodstore proposals will have the propensity to attract trade back into the town.

There is no cinema provision in the study area. A large proportion of the population is located more than 10km from a cinema. The provision of a five screen cinema at Dalton Park will reduce the need to travel and provide improved leisure facilities for the area.

The food and drink units are ancillary to the existing and proposed development and they will not jeopardise the potential for further food and drink proposals in the main centres.

There is limited hotel accommodation in the Study Area particularly “mid range”, and a policy desire to improve the hotel “offer”.

In assessing the balance between the positive and negative impacts, in accordance with Policy 17.2 of PPS4, the significant positive impact of economic and regeneration benefits and considerable new job creation as a result of the proposal any negligible trade draw.

Highways

The Transport Assessment demonstrates that there is a good level of accessibility of all transport modes, and the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the local highway network, either in terms of highway safety or capacity. The Highway Agency confirmed that the development would have minimal detrimental impact on the Strategic Highway Network and have no objection.

Environmental Considerations

The Ecological Assessment concludes that the site has very limited ecological value, limited range of species, poor man made and poorly related habitats. English Nature agrees with the conclusions.

In terms of ground conditions and flood risk the Environment Agency are agreeable to the proposal in principle subject to conditions. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that the proposal is acceptable in terms of air quality and noise.

Conclusion

There are strong planning merits associated with the proposal, which will contribute positively to local economic and social prosperity including new employment and future investment in the area, enhancing the “retail and leisure offer” of the surrounding area in a sustainable and accessible location, without adverse effect on the land use spatial strategy of the development plan.

The applicants have agreed that, should members feel that the proposals are unacceptable unless the planning permission is subject to a legal agreement requiring a financial contribution towards town and local centre improvement works, in order to off-set adverse impacts to town and local centres, then a contribution of up to £250,000 could be made. The applicants have also agreed to finance the highway improvements requested by both the Highways Authority and the Highways Agency, as well as committing to a Local Labour Agreement.

In addition to the above, the applicant has submitted a further document providing information regarding the Government ‘Planning for Growth’ statement, retail need, the sequential test and retail impact, and have requested that the content is reported to Members. The applicant’s summary of the document is as follows:

It is concluded that even if the Council support a new store at Peterlee, the proposals at Dalton Park will cause no significant adverse harm cumulatively with whichever scheme is supported in Peterlee and there are no retail impact grounds to oppose this scheme either individually or cumulatively.

The cumulative impact assessment demonstrates that lesser impact will arise cumulatively in the event that the Council support the Tesco proposals along with the Dalton Park foodstore, as the Tesco proposals have the propensity to have a lesser trade draw on Seaham town centre and make a greater contribution to Peterlee town centre.

The impact levels referred to in the supplied tables are only on the food sector of Peterlee and Seaham town centre. These centres are more reliant on the non food sector, as a consequence the impact on the town centres will be much less.

As the proposals at Dalton Park will meet different retail and regeneration need, and there is sufficient expenditure capacity to satisfy a new store at both Peterlee and Dalton Park, then the sites at Peterlee are not sequentially relevant to the Dalton Park application, unless the Council are contemplating delivery of two new foodstores in the town.

The Council are consequently in a position where there are no retail policy grounds to resist this application, and moreover given the recent announcement from the Government to support and facilitate sustainable economic development, this is clearly a case where planning permission should be granted.

The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at http://planning.easington.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=107408 Officer analysis of the issues raised and discussion as to their relevance to the proposal and recommendation made is contained below PLANNING CONSIDERATION AND ASSESSMENT

The main considerations in determining this application are the principle of the development in terms of accordance with relevant planning policies and highways issues. Other relevant planning issues are ecology and potential impacts on nearby occupiers.

It should be noted that three other applications have been submitted for retail developments in East Durham, which are currently being assessed by the Local Planning Authority. These are considered elsewhere on this agenda.

2 2 PL/5/2009/0506 – Food Store 7,222m gross / 4,654m net with associated service area, car park, and filling station –the former North Blunts School site situated at the junction between Burnhope Way and Passfield Way, to the west of Peterlee town centre.

2 2 PL/5/2009/0547 – Retail Store 10,246m gross / 6,600m net and replacement library with associated car parking, access, landscaping and servicing –the former East Durham College site, situated to the north west of Peterlee town centre.

2 PL/5/2010/0444 – Demolition of existing buildings and erection of food Store 7,990m and Associated car parking (Outline) – west of Castle Dene Shopping Centre, within Peterlee town centre.

21 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

As identified in Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

22 Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East

In general, the spatial strategy for all future development in the North East is based on the following principles:

• to promote an urban and rural renaissance;

• to contribute to the sustainable development of the Region;

• to reflect a sequential approach to land allocations; and

• to include appropriate phasing and plan, monitor, manage mechanisms for planning and implementation of new development.

The proposed development is in an unsustainable, out of centre location. Other sequentially preferable sites within main centres are available, as such the development is not considered to accord with the main principles of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and in particular, policies 4, 6 and 9 which seek to direct major developments to sequentially preferable sites in the region’s main centres, which include Seaham and Peterlee.

Policies 38 and 39 of the RSS set out that in advance of locally set targets, major developments should secure at least 10% of their energy supply from decentralised or low- carbon sources and in addition at least 10% of the Region's consumption of electricity should be generated from renewable sources within the Region by 2010 with a further increase of renewable electricity generation to achieve 20% of regional consumption by 2020. The applicants have indicated that the proposal will be consistent with the objectives set out in these policies, which will include the provision of at least 10% of the energy demand for each new building to be generated by on-site low or low carbon energy sources. In addition whilst the foodstore operator is unknown, all the major foodstore operators have their own sustainability agenda in order to deliver a significant reduction in the ‘carbon footprint’ of their stores. The proposals are therefore considered to accord with policies 38 and 39.

Notwithstanding the Government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies, they remain part of the development plan. The sequential approach to sustainable development in the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North East echoes that of PPS4 and is a material consideration of weight.

23 District of Easington Local Plan – Saved policies

The Local Plan was adopted in 2001 and is dated in relation to retail provision. Recent guidance in PPS4 and its companion guide are therefore more relevant material considerations

Policy 1 of the Local Plan states that account will be taken of whether the proposal would accord with the principles of sustainable development together with any benefits to the community and the local economy. The proposals are not considered to accord with the principles of sustainable development, it is accepted that there would be a benefit to the local community and economy, however there would be an unacceptable impact on nearby town and local centres.

Policy 101 confirms the role of Peterlee and Seaham town centres, as the main retailing centres within the district, which will be promoted and protected. The policy states that the town centres of Peterlee and Seaham will provide the main locations for major retail and town centre developments. Where sites within the defined town centre are unavailable such development on the edge of the town may be approved. This proposal is an out of centre site which would have an adverse impact on both Peterlee and Seaham town centres.

Policy 102 states that outside of the defined town centres of Peterlee and Seaham, new retail development will be approved within or on the edge of the defined local shopping centres. The proposal does not accord with this policy.

Policy 104 states that where there is an identified need for major new retail development, proposals should be located within the defined town centres, followed by locations at local shopping centres within those towns and finally by sites elsewhere within those built up areas. The proposal is out of centre and there are various sequentially preferable sites available, so it does not accord with this policy.

In summary the proposal would not be in accordance with saved local plan policies.

24 County Durham Plan (Core Strategy) Emerging

The regeneration of the towns of Peterlee and Seaham are identified as priorities within the Council’s Regeneration Strategy. The provision of an out of centre shopping and leisure facility will clearly undermine any emerging policy aspirations through the Core Strategy to enhance Seaham and Peterlee town centres’ vitality and viability.

The Council’s Retail and Town Centre Uses Study (Nov 2009) forms part of the Council’s evidence base for the County Durham Plan. This has been used in the production of the Core Strategy Issues and Options (June 2010) and will continue to be used moving forward to the adoption of the Core Strategy.

The Study provides up to date evidence on retail provision and can be used to inform decisions on planning applications. It identifies the need for another food store within Peterlee. In terms of Seaham, the assessment identifies the relatively new Asda store in Seaham town centre to be trading slightly above its expected company benchmark and there is therefore no overriding need for the Council to proactively plan for new foodstore provision in the catchment through the Local Development Framework process. The study also identifies concerns over the further development of Dalton Park. These are:

• The marginal quantitative need for a foodstore provision in the Easington North catchment; the proposal is unlikely to facilitate a significant clawback of main food expenditure presently flowing to foodstores in Sunderland given its peripheral location. • The economic impact of the proposal on the existing centrally located Asda store in the town centre (Seaham), which is found to be trading close to expected company benchmark.

25 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Sustainable Communities Strategy

The Council’s Sustainable Communities Strategy identifies the economy as the top priority for County Durham. This is designed to achieve an ‘Altogether Wealthier’ County Durham. ‘Vibrant and Successful Town Centres’ is one of the Primary objectives of the Council’s Sustainable Communities Strategy and the requirement to improve wealth within the County. There are serious concerns that this development would have a detrimental impact on two of the County’s town centres, Seaham and Peterlee.

The Plan for Growth

The Budget 2011 saw the launch of the Government’s ‘Plan for Growth’. It includes a package of actions designed to create a new model of economic growth.

The Government's 'Plan for Growth' along with the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) are material considerations. The Plan for Growth states; that there will be a 'presumption in favour of sustainable development, a principle that will underpin the entire National Planning Policy Framework’. The expectation will be that the 'default answer to development and growth should be yes except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national policy'.

26 NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development sets out the main objectives and principles for delivering sustainable development. Of particular relevance to the Dalton Park proposal is the requirement within PPS1 to focus development that attract a large number of people, especially, retail, leisure and office development, in existing centres to promote their vitality and viability, social inclusion and more sustainable patterns of development.

This proposal is out of centre and in an unsustainable location, given the limited walk in catchment and the fact that no linked trips can be made to an existing centre (in comparison to existing and planned foodstore provision in Seaham and Peterlee). The A19 also provides a major physical barrier to non-car journeys to the food store.

27 Retail Assessment

PPS 4

PPS 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth is the most relevant and up to date guidance for retail, leisure and town centre issues. The council has taken specialist advice from GVA Grimley in relation to retail issues and PPS4 which are embodied in this report.

PPS 4 states that local planning authorities should adopt a positive approach towards planning applications for economic development. Planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably. This forms the main thrust of Policy EC10 of PPS4. The following impact considerations need to be used as part of any assessment:

A) whether the proposal has been planned over the lifetime of the development to limit carbon dioxide, and minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to, climate change B) the accessibility of the proposal by a choice of means of transport and the effect on the trunk road network C) whether the proposal secures a high quality design D) the impact on economic and physical regeneration in the area including the impact on deprived areas and social inclusion objectives. E) the impact on local employment.

Most of the criteria cannot be properly assessed as the application is outline. However, it is not considered that the proposals would be in accordance with criteria B, D or E of Policy EC10. The alternative means of transport by which the site can be accessed is limited to bus services due to it’s out of town location; it is likely that the vast majority of people doing their main shop would use a private car. With regard to criteria D and E it is considered that the proposals would have a detrimental impact on the economic and physical regeneration of nearby towns and villages, particularly Seaham. Although it is acknowledged that the proposals would bring about significant employment, it is considered that they would also result in the loss of jobs and closure of businesses elsewhere in the area.

The application site is 440 metres outside of Murton local centre and therefore constitutes an out of centre location. The distance from the local centre is also significantly beyond the easy walking distance (300 metres) defined by PPS4.

The household telephone survey assessment by the applicant confirms that a significant proportion of local residents undertake their main food shopping by car. It is considered that a foodstore at Dalton Park would have limited walk-in catchment and few, if any, linked trips (in comparison to existing and planned foodstore provision in Seaham and Peterlee). The A19 also provides a major perceived physical barrier which would restrict non-car journeys to the food store.

The application site also does not share the level of public transport provision that other potential sites within the defined catchment (i.e. edge of centre sites in Peterlee) benefit from. In locational terms therefore it is clearly unsuitable for a large mainstream foodstore when compared with the current proposals for the Peterlee sites (therefore not according on a comparative basis with PPS4 EC 10.2b).

Policy EC15 – Sequential Assessment

The applicants have submitted a sequential analysis of the application. PPS 4 practice guidance confirms that it is for the decision maker to judge the extent to which the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the sequential approach and what constitutes a ‘significant adverse impact’ based on the circumstances of each case.

PPS4 policy EC15.1d (iv) requires applicants to consider the scope for disaggregating specific parts of a retail or leisure development on to separate, sequentially preferable sites.

The sequential assessment fails to adequately demonstrate that constituent parts of the mixed use scheme could not be accommodated on more centrally located sites. There is a demonstrable lack of flexibility shown by the applicant in its rejection of the College Site and the ITEC site in Peterlee, both of which could accommodate separate elements of the Dalton Park scheme

The applicant’s sequential assessment reviews a total of six sites in Seaham and seven sites in Peterlee; the catchment of the area is considered to be appropriate and robust.

The applicant has assessed a variety of sites, but discounted them for site specific reasons and on the basis that sequentially preferable sites in Peterlee could not meet the regeneration needs of Murton. This is a flawed approach as the scheme is not designed to meet the needs of Murton but to serve a much wider catchment area, including Peterlee, Seaham and outside the county.

In terms of the site specific assessments, it is accepted that several of the identified sites are not suitable or available to accommodate any disaggregated element of the proposed mixed use development. However, three sequentially preferable edge of centre sites in Peterlee have been discounted. There are concerns over the applicants conclusions on these sites:

Former East Durham College Site, Peterlee The former College site is on the edge of Peterlee town centre, 2.5 hectares in size. It is subject to a current application by Tesco for a foodstore. The applicants have discounted the site on the basis that:

• The site is not available due to the current Tesco foodstore application. • It is physically constrained by existing buildings which would require demolition. • It is physically constrained by the current library which would need to be relocated. • The site is too small to accommodate the whole scheme.

The reasons for discounting the site to accommodate either one element (i.e. foodstore) or the whole mixed-use scheme is incorrect for the following reasons:

• Availability – whilst the site is not specifically available to the applicant, the PPS4 practice guidance (para. 6.41) states that it is not appropriate for a developer who is promoting a sequentially inferior proposal to dismiss a more central location on this basis. The former College site is being actively promoted for a foodstore development and therefore whilst not available to the applicant is available within the wider PPS4 context. • Viability/Suitability – the demolition of the buildings on site and need to provide a replacement library do not render the site to be unviable or unsuitable; the current Tesco scheme provides for a new replacement library on site. PPS4 practice guidance (para. 6.49) clearly sets out that where alternative sites are being actively promoted for new development then it is a reasonable indication of viability; the applicant has not provided any information to show the scheme would be unviable. • Size – the site is clearly suitable for the foodstore element. The dismissal of the site due to its small size and the inability to accommodate the whole scheme demonstrates a lack of flexibility/disaggregation. PPS4 specifically requires applicants to consider size/format reduction if more centrally located sites are available.

The applicant also concludes that the former College site is not suitable for retail development given that there is capacity to support only one foodstore in Peterlee town centre as well as Dalton Park. The applicants state that two new (sequentially preferable) foodstores in Peterlee would have an adverse impact on the existing town centre Asda store. This position is not accepted as sites should be considered in sequence and this applicant has, in effect, put their out of town site ahead of the edge of centre sites in peterlee. Also the applicants clearly identify that the Dalton Park proposal will equally draw significant expenditure from Asda in Peterlee.

North Blunts School Site, Peterlee The former North Blunts site is edge of town centre and 2.4 hectares. It is subject to a current application for a new large foodstore. The applicant has discounted the site on the basis that:

• The site is not available due to the current foodstore application. • The site whilst being physically suitable (no constraints) for development is not suitable in locational terms given that it is physically divorced from the town centre by a small copse of trees which runs along the eastern boundary of the site. • The site is not large enough to accommodate all the components of the proposed Dalton Park mixed use development.

The general conclusions above in respect to the former College site are directly applicable to the North Blunts site; it is clear in PPS4 terms that the site is available, suitable and viable for development and could readily accommodate disaggregated parts of this scheme (i.e. the foodstore element).

Former ITEC site, Peterlee The former ITEC site is an edge-of-centre location which extends to 1.63 hectares. The site is vacant grassland and whilst allocated in the Easington Local Plan for housing, community uses, a hotel or public house, the applicants conclude that the site is unsuitable for any disaggregated element of the scheme or indeed the proposed mixed use scheme in its entirety given that:

• Surrounding residential uses divorce the site from the town centre. • The site is subject to a planning application for residential development (linked to the North Blunts foodstore proposal). • The site could not accommodate the whole proposed scheme.

There are concerns that the applicants have discounted this site on the basis of both its suitability and size given that it is allocated for a mix of uses including a hotel and public house. This shows a demonstrable lack of flexibility by the applicants in concluding that the site could not accommodate disaggregated parts of the scheme.

It is also noted that a planning application has recently been submitted on behalf of Salford Estates (owners of Peterlee town centre shopping centre) for a new large mainstream foodstore within the town centre. This site clearly represents a sequentially compliant location for a new foodstore development.

In conclusion there are sequentially preferable sites available in Peterlee for some of the disaggregated elements of this scheme. Further the applicant has not shown any reason why the elements of this scheme cannot be disaggregated onto smaller sites.

PPS4 EC 16.1

Given the circumstances of the application site (out of centre and unallocated for retail development), PPS4 policy EC17.1 (b) requires an assessment of the proposal against the principal impact tests set out in policy EC 16.1 (a-f).

EC 16.1a – Impact on Investment

PPS4 practice guidance (paras 7.17 – 7.21) sets out that in assessing the impact of a proposal on existing committed and planned public and private investment in a centre, key considerations are:

1. The stage which identified town centre development opportunities have reached; 2. The degree to which key developer/occupier interest is committed and 3. The level and significance of predicted direct and indirect impacts.

PPS4 practice guidance further states that where the Local Planning Authority and/or the private sector has identified town centre development opportunities and is actively progressing them, it is highly material to assess the effect of the proposals on that investment. In this instance this development opportunity is the planned investment at Castle Dene in Peterlee which is subject to a current application which is on this agenda, PL/5/2010/0444. It should also be noted that the emerging Seaham and Murton masterplan details the Council’s aspirations for further developing the leisure offer in Seaham town centre as part of the towns continued regeneration.

Out of centre development on the scale proposed, regardless of the SoS decision on the original outlet village a decade ago, would clearly undermine potential future investment in both Peterlee and Seaham town centres, including the planned investment at Castle Dene, Peterlee which has clearly reached an advanced stage.

The retail and leisure elements of this proposal would impact on both Seaham and Peterlee town centres by creating a ‘one stop’ competing retail destination which facilitates linked shopping trips with the Outlet Village to the detriment of the surrounding centres. In light of the above it is concluded that the proposals are contrary to EC16.1a.

EC 16.1c – Impact on Allocated Sites outside Town Centres

This criterion is not considered relevant in this case as there are no allocated sites outside of the town centres.

EC16.1e – Appropriateness of Scale

A strict interpretation of policy EC16.1e suggests that scale is only relevant for consideration of in centre or edge of centre proposals. However there is no reason why this application, which is out of centre, should not be assessed in similar terms. The applicant has provided an assessment of scale.

There are concerns, particularly with regard to the scale of the proposed foodstore relative to the existing Asda in Seaham. In addition, no food retail store, regardless of scale would be appropriate for the needs of Murton.

The applicant’s response to these concerns refers to PPS4 practice guidance and concludes that the scale of the proposal is appropriate given that:

• There is an identified need for the proposed development; • There are no sequentially preferable sites that could accommodate the proposal in whole or in part (i.e. disaggregated). • The proposal is accessible to its likely catchment by alternative means of transport. • The proposal will have a negligible impact on trade/turnover in surrounding town centres.

The applicant’s conclusions are not accepted. The sequential assessment is deficient and there are sequentially preferable sites in Peterlee which could accommodate disaggregated elements of the wider proposal. In terms of the other points, it is concluded:

• There is no identified need for the proposal; the applicant relies on diverting trade away from existing sequentially preferable (and centrally located) foodstores in both Seaham and Peterlee. The applicant also ignores the individual and cumulative impact of sequentially preferable emerging foodstore schemes in Peterlee town centre. • The choice of alternative means of transport available to access the site is limited from within the catchment area. • It is considered that the scale of the proposal is inappropriate given the existence of sequentially preferable site opportunities and identified impact on in centre trade / turnover. The applicants indirectly identify that the proposed scale of the store is too large for the catchment area it seeks to serve (i.e. 15 minutes instead of 10 minute catchment). • The application site is acknowledged by the applicant as being 440 metres outside of Murton local centre; this is beyond the 300 metre walking threshold identified in PPS4 guidance. There is no scope for establishing links with surrounding town centres or encouraging linked shopping trips; it is therefore queried as to whether the proposal is indeed genuinely accessible by alternative means of transport (i.e. walking and cycling). • The site is detached from surrounding centres and residential areas and does not enjoy the same public transport accessibility as the other sequentially preferable sites identified in Peterlee would enjoy. • The impact of the foodstore element of the proposal will be significant in terms of direct trade diversion (£9.7 million and £7.3 million drawn from centrally located Asda stores in Seaham and Peterlee town centres respectively). The applicant’s claim that 31.4% and 10.7% trading impacts on the respective stores is negligible is not accepted. The trading impacts are considered significant. • The foodstore element of the proposal will have direct impacts on both Seaham and Peterlee town centres by reducing footfall and linked trips. • The applicant implicitly acknowledges in its submission that the scale of the proposed foodstore is too large for the ten-minute catchment and would create significant levels of inflow expenditure.

The proposal is not of an appropriate scale in relation to its out of centre location and catchment, relying, in particular on the diversion of trade away from the overtrading Asda store in Peterlee town centre. This however will not happen in reality given a new foodstore in Peterlee town centre (three applications presently pending) is likely to come forward to clawback the overtrading and address present deficiencies in the offer.

On balance it is concluded that whilst policy test EC16.1e does not specifically require justification of scale for out of centre proposals, this is a relevant consideration. The scale of the foodstore element of the proposal would be completely inappropriate at this location and it would be materially detrimental to the existing town centres.

EC16.1f – Locally Important Impacts

PPS4 policy EC3 requires local planning authorities in planning for centres to identify any locally important impacts on centres which should be tested under policy EC16.1f. Whilst the Core Strategy is emerging, no specific locally important impacts have been identified to test the Dalton Park proposal against.

EC 16.1b & EC16.1d Impact on vitality and viability

The Retail and Town Centre Uses Study carried out a health check assessment of the main centres within the County including Seaham and Peterlee. Understanding the current health of Seaham and Peterlee town centres is important when assessing the impact of the Dalton Park proposal on them. The findings of these health check assessments are summarised below;

Seaham While the Byron Place shopping centre and the Asda store were identified as particular strengths of Seaham, the healthcheck assessment identified a weak high street comparison offer, along with vacancy levels within the secondary areas of the town. The deteriorating shopping environment within these secondary areas was also noted. The threat of Dalton Park was also identified within the assessment.

Peterlee Peterlee was also found to benefit from having a large foodstore anchor within its town centre. The healthcheck assessment did however identify lack of leisure offer and limited service function within the town centre. The healthcheck also noted a lack of mainstream high street comparison retailers. As with the findings for Seaham, the threat of Dalton Park was also highlighted.

In assessing the impact of a proposal on town centre vitality, PPS4 directs local planning authorities to balance the desirability of maintaining and enhancing the turnover of existing facilities with the benefits of improved consumer choice, competition and access to new facilities.

The applicants have concluded that a £9.7 million (31.4% turnover impact) diversion from the in-centre Asda store in Seaham and a £7.3 million (10.7%) diversion from the in centre Asda in Peterlee are negligible. These conclusions are disputed for the following reasons:

• The impact on Asda Seaham is likely to be significantly higher given the proximity of it to Dalton Park; both stores clearly serve the same catchment area and the associated trade diversion on Asda Seaham is therefore likely to be greater than the applicants identify. • The £9.7 million diversion from Asda Seaham equates to a 31.4% impact on the store in quantitative terms (even accepting current inflated inflow assumptions). This level of diversion would reduce the store turnover from £30.9 million to £21.2 million, resulting in the in-centre store undertrading relative to its £22.4 million benchmark. • The £7.3 million diversion from the Asda Peterlee store equates to a 10.7% impact; this level of trade diversion would reduce the store turnover from £68.1 million to £60.8 million. Whilst the store would continue to overtrade on the basis of this level of diversion, the applicant’s assessment ignores the fact that new sequentially preferable foodstore provision will come forward in Peterlee and will take the overtrading surplus away from Asda. The cumulative impact is therefore significantly greater than the individual impact the applicant current identifies. • The diversion of trade away from sequentially preferable in centre sites generates sustainability concerns in terms of encouraging outward journeys from both town centres to less accessible out of centre provision. • This proposal would not deliver any benefits in terms of town centre linked trips or increased footfall. There is a real prospect that a new foodstore would encourage linked shopping trips with the non food offer at Dalton Park Outlet Village at the expense of the town centres (i.e. acting as a town centre in its own right through its shopping and leisure offer).

The impact assessment clearly shows that the out-of-centre proposal would have a wider impact on key anchor foodstores within the respective town centres (£17 million cumulative diversion), it also fails to acknowledge the indirect impacts of the proposal in terms of reducing footfall and potential linked trips.

The Council’s retail consultants have concluded that Asda Seaham would lose £13,216,170 (48.7%) of trade resulting in the store undertrading, Seaham town centre would lose £2,033,257 (24.1%) of trade, Murton local centre would lose £1,016,628 (39.4%) of trade, Easington Colliery would lose £ 304,989 (9%) of trade, Asda Peterlee would lose £3,558,200 (5.1%) of trade and Peterlee town centre would lose £101,663 (2.9%) of trade due to the proposals at Dalton Park.

On this basis it is not agreed that the scheme would have a negligible impact on Peterlee and in particular Seaham town centre. It would act as a ‘one stop’ location for residents who could combine main food shopping with comparison shopping at the Outlet Village; it would assume a competitive role in the local retail hierarchy instead of its present niche role.

In the assessment of impact, it is for the decision maker to determine what constitutes an ‘acceptable’, ‘adverse’ or ‘significantly adverse’ impact, based upon the circumstances of each case, having regard to national and local policy objectives.

Having regard to the local context and with reference to the existing policy framework, the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on both existing town centre turnover and centre vitality and viability by reducing footfall and the potential for linked trips. It is considered that it is beneficial for Seaham town centre that the existing in centre Asda store is trading well as it is a key attraction and driver of footfall and linked trips within the centre. The reduction of the Asda turnover to below company benchmark to support an out of centre proposal cannot be regarded as a ‘negligible’ impact and rather the view is taken that this impact would be significantly harmful to the health of Seaham Town Centre as a whole. Figures taken from the Council’s retail consultants suggest that 74.8% of people doing their main shop at Seaham Asda visit other shops, leisure or service outlets in the same trip to the town centre. These linked trips would be seriously diminished.

It is therefore concluded that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact in relation to PPS4 policies EC16.1b and more particularly EC 16.1d.

EC17.1a – Sequential Compliance

As discussed above, the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with policy EC15 , as such, the proposal also does not accord with EC17.1a.

EC 17.1b – Impact

This assessment solely addresses the impact tests set out in PPS4 policy EC16.1, an assessment against policy EC10.2 can be made from analysis of the responses from specialist consultees.

PPS4 Conclusion

EC16.1a (Investment); EC16.1c (Allocated Sites); EC16.1e (Scale) and EC16.1f (Local)

In terms of the wider impact tests set out in PPS4 policy EC16, the following is concluded:

• EC16.1a – Investment; PPS4 practice guidance further states that where the Local Planning Authority and/or the private sector has identified town centre development opportunities and is actively progressing them, it is highly material to assess the effect of the proposals on that investment. In this instance this development opportunity is the planned investment at Castle Dene in Peterlee which is subject to a current application which is on this agenda, PL/5/2010/0444. The Castle Dene proposal is within Peterlee town centre, the most sequentially preferable location and is therefore recommended for approval. A recent impact assessment prepared by GVA Grimley demonstrates that capacity exists for up to two new foodstores in Peterlee. The proposed Dalton Park store would partly compete for the same market opportunity and retailers/occupiers as the Peterlee proposals. All of the applicants involved in the three Peterlee proposals have objected to the out of centre Dalton Park scheme. More significantly, the applicants for the in centre Castle Dene proposals have objected on the basis that Dalton Park would impact on their planned town centre investment.

• EC16.1e – Scale; whilst PPS4 does not require out of centre proposals to demonstrate appropriateness of scale in strict policy terms, it is considered that the scale of the proposal is inappropriate given the existence of sequentially preferable site opportunities and identified impact on in centre trade / turnover. The applicants indirectly identify that the proposed scale of the store is too large for the catchment area it seeks to serve (i.e. 15 minutes instead of 10 minute catchment).

Whilst on balance it is considered that the proposal will generate some adverse impacts (particularly scale), it is the assessment of town centre impacts that raise the most material concerns in relation to PPS4.

The following is concluded:

EC16.1b (Town Centre Vitality) and EC16.1d (In-Centre Impacts)

Although a new foodstore is likely to compete on a like for like basis with existing mainstream foodstore provision, the applicant’s impact assessment has clearly identified that a new out-of-centre store will draw a significant quantum of expenditure away from both Asda stores in Seaham (£9.7 million) and Peterlee (£7.3 million).

It is considered that the impact is likely to be greater given some of the unrealistic trade draw assumptions made by the applicant. The level of trade diversion that the applicants have identified in any event is adjudged to be significantly adverse in PPS4 impact terms given that it will:

• Reduce overall in centre trade through attracting shoppers to an out of centre location; the cumulative trade draw from sequentially compliant foodstore provision in Seaham and Peterlee town centre to support the out-of-centre foodstore in economic terms is in the order of £17 million. • Significantly reduce the trading performance of the Asda Seaham store to levels below the expected company benchmark (even allowing for the applicant’s present inflow assumptions); it is beneficial to wider town centre vitality and viability that the in centre Asda store trades strongly in order to drive footfall and linked trips. • Promote unsustainable travel patterns through promoting competing development in an out of centre location with no prospects of establishing links. • Reduce linked shopping trips and footfall within Peterlee and Seaham town centres by acting as competing shopping destination in its own right; the provision of the new foodstore at Dalton Park will facilitate linked trips to the Outlet Village at the expense of the existing town centres.

The Council have since looked at the impact figures in further detail and have concluded that the impact on Asda Seaham would result in a more serious impact than that which the applicant originally suggested.

In addition to this, an assessment has been made by the Council’s retail planning consultants on the remaining shops within Seaham town centre. This assessment concluded that the impact would be significant and would be likely to seriously threaten the viability of many stores operating in this centre.

As well as looking at the impact on Seaham town centre, an impact assessment has also looked at Murton local centre. The assessment identified a significant adverse impact on Murton Local Centre. In addition to this specific concerns are raised with regards to the already high vacancy rate within the local centre and the further impact that the proposed development will have.

It is therefore concluded that the application fails the principal PPS4 tests in relation to sequential compliance (EC17.1a) and impact (EC17.1b)

As the Local Plan is now outdated, it is relevant to note that the PPS4 practice guidance specifies that where the local plan is not up to date it is necessary to consider proposals against the sequential approach and impact considerations in national policy. It has already been concluded that of all the major retail proposals currently being considered by the Council, the application site represents the least sequentially preferable site within the agreed catchment area of the proposal and fails PPS4 policy tests EC15 and EC17.1a as is shown above. The main consideration is therefore the impact of the proposal and more specifically cumulative impact given current foodstore proposals in Peterlee.

28 Principle of leisure/non-retail uses

Alongside the food store, a range of leisure and non retail uses are also proposed. These are specifically, a hotel, a cinema, food and drink retail units and a petrol filling station.

In the context of these uses it is important to note the planning history. The Secretary of State granted outline consent in January 2000 for a mixed use development comprising a multiplex cinema, factory outlet shopping, bowling alley, a hotel, petrol station and car show room, a public house, fast food and other restaurants, health club, nursery/crèche as well as a range of other commercial uses

Reserved Matters consent for phase 1 was approved in November 2001 for factory outlet shopping, A3 uses, crèche and parking and access. This was implemented in full and the outlet shopping centre opened in 2003.

In March 2002 reserved matters were approved for a fast food drive through unit. This consent was implemented, as McDonalds.

In November 2002 a Section 73 application was approved to extend the time period for the reserved matters submission. However this application is now expired.

The leisure uses proposed are recognised as town centre uses within PPS4, and therefore the same policy used in assessing the supermarket is still applicable when assessing the leisure uses.

In terms of this policy context, there are still concerns in relation to the sequential test under policy EC15 of PPS4. The issues highlighted on flexibility and disaggregation are still relevant. In addition there are also concerns on impact, particularly in relation to the assessment under policy 16.1a, that leisure development on the site would undermine future investment in Seaham and Peterlee town centres. The emerging Seaham and Murton masterplan details the Council’s aspirations for further developing the leisure offer in Seaham town centre as part of the towns continued regeneration.

It is noted that the leisure uses proposed are likely to undermine existing and future uses within town centres, however this would not be to the same extent that the proposed supermarket would, given their scale and nature.

29 Highways Issues

The applicant has submitted a transport assessment including traffic modeling to assess impact on the local highway network. This resulted in a requirement for mitigation works at the A19/A182 Cold Hesleden dumbbell roundabouts and at the Moor View Road junction, both of which involve signalisation works. All of these works have been discussed in detail and agreed by the Highways Officer and the Highways Agency. These works would be subject to a condition, which would require the improvements being made before the proposed development is brought into use.

A number of other points have been raised in relation to the need to improve the connectivity of the site and attempt to promote public transport penetration. These include the introduction of ‘real-time’ bus timetables and electric car charging points.

Along with the agreed transport assessment, the applicant has also submitted a travel plan in order to secure the use of sustainable forms of transport to those using and working on the site. The highways officers have also agreed the travel plan is acceptable.

In light of the above, it is considered that both the transport assessment and travel plan are acceptable and that the mitigation works which would be carried out before the development is brought into use ensures that the proposals are acceptable from a highways point of view.

30 Ecology

Guidance contained within PPS9 requires Local Planning Authorities to ensure that planning decisions should aim to maintain, and enhance, restore or add to biological diversity and geological conservation interests. In addition the Local Planning Authority must fully assess the proposal in accordance with their duty on biodiversity issues under Section 40(1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 and: Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to ensure that the potential impact of development on species and habitats of principal importance is addressed. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide this information to allow this assessment to be undertaken.

Natural England initially advised that the information supplied with the application was deficient in that it did not contain adequate information to demonstrate whether or not the development would have an adverse impact on species especially protected by law. Natural England had advised the Council that the “authority may process this application such that it is refused / deferred / withdrawn / suspended until the applicant submits sufficient information to show that the species would not be affected or that potential effects, would be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated.” Its concerns were in relation to the possibility of great crested newts as there are ponds located close to the development site.

The applicant has since submitted a great crested newt habitat survey which concludes that there would be no adverse impacts on protected species. Therefore, Natural England has advised that the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse effect in respect of great crested newts and as such, the ecology issues have been resolved.

31 Impact on Nearby Occupiers

The nearest residential occupiers in relation to this development are at Dalton Terrace and the new residential estate to the north of the site. The Council’s Environmental Health officers have assessed the proposals in terms of lighting, noise and air quality. The officers are satisfied that there would be no adverse impacts in terms of lighting and air quality, but have some concerns relating to noise in relation to the service yard serving the supermarket. The main concerns relate to HGV vehicles using the new access road and passing Dalton Terrace, if the supermarket was to operate 24hrs per day or night time deliveries will be used to service the supermarket. Should the application be approved, Environmental Health officers would recommend a condition to be included which requires the existing entrance to be used between the hours of 23:00 hours to 07:00 hours. Environmental Health officers would also recommend an acoustic fence is erected around the supermarket service yard to reduce night time noise impacting on nearby residents.

Other than the issue of noise and an increase in traffic, both of which could be overcome by the use of conditions, it is considered that the proposals would not lead to any significant adverse impacts on surrounding residents that would warrant refusal of planning permission.

32 Benefits of the Scheme

The applicants have summarised the benefits of the scheme as discussed above in the Applicants Statement Section.

Officers have accepted that naturally these predicted benefits have to be weighed positively in favour of the scheme, against the adverse impacts that have been highlighted earlier in the report. Although it is acknowledged that there would be strong benefits arising from the scheme including significant job creation, it is considered that the adverse impacts of the proposals on nearby town and local centres would significantly outweigh these benefits by causing the closure of businesses and the loss of jobs in these centres. The proposals would also have an adverse impact on the successful recent regeneration efforts in nearby town and local centres, particularly in Seaham by directing investment away from this town.

The Council’s Economic Development officers acknowledge the potential of a second phase of development at Dalton Park to attract additional private sector investment to former coalfield land, creating additional floorspace and employment. They also recognise however, that the proposals are likely to have a negative impact on the neighbouring centres of Seaham and Peterlee.

As Members will be aware other proposals for retail development in Peterlee are reported favourably elsewhere on this agenda. These proposals will realise not only employment growth in themselves but will also have the added benefit of helping to retain vitality and viability, thus ensuring employment in that centre. Officers consider that in addition to impacting adversely on investment and employment levels in Seaham this scheme will also impact, albeit to a lesser degree, in Peterlee. The combined impacts of these proposals would be likely to significantly reduce the net new employment benefits claimed by this application.

Members should also be aware that Officers have sought to work closely with the applicants to deliver regeneration proposals for the Dalton Park site which would bring significant new employment opportunities to the site without relying on the large food retail element proposed by this application. Clearly these non-food proposals would not impact on neighbouring centres to the same degree that the present proposals would. Officers believe such development proposals are deliverable. However the applicants have not responded positively to Officer requests to progress these enquiries and rather have requested the present food retail based proposals be considered.

The applicants have submitted a development appraisal to evidence that the retail store is needed to cross subsidise other elements of the scheme. No detailed analysis of the accuracy of the costs and revenues has been tested against any comparative information. The appraisal received outlines that the entire development as presented in the application is reliant on the revenues generated by the food store. In light of the fact that the development appraisal demonstrates an acceptable profit margin for the overall development it would be reasonable to expect that any Heads of Terms reflect that the entirety of the proposals are delivered upon in full. However, the applicant has only committed to develop the supermarket and cinema, the food and drink unit below the cinema and the ‘drive thru’ restaurant. The hotel and pub/restaurant would only be marketed and sold, which would not guarantee that these elements would be developed.

CONCLUSION

33 The application has been assessed against the development plan and national planning guidance with PPS4 being the most relevant up to date policy. After a detailed assessment it has been found to be contrary to the development plan and other material considerations do not indicate a decision other than to refuse the application.

34 The application site lies a significant distance outside of the town centres of Seaham and Peterlee, which the development plan identifies as the most suitable locations for a development of this kind. In addition it also falls outside of the smaller centre of Murton. The site cannot be classed as in centre or edge of centre, but is clearly out of centre. The site is not accessible by alternative forms of transport and therefore would represent an unsustainable location.

35 National planning policy in the form of PPS1 identifies that proposals such as these should be directed to urban centres such as Seaham and Peterlee and this theme is further developed through PPS4. A thorough assessment has found the proposal to be contrary to the principles of PPS 4 failing to demonstrate sufficient flexibility with the sequential test of looking to develop on more central and suitable sites. The applicants have dismissed far more suitable central sites without sufficient justification.

36 Three sequentially preferable sites in Peterlee have been dismissed by the applicant which could have accommodated elements of this application. Indeed sites dismissed as unsuitable for a foodstore are currently subject to planning applications for foodstores which Members will note are reported elsewhere on this agenda. These locations are much more sustainable and while bringing jobs in their own right, they will also assist with the regeneration of Peterlee town centre and thus assist in the retention of present employment levels in that centre.

37 The argument that these sites within Peterlee are unsuitable is therefore seriously flawed. The applicants have shown no flexibility in terms of looking to reduce the size of the foodstore and/or accommodating different elements of the scheme on other sites. Development of this site is therefore contrary to the national advice given in PPS4 in terms of the sequential approach to development.

38 Further to this, there are serious concerns that the out of centre store could result in significant adverse impacts on Peterlee and Seaham town centres and local centres such as Murton and Easington Colliery. While the applicants conclusions of £9.7 million (31.4% turnover impact) diversion from the in centre Asda store in Seaham are considered significant, the Council’s retail consultants consider that these are likely to be even higher. Even when accepting these figures, this level of diversion from Asda Seaham would result in the store under trading. However, the Council’s retail consultants suggest that the impact on Asda Seaham specifically would be £13,216,170 (48.7% turnover impact). This impact figure is much higher than the figure put forward by the applicant, which intimates a more serious impact than that which the applicant has suggested, and would lead to a significant adverse impact on Asda Seaham.

39 The consequences of this are the very real possibility of business closures within town centres and subsequently jobs being put at significant risk. There is also the risk of failing town centres within East Durham and the undermining of town centre regeneration objectives and recent successful regeneration projects, particularly within Seaham. Any future investment within Peterlee and Seaham may also be put at risk by the reduction in available spend in these centres.

40 Part of the recent regeneration within Seaham has involved the development of an Asda store as well as the Byron Place shopping centre. The applicants have argued that Asda’s current overtrading position is justification for a new out of town foodstore. Whilst this overtrading position is acknowledged, it is not as high as the applicants claim and as identified above the impact of the Dalton Park development is the potential for Asda Seaham to under trade.

41 This reduction of trade would inevitably lead to a reduction in footfall within Seaham town centre which will consequently impact on other retailers. As stated earlier in the report, 74.8% of people doing their main shop at Seaham Asda visit other shops, leisure or service outlets in the same trip to the town centre. The small level of overtrading at the Asda store is required to support other retailers within Seaham. Reducing the number of shoppers in Seaham will reduce linked trips into the town, therefore impacting on other retailers.

42 In terms of Peterlee and the Asda store, whilst the trade diversion figures may not be considered as high as that in Seaham, the assessment does not take into account the fact that new sequentially preferable food retail is likely to come forward diverting further trade from the Asda Peterlee store. An additional foodstore in an unsuitable location at Dalton Park would cause further loss of trade to a town centre foodstore.

43 The planning history of the site (SoS approving outline permission) is acknowledged, however it is important to note that the original outline proposal did not include a large mainstream foodstore. Indeed the SoS imposed conditions on the permission, which specifically prohibited the sale of convenience foods from the existing factory outlet centre. Therefore the foodstore-led scheme is materially different in terms of potential impacts from that considered by the SoS, and this decision should be afforded little weight in the assessment of this application. In addition, Seaham town centre has been subject to significant retail led regeneration (as mentioned above) and therefore the local regeneration context is significantly different in an assessment of the impacts of this application.

44 It is also noted that the applicants at the time of the original Dalton Park application, argued that the factory outlet shopping was required to subsidise future leisure developments which included a cinema, hotel, ten-pin bowling, health and fitness centre, crèche, restaurants and a pub that have never come forward. The current applicants now maintain that a further retail store is required to deliver fewer leisure developments than those which were previously proposed. The applicant’s development appraisal demonstrates an acceptable profit margin for the overall development, however the Heads of Terms only commits to developing part of the overall scheme.

45 Finally, within the Council’s overarching policy document, the Sustainable Community Strategy, one of the primary objectives of achieving an ‘Altogether Wealthier’ County Durham is having ‘Vibrant and Successful Town Centres’. This application would result in adverse impacts on Seaham and Peterlee town centres. It is felt therefore that the application would be contrary to the Council’s overarching policy.

46 In summary Members will note that the application fails to accord with the aims of relevant development plan policy for the area. The proposals, in particular the food retail element, are also considered to cause demonstrable harm by reasons of impacting on the health of neighbouring town centres through loss of investment and employment opportunities.

47 The applicants have sought to present material considerations in support of the scheme. The most relevant consideration is the employment gains the proposal will bring. Whilst this is clearly accepted by Officers as a strong material consideration in support, on detailed analysis this is not considered sufficient to override the policy objection and harm to other centres, including employment levels in other centres that the development would cause. The argument in support of the development is considered to be weakened by the fact Officers contend that other forms of development could be brought forward for the site which would create new employment opportunities themselves, but by virtue of the fact they would not be food retail based, would not significantly impact on the health of other centres.

48 In light of all of the above, it is recommended that the proposals are refused. The overall negative impact of the development significantly outweighs any potential regeneration and economic benefits that the overall scheme may have.

49 It should be noted that if members are minded to approve this application contrary to officer recommendation, it would need to be referred to the Secretary of State as a major departure from the development plan.

RECOMMENDATION

50 That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Reason:

1. The proposal for an out of centre retail store would divert significant trade away from town and local centres thus having an unacceptable significant adverse impact upon their vitality and viability. There are also sequentially preferable sites within the catchment area that could meet any identified retail need. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to saved Local Plan Policies 1, 101 and 104, and Planning Policy Statements 1 and 4.

2. The proposal, due to its location, would lead to an increase in vehicular traffic contrary to the principles of sustainable development as set out in saved Local Plan Policy 36 and Planning Policy Statement 1.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Applicant’s Documents

Submitted Application Forms and Plans

Council’s Documents

Durham County Council G V Grimley: Retail and Town Centre Uses Study November 2009

Planning Policy Statements, Guidance, etc.

PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development. PPS - Planning and Climate Change (Supplement to PPS1) PPS4 - Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS13 - Transport PPS22 - Renewable energy PPS23 - Planning and Pollution Control PPS25 - Development and Flood Risk

The North East of England Spatial Strategy to 2021

Policy 1 - North East Renaissance Policy 2 - Sustainable Development Policy 3 - Climate Change Policy 4 - The sequential approach to development Policy 6 - Locational Strategy Policy 7 - Connectivity and Accessibility Policy 8 - Protecting and Enhancing the Environment Policy 9 - Tyne and Wear City-Region Policy 13 - Brownfield Mixed-use Locations Policy 24 - Delivering Sustainable Communities Policy 25 - Urban and Rural Centres Policy 33 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity Policy 35 - Flood Risk Policy 37 - Air Quality Policy 38 - Sustainable Construction Policy 39 - Renewable Energy Generation Policy 54 - Parking and Travel Plans

District of Easington Local Plan

Policy 1 - General Principles of Development Policy 18 - Species and Habitat Protection Policy 29 - Sites for Recycling Policy 35 - Design and Layout of Development Policy 36 - Design for Access and Means of Travel Policy 37 - Design for Parking Policy 75 - Provision for cyclists and Pedestrians Policy 79 - Access on to the A19(T) Policy 101 - Main Town Centres Policy 104 - Town Centres Policy 108 - Petrol Filling Stations

Consultation Responses: see above

Public Consultation Responses: see above